SANTA MONICA, Calif., Oct. 15, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- For the sixth time this year, California insurance regulators have found an Aetna rate hike to be unreasonable. Such health insurance price-gouging will continue until state regulators have the power to reject unjustified...
Reported by PR Newswire 11 hours ago.
Regulators Find 6th Unreasonable Health Insurance Premium Hike By Aetna This Year; Usually A Leader, California Lags The Nation In Health Insurance Rate Regulation, Says Consumer Watchdog
↧
↧
Is Obama's health overhaul losing steam?
The Obama administration announced Thursday it expects only a slight overall increase in enrollment next year. The huge difference quickly raised questions about whether advances in health insurance coverage under President Barack Obama's law may sputter or stall, leaving millions still uninsured. "If enrollment plateaus, we may see growing discussion of whether the law is fulfilling expectations in covering the uninsured, and whether the subsidies for low- and middle-income people are sufficient to make coverage truly affordable," said Larry Levitt, an expert on the law with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. An aide said the congressional numbers are based in part on assumptions that haven't panned out, about employers dropping job-based plans for their workers, and about people with their own private coverage switching to HealthCare.gov. Obama's law has reduced the share of uninsured Americans to about 9 percent through a combination of subsidized private insurance and a Medicaid expansion aimed at low-income adults. Surveys show that among the 10.5 million remaining uninsured who are eligible, many are young adults, a demographic that traditionally has not put a high priority on having health insurance. Half had difficulty affording basic necessities. [...] many have other financial priorities — such as paying down debt or making car repairs — before buying health insurance.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 11 hours ago.
↧
Enrollment USA Makes Health Care Easy and Affordable for Utah Families
The new exchange gives Utah families free, unbiased health insurance advice in time for 2016 Open Enrollment Period
Salt Lake City (PRWEB) October 15, 2015
In Utah, health insurers will raise policy rates by anywhere from 10 to 60 percent in 2016. This increased cost has Utah families and individuals reevaluating their health plans to make sure they still have the most affordable and quality health care coverage available. Enrollment USA, launched in September, is a new exchange that allows Utah individuals and families to compare health care plans to find the option that best fits their needs.
“Our service offers a great benefit to the small business owner or self-employed individual looking for health coverage,” said John Carroll, principal and founder of Enrollment USA. “We are here to help them validate that they have the best health insurance, and if they don’t, we’ll find them the best option at the cheapest price.”
Enrollment USA allows users to verify that their health plan is the most affordable, based on specific factors like prescription drugs, how much they are willing to pay out of pocket and how they prefer to pay for insurance. After these factors are considered, Enrollment USA provides users with the plan that most closely matches their preferences. Enrollment USA also offers free health insurance advice from 75 licensed agents who are certified in Arches Health Plan, Humana, Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield, SelectHealth and United Healthcare policies.
Sean Dehghani, owner of Mykonos at City Creek Mall said, “I started looking for health insurance online, but I gave up after a while because it was so confusing and complicated. But Enrollment USA is easy to use and it helped me find a plan that perfectly fits my family.”
Every year starting around Oct. 15, health insurance companies send out new premium rates to customers that reflect changes for the upcoming year.
“These rates almost always increase, rarely stay the same and never decrease,” said Carroll. “Every individual insured today, covered under an individual policy will be getting one of these letters.”
The regulations in the Affordable Care Act allow individuals and families to change their health care plans once a year during a three month span called Open Enrollment Period. This year, that period runs from Nov. 1 to Jan. 31, 2016. With the exception of those who qualify for a Special Enrollment Period, buyers can only enroll in or change health care plans within this window of time. Those who fail to do so during the Open Enrollment Period will face a tax penalty.
Individuals who use Enrollment USA’s free service can do so through the online comparison feature or by speaking with a live agent over the phone. All of Enrollment USA’s services are also available through the Spanish language arm of the company, Família USA.
About Enrollment USA:
Enrollment USA is the only health insurance exchange built exclusively to help Utahns buy insurance for themselves and their families. With over 55 years of insurance expertise, our licensed and certified agents help individuals and families make the right health insurance decision. We use the latest online service technology in addition to a traditional call center, with the single goal of helping Utahns feel confident that they found the best health plan possible. Visit us at http://www.enrollmentusa.com/ or call 888-861-0186 to speak with one of our agents. Para español, llama a 888-861-0186 o vista http://www.familiausa.com/. Reported by PRWeb 10 hours ago.
Salt Lake City (PRWEB) October 15, 2015
In Utah, health insurers will raise policy rates by anywhere from 10 to 60 percent in 2016. This increased cost has Utah families and individuals reevaluating their health plans to make sure they still have the most affordable and quality health care coverage available. Enrollment USA, launched in September, is a new exchange that allows Utah individuals and families to compare health care plans to find the option that best fits their needs.
“Our service offers a great benefit to the small business owner or self-employed individual looking for health coverage,” said John Carroll, principal and founder of Enrollment USA. “We are here to help them validate that they have the best health insurance, and if they don’t, we’ll find them the best option at the cheapest price.”
Enrollment USA allows users to verify that their health plan is the most affordable, based on specific factors like prescription drugs, how much they are willing to pay out of pocket and how they prefer to pay for insurance. After these factors are considered, Enrollment USA provides users with the plan that most closely matches their preferences. Enrollment USA also offers free health insurance advice from 75 licensed agents who are certified in Arches Health Plan, Humana, Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield, SelectHealth and United Healthcare policies.
Sean Dehghani, owner of Mykonos at City Creek Mall said, “I started looking for health insurance online, but I gave up after a while because it was so confusing and complicated. But Enrollment USA is easy to use and it helped me find a plan that perfectly fits my family.”
Every year starting around Oct. 15, health insurance companies send out new premium rates to customers that reflect changes for the upcoming year.
“These rates almost always increase, rarely stay the same and never decrease,” said Carroll. “Every individual insured today, covered under an individual policy will be getting one of these letters.”
The regulations in the Affordable Care Act allow individuals and families to change their health care plans once a year during a three month span called Open Enrollment Period. This year, that period runs from Nov. 1 to Jan. 31, 2016. With the exception of those who qualify for a Special Enrollment Period, buyers can only enroll in or change health care plans within this window of time. Those who fail to do so during the Open Enrollment Period will face a tax penalty.
Individuals who use Enrollment USA’s free service can do so through the online comparison feature or by speaking with a live agent over the phone. All of Enrollment USA’s services are also available through the Spanish language arm of the company, Família USA.
About Enrollment USA:
Enrollment USA is the only health insurance exchange built exclusively to help Utahns buy insurance for themselves and their families. With over 55 years of insurance expertise, our licensed and certified agents help individuals and families make the right health insurance decision. We use the latest online service technology in addition to a traditional call center, with the single goal of helping Utahns feel confident that they found the best health plan possible. Visit us at http://www.enrollmentusa.com/ or call 888-861-0186 to speak with one of our agents. Para español, llama a 888-861-0186 o vista http://www.familiausa.com/. Reported by PRWeb 10 hours ago.
↧
MNsure expects smoother enrollment
MNsure leaders promise Minnesotans will have an easier time signing up for health insurance on its Website when enrollment begins next month.
Reported by TwinCities.com 9 hours ago.
↧
Government sets modest goal for 2016 ACA enrollment
In advance of the Nov. 1 opening of the third annual open enrollment period for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration is targeting 10.5 million uninsured Americans who qualify for health care coverage through the marketplaces the law created.
"Most of those have... Reported by dailypress.com 9 hours ago.
"Most of those have... Reported by dailypress.com 9 hours ago.
↧
↧
UnitedHealth Will Expand To 11 New States On Obamacare Exchanges
UnitedHealth Group (UNH) confirmed plans to expand for 2016 into 11 additional states including California with private health insurance products on government exchanges under the Affordable Care Act.
Reported by Forbes.com 20 hours ago.
↧
Allred Insurance Offers Signup Help for Upcoming Healthcare Enrollment Periods
Allred Insurance agents are now standing by to help existing clients and walk-ins during the upcoming national healthcare enrollment periods.
Burlington, NC (PRWEB) October 16, 2015
Allred Insurance, an independent insurance agency specializing in providing health, life, and auto insurance to individuals in North Carolina, is now accepting appointments and walk-ins at both its main office on South Church Street and its Holly Hill Mall satellite location for signup help during the upcoming national healthcare enrollment periods.
Medicare Open Enrollment, which runs from October 15 to December 7, 2015, is the period when qualifying individuals can sign up for Medicare coverage for the first time or make changes to their current Medicare health and prescription drug plans. Signups or changes made during this open enrollment window will go into effect on January 1, 2016.
In addition, healthcare coverage for individuals under the age of 65 may be purchased through the federal Health Insurance Marketplace during the Open Enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act. Open Enrollment extends from November 1, 2015, to January 31, 2016, with different effective coverage dates depending on the specific time of enrollment. Coverage obtained prior to December 15, 2015, will go into effect on January 1, 2016, while coverage obtained between December 16, 2015, and January 15, 2016, will kick in on February 1, 2016. Coverage obtained between January 16, 2016, and January 31, 2016, will go into effect on March 1, 2016.
Allred Insurance agents are now standing by to help existing clients and walk-ins determine how much healthcare coverage they need and to find the best plan for their budget.
“As with most things related to the federal government, the national healthcare programs can be difficult to figure out,” says Allred Insurance spokesman Scott Allred. “Our agents have been working with this system since the beginning, and know all of the fine points involved with selecting coverage and purchasing plans. We’re here to help ensure our clients find a great plan during the open enrollment period so they can get healthcare coverage as soon as possible.”
Allred’s Holly Hill location will accept walk-ins from October 15 to January 31 from 9 a.m. to noon and 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday to Friday. The main office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday to Friday. To schedule an appointment please call 336-584-2705 or visit http://www.allredinsurance.com for more information. Reported by PRWeb 19 hours ago.
Burlington, NC (PRWEB) October 16, 2015
Allred Insurance, an independent insurance agency specializing in providing health, life, and auto insurance to individuals in North Carolina, is now accepting appointments and walk-ins at both its main office on South Church Street and its Holly Hill Mall satellite location for signup help during the upcoming national healthcare enrollment periods.
Medicare Open Enrollment, which runs from October 15 to December 7, 2015, is the period when qualifying individuals can sign up for Medicare coverage for the first time or make changes to their current Medicare health and prescription drug plans. Signups or changes made during this open enrollment window will go into effect on January 1, 2016.
In addition, healthcare coverage for individuals under the age of 65 may be purchased through the federal Health Insurance Marketplace during the Open Enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act. Open Enrollment extends from November 1, 2015, to January 31, 2016, with different effective coverage dates depending on the specific time of enrollment. Coverage obtained prior to December 15, 2015, will go into effect on January 1, 2016, while coverage obtained between December 16, 2015, and January 15, 2016, will kick in on February 1, 2016. Coverage obtained between January 16, 2016, and January 31, 2016, will go into effect on March 1, 2016.
Allred Insurance agents are now standing by to help existing clients and walk-ins determine how much healthcare coverage they need and to find the best plan for their budget.
“As with most things related to the federal government, the national healthcare programs can be difficult to figure out,” says Allred Insurance spokesman Scott Allred. “Our agents have been working with this system since the beginning, and know all of the fine points involved with selecting coverage and purchasing plans. We’re here to help ensure our clients find a great plan during the open enrollment period so they can get healthcare coverage as soon as possible.”
Allred’s Holly Hill location will accept walk-ins from October 15 to January 31 from 9 a.m. to noon and 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday to Friday. The main office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday to Friday. To schedule an appointment please call 336-584-2705 or visit http://www.allredinsurance.com for more information. Reported by PRWeb 19 hours ago.
↧
Cheap Health Insurance Will Cost You
Here's why to pay up.
Reported by Motley Fool 19 hours ago.
↧
Insurance commissioner slams Aetna's small-business rate hike
California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones slammed Aetna Thursday for an “unreasonable” quarterly rate hike on small-business owners that brings the annual average increase to more than 27 percent. The hike affects small employers that renew their health insurance policies in the fourth quarter — and an estimated 40,000 employees. Dept. of Insurance actuaries reviewed Aetna’s rate filing and found the average 27.4 percent increase was not based on Aetna’s most recent claims experience.…
Reported by bizjournals 19 hours ago.
↧
↧
Why the cost of health insurance could drop in N.J. next year
Because New Jersey insurance companies did a good job at predicting how much they'd have to pay out in claims, they most likely won't see a need to hike premiums drastically for 2016, an analysis states.
Reported by NJ.com 19 hours ago.
↧
Stem Cell presence at the Health Insurance Event of the Year, Mayfair London
Specialist Tooth Stem Cell Bank BioEden further their reach within the healthcare sector as they sign a further contract with a leading private insurer
(PRWEB UK) 16 October 2015
Specialist stem cell bank BioEden were guests at the Health Insurance event of the year in Mayfair London last evening.
The event coincided with the signing of specialist health insurer Medicover, an international private healthcare company, who have committed to take BioEden's tooth stem cell banking to every Member and patient of their services.
The Health Insurance event bought together individuals and companies who play key roles in bettering healthcare and healthcare insurance for an international audience.
Spokesperson for BioEden Sue Wilkinson said, 'It's great to see more and more healthcare intermediaries recognise the value of stem cell banking and promote the service to their clients. It means that if their clients need therapy their stem cells are readily available without the need for surgery, or the worry of finding a match'
For more information contact info@bioeden.com Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.
(PRWEB UK) 16 October 2015
Specialist stem cell bank BioEden were guests at the Health Insurance event of the year in Mayfair London last evening.
The event coincided with the signing of specialist health insurer Medicover, an international private healthcare company, who have committed to take BioEden's tooth stem cell banking to every Member and patient of their services.
The Health Insurance event bought together individuals and companies who play key roles in bettering healthcare and healthcare insurance for an international audience.
Spokesperson for BioEden Sue Wilkinson said, 'It's great to see more and more healthcare intermediaries recognise the value of stem cell banking and promote the service to their clients. It means that if their clients need therapy their stem cells are readily available without the need for surgery, or the worry of finding a match'
For more information contact info@bioeden.com Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.
↧
Peppier handicapped symbol gets support, but problems remain
(AP) — The ubiquitous handicapped symbol that marks parking spaces, building entrances and restrooms around the world is getting an update, a modernization that emphasizes ability rather than disability. [...] the Federal Highway Administration rejected requests to allow "alternative dynamic designs" for traffic signs and pavement markings. "On the face of it, it seems like a really positive step to take," said Elizabeth Guffey, a professor of art and design history at State University of New York at Purchase. "The old symbol leaves everything up to the imagination," said Cathy Ludlum, a Connecticut disability rights activist who has a neuromuscular disorder and controls her motorized wheelchair by using three fingers. The Swiss-based IOS, the world's largest developer of voluntary international standards, has said it makes sense to keep the well-known international symbol given the growth in international trade, travel and tourism. Health insurance giant Cigna, based in Bloomfield, repainted parking spaces at its offices across the country with the updated symbol.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 18 hours ago.
↧
Medicare MarketPlace Can Help Consumers Understand Part B Cost Hikes After Government Announces No Cost-of-Living Adjustment
Part B Deductibles Stand to Rise for All Beneficiaries, Part B Premiums Could Jump by Highest Percentage in Medicare History
Omaha, Nebraska (PRWEB) October 16, 2015
Medicare MarketPlace® expects increased call volume from seniors seeking Medicare health insurance plan savings following the government’s Oct. 15th announcement that it will not give a cost-of-living adjustment to Social Security recipients in 2016 — a move that means some beneficiaries could see a 52% increase in their 2016 Medicare Part B premiums.
“The convergence of these economic factors will drive Medicare recipients to need more help understanding not only how or whether they’ll be affected, but also where to find savings,” said Brian Hickey, vice president of Medicare MarketPlace. “Medicare MarketPlace can help consumers by looking at their current Medicare health insurance and Part D Prescription Drug plans, whether those plans are changing in price or coverage in 2016, and whether there are other plans that could help them save money or improve coverage.”
Medicare beneficiaries in higher income brackets could pay even more than the 52% increase in Part B premiums — which is the largest increase, by far, in the history of Medicare, according to The New York Times.
And Hickey said higher Part B premiums, which would impact about 30% of Medicare beneficiaries, are not the only Medicare-related costs projected to rise. Monthly premiums for Part D Prescription Drug plans are expected to rise on average 13% for those who remain on the same plan, according to the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
And perhaps one of the biggest changes would be an expected increase in the Part B annual deductible, the amount beneficiaries pay before Medicare kicks in. All beneficiaries are expected to see their Part B annual deductible jump by $76, to an estimated $223 — which Tricia Neuman of the Kaiser Family Foundation told CNBC was an “unprecedented” kind of increase.
“All these headlines can really cause a lot of concern, and Medicare already is confusing,” Hickey said. “We’re ready to help consumers navigate through all the information.”
The government’s announcement of no COLA came on the same day that Medicare’s Open Enrollment Period kicked off. Open enrollment — Oct. 15 to Dec. 7 — is when Medicare beneficiaries can make changes to their Medicare Advantage or Medicare Part D Prescription Drug coverage for the coming year. Because plans and premiums can change from year to year, Medicare MarketPlace encourages beneficiaries to review their plans to identify potential cost increases or savings. People who have Medicare Supplement health insurance plans may also want to review their policy each year, because those premiums can change, too. Medicare Supplement plans can be purchased year-round, but beneficiaries may be required to answer health questions to determine eligibility.
Consumers with Medicare questions can call 1-800-639-0781 to speak to one of Medicare MarketPlace’s licensed insurance agents.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services still has to announce the exact amount of increases in Part B premiums, and Congress or the White House may act to thwart some increases.
“Every year there are some unknowns, but Medicare beneficiaries this year could face some significant increases,” Hickey said. “We’re poised to help them sort through the information to find what works best for them.”
About Medicare MarketPlace®
Since 2008, Medicare MarketPlace® has helped thousands of consumers shop easily for Medicare Supplement and Medicare Advantage health care plans and Medicare Part D Prescription Drug plans online or by phone with the assistance of a licensed insurance agent who specializes in Medicare-related insurance products. Visitors to http://www.MedicareMarketPlace.com can quote and compare Medicare health plans in their area or simply learn more about Medicare. Medicare MarketPlace is a division of Insuractive®, Inc., a Nebraska resident insurance agency. Based in Omaha, Nebraska, Insuractive is also licensed as a nonresident insurance agency, or otherwise authorized to transact business as an insurance agency, in all states and the District of Columbia. Medicare MarketPlace and Insuractive are not connected with or endorsed by the United States government or the federal Medicare program. Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.
Omaha, Nebraska (PRWEB) October 16, 2015
Medicare MarketPlace® expects increased call volume from seniors seeking Medicare health insurance plan savings following the government’s Oct. 15th announcement that it will not give a cost-of-living adjustment to Social Security recipients in 2016 — a move that means some beneficiaries could see a 52% increase in their 2016 Medicare Part B premiums.
“The convergence of these economic factors will drive Medicare recipients to need more help understanding not only how or whether they’ll be affected, but also where to find savings,” said Brian Hickey, vice president of Medicare MarketPlace. “Medicare MarketPlace can help consumers by looking at their current Medicare health insurance and Part D Prescription Drug plans, whether those plans are changing in price or coverage in 2016, and whether there are other plans that could help them save money or improve coverage.”
Medicare beneficiaries in higher income brackets could pay even more than the 52% increase in Part B premiums — which is the largest increase, by far, in the history of Medicare, according to The New York Times.
And Hickey said higher Part B premiums, which would impact about 30% of Medicare beneficiaries, are not the only Medicare-related costs projected to rise. Monthly premiums for Part D Prescription Drug plans are expected to rise on average 13% for those who remain on the same plan, according to the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
And perhaps one of the biggest changes would be an expected increase in the Part B annual deductible, the amount beneficiaries pay before Medicare kicks in. All beneficiaries are expected to see their Part B annual deductible jump by $76, to an estimated $223 — which Tricia Neuman of the Kaiser Family Foundation told CNBC was an “unprecedented” kind of increase.
“All these headlines can really cause a lot of concern, and Medicare already is confusing,” Hickey said. “We’re ready to help consumers navigate through all the information.”
The government’s announcement of no COLA came on the same day that Medicare’s Open Enrollment Period kicked off. Open enrollment — Oct. 15 to Dec. 7 — is when Medicare beneficiaries can make changes to their Medicare Advantage or Medicare Part D Prescription Drug coverage for the coming year. Because plans and premiums can change from year to year, Medicare MarketPlace encourages beneficiaries to review their plans to identify potential cost increases or savings. People who have Medicare Supplement health insurance plans may also want to review their policy each year, because those premiums can change, too. Medicare Supplement plans can be purchased year-round, but beneficiaries may be required to answer health questions to determine eligibility.
Consumers with Medicare questions can call 1-800-639-0781 to speak to one of Medicare MarketPlace’s licensed insurance agents.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services still has to announce the exact amount of increases in Part B premiums, and Congress or the White House may act to thwart some increases.
“Every year there are some unknowns, but Medicare beneficiaries this year could face some significant increases,” Hickey said. “We’re poised to help them sort through the information to find what works best for them.”
About Medicare MarketPlace®
Since 2008, Medicare MarketPlace® has helped thousands of consumers shop easily for Medicare Supplement and Medicare Advantage health care plans and Medicare Part D Prescription Drug plans online or by phone with the assistance of a licensed insurance agent who specializes in Medicare-related insurance products. Visitors to http://www.MedicareMarketPlace.com can quote and compare Medicare health plans in their area or simply learn more about Medicare. Medicare MarketPlace is a division of Insuractive®, Inc., a Nebraska resident insurance agency. Based in Omaha, Nebraska, Insuractive is also licensed as a nonresident insurance agency, or otherwise authorized to transact business as an insurance agency, in all states and the District of Columbia. Medicare MarketPlace and Insuractive are not connected with or endorsed by the United States government or the federal Medicare program. Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.
↧
↧
United States: IREG Update - October 2, 2015 - Dentons (US)
For many years, at least some state insurance regulators have sought to place limitations on the sale of fixed indemnity medical insurance or "limited medical benefit" plans on the ground that they mislead consumers into thinking they are purchasing comprehensive health insurance when they are not.
Reported by Mondaq 17 hours ago.
↧
Why to Invest in Alternative Investments
Over the last 2 to 3 years the percentage of our client portfolios invested in alternative investments has increased from 10 percent to around 30 percent.First, as the definition of *alternative investments* is somewhat open for interpretation we define the following assets as alternatives:
* Real Estate
* Commodities
* Insurance Linked Securities
* All Asset Variance Risk Premium Option Strategy
Most investors are familiar with real estate and commodities, but few are familiar with the latter two investment categories.
Insurance Linked Securities is essentially an investment that puts an investor in the same position as an insurance company without the equity risk. The investment makes money by collecting premiums and losses money when there is a major insurable event (hurricane, earthquake, etc.).
Our variance risk premium strategy continually sells options on 25-30 different non-correlated asset classes on both sides of the market. Over the long term most of these options sold will expire worthless and we get to keep the premium. We lose if the underlying asset moves in price by a large percentage in a short period of time.
Both of these strategies are unique in the fact that they should produce durable 'equity-like' rates of returns over the long term and have little or no correlation to the stock or bond markets.
An equally important point is why we have steadily increased exposure in the alternative area over the past several years. There are three main reasons for the move highlighted below:
*1. Lower Expected future total returns in US Stocks/Bonds:* As the stock market has increased in value over 200% since 2009 the trailing P/E of the S&P 500 now stands at about 18. In addition the '*Schiller P/E*', a more accurate and predictive measure of valuation, is much higher (27 or so). These valuation levels along with slow earnings/revenue growth seem to indicate the future returns on the domestic stock market will be much lower over the next decade. High quality US bonds, with yields anywhere from 1.9 to 3.5 percent also have much lower than historical return potential.
*2. Possible Lower Diversification/Risk Reduction Benefits From Bonds:* Because bonds have very low yields and the risk/return equation is quite different then much of the last century the benefits of holding these investments has decreased substantially. To be sure most investors still need some exposure in this area to hedge against an equity position, but you have to be very careful in constructing portfolios with traditional assumptions.
*3. Availability of more liquid/beta-driven 'True' Alternatives:* Recently alternative forms of risk/return have become accessible to traditional investors. The strategies mentioned above are BETA driven forms of returns and risk that are not correlated to any other financial asset class. The returns are not dependent on the managers picking winning stocks, trends, etc., but simply getting us access to another form of return 'passively'.
Because of lower expected returns and risk reduction benefits in traditional asset classes we feel the move into viable alternatives is necessary in keeping risk in line with our mandate and maximizing our client future returns.
To learn more about Eric Mancini, view his *Paladin Registry profile*.
Previously posted on *Paladin Registry*.
*About the Author: Eric D. Mancini* is a Certified Financial Planner (CFP®) and the director of investment research at Traphagen. Eric graduated Penn State University with a BS in Economics and specializes in portfolio management, investment analysis, and personal financial planning. He also works with clients on insurance planning, tax planning, and personal income tax preparation. Eric has obtained the Certified Financial Planner (CFP®) designation, the NASD (National Association of Securities Dealers) Series 65 license, the NJ Life and Health Insurance license, and is currently pursuing his CFA® (Chartered Financial Analyst) designation.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 16 hours ago.
* Real Estate
* Commodities
* Insurance Linked Securities
* All Asset Variance Risk Premium Option Strategy
Most investors are familiar with real estate and commodities, but few are familiar with the latter two investment categories.
Insurance Linked Securities is essentially an investment that puts an investor in the same position as an insurance company without the equity risk. The investment makes money by collecting premiums and losses money when there is a major insurable event (hurricane, earthquake, etc.).
Our variance risk premium strategy continually sells options on 25-30 different non-correlated asset classes on both sides of the market. Over the long term most of these options sold will expire worthless and we get to keep the premium. We lose if the underlying asset moves in price by a large percentage in a short period of time.
Both of these strategies are unique in the fact that they should produce durable 'equity-like' rates of returns over the long term and have little or no correlation to the stock or bond markets.
An equally important point is why we have steadily increased exposure in the alternative area over the past several years. There are three main reasons for the move highlighted below:
*1. Lower Expected future total returns in US Stocks/Bonds:* As the stock market has increased in value over 200% since 2009 the trailing P/E of the S&P 500 now stands at about 18. In addition the '*Schiller P/E*', a more accurate and predictive measure of valuation, is much higher (27 or so). These valuation levels along with slow earnings/revenue growth seem to indicate the future returns on the domestic stock market will be much lower over the next decade. High quality US bonds, with yields anywhere from 1.9 to 3.5 percent also have much lower than historical return potential.
*2. Possible Lower Diversification/Risk Reduction Benefits From Bonds:* Because bonds have very low yields and the risk/return equation is quite different then much of the last century the benefits of holding these investments has decreased substantially. To be sure most investors still need some exposure in this area to hedge against an equity position, but you have to be very careful in constructing portfolios with traditional assumptions.
*3. Availability of more liquid/beta-driven 'True' Alternatives:* Recently alternative forms of risk/return have become accessible to traditional investors. The strategies mentioned above are BETA driven forms of returns and risk that are not correlated to any other financial asset class. The returns are not dependent on the managers picking winning stocks, trends, etc., but simply getting us access to another form of return 'passively'.
Because of lower expected returns and risk reduction benefits in traditional asset classes we feel the move into viable alternatives is necessary in keeping risk in line with our mandate and maximizing our client future returns.
To learn more about Eric Mancini, view his *Paladin Registry profile*.
Previously posted on *Paladin Registry*.
*About the Author: Eric D. Mancini* is a Certified Financial Planner (CFP®) and the director of investment research at Traphagen. Eric graduated Penn State University with a BS in Economics and specializes in portfolio management, investment analysis, and personal financial planning. He also works with clients on insurance planning, tax planning, and personal income tax preparation. Eric has obtained the Certified Financial Planner (CFP®) designation, the NASD (National Association of Securities Dealers) Series 65 license, the NJ Life and Health Insurance license, and is currently pursuing his CFA® (Chartered Financial Analyst) designation.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 16 hours ago.
↧
Clinton urges Congress to cap Medicare cost increases
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Friday urged Congress to rein in Medicare cost increases next year, expected to hit millions on the government health insurance program even as Social Security benefits stagnate. Medicare expects Part B premiums, which cover doctor’s visits ...
Reported by Raw Story 14 hours ago.
↧
The Strategy for Change: Sanders v. Clinton
One of the striking contrasts between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the first Democratic debate is their starkly different theories of how change will take place. For all the contrasts on issues, it is this difference in strategy that is central to the Sanders surge, and particularly to the remarkable excitement that he has stirred among the young.
President Obama's agenda has been relentlessly torpedoed by the Republican Congress. The Republican House majority is so dysfunctional that Speaker John Boehner had to fall on his sword simply to insure that the doors of government remain open and the U.S. doesn't default on its debts. Republicans are now unable to agree upon his successor. They are so practiced in obstruction that they obstruct themselves.
So how does the next Democratic president overcome this? Gerrymandered districts make it very hard for Democrats to take back the majority in the House. What makes change come?
*Yes She Can*
Clinton's answer is encapsulated in her response to Anderson Cooper's question about whether she is a progressive or a moderate:
I'm a progressive. But I'm a progressive who likes to get things done. And I know how to find common ground, and I know how to stand my ground, and I have proved that in every position that I've had, even dealing with Republicans who never had a good word to say about me, honestly. But we found ways to work together on everything from reforming foster care and adoption to the Children's Health Insurance Program...
Clinton offers herself - her experience, her vision, her tenacity - as the difference. This was a consistent theme of her remarks. Her opening featured her commitment to "heal the divides:"
During the course of the evening tonight, I'll have a chance to lay out all of my plans and the work that I've done behind them. But for me, this is about bringing our country together again. And I will do everything I can to heal the divides...
And she offered herself as the vehicle for change again in her closing:
What you have to ask yourself is: Who amongst us has the vision for actually making the changes that are going to improve the lives of the American people? Who has the tenacity and the ability and the proven track record of getting that done?
When pressed about why voters should choose an "insider like yourself," she sounded the same note:
I'm running because I have a lifetime of experience in getting results and fighting for people, fighting for kids, for women, for families, fighting to even the odds. And I know what it takes to get things done. I know how to find common ground and I know how to stand my ground. And I think we're going to need both of those in Washington to get anything that we're talking about up here accomplished.
*You Know There's Gonna Be A Revolution*
In contrast, Sanders argues that given the corruption of American politics, the only way needed change can come is with a "political revolution." This theme was central to his argument in the debate
But here's where I do disagree. I believe that the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of the drug companies, the power of the corporate media is so great that the only way we really transform America and do the things that the middle class and working class desperately need is through a political revolution when millions of people begin to come together and stand up and say: Our government is going to work for all of us, not just a handful of billionaires.
Anderson Cooper remarked skeptically, "You don't hear a lot of Democratic presidential candidates talking about revolution. What do you mean?"
Sanders elaborated:
What I mean is that we need to have one of the larger voter turnouts in the world, not one of the lowest. We need to raise public consciousness. We need the American people to know what's going on in Washington in a way that today they do not know. And when people come together in a way that does not exist now and are prepared to take on the big money interest, then we could bring the kind of change we need.
When asked how he could overcome Republican obstruction, Sanders was clear:
The Republican party, since I've been in the Senate, and since President Obama has been in office, has played a terrible, terrible role of being total obstructionists. Every effort that he has made, that some of us have made, they have said no, no, no.
Now, in my view, the only way we can take on the right-wing Republicans who are, by the way, I hope will not continue to control the Senate and the House when one of us elected President.
But the only way we can get things done is by having millions of people coming together. If we want free tuition at public colleges and universities, millions of young people are going to have to demand it, and give the Republicans an offer they can't refuse.
If we want to raise the minimum wage to $15 bucks an hour, workers are going to have to come together and look the Republicans in the eye, and say, "We know what's going on. You vote against us, you are out of your job."
And the Senator returned to this theme in his closing:
Now, at the end of our day, here is the truth that very few candidates will say, is that nobody up here, certainly no Republican, can address the major crises facing our country unless millions of people begin to stand up to the billionaire class that has so much power over our economy and our political life.
*What Makes Change?*
Obviously, Sanders call for "political revolution" confounds conventional pundits. Former Senator Jim Webb expressed the establishment disdain: "I got a great deal of admiration and affection for Senator Sanders, but I - Bernie, I don't think the revolution's going to come. And I don't think the Congress is going to pay for a lot of this stuff."
Waiting for a political revolution can seem a bit like waiting for Godot. But ask yourself, which of these views is more realistic? Clinton's claim is a more polished and far more credible version of Donald Trump's boasts: "Trust me. I know how to do this. I can get this done." Clinton is the most experienced and prepared candidate for the presidency in memory. But how plausible is it to believe that her experience and tenacity can enable her to work with Republicans to effect the change we need? As their Benghazi side show has proven, they revile her almost as much as they do Obama. No doubt, she'll be able to keep the government open. And we know there are bad deals that can be cut. But real reform?
"Revolution soon come" may seem a fantasy. But Sanders' view that nothing will change unless people rise up, demand change, go to the polls in large numbers and hold their representatives accountable is compelling. And by not raising money from millionaires and billionaires, by not setting up a super PAC, by raising stunning sums in small donations (over $2 million in the hours after the Democratic debate), he isn't just calling for a popular movement, he is helping to build it.
-- 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.
President Obama's agenda has been relentlessly torpedoed by the Republican Congress. The Republican House majority is so dysfunctional that Speaker John Boehner had to fall on his sword simply to insure that the doors of government remain open and the U.S. doesn't default on its debts. Republicans are now unable to agree upon his successor. They are so practiced in obstruction that they obstruct themselves.
So how does the next Democratic president overcome this? Gerrymandered districts make it very hard for Democrats to take back the majority in the House. What makes change come?
*Yes She Can*
Clinton's answer is encapsulated in her response to Anderson Cooper's question about whether she is a progressive or a moderate:
I'm a progressive. But I'm a progressive who likes to get things done. And I know how to find common ground, and I know how to stand my ground, and I have proved that in every position that I've had, even dealing with Republicans who never had a good word to say about me, honestly. But we found ways to work together on everything from reforming foster care and adoption to the Children's Health Insurance Program...
Clinton offers herself - her experience, her vision, her tenacity - as the difference. This was a consistent theme of her remarks. Her opening featured her commitment to "heal the divides:"
During the course of the evening tonight, I'll have a chance to lay out all of my plans and the work that I've done behind them. But for me, this is about bringing our country together again. And I will do everything I can to heal the divides...
And she offered herself as the vehicle for change again in her closing:
What you have to ask yourself is: Who amongst us has the vision for actually making the changes that are going to improve the lives of the American people? Who has the tenacity and the ability and the proven track record of getting that done?
When pressed about why voters should choose an "insider like yourself," she sounded the same note:
I'm running because I have a lifetime of experience in getting results and fighting for people, fighting for kids, for women, for families, fighting to even the odds. And I know what it takes to get things done. I know how to find common ground and I know how to stand my ground. And I think we're going to need both of those in Washington to get anything that we're talking about up here accomplished.
*You Know There's Gonna Be A Revolution*
In contrast, Sanders argues that given the corruption of American politics, the only way needed change can come is with a "political revolution." This theme was central to his argument in the debate
But here's where I do disagree. I believe that the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of the drug companies, the power of the corporate media is so great that the only way we really transform America and do the things that the middle class and working class desperately need is through a political revolution when millions of people begin to come together and stand up and say: Our government is going to work for all of us, not just a handful of billionaires.
Anderson Cooper remarked skeptically, "You don't hear a lot of Democratic presidential candidates talking about revolution. What do you mean?"
Sanders elaborated:
What I mean is that we need to have one of the larger voter turnouts in the world, not one of the lowest. We need to raise public consciousness. We need the American people to know what's going on in Washington in a way that today they do not know. And when people come together in a way that does not exist now and are prepared to take on the big money interest, then we could bring the kind of change we need.
When asked how he could overcome Republican obstruction, Sanders was clear:
The Republican party, since I've been in the Senate, and since President Obama has been in office, has played a terrible, terrible role of being total obstructionists. Every effort that he has made, that some of us have made, they have said no, no, no.
Now, in my view, the only way we can take on the right-wing Republicans who are, by the way, I hope will not continue to control the Senate and the House when one of us elected President.
But the only way we can get things done is by having millions of people coming together. If we want free tuition at public colleges and universities, millions of young people are going to have to demand it, and give the Republicans an offer they can't refuse.
If we want to raise the minimum wage to $15 bucks an hour, workers are going to have to come together and look the Republicans in the eye, and say, "We know what's going on. You vote against us, you are out of your job."
And the Senator returned to this theme in his closing:
Now, at the end of our day, here is the truth that very few candidates will say, is that nobody up here, certainly no Republican, can address the major crises facing our country unless millions of people begin to stand up to the billionaire class that has so much power over our economy and our political life.
*What Makes Change?*
Obviously, Sanders call for "political revolution" confounds conventional pundits. Former Senator Jim Webb expressed the establishment disdain: "I got a great deal of admiration and affection for Senator Sanders, but I - Bernie, I don't think the revolution's going to come. And I don't think the Congress is going to pay for a lot of this stuff."
Waiting for a political revolution can seem a bit like waiting for Godot. But ask yourself, which of these views is more realistic? Clinton's claim is a more polished and far more credible version of Donald Trump's boasts: "Trust me. I know how to do this. I can get this done." Clinton is the most experienced and prepared candidate for the presidency in memory. But how plausible is it to believe that her experience and tenacity can enable her to work with Republicans to effect the change we need? As their Benghazi side show has proven, they revile her almost as much as they do Obama. No doubt, she'll be able to keep the government open. And we know there are bad deals that can be cut. But real reform?
"Revolution soon come" may seem a fantasy. But Sanders' view that nothing will change unless people rise up, demand change, go to the polls in large numbers and hold their representatives accountable is compelling. And by not raising money from millionaires and billionaires, by not setting up a super PAC, by raising stunning sums in small donations (over $2 million in the hours after the Democratic debate), he isn't just calling for a popular movement, he is helping to build it.
-- 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.
↧
↧
Obamacare's Latest Casualty: Largest Health Insurer On Colorado Exchange Abruptly Collapses
This wasn't supposed to happen.With the mainstream media, at least the majority that is left of center, flooded with story after story touting Obamacare's success, the news coming this morning from Denver that Colorado's largest nonprofit health insurer and participant in that state's insurance exchange Colorado HealthOP is abruptly shutting down, forcing 80,000 Coloradans to find a new insurer for 2016, was a slap in the face for the Obama administration's crowning achievement.
According to AP, the health insurer announced Friday that the state Division of Insurance has de-certified it as an eligible insurance company. That's because the cooperative relied on federal support, *and federal authorities announced last month they wouldn't be able to pay most of what they owed in a program designed to help health insurance co-ops get established*.
Wait, wasn't the whole point behind Obamacare to subsidize health insurance for everyone, and especially the poor? Or was the whole point of the "Affordable" Care Act merely to herd as many Americans into the clutches of the few for-profits, after the non-profit cooperatives finally read the fine print and realized they have no chance of being profitable under the new regime?
The plot thickens: in a statement announcing its closure Friday, Colorado HealthOP said it was "well on its way" to repaying some $72.3 million it has borrowed from the federal fund. The co-op reported a net loss of $23 million last year. In other words, the company burned through some $23 million in taxpayer funds and it didn't even get a lousy shirt to show for it.
Ironically, on the company's website, we read the following about the Co-Op's business model:
if our revenues exceed our costs, the surplus will be reinvested to directly benefit members—through lower premiums, expanded benefits, or quality improvements.
Well, no risk of that ever happening now. What the insurer failed to point out is that if costs exceed its revenues, it will be promptly liquidated and massive corporations will be the sole beneficiaries.
Naturally, the CEO was furious: Colorado HealthOP CEO Julia Hutchins called the de-certification "irresponsible and premature."
She is not alone - as it turns out HealthOP was just the fifth casualty of a program which with every passing months is being exposed as nothing but a tax-backed piggy bank for the mega insurance corporations. "*The Colorado announcement makes the co-op at least the fifth in the nation to collapse. *Similar nonprofit insurers have already failed in Louisiana, Iowa/Nebraska, Nevada and New York. A health insurance cooperative in Tennessee announced this week that it would stop offering new policies.
Expect even more failures ahead of open enrollment for 2016 starts on November 1. The Colorado Division of Insurance must first certify insurers before they're allowed to sell plans, so the de-certification essentially puts Colorado HealthOP out of business.
Back to the HealthOP CEO who added that "the Division has let local and national politics hurt Coloradans' access to low-cost healthcare options and assessed Colorado taxpayers with significant avoidable costs," Hutchins said in the statement.
Actually they became unavoidable the moment the deeply compromised and ideologically partisan Supreme Court imposed the Obamacare tax on Americans, with few if any realizing the monetary implications of the new insurance regime.
While it won't provide much comfort to Colorado HealthOp, which is now winding down, its board of directors has requesting that the state allow a board-appointed independent consumer protection ombudsman to assist through the shut-down.
In other words, even more millions in taxpayer funds will now be spent to liquidate the health insurer.
And while the lame duck president hardly cared as his legacy achievement will soon be some other president's problem, Republicans quickly took to gloating and pointed to the co-op's closure as "*a sad but predictable outcome.*"
"Taxpayers are on the hook for millions of dollars in loans given out to the CO-OP, money that will likely never be repaid," U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner said in a statement after the announcement. "*The years since Obamacare's passage have been marked by crisis after crisis in healthcare, and it's far past time for a new plan.*"
But wait, there's more. Now that the numbers are being crunched, and hyperbole and propaganda are finally making way for math, someone figured out that Colorado HealthOP's closure could be bad news for everyone shopping on Colorado's health insurance exchange.
A Republican state lawmaker who serves on an oversight committee that has reviewed Colorado HealthOP's finances, Rep. Lang Sias of Arvada, *said "rates for everyone are expected to go up next year. Colorado HealthOP accounted for nearly 40 percent of the exchange's total customers."*
"They're all going to be paying more, on average, I would expect," Sias said.
And as more Americans get letters in the mail such as the one below kindly informing them their health insurance premiums are rising by 60% crushing any desire to splurge modest "gas savings" on discretionary purchases...
... expect complaints about soaring health insurance prices, to hit - first in Colorado and then everywhere else. Reported by Zero Hedge 13 hours ago.
↧
Health Plan Costs Jump Again
As the open enrollment period for 2016 health insurance draws near, you may be re-evaluating the Affordable Care Act and how it affects you. It is easy to start a spirited argument on the subject, but one thing is not up for debate: *multiple surveys and articles report that the cost of health care insurance plans is on the rise again*.
Shoppers on the exchange can expect to see a crazy quilt of price increases as insurers assess the true costs of the mandated coverage properties of the ACA and medical care consumption over the past year. There are cases where exchange-based health plans are not increasing, but according to multiple sources, many exchange plans are asking for significant price increases.
*Double Digit Rate Increases*
A recent analysis by Agile Health Insurance said that insurers are requesting double-digit rate increases for almost one-third of the plans sold on HealthCare.Gov, and that every plan offered for three states (Delaware, South Dakota, and West Virginia) are asking for double-digit increases. Two of the larger state-run exchanges, California and New York, have shown more modest rate increases of 4% and 7%, but they are increases all the same.
It may not be as bad as it sounds for consumers. State insurance regulators are not going to approve all the requested increases and not all of the costs will translate to the insured, thanks to subsidies. A Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analysis shows that the most popular "silver" plans, the benchmark for subsidy calculations, will undergo moderate price hikes, likely producing a moderate rise in subsidies.
Employer-based plan costs are also rising. KFF's 2015 Employer Health Benefits Survey conducted during the first half of 2015 concluded that the premiums for single coverage as well as family coverage rose by 4% on average. Unfortunately, deductibles are increasing significantly, resulting in more out-of-pocket costs to employees.
Effectively, cost sharing is being shifted more toward employees in employer-based plans. That puts an even greater burden on employees *since wages have not kept pace*. KFF reports that over the last five years, the deductibles paid by employees across the U.S. have increased over six times faster than wages have increased.
*"Cadillac Tax" To Kick In*
Meanwhile, the "Cadillac tax" kicks in starting in 2018, and employers are already starting to adjust their plans to stay below the threshold level. Individual plans with premiums over $10,200 or family plans with premiums over $27,500 will be subject to a 40% tax. KFF suggests that as employers make adjustments to stay under the thresholds, costs will continue to be shifted toward employees.
Are federal employees getting a better break? Not really. The government recently announced that the enrollee portion of health insurance premiums for federal employees would increase by 7.4%. That is the largest increase in five years. Overall plan costs will be rising 6.4% on average.
Keep in mind that background reinsurance programs called "*the 3 R's*" are subsidizing the insurance companies during the Obamacare transition: risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridor. Two of those three functions go away in 2016, meaning that most analysts expect the "true" rates of Obamacare to show up in the 2016-2017 prices -- and they will likely be considerably higher regardless of the other market factors.
* "A" in the ACA stands for Affordable?*
As you search for your own plan in the exchanges or deal with deductible increases in your employer-supplied health plan, just remember that the first "A" in the ACA stands for Affordable. If all these reports and surveys are correct, it is going to be increasingly hard to remember that.
More From Moneytips
ObamaCare Savings
Changing Jobs Under The Affordable Care Act
ObamaCare Coverage Gap 101
Photo ©iStock.com/fotostorm
-- 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 12 hours ago.
Shoppers on the exchange can expect to see a crazy quilt of price increases as insurers assess the true costs of the mandated coverage properties of the ACA and medical care consumption over the past year. There are cases where exchange-based health plans are not increasing, but according to multiple sources, many exchange plans are asking for significant price increases.
*Double Digit Rate Increases*
A recent analysis by Agile Health Insurance said that insurers are requesting double-digit rate increases for almost one-third of the plans sold on HealthCare.Gov, and that every plan offered for three states (Delaware, South Dakota, and West Virginia) are asking for double-digit increases. Two of the larger state-run exchanges, California and New York, have shown more modest rate increases of 4% and 7%, but they are increases all the same.
It may not be as bad as it sounds for consumers. State insurance regulators are not going to approve all the requested increases and not all of the costs will translate to the insured, thanks to subsidies. A Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analysis shows that the most popular "silver" plans, the benchmark for subsidy calculations, will undergo moderate price hikes, likely producing a moderate rise in subsidies.
Employer-based plan costs are also rising. KFF's 2015 Employer Health Benefits Survey conducted during the first half of 2015 concluded that the premiums for single coverage as well as family coverage rose by 4% on average. Unfortunately, deductibles are increasing significantly, resulting in more out-of-pocket costs to employees.
Effectively, cost sharing is being shifted more toward employees in employer-based plans. That puts an even greater burden on employees *since wages have not kept pace*. KFF reports that over the last five years, the deductibles paid by employees across the U.S. have increased over six times faster than wages have increased.
*"Cadillac Tax" To Kick In*
Meanwhile, the "Cadillac tax" kicks in starting in 2018, and employers are already starting to adjust their plans to stay below the threshold level. Individual plans with premiums over $10,200 or family plans with premiums over $27,500 will be subject to a 40% tax. KFF suggests that as employers make adjustments to stay under the thresholds, costs will continue to be shifted toward employees.
Are federal employees getting a better break? Not really. The government recently announced that the enrollee portion of health insurance premiums for federal employees would increase by 7.4%. That is the largest increase in five years. Overall plan costs will be rising 6.4% on average.
Keep in mind that background reinsurance programs called "*the 3 R's*" are subsidizing the insurance companies during the Obamacare transition: risk adjustment, reinsurance, and risk corridor. Two of those three functions go away in 2016, meaning that most analysts expect the "true" rates of Obamacare to show up in the 2016-2017 prices -- and they will likely be considerably higher regardless of the other market factors.
* "A" in the ACA stands for Affordable?*
As you search for your own plan in the exchanges or deal with deductible increases in your employer-supplied health plan, just remember that the first "A" in the ACA stands for Affordable. If all these reports and surveys are correct, it is going to be increasingly hard to remember that.
More From Moneytips
ObamaCare Savings
Changing Jobs Under The Affordable Care Act
ObamaCare Coverage Gap 101
Photo ©iStock.com/fotostorm
-- 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 12 hours ago.
↧
Citizens United Is Headed for the California Ballot: Here's What You Need to Know
[This post was originally published by Truthdig.com]
This is the first of a two-part series on the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and efforts to counter its impact on political campaign spending.
Within the next 90 days, the California Supreme Court will decide if a referendum should be placed on the November 2016 ballot asking voters whether they want to amend the federal Constitution to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's dreaded Citizens United ruling. The state panel heard oral arguments on the issue Oct. 6 and, according to press reports, is poised to green-light the measure, formally known as Proposition 49, just in time for the presidential election.
Drafted and sponsored by Democrats in the state's Senate and Assembly, the proposition was slated to appear on the midterm 2014 ballot but was delayed as a result of a lawsuit filed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Now, with the litigation all but complete, it's back on track.
Proposition 49 poses a lengthy but ultimately straightforward question:
"Shall the Congress of the United States propose, and the California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that the rights protected by the United States Constitution are the rights of natural persons only?"
The proposition is, of course, only advisory in nature. California voters can no more nullify the U.S. Supreme Court's seminal opinion on campaign finance than Rowan County, Ky., Clerk Kim Davis can overturn the high tribunal's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage. Still, the referendum will serve to galvanize protests and further action against a broken political process that Fred Wertheimer, the president of the public policy organization Democracy 21, has called a "system of legalized bribery."
In 2012, two other states--Colorado and Montana--ratified similar resolutions by overwhelming majorities. But the California plebiscite promises to dwarf each of those previous efforts--in publicity, intensity of debate, national focus and, above all, money spent by interest groups far and wide.
Here's a sampling of what you'll need to know to join the fray:
1. The Citizens United case began as a modest election law challenge that the Supreme Court dramatically expanded.
Citizens United is a conservative, nonprofit "social welfare" corporation organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It was founded in 1988 with seed money from the Koch brothers' financial network to promote the goals of "limited government, freedom of enterprise" ... and to "restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation."
In December 2007, the company sued the Federal Election Commission in district court in Washington, D.C., after the FEC blocked it from airing "Hillary: the Movie," a documentary on cable video on-demand that it had produced about Hillary Clinton. The stumbling block to the group's cinematic ambitions was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold law), which prohibited corporations from funding "electioneering communications"--basically, politically-oriented radio and TV ads and broadcasts--to be shown within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days in advance of a general election if the broadcasts mentioned or referred to candidates for federal office by name.
Even before the passage of McCain-Feingold, corporations were precluded by laws dating back to the Progressive-era Tillman Act of 1907 from contributing money directly to federal candidates or making "independent expenditures" (spending not directly coordinated with candidates) from their general treasury funds to expressly advocate election outcomes. Section 203's electioneering blackout provisions were enacted to close perceived loopholes in earlier campaign finance laws as an extra safeguard against undue corporate influence. The section applied equally to labor unions but exempted media companies' news stories, commentaries and editorials.
In making its case to a three-judge district panel that was assigned to adjudicate the lawsuit, Citizens United didn't ask to have Section 203 declared unconstitutional on its face. Rather, it sought an injunction to stop the FEC from applying the section to its film. It also asked for a judicial declaration that the TV ads promoting "Hillary: The Movie" weren't really electioneering communications because the movie itself was a fact-based work concerned with vital legislative matters.
The lawsuit failed miserably. The district court ruled in favor of the FEC, finding that "Hillary: The Movie" was "susceptible to no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office. ..."
Undeterred by the setback, Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on March 24, 2009. There, the inquiry focused on the same narrow questions dealing with the application of Section 203 to "Hillary," not with the section's basic constitutionality. Most observers at the time expected an important but by no means transformational decision.
Then, something extraordinary happened. On June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court on its own motion restored the case to its October 2008 term calendar for re-argument. It also set a new hearing for Sept. 9, 2009, more than two months after the current court term had ended and three weeks before the next term was set to commence.
Even more extraordinarily, in a breathtaking act of judicial activism, the court dramatically expanded the scope of the case, requesting the parties to address the question of whether McCain-Feingold's electioneering provisions and the decades-old bans on corporate campaign expenditures were indeed unconstitutional.
Four months later, on Jan. 21, 2010, in a bitterly contested 5-4 majority decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court announced its historic decree. Section 203 was overturned, and the court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make unlimited "independent expenditures" on political campaigns.
2. Citizens United didn't create the doctrine of corporate personhood, but the decision applied the concept to political speech.
Citizens United is often criticized by progressives for creating the doctrine of "corporate personhood." This is the idea that, as Mitt Romney so ham-fistedly put it during the last presidential season, "corporations are people," entitled to the same rights and privileges as humans.
Actually, the doctrine of corporate personhood has been around since the 19th century. Over the years, courts have extended it to recognize some corporate rights--for example, the right to own property, the capacity to sue and be sued, and more recently the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment--but not others, such as the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. The doctrine is based on a legal fiction, and, as always, the Supreme Court remains the ultimate arbiter of the doctrine on constitutional issues.
In his majority opinion in Citizens United, Justice Kennedy never specifically used the word "personhood." Instead, he wrote that the First Amendment precludes government from discriminating against political speakers on the basis of their "corporate identity." Relying heavily on the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo--in which an earlier iteration of the court invoked the First Amendment to strike down monetary ceilings on independent expenditures made by individuals--Kennedy concluded that corporations were entitled to the same constitutional deference.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting for himself and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, explicitly took the majority to task over the personhood doctrine. In a stinging 90-page rebuke, Stevens reminded the majority that corporations aren't really human beings. Unlike natural persons, he charged, corporations "are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established." There was no compelling reason, in his view, to accord such nonpersons First Amendment status in the critical arena of campaign spending.
Four years after Citizens United, in 2014, the same five-justice majority disregarded Stevens' admonitions yet again in the Hobby Lobby case, recognizing the religious personhood of closely held corporations and upholding their faith-based right to deny female employees health insurance for contraception.
3. The Citizens United decision wasn't needed to prevent government censorship of speech.
Having embraced the fiction of corporations as people, Kennedy and the Citizens United majority segued easily to the next stage in their analysis--that lifting the prohibitions on corporate expenditures was needed to prevent censorship and bans on speech.
Nothing, of course, could have been further from the truth. Corporations have no messages, political or otherwise, to convey apart from the messages of the people who run them.
Notwithstanding the strictures of McCain-Feingold, wealthy individuals were free then, as now, to fund electioneering communications at any point in an election cycle, limited only by the size of their wallets. Corporations were also permitted to establish political action committees for such purposes. At the time it launched its lawsuit, Citizens United operated its own PAC--the Citizens United Political Victory Fund--which was, and remains, registered with the FEC.
But corporate PACs are pesky and sometimes inconvenient vehicles, subject to regulations that restrict their ability to solicit funds to management-level employees, shareholders and their families. In addition, contributions to PACs must be voluntary, and federal law limits the amount of money an individual can donate to a PAC as well as the amount a PAC can contribute to any single candidate. PACs are also required to keep detailed financial records and disclose the identities of their major donors.
The Kennedy majority found the inconvenience argument persuasive. Rather than require Citizens United to use its PAC to broadcast "Hillary" or carve out an exception to Section 203 for nonprofits (as the Stevens dissenters also suggested), the majority chose to alter the long-established political rules for all corporations, large and small.
4. Citizens United extended the equation of money and speech and radically restricted the concept of political corruption.
Just as Citizens United did not create the doctrine of corporate personhood, the decision was not the first Supreme Court ruling to equate money with political speech. That honor, once again, goes to Buckley v. Valeo, in which the court held that a "restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached." Citizens United, however, expanded the domain of political money from individuals to corporations.
Citizens United also drew on Buckley to gut the meaning of political corruption as a permissible basis for campaign finance regulation.
As in Buckley, the Citizens United majority distinguished between campaign contributions made directly to candidates and independent expenditures. Contribution limits, Kennedy declared, could be justified to prevent quid pro quo bribery of candidates. Expenditures, however, posed no such dangers. Nor could regulations in either category be warranted by the goal of leveling the political playing field or countering the distorting effects of wealth or income inequality in politics.
Last year, the court used the same reasoning in McCutcheon v. FEC, striking down the aggregate biennial limits on money individuals can contribute directly to federal candidates, parties and PACs. McCutcheon left intact--at least for the time being--limits on the amount of money people can give to any single candidate.
5. Citizens United didn't establish super PACs but it gave rise to them and opened the door to dark money.
Contrary to popular lore, Citizens United didn't explicitly authorize the creation of super PACs, the expenditure-only entities that cannot give money directly to candidates but can raise unlimited sums from individuals, corporations and unions to spend "independently" on behalf of candidates.
Super PACs were actually authorized by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in its March2010 opinion in the case of Speechnow.org v. FEC. The circuit court, however, based its decision squarely on the legal framework set out by Citizens United.
Whatever their genesis, super PACs have proliferated since 2010, and their influence has soared. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, they raised more than $828 million in the 2012 election cycle. And while well over half of super PAC donations in the cycle came from a tiny subset of wealthy individuals and families, for-profit businesses accounted for more than 17 percent of the aggregate super PAC haul. Thus far this cycle, which is still in its formative stage, super PACs have amassed more than $300 million.
If anything, the totals on direct corporate political giving are understated, as businesses are now allowed to donate to 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups that, unlike super PACs,are not required to publicly identify their benefactors. Political spending by such "dark money" organizations skyrocketed from less than $5.2 million in 2006 to more than $300 million in 2012.
Nor, as an article published last March by the Harvard Law Review contends, is there any commonsense reason to believe that either super PAC or dark money expenditures truly are made "independently" of political candidates. Just ask Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, who in 2011 and 2012 famously mocked the independent expenditure system in a hilarious set of late-night comedy sketches.
Or better still, if you can stomach it, listen to Donald Trump, the self-financed billionaire Republican presidential front-runner, who insists that every other candidate in the race has been bought and paid for by political donors.
6. The Supreme Court has established double standards for corporations and unions.
On the surface, the court's central holding in Citizens United applies equally to corporations and unions, permitting both under the First Amendment to spend unlimited general treasury funds on political campaigns. In other recent decisions, however, the court has dealt a body blow to public employee unions, the last bastion of organized labor in America, making it harder for unions to collect "fair-share" fees from government workers who elect on First Amendment grounds not to become full dues-paying members but nonetheless benefit from union contracts.
As I've written before in this column, a new Supreme Court case that will be argued this term--Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association--threatens to end the fair-share system once and for all, depleting union treasuries and turning the nation's entire public sector into one enormous "right-to-work" jurisdiction.
Corporations face no parallel obstacles or threats from the court.
7. Can anything be done?
In a Bloomberg Politics national poll released last month, "78 percent of those responding said the Citizens United ruling should be overturned, compared with 17 percent who called it a good decision."
The American people may be tired, confused and beaten down, but they aren't stupid when it comes to the role of money in politics. They know the system is corrupt and rigged on both sides of the political aisle, and they want the system changed. The critical question is how. Apart from symbolic gestures like Proposition 49, what else can we do?
I'll try to provide some answers in part two of this series.
-- 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 11 hours ago.
This is the first of a two-part series on the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and efforts to counter its impact on political campaign spending.
Within the next 90 days, the California Supreme Court will decide if a referendum should be placed on the November 2016 ballot asking voters whether they want to amend the federal Constitution to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's dreaded Citizens United ruling. The state panel heard oral arguments on the issue Oct. 6 and, according to press reports, is poised to green-light the measure, formally known as Proposition 49, just in time for the presidential election.
Drafted and sponsored by Democrats in the state's Senate and Assembly, the proposition was slated to appear on the midterm 2014 ballot but was delayed as a result of a lawsuit filed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Now, with the litigation all but complete, it's back on track.
Proposition 49 poses a lengthy but ultimately straightforward question:
"Shall the Congress of the United States propose, and the California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that the rights protected by the United States Constitution are the rights of natural persons only?"
The proposition is, of course, only advisory in nature. California voters can no more nullify the U.S. Supreme Court's seminal opinion on campaign finance than Rowan County, Ky., Clerk Kim Davis can overturn the high tribunal's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage. Still, the referendum will serve to galvanize protests and further action against a broken political process that Fred Wertheimer, the president of the public policy organization Democracy 21, has called a "system of legalized bribery."
In 2012, two other states--Colorado and Montana--ratified similar resolutions by overwhelming majorities. But the California plebiscite promises to dwarf each of those previous efforts--in publicity, intensity of debate, national focus and, above all, money spent by interest groups far and wide.
Here's a sampling of what you'll need to know to join the fray:
1. The Citizens United case began as a modest election law challenge that the Supreme Court dramatically expanded.
Citizens United is a conservative, nonprofit "social welfare" corporation organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It was founded in 1988 with seed money from the Koch brothers' financial network to promote the goals of "limited government, freedom of enterprise" ... and to "restore the founding fathers' vision of a free nation."
In December 2007, the company sued the Federal Election Commission in district court in Washington, D.C., after the FEC blocked it from airing "Hillary: the Movie," a documentary on cable video on-demand that it had produced about Hillary Clinton. The stumbling block to the group's cinematic ambitions was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold law), which prohibited corporations from funding "electioneering communications"--basically, politically-oriented radio and TV ads and broadcasts--to be shown within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days in advance of a general election if the broadcasts mentioned or referred to candidates for federal office by name.
Even before the passage of McCain-Feingold, corporations were precluded by laws dating back to the Progressive-era Tillman Act of 1907 from contributing money directly to federal candidates or making "independent expenditures" (spending not directly coordinated with candidates) from their general treasury funds to expressly advocate election outcomes. Section 203's electioneering blackout provisions were enacted to close perceived loopholes in earlier campaign finance laws as an extra safeguard against undue corporate influence. The section applied equally to labor unions but exempted media companies' news stories, commentaries and editorials.
In making its case to a three-judge district panel that was assigned to adjudicate the lawsuit, Citizens United didn't ask to have Section 203 declared unconstitutional on its face. Rather, it sought an injunction to stop the FEC from applying the section to its film. It also asked for a judicial declaration that the TV ads promoting "Hillary: The Movie" weren't really electioneering communications because the movie itself was a fact-based work concerned with vital legislative matters.
The lawsuit failed miserably. The district court ruled in favor of the FEC, finding that "Hillary: The Movie" was "susceptible to no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office. ..."
Undeterred by the setback, Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on March 24, 2009. There, the inquiry focused on the same narrow questions dealing with the application of Section 203 to "Hillary," not with the section's basic constitutionality. Most observers at the time expected an important but by no means transformational decision.
Then, something extraordinary happened. On June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court on its own motion restored the case to its October 2008 term calendar for re-argument. It also set a new hearing for Sept. 9, 2009, more than two months after the current court term had ended and three weeks before the next term was set to commence.
Even more extraordinarily, in a breathtaking act of judicial activism, the court dramatically expanded the scope of the case, requesting the parties to address the question of whether McCain-Feingold's electioneering provisions and the decades-old bans on corporate campaign expenditures were indeed unconstitutional.
Four months later, on Jan. 21, 2010, in a bitterly contested 5-4 majority decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court announced its historic decree. Section 203 was overturned, and the court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make unlimited "independent expenditures" on political campaigns.
2. Citizens United didn't create the doctrine of corporate personhood, but the decision applied the concept to political speech.
Citizens United is often criticized by progressives for creating the doctrine of "corporate personhood." This is the idea that, as Mitt Romney so ham-fistedly put it during the last presidential season, "corporations are people," entitled to the same rights and privileges as humans.
Actually, the doctrine of corporate personhood has been around since the 19th century. Over the years, courts have extended it to recognize some corporate rights--for example, the right to own property, the capacity to sue and be sued, and more recently the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment--but not others, such as the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. The doctrine is based on a legal fiction, and, as always, the Supreme Court remains the ultimate arbiter of the doctrine on constitutional issues.
In his majority opinion in Citizens United, Justice Kennedy never specifically used the word "personhood." Instead, he wrote that the First Amendment precludes government from discriminating against political speakers on the basis of their "corporate identity." Relying heavily on the 1976 case of Buckley v. Valeo--in which an earlier iteration of the court invoked the First Amendment to strike down monetary ceilings on independent expenditures made by individuals--Kennedy concluded that corporations were entitled to the same constitutional deference.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting for himself and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, explicitly took the majority to task over the personhood doctrine. In a stinging 90-page rebuke, Stevens reminded the majority that corporations aren't really human beings. Unlike natural persons, he charged, corporations "are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established." There was no compelling reason, in his view, to accord such nonpersons First Amendment status in the critical arena of campaign spending.
Four years after Citizens United, in 2014, the same five-justice majority disregarded Stevens' admonitions yet again in the Hobby Lobby case, recognizing the religious personhood of closely held corporations and upholding their faith-based right to deny female employees health insurance for contraception.
3. The Citizens United decision wasn't needed to prevent government censorship of speech.
Having embraced the fiction of corporations as people, Kennedy and the Citizens United majority segued easily to the next stage in their analysis--that lifting the prohibitions on corporate expenditures was needed to prevent censorship and bans on speech.
Nothing, of course, could have been further from the truth. Corporations have no messages, political or otherwise, to convey apart from the messages of the people who run them.
Notwithstanding the strictures of McCain-Feingold, wealthy individuals were free then, as now, to fund electioneering communications at any point in an election cycle, limited only by the size of their wallets. Corporations were also permitted to establish political action committees for such purposes. At the time it launched its lawsuit, Citizens United operated its own PAC--the Citizens United Political Victory Fund--which was, and remains, registered with the FEC.
But corporate PACs are pesky and sometimes inconvenient vehicles, subject to regulations that restrict their ability to solicit funds to management-level employees, shareholders and their families. In addition, contributions to PACs must be voluntary, and federal law limits the amount of money an individual can donate to a PAC as well as the amount a PAC can contribute to any single candidate. PACs are also required to keep detailed financial records and disclose the identities of their major donors.
The Kennedy majority found the inconvenience argument persuasive. Rather than require Citizens United to use its PAC to broadcast "Hillary" or carve out an exception to Section 203 for nonprofits (as the Stevens dissenters also suggested), the majority chose to alter the long-established political rules for all corporations, large and small.
4. Citizens United extended the equation of money and speech and radically restricted the concept of political corruption.
Just as Citizens United did not create the doctrine of corporate personhood, the decision was not the first Supreme Court ruling to equate money with political speech. That honor, once again, goes to Buckley v. Valeo, in which the court held that a "restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached." Citizens United, however, expanded the domain of political money from individuals to corporations.
Citizens United also drew on Buckley to gut the meaning of political corruption as a permissible basis for campaign finance regulation.
As in Buckley, the Citizens United majority distinguished between campaign contributions made directly to candidates and independent expenditures. Contribution limits, Kennedy declared, could be justified to prevent quid pro quo bribery of candidates. Expenditures, however, posed no such dangers. Nor could regulations in either category be warranted by the goal of leveling the political playing field or countering the distorting effects of wealth or income inequality in politics.
Last year, the court used the same reasoning in McCutcheon v. FEC, striking down the aggregate biennial limits on money individuals can contribute directly to federal candidates, parties and PACs. McCutcheon left intact--at least for the time being--limits on the amount of money people can give to any single candidate.
5. Citizens United didn't establish super PACs but it gave rise to them and opened the door to dark money.
Contrary to popular lore, Citizens United didn't explicitly authorize the creation of super PACs, the expenditure-only entities that cannot give money directly to candidates but can raise unlimited sums from individuals, corporations and unions to spend "independently" on behalf of candidates.
Super PACs were actually authorized by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in its March2010 opinion in the case of Speechnow.org v. FEC. The circuit court, however, based its decision squarely on the legal framework set out by Citizens United.
Whatever their genesis, super PACs have proliferated since 2010, and their influence has soared. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, they raised more than $828 million in the 2012 election cycle. And while well over half of super PAC donations in the cycle came from a tiny subset of wealthy individuals and families, for-profit businesses accounted for more than 17 percent of the aggregate super PAC haul. Thus far this cycle, which is still in its formative stage, super PACs have amassed more than $300 million.
If anything, the totals on direct corporate political giving are understated, as businesses are now allowed to donate to 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups that, unlike super PACs,are not required to publicly identify their benefactors. Political spending by such "dark money" organizations skyrocketed from less than $5.2 million in 2006 to more than $300 million in 2012.
Nor, as an article published last March by the Harvard Law Review contends, is there any commonsense reason to believe that either super PAC or dark money expenditures truly are made "independently" of political candidates. Just ask Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, who in 2011 and 2012 famously mocked the independent expenditure system in a hilarious set of late-night comedy sketches.
Or better still, if you can stomach it, listen to Donald Trump, the self-financed billionaire Republican presidential front-runner, who insists that every other candidate in the race has been bought and paid for by political donors.
6. The Supreme Court has established double standards for corporations and unions.
On the surface, the court's central holding in Citizens United applies equally to corporations and unions, permitting both under the First Amendment to spend unlimited general treasury funds on political campaigns. In other recent decisions, however, the court has dealt a body blow to public employee unions, the last bastion of organized labor in America, making it harder for unions to collect "fair-share" fees from government workers who elect on First Amendment grounds not to become full dues-paying members but nonetheless benefit from union contracts.
As I've written before in this column, a new Supreme Court case that will be argued this term--Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association--threatens to end the fair-share system once and for all, depleting union treasuries and turning the nation's entire public sector into one enormous "right-to-work" jurisdiction.
Corporations face no parallel obstacles or threats from the court.
7. Can anything be done?
In a Bloomberg Politics national poll released last month, "78 percent of those responding said the Citizens United ruling should be overturned, compared with 17 percent who called it a good decision."
The American people may be tired, confused and beaten down, but they aren't stupid when it comes to the role of money in politics. They know the system is corrupt and rigged on both sides of the political aisle, and they want the system changed. The critical question is how. Apart from symbolic gestures like Proposition 49, what else can we do?
I'll try to provide some answers in part two of this series.
-- 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 11 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
