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

Hillary Clinton's Disturbing Comments Calling Iranians Her "Enemies"

0
0
So, the first Democratic presidential debate has come and gone. And while there were no major gaffes from the two front-runners, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, Clinton actually said something that really bothered me. Late in the debate, channeling a famous FDR quote, CNN's Anderson Cooper asked "which enemy are you most proud of?"

Clinton replied "In addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians, probably the Republicans."

Putting aside the fact that Hillary Clinton has received a lot of donations from big pharmaceutical companies, that's a whole other post, when she said the Iranians are her enemies, frankly, that sent a chill down my spine.

The Iranians? Who exactly is she talking about? Is she talking about all Iranians?
There are 78 million people in Iran. 78 million. Are all 78 million of them Hillary Clinton's enemies? If so, that's a lot of enemies.

And look, to be fair, she probably meant the government of Iran. But that's not what she said. She said THE Iranians.

A lot of people when talking about the 2016 campaign, say that Hillary Clinton seems the most "presidential." And she's certainly smart. She certainly has experience. But, I'm sorry, that comment about Iran, that's not presidential. That's Bush league. And when I say Bush league, I'm specifically talking about George W. Bush. Like when he called Iran part of the Axis of Evil.

We all know Hillary Clinton is a hawk. I don't need to remind you, Hillary Clinton did, in fact, support George W. Bush's war of aggression in Iraq. A war that caused so much death and destruction. Which destabilized the Middle East. Which led to the current rise of ISIS. But, if Hillary Clinton is going to be saber rattling, I, at least, hope that she would choose her language more carefully.

You want to say the Iranian government is your enemy? Fine. The Ayatollah is your enemy? Fine. I, personally, think that's bad diplomacy. But, fine. The Iranian government is your enemy. You're tough. I get it.

But think of the rest of the 78 million Iranians, who saw one of the front-runners for the President of the United States of America, not Donald Trump, not some Republican war monger, but one of the Democratic party front-runners just call them, ALL of them enemies. Her enemies.

What about Iranian Americans? Are they Hillary Clinton's enemies, as well?

If you care about peace. If you care about Islamophobia in America, language like this should really concern you.

-- 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.

The Democrats' Presidential Debates: Underway and Underwhelming

0
0
Who thought this up - Giving a private corporation (CNN) control of a presidential debate? In the most recent Democratic presidential debate, CNN controlled which candidates were invited, who asked what questions, and the location, Las Vegas - the glittering, gambling center of America. This is a mirror image of the control Fox News exercised during its Republican candidates' circus. Corporatism aside, the debate with Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee was not a debate. With few exceptions - most notably Hillary Clinton going after Bernie Sanders on gun control, about which she is reborn - the stage was the setting for a series of interview questions to each candidate by Anderson Cooper and his colleagues.

Granted, the quality of the questions was higher than has been the case with other debate spectacles in recent years. Yet CNN's self-censorship - in part reflected in the content of the questions and the favored positioning given to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders - was not obscured.

For example, our country has been plagued by a corporate crime wave from Wall Street to Houston. These crimes are regular occurrences, often with recidivist corporations such as giant oil, drug, auto, banking, munitions producers, and mining companies corrupting our politics. Such chronic violations are reported more often than they are properly prosecuted.

Corporate crimes affect American as workers, consumers, taxpayers, and community residents. Unfortunately, corporate criminal law is woefully weak, prosecutions are minor, and enforcement budgets are scandalously tiny. Moreover, corporate lobbyists ensure that corporate privileges and immunities are preserved and expanded in corporate-occupied Washington, D.C.

Somehow, in presidential debate after presidential debate "corporate crime and punishment" or "law and order for corporations" almost never get mentioned either by questioner or candidate. Bernie Sanders - break this taboo in the next five scheduled Democratic debates.

Another perennial omission is the question of how the candidates plan to give more power to the people, since all of them are saying that Washington isn't working. I have always thought that this is the crucial question voters should ask every candidate for public office. Imagine asking a candidate:: "How are you specifically going to make 'we the people' a political reality, and how are you going to give more voice and power to people like me over elected representatives like you?" Watch politicians squirm over this basic inquiry.

The most remarkable part of the Democrats' "debate" was how Hillary Clinton got away with her assertions and then got rewarded - though not in the subsequent polls, but by the pundits and malleable critics like the Washington Post's usually cynical Dana Milbank who fell very hard for the Clintonian blarney.

Well-prepared and battle-tested in many political debates, Hillary knows how to impress conventional political reporters, while limiting their follow-up questions. She started with her latest political transformation early on. "I don't take a backseat to anyone when it comes to progressive commitment....I'm a progressive."

And the moon is made of blue cheese. Hillary Clinton, a progressive? She is the arch Wall Street corporatist, who hobnobs with criminal firms like Goldman Sachs for $250,000 a speech, and goes around the country telling closed-door business conventions what they want to hear for $5,000 a minute!

As a senator, she did not challenge the large banks and insurance companies whose avarice, willful deceptions, and thefts set the stage for the economy's collapse in 2008-2009. In fact she supported Bill Clinton's deregulation of Wall Street with its resulting painful consequences for single mothers and children who suffered the most from the deep recession.

A progressive would not have waited year after year, while receiving the entreaties of women's and children's assistance groups to endorse a modest minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over three years by her own Democratic Party in Congress. She finally took the plunge and endorsed it in April 2014, during a speech to the United Methodist Women in Boston. If the Democratic lovefest were a real debate, Bernie Sanders, who voiced domestic progressive positions all evening long, would have intervened and sent her packing. What everlasting hubris do the Clintons exude! (See Peter Schweizer's new book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped make Bill and Hillary Rich. Harper Collins, 2015)

As an embedded militarist, during her tenure as Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton never saw a boondoggle, obsolete weapons system, or boomeranging war she didn't like. She delivered belligerent speeches against China, and scared Secretary of Defense Robert Gates by overruling his opposition through her White House contracts to overthrow the Libyan dictator. This illegal war opened up the savage chaos, bloodshed, and havoc in Libya that continued to spread into huge areas of central Africa.

Hillary's war didn't seem to interest anyone on stage except former Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (D-RI) - an anti-war stalwart - who was promptly marginalized despite making much sense in his brief declarations.

Senator Bernie Sanders missed opportunities to highlight Hillary Clinton's true corporatist and militarist identity. Most unfortunately, she placed him on the defensive with the socialist/capitalist questioning. Next time, Bernie Sanders should tell the millions of voters watching the "debates" that local socialism is as American as apple pie, going back to the 18th Century, by mentioning post offices, public highways, public drinking water systems, public libraries, public schools, public universities, and public electric companies as examples.

He then could add that global corporations are destroying competitive capitalism with their corporate state or crony capitalism, despised by both conservatives and progressives.

There was one question - "which enemy are you most proud of?" - that Hillary Clinton did not anticipate and had about a minute to ponder. Her answer: "Well in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians." Iranians? An entire people, her enemy? Is this what her self-touted, foreign affairs experience has taught her?

For more information on what debates could be, visit www.opendebates.org.

-- 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 8 hours ago.

Careful Calculus Guides Obama Administration in Health Insurance Projections

0
0
Supporters and opponents of the Affordable Care Act have played an elaborate numbers game in assessing the program’s prospects. Reported by NYTimes.com 7 hours ago.

Friday Talking Points -- Debate Talking Point Rundown

0
0
After two seemingly-endless Republican debates, this week the Democratic candidates for president finally got their turn to face off against each other on national television. While the audience was smaller (since Donald Trump was not on stage), it was still a lot bigger than most political debates in the past -- over 15 million people watched on CNN, and a further million livestreamed it. This is up from the usual audience of 2-to-5 million, it should be noted, from years past.

Because of the importance of the first debate of the season for Democrats, we're devoting the entire column today to scrutinizing the various talking points (good and bad) delivered by the candidates. This means this introduction is going to be possibly the shortest ever in one of these columns.

In one paragraph, here's all the interesting things Republicans said this week, before we get to the Democratic news. A second House Republican reinforced the quote from Kevin McCarthy on the true purpose of the Benghazi hearings, baldly stating: "I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton." Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the committee, had his own off-the-cuff comment on his fellow Republicans: "I think the House is bordering on ungovernable right now.... Being speaker is a very difficult job. We need to have a family conversation and sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before that conversation starts. We're getting close." His sentiments were echoed for the party at large by the chairman of the Republican National Committee, who admitted: "I think we're cooked as a party for quite a while as a party if we don't win in 2016." He followed this up with: "I mean, we don't exist as a national party if we don't win in 2016. You can't compete 16 years out of the White House, it's just not possible." And to end on a humorous note (instead of all this Republican doom-and-gloom), Karl Rove has a new phrase to describe Bernie Sanders: "an elderly, dyspeptic Bilbo Baggins." OK, who can come up with the funniest Middle Earth description of Karl Rove? Share your thoughts in the comments!

OK, enough Republican follies. Let's get on with our recap of the Democratic debate. Warning: this is going to be a long column, folks.

 

We're not going to get into the fracas between Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters over who "won" this week's debate. Instead, we're just going to hand out two *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* awards, one each to Clinton and Sanders.

Before we get to their awards, however, it is worth noting that, in a general way, the Democratic debate was much more focused on policy and discussions of the issues than anything we've seen on the Republican side. It was an impressive debate, especially when contrasted with the free-for-alls which have happened among Republicans. But then they're handicapped by having a frontrunner named Donald Trump, so this isn't really a fair comparison.

We're not big fans in general of declaring winners in debates, because we think it is actually pretty rare when one candidate dominates the field in any significant way. Most political debates are full of nuance and sliding scales of effective speaking. We do admit that we're much more inclined to declare losers in debates, because it is often much more obvious who had a bad night (which we'll get to in the next section in more detail). Having said all of that, though, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had a good night this Tuesday, and both have energized their respective campaigns because of their performance. That's impressive for both of them, and we'll all just have to wait until the polls come out (early next week, likely) to see whether the debate had any effect on their relative support from Democratic voters.

A bad debate performance could have been quite costly to either Clinton or Sanders. Clinton needed to remind a lot of Democrats why she's a formidable candidate worth supporting. Sanders needed to introduce himself to millions of viewers who might have heard his name but had never heard him speak before. Both candidates easily cleared those bars. Clinton finally got to talk about something other than Benghazi and her emails, and Bernie laid out the core reasons he is running (and doing so surprisingly well).

Hillary Clinton did a great job of reminding people how exciting her 2008 campaign was for millions of Americans (including millions of women aching to see the first female president). She gave a lot of good reasons for Democrats to support her, and she continued a new openness which began a few weeks ago (which included appearing on the Ellen DeGeneres show and Saturday Night Live). She's working on showing some emotion and passion and other more human qualities, and doing a pretty good job of it if the debate is any indication. She wasn't weaselly (or "lawyerly" if you prefer) at any time during the debate, with the possible exception of disavowing any previous support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. She showed off her debating skills -- something a lot of people had forgotten about -- especially when brushing off Martin O'Malley by simply answering "No" when asked to respond to his critique over her emails. One could easily imagine her doing well debating just about any of the Republicans running, after watching Hillary Tuesday night. We'll all have to wait a little longer to see what the polling says, but our guess is that Hillary went a long way towards reversing her recent slide in the polls of Democratic voters. She had a very strong night, and the public will likely react favorably.

Bernie Sanders stole the night with one quip: "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails." If this debate is remembered in the lore of American politics beyond next month, this will be the line everyone remembers. It was really a sweeping indictment of the media itself, although that part was edited out to get the line down to a soundbite. Beyond one very good line, though, Sanders did a good job of laying out his rationale for running for president. You might sum it up as: "The game is rigged." While the word "populism" has been tossed around with abandon the past few years, Bernie is the real deal. He's a latter-day Roosevelt (either one) when it comes to taking on Wall Street and the banking industry. His message is a simple one, too: "It doesn't have to be this way." Sanders laid out a positive vision for the future, where the middle class get a few breaks -- which will be paid for by taking some massive breaks away from, as Bernie puts it, the "millionaires and billionaires." Sanders had one job to do at this debate, and it was to introduce himself and his campaign to a whole lot of Democrats who haven't been paying close attention to the race yet. He easily did so, and got his core message out. Sanders was able to do so for two large reasons: there weren't that many people on the stage, and he is polling so well he's the only other viable candidate on the stage next to Hillary. If either of those things weren't true, the media would likely have relegated him to "ask him two questions, and then shut off his microphone the rest of the time" status (see: Lincoln Chafee).

So we're wimping out in the awards-choosing department this week, and we're awarding a *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* to both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, for their strong debate performances this Tuesday. It'll be another month before they debate each other again, but so far they both have shown America why they're running and why you should get excited about their campaigns. Well done, to both Clinton and Sanders.

[We don't as a rule link to campaign websites. We realize Bernie Sanders is a sitting senator and therefore there is a non-political contact link we could give (so you could let him know you appreciate his efforts), but we consider this to be an unfair advantage when also giving Hillary Clinton an award, so you'll have to search contact info for both candidates this week, sorry.]

 

There were three clear losers from this week's debate. Lincoln Chafee looked and sounded a bit lost on the stage, and likely didn't do his campaign any good at all. Jim Webb never adequately answered why he's running as a Democrat, since many of his positions are a lot closer to Republican ideas. Oh, and he killed a guy in 'Nam, there was that, too.

But the third loser of the debate was not Martin O'Malley (the other guy on the stage), but a man who wasn't even there -- Vice President Joe Biden. Biden's "maybe I will, maybe I won't" act is getting a little old, even among the breathless "journalists" who have been hyping the Biden story all week, in sheer desperation for political conflict among Democrats. "Biden entering the race would make it so much more interesting to report on," they all sadly tell each other, to no avail (at least, as of this writing). Biden remains coy.

This coyness is, as noted, getting pretty stale, which is why we're going to give the *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* award to Joe this time around. Biden massively disappointed CNN, who actually had a podium ready just in case he showed up at the last minute. The Biden-watch got completely ridiculous, with reporters camped out outside the gates of Biden's house in Delaware. They even followed him to a local sporting event, where he laughingly refused to talk to them.

Biden is also disappointing his own supporters -- those who would whole-heartedly support him if he ran. He's broken through a number of his own self-imposed deadlines for making his mind up (which started with "the end of the summer"), and fatigue is setting in even among those who would enthusiastically vote for Biden.

Biden is also (obviously) disappointing Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and their legions of supporters. The race right now is pretty clear -- a two-candidate contest with clear divisions between their agendas. Biden getting in would complicate this, although nobody can confidently say exactly how. Biden would take support from both candidates, although perhaps more of them from Clinton's camp. Would this make it easier for Bernie, or Hillary? Nobody really knows.

Biden's coyness is injecting uncertainty into a situation that should be getting firmer, not squishier. You can almost imagine a future news story, two months down the road, beginning: "As the Democratic candidates prepare for their third debate during the Christmas shopping season, the big question on everyone's lips is whether Joe Biden will surprise everyone by jumping in the race."

Now, we're not taking a position here on whether Joe Biden should make a third run for president. The decision is entirely up to him. But we are getting more and more disappointed in the waiting game. Which is why Joe Biden is the clear choice for the *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* award this week.

It's time to put up or shut up, Joe. Being coy was fun for a while, but it's now gotten old. If you are ready to run, then say so. If you are going to sit it out, we need to know that too. But at some point (which many would say we've already reached) your continued refusal to commit begins to hurt your party as a whole.

[Contact Vice President Joe Biden on his White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions. Or lack thereof.]

 

*Volume 366* (10/16/15)

As promised, we're scrapping our normal format today to examine all the talking points from the Democratic debate. When you think about it, the concept of debating is really nothing more than duelling talking points, trying to score points off of a clever turn of phrase, backed up by the facts. So how could we attempt to come up with our own Democratic talking points this week, when there were so many Tuesday night? We're going to review the ones we chose (and even though this was long, we had to pick and choose among many others which were probably equally worthy of discussion), in the order they were uttered. Some benefited the candidates who spoke them, some had exactly the opposite effect. For those interested, a full transcript (where we took these quotes from) is available on the Washington Post website. The only editing of any comments we did was to fix minor typos and to remove extraneous interruptions by other candidates or the moderators.

The first good talking point of the night was delivered by Hillary Clinton. When asked "are you a progressive, or are you a moderate?" Clinton answered:



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, which insures 8 million kids. So I have a long history of getting things done, rooted in the same values I've always had.



Look for that "I'm a progressive who likes to get things done" line to become a staple of the Clinton campaign. She positions herself as a pragmatic progressive, to set herself apart from Bernie Sanders (or Elizabeth Warren, for that matter).

Bernie Sanders had the next notable moment, when asked by the great-great-great grandson of one of the biggest robber barons in American history (Cornelius Vanderbilt) what this whole "calling yourself a socialist" thing was all about. When asked if he didn't consider himself a capitalist (again, by a scion of the Vanderbilt family), Sanders answered:



Do I consider myself part of the casino-capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little; by which Wall Street's greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don't. I believe in a society where all people do well. Not just a handful of billionaires.



This will obviously be an issue for Sanders, so it was good to see he had a reasonable answer to the charge. Look for this answer to get even sharper, as his campaign progresses.

This brings us to the first talking point which had a negative effect. There were many moments during the evening when Democratic viewers wondered just what the heck Jim Webb was talking about, none more so than the first. In the middle of an answer defending himself against a 2006 quote (calling affirmative action "state-sponsored racism") Webb came out with the following:



And as a clarification, I have always supported affirmative action for African-Americans. That's the way the program was originally designed because of their unique history in this country, with slavery and the Jim Crow laws that followed. What I have discussed a number of times is the idea that when we create diversity programs that include everyone, quote, "of color," other than whites, struggling whites like the families in the Appalachian mountains, we're not being true to the Democratic Party principle of elevating the level of consciousness among our people about the hardships that a lot of people who happen to be have -- by culture, by the way.



Jim Webb, champion of white people... Democrat? Wow. We know he's from Virginia and all, but what is this, 1963? Democrats haven't really tried the "Southern Strategy" since then, so it's absolutely baffling for Webb to make the attempt in this day and age.

OK, moving right along, Hillary Clinton got in a good shot (pun regretted) at Sanders over gun control. She opened herself up to an immediate attack by doing so (anyone on the stage could have thrown it back at her as "the Iraq War authorization wasn't all that complicated either"), but nobody picked up on it. This was the strongest back-and-forth between Clinton and Sanders all night. When asked if Bernie Sanders was "tough enough on guns," Clinton responded:



No, not at all. I think that we have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence. This has gone on too long and it's time the entire country stood up against the NRA. The majority of our country supports background checks, and even the majority of gun owners do. Senator Sanders did vote five times against the Brady bill. Since it was passed, more than 2 million prohibited purchases have been prevented. He also did vote, as he said, for this immunity provision. I voted against it. I was in the Senate at the same time. It wasn't that complicated to me. It was pretty straightforward to me that he was going to give immunity to the only industry in America. Everybody else has to be accountable, but not the gun manufacturers. And we need to stand up and say: Enough of that. We're not going to let it continue.



Martin O'Malley had one of his best moments of the night during this exchange, again at Bernie's expense. After Sanders used the "my state is rural, gun control doesn't sell well there" defense, O'Malley reinforced his earlier statement of his own record in Maryland ("We passed comprehensive gun safety legislation, not by looking at the pollings or looking at what the polls said. We actually did it.") with possibly the best answer he had all night.



Have you ever been to the Eastern Shore? Have you ever been to Western Maryland? We were able to pass this and still respect the hunting traditions of people who live in our rural areas. And we did it by leading with principle, not by pandering to the NRA and backing down to the NRA.



Later on, Lincoln Chafee did bring up Clinton's vote for the Iraq War (after Bernie Sanders called the war "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country"), but she was prepared for such criticism and answered back:



Well, I recall very well being on a debate stage, I think, about 25 times with then Senator Obama, debating this very issue. After the election, he asked me to become Secretary of State. He valued my judgment, and I spent a lot of time with him in the Situation Room, going over some very difficult issues.



Clinton makes a good point, and she makes it well.

One thing worth mentioning in here somewhere was Webb's worst showing of the night, which happened over and over again throughout the evening. Webb tried a losing trick -- attack the moderators for not allowing him equal time. He kept repeating "I've been waiting for over ten minutes" in various ways. Someone should tell Webb that in today's television debate world, the only way for a minor candidate to get extra time is to just jump in (preferably with a snappy talking point) and say it, over the moderator's objection.

Clinton was eventually asked about her emails and the Benghazi committee, naturally, and she used the ammunition the Republicans had so thoughtfully provided:



But let's just take a minute here and point out that this committee is basically an arm of the Republican National Committee. It is a partisan vehicle, as admitted by the House Republican majority leader, Mr. McCarthy, to drive down my poll numbers. Big surprise. And that's what they have attempted to do. I am still standing. I am happy to be part of this debate.



Again, obviously a rehearsed line, but Clinton did a great job delivering it. The Clintons have a long history of fending off partisan right-wing attacks, and they've done so pretty spectacularly in the past. Clinton reminds us of this and her "I am still standing" might have been her best line of the night.

Of course, this directly led to Bernie Sanders's best line of the night. Sadly, the meat of his answer -- which quite rightly puts the blame on the media themselves -- has mostly been cut out of the endless loops of debate highlights, but it's worth hearing his response to Clinton in full:



Let me say -- let me say something that may not be great politics. But I think the secretary is right, and that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails. You know? The middle class -- Anderson, and let me say something about the media, as well. I go around the country, talk to a whole lot of people. Middle class in this country is collapsing. We have 27 million people living in poverty. We have massive wealth and income inequality. Our trade policies have cost us millions of decent jobs. The American people want to know whether we're going to have a democracy or an oligarchy as a result of Citizens Union. Enough of the e-mails. Let's talk about the real issues facing America.



Lincoln Chafee was then invited to attack Clinton over her emails and her ethics and credibility, which he gladly did. Anderson Cooper then asked Clinton if she'd like to respond, and she brilliantly left it at "No." Lincoln Chafee, to be blunt, is a candidate nobody's worried about. The crowd seemed to agree, and applauded Clinton's refusal to engage with Chafee.

The question of "Do black lives matter or do all lives matter" was brought up to a few of the candidates, starting with Bernie Sanders. Sanders, obviously, has had time to improve on his handling of the whole "Black Lives Matter" movement. His answer:



Black lives matter. And the reason -- the reason those words matter is the African-American community knows that on any given day some innocent person like Sandra Bland can get into a car, and then three days later she's going to end up dead in jail, or their kids are going to get shot. We need to combat institutional racism from top to bottom, and we need major, major reforms in a broken criminal justice system in which we have more people in jail than China. And I intended to tackle that issue. To make sure that our people have education and jobs rather than jail cells.



Bernie's was the strongest statement of the night on the issue, in fact.

The debate eventually turned to Wall Street, breaking up the big banks, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Bernie had the strongest position on the stage on this issue, and Clinton gave one of the weakest answers of the night in response:



I respect the passion and intensity. I represented Wall Street, as a senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007 -- before the big crash that we had -- and I basically said: "Cut it out! Quit foreclosing on homes! Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors."

I took on the Bush administration for the same thing. So I have thought deeply and long about what we're gonna do to do exactly what I think both the senator and the governor want, which is to rein in and stop this risk.

And my plan would have the potential of actually sending the executives to jail. Nobody went to jail after $100 billion in fines were paid.



Hoo boy. Not only does she brag about representing Wall Street, she veers off into a strange story of how she -- completely ineffectually, obviously -- gave those Wall Street bankers a strict talking-to. Bernie pounced on this one, and got off another masterful talking point:



In my view, Secretary Clinton, you do not -- Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress. And we have gotta break off these banks. Going to them and saying: "Please, do the right thing" is kind of naive.



"Wall Street regulates Congress" -- classic Bernie! Look for that in a Sanders television ad, coming soon.

Clinton, at one point, gave an answer that can only be described as "Clintonian." On her shifting position on the Keystone XL pipeline, Clinton said:



You know, we know that if you are learning, you're gonna change your position. I never took a position on Keystone until I took a position on Keystone.



We don't know about anybody else, but that made us cringe.

Speaking of cringe-worthy, Lincoln Chafee had his worst moment of the night when asked about the bill overturning Glass-Steagall. Here's the exchange, with moderator Anderson Cooper:



*Q:* Governor Chafee, you have attacked Secretary Clinton for being too close to Wall Street banks. In 1999 you voted for the very bill that made banks bigger.

*LINCOLN CHAFEE:* The Glass-Steagall was my very first vote, I'd just arrived, my dad had died in office, I was appointed to the office, it was my very first vote.

*Q:* Are you saying you didn't know what you were voting for?

*CHAFEE:* I'd just arrived at the Senate. I think we'd get some takeovers, and that was one. It was my very first vote, and it was 92-5. It was the...

*Q:* Well, with all due respect, Governor...

*CHAFEE:* But let me just say...

*Q:* ... what does that say about you that you're casting a vote for something you weren't really sure about?

*CHAFEE:* I think you're being a little rough. I'd just arrived at the United States Senate. I'd been mayor of my city. My dad had died. I'd been appointed by the governor. It was the first vote and it was 90-5, because it was a conference report.



This was perhaps Cooper's finest moment of the night, as he reacted quickly when he realized the candidate had walked into a wall, and immediately called him on it.

Sanders then had a good run, getting in succinct answers explaining his proposals for free public college for all (and why it is morally justified to make this investment) and his plan to expand Social Security (where he got in a subtle dig at President Obama):



When the Republicans -- when the Republicans in the Congress and some Democrats were talking about cutting Social Security and benefits for disabled veterans, for the so-called chained CPI, I founded a caucus called the Defending Social Security Caucus. My view is that when you have millions of seniors in this country trying to get by -- and I don't know how they do on $11,000, $12,000, $13,000 a year -- you don't cut Social Security, you expand it. And the way you expand it is by lifting the cap on taxable incomes so that you do away with the absurdity of a millionaire paying the same amount into the system as somebody making $118,000. You do that, Social Security is solvent until 2061 and you can expand benefits.



Sanders also had good moments when it was noted he was the only one on the stage to vote against the Patriot Act, and when he vowed to shut down the NSA surveillance programs that infringe on our constitutional rights. But one of his best lines came when asked to explain what he meant about bringing "revolution" to American politics. Bernie was ready for this question, obviously:



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.



Hillary, towards the end, got in a good line of her own, when asked why Democrats should "embrace an insider" like Clinton:



Well, I can't think of anything more of an outsider than electing the first woman president, but I'm not just running because I would be the first woman president.



As a talking point, that's pretty superb. Political junkies tend to sneer at the whole "first woman" thing, thinking to themselves smugly "that was a thing back when she ran in 2008, it's not a big deal now." They couldn't be more wrong. "First woman" is going to generate an immense amount of excitement for Clinton during the campaign, and her answer perfectly encapsulated this.

Both Clinton and Sanders got a moment to shine on the subject of family leave (where they largely shared the same sentiments), and then there was a round of "who is the biggest political enemy you've made" (with a bizarre answer about a Vietnamese soldier he killed, from Jim Webb).

But the crowning moment of the night -- a brilliant answer that, if scripted in advance, shows an amazing amount of forethought -- came when Martin O'Malley delivered his closing statement. Again, if this wasn't ad-libbed, it certainly sounded like it was:



I am very, very grateful to have been able to be on this stage with this distinguished group of candidates tonight. And what you heard tonight, Anderson, was a very, very -- and all of you watching at home -- was a very, very different debate than from the sort of debate you heard from the two presidential Republican debates. On this stage -- on this stage, you didn't hear anyone denigrate women, you didn't hear anyone make racist comments about new American immigrants, you didn't hear anyone speak ill of another American because of their religious belief. What you heard instead on this stage tonight was an honest search for the answers that will move our country forward.



Brilliant! Although Clinton tried multiple times during the debate to turn the discussion to the vast differences between Democrats and Republicans on all sorts of issues, O'Malley's closing comment did so much more effectively than anything Clinton said.

OK, that's it for the debate rundown. If you've read this far, I congratulate your stamina. We probably won't give subsequent debates the full-on treatment we did today, but we did feel it was important to parse the first Democratic debate of the season. Next week, we'll be back to normal, and then in two weeks we'll have our special Hallowe'en "scary stories for left and right" edition (a yearly tradition for us, complete with Jack-o-lanterns!).

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

 

-- 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 6 hours ago.

Want Affordable Cyber Insurance? Healthy Cyber Security Helps

0
0
After another year of historic data breaches, the cost of cyber insurance is spiking, especially for health insurers and retailers, according to a Reuters report earlier this week. Global Digital Forensics’ founder expands on the report with industry insight on what businesses can do to help make cyber insurance a more attractive option.

New York, NY (PRWEB) October 17, 2015

On Monday, October 12th, Reuters published a report on the rocketing premiums of cyber insurance, concluding that, “The price of cyber coverage - which helps cover costs like forensic investigations, credit monitoring, legal fees and settlements - varies widely, depending on the strength of a company's security, but the overall trend is sharply up.”

To Joe Caruso, founder and CEO/CTO of Global Digital Forensics (GDF), a premier national provider of cyber security solutions headquartered in New York City, the caveat in that very sentence, “depending on the strength of a company's security,” should be front and center for any business even remotely contemplating cyber insurance, because it is the only controllable factor when trying to negotiate a realistic premium.

IT’S ALL ABOUT RISK

“Just like any type of insurance, premiums always boil down to one thing for insurers – the risk involved. And therein lies the rub," says Caruso. "In our experience assessing cyber threats and risk, far too many businesses really have no idea what threats they may be vulnerable to, or just how vulnerable they are, and honestly, it’s also fairly new ground for the insurance industry. So correctly calculating risk is going to be the first big hurdle that needs to be cleared. Because in the end, a cyber insurance policy is going to have to cover a lot of ground, from direct monetary losses which can be fairly straightforward, to the longer-term-impact things like a tarnished reputation and lost customer trust can have, all of which will be unique to each and every client. They will also have to cover things like business interruption, extortion, sabotage, IP (Intellectual Property) theft, data theft, client exposure, reporting costs and much more. So obviously it is not realistic to expect premiums to come cheap, it’s just not going to happen.”

CYBER RISK INSURANCE DOESN’T REPLACE CYBER SECURITY

“One thing that scares me about cyber insurance is the possibility that it could be seen by some as some kind of magic bullet that makes the need for the time and resources to develop and maintain a fundamentally sound cyber security posture unnecessary, because just like technology itself proves, human nature gravitates towards ease and convenience, and if companies start thinking of cyber risk insurance as an easy and convenient replacement to bonafide and proven cyber security practices because now they’ll be ‘covered’ against losses, some long, dark days are coming,” Caruso warns.

INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR THE HEALTHY OR THE SICK ARE ALWAYS WORLDS APART

“If a business is even contemplating cyber risk insurance, they better first get all their ducks in a row, especially with the costs for coverage soaring," says Caruso. "Think of it just like health insurance. Someone that is healthy, keeps themselves in great shape by exercising, eating right, avoiding unhealthy habits and getting regular checkups is going to be paying far less in premiums than someone who does not, because obviously the risk chart says the latter is a much greater risk and the chances the insurer will have to make a large payout are exponentially higher. That’s where companies like ours can make a huge difference, not just in helping to drastically reduce an organization’s insurance risk profile and putting a huge dent in premiums, but also in the daily battle against cyber criminals to thwart the vast majority of attacks before they ever happen, and helping clients effectively and efficiently manage the emergency response process if the unthinkable does manage to occur, like an APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) or zero day attack. Our professional vulnerability assessments let clients know exactly where they stand in relation to today’s threat landscape, from weaknesses in policies and procedures based on their business model, operations and unique internal data landscape, to regulatory compliance issues. Then we move on to our proven penetration testing, where we take on the role of real-world black hat hackers to uncover any weaknesses that can be exploited, like susceptibility to social engineering, holes in public facing endpoints, outdated or unpatched systems and networks, internal threats, application security, mistakes in how WiFi networks are managed and how digital devices like smartphones and tablets are being controlled, managed and utilized, and a long list of other potential shortcomings. In the end, we will not only help an organization save money on cyber risk insurance premiums if they decide to go that route, but we will make them much more ready to face today’s cyber threats head on, and quite possibly eliminate the need to ever have to make a claim in the first place. Now that’s smart business.”

PROVEN SOLUTIONS TO DEFEND AGAINST CYBER THREATS

*Global Digital Forensics is a recognized industry leader in the fields of computer forensics, cyber security and emergency incident response, with years of experience assisting clients in the government, banking, healthcare, education and corporate arenas. For a free consultation with a Global Digital Forensics specialist, call 1-800-868-8189 about tailoring a cost-effective plan which will meet your unique needs, without wasting resources on solutions you simply don’t need. Emergency responders are also standing by 24/7 to handle intrusion and data breach emergencies whenever and wherever they arise. Time is critical if a cyber incident has occurred, so don’t hesitate to get help. For more information, visit http://www.evestigate.com. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.

RowdMap, Inc. Joins Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) at America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) 2015 Conference to Help Health Plans Curate Strategic Networks

0
0
RowdMap, Inc. Speaks with HCSC Health Care Service Corporation at America’s Health Insurance Plans, 2015 National Conferences on Medicare and Medicaid and Dual Eligibles Summit on using government benchmark data to create a risk-ready network to succeed in value-based market.

Louisville, KY (PRWEB) October 18, 2015

Bryant Hutson, Senior Client Strategist at RowdMap, Inc., and David Goodson, Vice President, Enterprise Medicare, Health Care Service Corporation, will be speaking on how health plans can use newly released government data to create a risk-ready network to succeed in value-based markets. The presentation, entitled “Network as Strategic Advantage: Curating a Risk-Ready Network to Succeed in a Value-Based Market,” will be delivered at the America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) 2015 National Conferences on Medicare and Medicaid and Dual Eligibles Summit on Monday, October 19, 2015, at the JW Marriott Washington, D.C. http://www.ahip.org/mcmcduals2015/medicare-agenda/#session2

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) is the national trade association representing the health insurance industry. AHIP’s members provide health and supplemental benefits to 200 million Americans through employer-sponsored coverage, the individual insurance market, and public programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. AHIP’s 2015 National Conferences on Medicare and Medicaid and Dual Eligibles Summit is a leading event focusing on advocating for public policies that expand access to affordable health care coverage to all Americans through a competitive marketplace that fosters choice, quality and innovation.

Success in pay for value programs comes from improving the efficiency, quality and experience of care. Last year, the US spent $850BB on low and no value care from higher intensity, and riskier treatment options that deliver no additional benefits to patients. Thirty cents of every dollar and up to 42% of patients receive his care every year. This low and no value care is driven by a Fee for Service (FFS) economic model where doctors and hospitals are paid more for doing more, and higher intensity treatment. This unnecessary spending far outweighs fraud, waste and abuse, but is not identifiable from traditional utilization reviews and unit cost analysis.

CMS has made historic data releases including the largest data set of doctors and hospitals in history to support identifying provider practice patterns with national and regional benchmarks in order to transition the delivery of care to value based payments. https://www.cms.gov/Newsroom/MediaReleaseDatabase/Press-releases/2015-Press-releases-items/2015-06-01.html

RowdMap, Inc. Senior Client Strategist, Bryant Hutson, and Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC) Vice President of Enterprise Medicare, David Goodson, will deliver a presentation on how health plans can use these public data sets to determine whether and how they will experience success in Pay for Value arrangements with provider partners. The government data also allows payers to benchmark providers and determine which providers will make the best partners for risk arrangements and then negotiate with them from shared government benchmarks. HCSC is an Independent Licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, and is the largest customer-owned health insurer in the United States and fourth largest overall, operating through our Blue Cross and Blue Shield® Plans in Illinois, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. HCSC affiliates with subsidiaries such as TMG Health and Medecision. HCSC is a leader in using government benchmark data to develop value-based care models to spur greater collaboration and accountability among various stakeholders.

“As the market moves to value-based arrangements health plans that can identify providers who will succeed in risk arrangements will have a competitive advantage. Curating a network of providers who succeed in value-based arrangements is becoming a distinctive, strategic advantage that drives success. The new data allows leading health plans such as HCSC to intelligently make these decisions.” Bryant Hutson, Senior Client Manager, RowdMap, Inc.

Those interested in learning more are encouraged to contact RowdMap, Inc. directly or visit RowdMap, Inc. at the America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), 2015 National Conferences on Medicare and Medicaid and Dual Eligibles Summit on Monday, October 19th, 2015 at the JW Marriott Washington, D.C.

About RowdMap, Inc. :
An Ernst and Young EY Entrepreneur Of The Year® winner, RowdMap helps health plans, government payers, providers, and hospital systems develop Risk-Readiness (SM) strategies to excel as they transition from fee-for- service to pay-for value. As CMS sunsets fee-for-service payments, RowdMap's Risk-Readiness (SM) Platform helps payers and providers identify and manage unwarranted and unexpected variation. RowdMap identifies ideal provider arrangements based on provider practice patterns and population characteristics within a geography. Payers and providers then use RowdMap to build strategies around these new risk relationships. RowdMap helps them enter new markets, segment populations, identify waste, design products, and understand referral patterns. RowdMap's platform comes preloaded with government benchmarks out of the box no IT integration required. RowdMap's Risk-Readiness (SM) Platform works across all market segments and has significantly larger returns than traditional, medical economic approaches. Reported by PRWeb 16 hours ago.

The 'Problem' With Bernie Sanders

0
0
The 'Problem' With Bernie Sanders Submitted by Yonathan Amselem via The Mises Institute,

*Bernie Sanders’s entry into the presidential race has sparked a nationwide conversation about socialism and its potential to remedy the real and perceived pathologies suffered by Americans.* Throughout Sanders’s extensive political career, he has proudly labeled himself a socialist while being careful to distance his ideological roots from basket cases such as North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and other collectivist nightmares. Rather, as with most progressive socialists, he considers himself a “democratic” socialist sharing more in common with the relatively wealthy Scandinavian countries.

*It is interesting that progressives like Sanders can look at a rich country like Sweden and automatically conclude that the nation’s high living standards do not result from a laissez-faire past*, low levels of national debt, monetary independence, no centrally mandated minimum wage, strong legal protection of property rights, a level-headed central bank, low corporate tax rates, or even Sweden’s gradual move toward more privatization in healthcare, social security, and education. *Rather, progressives naturally assume that Sweden’s high living standards are a product of their high taxes and nationalized industries.*

But, imagine if LeBron James took up smoking. Any success on the court would be despite his destructive habit not because of it. *Sweden’s economic success has come in spite of its socialism.*

I will focus on just one Scandinavian country, Sweden, given that it has often been touted by progressives as a sort of heaven-on-earth. A (very) brief history of this fascinating country might help us better understand Sweden’s current high living standards and the many ways in which Swedish socialism has set an unnecessary cap on the nation’s productivity.

Sweden: From Crippling Poverty to Unheralded Prosperity Through Laissez-Faire Capitalism

Some 250 years ago, the area we recognize now as “Sweden” was a frozen tundra inhabited by a huddled mass of starving peasants. Their lives were tightly controlled by a series of kings, aristocrats, and other men of artificially high esteem. As award-winning author, Johan Norberg points out in this excellent piece on Sweden, it took a series of classically-liberal minded revolutionaries to wrestle control from the elites and put Sweden on a path to prosperity.

*Licensing czars, an oppressive guild system, and a litany of other onerous regulations on free exchange were dramatically reduced or eliminated. *In the century from 1850–1950, the population doubled and real Swedish incomes multiplied nearly tenfold. Despite the almost non-existence of a welfare state or any major state control of economic sectors, by 1950 Sweden was the fourth richest nation in the world. Sweden’s extraordinary growth during that century rivaled even that of the United States (Sweden was not a participant in the two World Wars). As a matter of fact, capital formation and wealth creation proved so abundant in Sweden during the global depression of the 1930s that even social democrats in the legislature practiced a form of salutary neglect to ensure the prosperity would continue. *As with any other country, Sweden’s impressive capital stock was built by entrepreneurs operating in a free market system.*

Sweden’s Experiment with “Nordic Socialism” is Relatively New and Has Been Disastrous for Growth

*Big business looking for government protection worked alongside ambitious politicians and union leaders to force Sweden into adopting socialist policies in the decades following its impressive growth.* Over time, government spending more than doubled and taxes in certain sectors were doubled or even tripled. Despite these calamitous changes, by 1970, the OECD still ranked Sweden as the fourth richest nation in the world. However, by 2000 Sweden sank to number fourteen. Dr. Per Bylund from Oklahoma State University has previously pointed out that from 1950–2005, Sweden did not add one net private sector job. *Nordic Socialism has frozen a once entrepreneurial and prosperous people in time. *With few exceptions, Sweden’s large businesses have very little incentive to innovate (and they have not), and many enterprises now survive purely on government contracts whose value is impossible to ascertain without a system of free exchange to establish prices for goods and services.

*Sweden has managed to live comfortably for decades despite its many heavy-handed socialist policies only because so much capital stock was created in the decades prior (not to mention a sane monetary policy). *Yet this capital consumption is eroding Sweden’s wealth. In 2007, Professor Mark J. Perry from George Mason University pointed out that *if Sweden were to be admitted as a 51st state to the Union, it would be the poorest state in terms of unemployment and median household income*. Yes, even poorer than Mississippi. In fact Sweden’s current welfare state suppresses household incomes so effectively for Swedes that a 2012 IEA study found that American Swedes have roughly the same unemployment rate as Swedes in Sweden yet earn, on average, 53 percent more annually.

*In recent years, Swedish lawmakers have begun slowly privatizing chunks of their socialized sectors such as healthcare, social security, and education. *Last year, Reason magazine pointed out that private health insurance has exploded in a country where cancer patients may wait up to a year for treatment in the state-run system. This trend has grown. Sweden, furthermore, has begun outsourcing education to private providers and seen not only a reduction of costs but an increase in parent satisfaction and learning outcomes for graduates.

Bernie Sanders has Picked up the Wrong Lessons from the Nordic Model

Bernie Sanders has stated now, and in the past, that he would like to see an America with universal healthcare, paid maternity leave, expanded social security through higher payroll taxes, mandatory vacation days and sick leave, free secondary education, and the enactment of a slew of other progressive policies.* It seems he has only forgotten to promise yachts for the homeless.*

*The underlying problem with socialists like Bernie Sanders is that they do not actually believe (or understand) in economics at all. As Ludwig von Mises himself has pointed out, socialism is not an economic theory — it is a theory of redistribution. *Only free exchange can coordinate entrepreneurs and their resources in a way that creates actual goods and services that satisfy consumer needs and wants. Socialists like Bernie Sanders take no part in this process of wealth creation; they merely show up after the fact and demand title. Sweden has practiced this form of parasitic socialism on their accumulated wealth and it has significantly stifled Swedish productivity.

*Nordic-style policies advocated by Sanders have (predictably) restricted Sweden’s growth for decades.* The notion that we can implement Nordic socialism in a nation of 320 million people without destroying labor mobility, taxing capital out of existence, and absolutely crippling innovation where it’s needed most is *pure delusion*. Sweden is *slowly returning to its productive capitalist roots. We should do the same.* Reported by Zero Hedge 11 hours ago.

Check Out This Year's Obamacare Fines

0
0
This year the penalty for not having health insurance could sting. Reported by msnbc.com 20 hours ago.

Affordable Care Act - All the Facts

0
0
Patch Milford, CT -- Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, whatever the name, if you don't have health insurance, this presentation will help! Reported by Patch 18 hours ago.

Bigger bite for health-law penalty on uninsured

0
0
WASHINGTON (AP) — The math is harsh: The federal penalty for having no health insurance is set to jump to $695, and the Obama administration is being urged to highlight that cold fact to help drive its new pitch for health law sign-ups. That means the 2016 sign-up season starting Nov. 1 could see penalties […] Reported by Seattle Times 18 hours ago.

Members of Health Republic to get help finding another health insurance plan

0
0
Reported by syracuse.com 17 hours ago.

A health law fine on the uninsured will more than double

0
0
WASHINGTON (AP) — The math is harsh: The federal penalty for having no health insurance is set to jump to $695, and the Obama administration is being urged to highlight that cold fact in its new pitch for health law sign-ups. Reported by TwinCities.com 12 hours ago.

Texas Startup Take Command Health Releases a New Online Tool to Help Consumers Shop Smart for Health Insurance during Open Enrollment

0
0
Texas Startup Take Command Health Releases a New Online Tool to Help Consumers Shop Smart for Health Insurance during Open Enrollment DALLAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Texas startup Take Command Health is releasing a new online tool to help over 1.2 million Texas consumers shop smart for health insurance, just ahead of open enrollment season beginning November 1st. Reported by Business Wire 15 hours ago.

HealthCare.com Launches Version 2.0 of its Online Health Insurance Marketplace, Featuring an Intuitive Plan Recommendation Search Engine

0
0
New Proprietary Tool Provides Health Insurance Consumers Easy Way to Narrow Their Plan Search And Find Coverage That Meets Their Medical Needs

New York, NY (PRWEB) October 19, 2015

HealthCare.com, the nation’s leading health insurance search engine and comparison tool, announced today the launch of its new website, which features an intuitive plan recommendation search engine that walks consumers through their personal healthcare needs and suggests the plans that may be best suited for them. The newly re-launched site is live today at http://www.HealthCare.com and available in time for the start of open enrollment on November 1.

Virtually every American is required to have health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), and up to 19 million have been purchasing insurance themselves through government-sponsored insurance exchanges, direct from carriers, or private sites like HealthCare.com. Unfortunately, many Americans choose plans with the lowest premiums and highest deductibles, resulting in “unaffordably cheap” insurance. A recent study found that nearly half of all Americans can’t afford the $5,000 family deductible found in many lower-premium Bronze plans.

“Watching this trend develop during previous open enrollment cycles, we felt that too many consumers were buying their health insurance like they buy their auto coverage,” said HealthCare.com CEO Jeff Smedsrud. ”They know they must have it, but think they’ll never actually use it, so they choose the cheapest plan, only to struggle later on with deductibles and out-of-pockets they can’t afford. So we completely re-designed the HealthCare.com site top to bottom and, at its core, incorporated a question-and-answer-based recommendation engine. The engine walks consumers through their typical healthcare consumption, including things like doctor visits and prescriptions, and then suggests the plans that align consumers’ total costs to their healthcare budget.”

Features of the HealthCare.com Version 2.0 website include:· Free and anonymous insurance shopping. There is no charge for consumers to use the HealthCare.com site. Consumers shop and compare plans in complete anonymity, no names required.
· Broad selection of health insurance plans. The site provides access to virtually all the state-based exchange plans, federal exchange plans, and many private, off-exchange plans – over 200 carriers and more than120,000 plans in all.
· An integrated calculator to determine the net cost of plans eligible for government insurance subsidies.
· A new, unbiased plan recommendation engine. The engine begins by asking basic questions like ZIP code, who needs to be covered, dates of birth, gender(s), whether there are any smokers, and household income. At that point, consumers can go directly to the available plans. Or they can answer additional questions about their typical number of doctor visits, prescription medicines, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, lab and imaging work, planned surgeries, maternity needs and allergies. These questions help to further round out the picture of a consumer’s typical healthcare consumption, so the recommendation engine can further fine-tune its search. At any time, a consumer can see more plans beyond those recommended by the engine.
· Plan Filters. Consumers can refine their search according to the monthly premium costs, annual deductibles or annual out-of-pocket costs that best fit their budgets.
· Numerous ways to get insured. At the conclusion of their shopping, HealthCare.com will connect consumers to places where they can purchase their plans. They can buy online, speak with a licensed agent on the phone, or meet with an agent in person.
· Additional healthcare and health insurance information. The HealthCare.com site features articles on Obamacare, health insurance, dental insurance, short-term health insurance and more. The site also has a blog with timely articles on what’s happening in healthcare.

“We are making daily changes and improvements to our website based on the evolving needs of our customers. We expect steady growth in the number of consumers that use HealthCare.com to help them find the best health plan. In the last 12 months, more than 500,000 consumers have used our services, and we expect that to surge significantly during the open enrollment period,” said Smedsrud.

About HealthCare.com
Privately-owned HealthCare.com is the nation's leading search engine and comparison tool for shopping of health insurance coverage. The unbiased website features virtually all state-based exchange plans, federal exchange plans and many private, off-exchange plans. Using interactive tools and innovative technology, HealthCare.com continues to grow its technology, interfaces and services to help consumers compare health insurance costs and subsidies for free, and enable them to purchase their insurance online, over the phone with a licensed advisor, or in person with a local agent. Founded in 2006 as a healthcare services company, HealthCare.com's goal is to help consumers easily research information and compare health insurance quotes from insurance carriers using interactive tools and innovation. Using trusted recommendations and a comparison shopping experience to simplify decision-making, consumers can find the right health insurance plan that fits their lifestyles. The site also offers online calculators and shopping tools to advance consumer healthcare literacy. With millions of visitors each year, HealthCare.com partners and integrates with industry-leading health insurance companies to help consumers enroll into plans. HealthCare.com is based in New York and has offices in Miami and Minneapolis . For more information, visit http://www.HealthCare.com. Reported by PRWeb 14 hours ago.

Personal Accident and Health Insurance in India, Key Trends and Opportunities to 2019 - Reportlinker Review

0
0
NEW YORK, Oct. 19, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- SynopsisTimetric's 'Personal Accident and Health Insurance in the India, Key Trends and Opportunities to 2019' report provides detailed analysis of the market trends, drivers, challenges in the Indian personal accident and health insurance... Reported by PR Newswire 13 hours ago.

In Latest Humiliation For Illinois, Fitch Downgrades Debt Rating From A- To BBB+

0
0
Last week, beleaguered Illinois Comptroller Leslie Geissler Munger admitted that, *thanks to the bitter budget battle going on in Springfield, the state would miss a $560 million pension payment in November. *

The news came as no surprise to those who have followed the story.

A state Supreme Court decision in May effectively ruled out pension reform (it's the whole "implicit contract" argument) prompting Moody's to cut Chicago to junk and thrusting the state's financial crisis into the national spotlight. 

As we noted when the news hit, despite hiring an "all star" budget guru (for $30,000 a month no less), governor Bruce Rauner has been unable to pass a budget in a timely fashion leading directly to all types of absurdities including everything from the possibility of shortened school years to lottery winners being paid in IOUs.

*Now, Fitch has cut the state's GO rating citing the budget impasse. The move affects some $27 billion in debt. *

Still no word on when lottery winners can trade in their Rauner bucks for real cash.

*  *  *

Full report

Fitch Ratings has downgraded the rating on $26.8 billion in outstanding Illinois general obligation (GO) bonds to 'BBB+' from 'A-'.

In addition, the ratings on bonds related to the state based on its appropriation have been downgraded to 'BBB' from 'BBB+' as detailed at the end of this release.

The Rating Outlook has been revised to Stable from Negative.

SECURITY 

Direct general obligation, full faith and credit of the state of Illinois

KEY RATING DRIVERS

REDUCED FLEXIBILITY: *The downgrade reflects the continued deterioration of the state's financial flexibility during its extended budget impasse. Illinois's inability to balance its operations, eliminate accumulated liabilities, and grow reserves during a period of economic expansion leaves it far more vulnerable to the next economic downturn. *

ONGOING BUDGET GAPS: After four years of nominally balanced operations that benefitted from temporary tax increases, the fiscal 2015 budget was only balanced through extensive one-time action and a budget has not been enacted for fiscal 2016, which began on July 1. The state continues to spend in most areas at the fiscal 2015 rate, which is expected to lead to a sizeable deficit. As was the case during the most recent recession, this deficit spending is likely to be addressed by deferring state payments and increasing accumulated liabilities. 

LONG TERM LIABILITIES HIGH: The state's debt burden is above average and unfunded pension liabilities are exceptionally high. The state has limited flexibility with regard to pension obligations following the May 2015 Illinois Supreme Court decision that found the 2013 pension reform unconstitutional. Pensions remain an acute pressure on the state's fiscal operations.

ECONOMY A CREDIT STRENGTH BUT RECOVERY WEAK: The state benefits from a large, diverse economy centered on the Chicago metropolitan area, which is the nation's third largest and is a nationally important business and transportation center. Economic growth through the current expansion has lagged that of the U.S. as a whole. 

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Stable Outlook incorporates the expectation that the state of Illinois will use one-time solutions to nominally balance the fiscal 2016 budget, but will not achieve more permanent, structural solutions in a time frame that will have a significant impact on fiscal 2016.

Failure to enact measures that lead to ongoing budget balance beyond fiscal 2016 could lead to negative rating action.

Successful implementation of measures to enact a structurally balanced budget and reduce accumulated budget liabilities may lead to positive rating action. 

CREDIT PROFILE

*The downgrade on the GO bonds of the state of Illinois to 'BBB+' from 'A-' reflects the deterioration of the state's financial flexibility as its budget stalemate continues deep into the current fiscal year. *With the national economic expansion now extending into a sixth year, Illinois has failed to capitalize on economic growth to restore flexibility utilized during the last recession or to find a solution to its chronic mismatch of revenues and expenditures. Once again, the state has displayed an unwillingness to address numerous fiscal challenges, which are now again increasing in magnitude as a result.

Temporary increases in personal and corporate income tax rates in place for four years, from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2014, closed or partially closed the budget gap across five fiscal years. However, with their expiration, and the failure to enact a spending plan within expected revenues, the budget gap has ballooned. As a result, the state finds itself with a current operating deficit, structural budget deficit, cash crunch that is now causing a delay in pension system contributions, and accumulation of accounts payable that approaches its highest level at the depth of the recession. As the fiscal year progresses, fewer options remain for closing the gap on a current year basis, pushing the potential solutions into fiscal 2017.

ONE-TIME SOLUTIONS CLOSED 2015 GAP

*The current budget stalemate follows a fiscal 2015 when a significant gap was closed primarily through the use of one-time fund sweeps rather than on-going spending or revenue action.* The enacted budget for fiscal 2015 relied on approximately $2 billion in one-time revenues to achieve balance, given the anticipated expiration of the temporary taxes half-way through the fiscal year. These included interfund borrowing, use of prior year surplus to prepay fiscal 2015 Medicaid expenses, underfunding of specific budget line-items, and an increase in anticipated accounts payable. 

Upon taking office in January 2015, and finding a budget gap that was larger than expected, the current administration proposed, and the legislature enacted, an additional $1.3 billion in fund sweeps and approximately $300 million in budget reductions. However, the lack of a structural solution in fiscal 2015 left the state in a weak fiscal position in developing the fiscal 2016 budget. 

FISCAL 2016 SPENDING SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE EXPECTED REVENUES

The governor and state legislature have not come to agreement on a spending and revenue plan for the current fiscal year, which began July 1, 2015, for which there is a large projected deficit that reflects the full-year impact of the temporary tax expirations.

Despite the absence of an enacted budget, due to continuing and permanent appropriations, court orders and consent decrees, and an enacted appropriation for schools, the state is spending approximately 85% of its budget at the fiscal 2015 enacted rate during the budget impasse. Continuing to spend at this rate, without further appropriations or other changes, is forecast to lead to an annual operating deficit of approximately $2.1 billion, or 6.8% of forecast revenues. This deficit would most likely be addressed by an increase to the accumulated accounts payable balance.

Fitch believes that this deficit figure is likely to be higher, as it incorporates the state withholding $5.9 billion in spending for universities, the group health insurance program, and a variety of other programs, some of which would ultimately have to be covered with state revenue. The state notes that it has already taken approximately $1 billion in actions to reduce spending and reallocate funds to the general fund. Reported by Zero Hedge 12 hours ago.

Antitrust Showdown Next After Aetna, Humana Shareholders Approve Merger

0
0
Shareholders of Aetna (AET) and Humana (HUM) overwhelmingly approved the merger of the two health plans into one of the nation’s largest health insurance companies, clearing the way for the biggest hurdle ahead. Reported by Forbes.com 11 hours ago.

Antitrust Showdown Next After Aetna, Humana Shareholders Approve Deal

0
0
Shareholders of Aetna (AET) and Humana (HUM) overwhelmingly approved the merger of the two into one of the nation’s largest health insurance companies, clearing the way for the biggest hurdle ahead. Aetna’s $37 billion acquisition of Humana still needs approval of federal regulators and that won’t be without a challenge as [...] Reported by Forbes.com 12 hours ago.

Many Low-Income Workers Say ‘No’ to Health Insurance

0
0
The Affordable Care Act requires employers with more than 50 full-time workers to offer insurance, but many find few low-income employees will buy it. Reported by NYTimes.com 11 hours ago.

Potential delay on some upgrades to gov’t insurance site

0
0
WASHINGTON (AP) — With sign-up season starting in just two weeks, the Obama administration is indicating on Monday that some long-awaited upgrades to the government’s health insurance website could take more time. At issue is a new doctor look-up tool for HealthCare.gov, as well as another feature that would allow consumers to find out whether […] Reported by Seattle Times 10 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images