What To Consider Before Inviting Children Into The Workplace

January 2, 2016, 10:29 am

≫ Next: One American's Rage Spills Over: Dear Liberal... Here's Why I'm So Hostile

≪ Previous: 19 New Connecticut Laws in 2016 That May Change Your Life

$

0

0

From Yahoo CEO to national politics, the topic of children, their mothers, and the workplace, is everywhere in the news right now. No one's quite sure what to do. Follow the model of several Scandinavian countries and extend maternity leave? Create an onsite daycare where employees can drop off their children on their way to work? Go to the other end of the political spectrum and come to the conclusion that it's the parents who choose to have children, and it's up to them to absorb the cost, both financial and time, of their care?

Some small businesses have reacted by trying to make the work environment more child-friendly for employees who need a time off because a child is home sick, but are otherwise able to work. In some situations, telecommuting is an option, but in some jobs, the employee needs to be on site because of IT security or tech needs.

Here are a few things for you to consider before you decide to open your workplace to the occasional child visitor.

*Kids are rambunctious*
Even the most quiet and calm child, the child who can be content journaling for 30 or 60 minutes at a time, is eventually going to need to burn off some energy. Sometimes kids who are home sick are content to rest and watch TV shows on an iPad or tablet, but as any parent can tell you, they get sick, and somehow have even more energy to burn off. Will the workspace stand up to a child who is, rather suddenly, full of energy?

*A great idea: set aside an old storage room or unused office as a kid friendly space. Communicate clearly with your employees about when kids are welcome, and what your expectations are for their behavior at the office. *

*Accidents happen*
Before kids are allowed in the workplace, you should check with your building's insurance company. What happens if the child, for example, slips and falls? You can't assume that their health insurance will cover the injury, if it happens on your property. Personal insurance companies are notorious for refusing to pay for a claim that happened on someone else's property, if they have insurance against injuries, and there's nothing like a personal injury lawsuit to ruin employee/employer relations.

*How to make it work: do your research beforehand. Know whether or not you're liable for any injuries that occur while a child is in the workplace, and be prepared with the appropriate process to help the employee resolve any claims up front if you are. *

*Who will supervise any children? *
Maybe, rather than a more forgiving sick time policy, you're considering offering a day when employees can bring their kids to work to see the workplace. These sorts of events can be loads of fun for kids. It can interest them in your field, and create opportunities for internships or even employees, depending on the age of the kids.

But if you rely on your employees to show their kids around the office, you're essentially giving up a day of productivity. This can be fine, as long as you're planning for it. If you're expecting an employee to give a tour to all the kids who arrive, you need to be very sure they can handle the number of children who are coming. The same employee, who is amazing with one five year old, one-on-one, is not necessarily the same person who can connect with and engage a dozen teenagers.

Even if you're planning on allowing employees to bring kids in during school breaks instead of wandering around the neighborhood, and you have a child friendly space set up, what's the plan? Are only kids old enough to be unsupervised allowed? Will you have a rotating schedule of employees who work from the kids' room?

*Consider hiring a nanny for the room through a service like Care.com. When you first stare at the price, consider how much it will save you over losing productivity to employees who can't work during school holidays or vacations. *

As an employer, one of your goals is to create a productive, engaging, happy workplace. While it's tempting to say that employees need to just keep their personal lives at home, it's not practical. The best CEOs, like Gabriel Bristol of Intelicare Direct, know that balancing work and home Isn't just a problem for women. Parents of all genders are struggling with managing this balance. By being the employer who understands and works with their employees, you will win loyalty and appreciation from your employees that's worth far more than the cost of implementing the necessary policies.

-- 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 15 hours ago.

---

One American's Rage Spills Over: Dear Liberal... Here's Why I'm So Hostile

January 3, 2016, 9:27 am

≫ Next: Uninsured numbers drop, but many would rather pay fines

≪ Previous: What To Consider Before Inviting Children Into The Workplace

$

0

0

Submitted by Jeremy Choate via Sufficient Reason blog,

This essay is a bit of departure from my usually reasonable and logical approach to important issues.  That’s not to say that the essay isn’t well-reasoned and is bereft of logical argumentation, but I freely admit that it’s polemical, in nature.  Sometimes you’re just pissed, and you need to vent.  Here’s my vent…

*Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically.*  No, it’s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I’m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man’s power slipping through my fingers.  I know that you’ve accused our side of such nonsense, and the thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.

Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to.  If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be “fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears. * If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you.  *If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at.  If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy.  If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading.  Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.

*First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think.*  Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I’ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government.  As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government.

*Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation. * You accuse us of being uncompassionate, hateful, racist, and greedy, but studies have shown that when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives are at least (if not more, depending on the study you read) as generous as liberals in caring for the poor.  The difference between us is not in our attitude towards the problem – it’s our attitude towards the solution.  We believe that the government does practically nothing well (since without competition or a profit motive there is no incentive to do well) and has made the plight of the poor far worse than it would have ever been had government never gotten involved.  For a stark example of this, look no farther than the condition of the black family in America since the “War on Poverty” began.  You believe that more government is the answer, and that if we only throw more money at the problem, the problem will go away.  We believe, as Reagan so aptly stated,



*Government is not the solution to our problems;  government is the problem.*



Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor’s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America’s healthcare system as you are.  While we believe that America has the world’s most capable physicians, has the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect.  However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service.  There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.

Now that we’ve touched on a couple of points of common ground, allow me to explain my aggressiveness towards your efforts to implement your progressive agenda.  First, let’s talk about the word “progressive”, since you now seem to prefer that word to “liberal”.  In order to label something as progressive or regressive, one must have some idea as to what constitutes progress.  What is the ideal towards which you are striving?  An idea is considered progressive if it moves us closer to the ideal and regressive if it moves us further away.  So, what is your ideal society?

*Though I can’t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn’t help but notice the influence that FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy. * The rights that FDR cited are:

· The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
· The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
· The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
· The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
· The right of every family to a decent home;
· The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
· The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
· The right to a good education.

At this point, you’re probably screaming, “Right on!!”, and who can blame you?  What sane person in the world doesn’t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated? * These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of, “At what cost?”*

I’m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America.  After all, what does it mean for something to be a human right?  Doesn’t it mean that it’s something to which you are entitled simply by virtue of your being human?  Let’s think about some of the basic rights that the real Bill of Rights delineates: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom to bear arms, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.

*If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list – none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being.  Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else.*  Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens.  Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone.  A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet – and it is unconditional.

*FDR’s list is no “Bill of Rights”.  It’s a list of demands.*  If I have a *right* to a job, doesn’t that mean that one must be provided to me?  If I have a *right* to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn’t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me?  If I have an inherent *right* to a decent home, once again, doesn’t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself?  

You might protest that FDR only meant that we have the right to *pursue* those things, but that’s not what he said, and why would he?  If we live in a free society, our right to pursue those things is self-evident, is it not?  Besides, if he only believed in our right to pursue those things, he would not have felt the need to implement the New Deal.

You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy.  It’s quite simple – your political beliefs are a threat to liberty – not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well.  I care much less about the America that I’m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I’m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.

How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask? * In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents.  If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you.  If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.*

*The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish.*  You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom.  If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity.  If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally.  If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.

*However, you cannot say the same for liberalism.*  If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea – you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor.  If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket – you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.

*Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.*  You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs.  You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens.  Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty – it’s an axiomatic truth.

*What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur. * You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he’s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi.  Somehow, you’re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won’t really matter that much.

I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom.  *What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.*

I am reminded of Samuel Adams’ impassioned speech where he stated:



“If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”



*Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. * In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up.  You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else.  In my society, you have the freedom to do that.

*In your society, I don’t have the same freedom.  If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. * In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it – why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?

In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you.  It’s nothing personal, necessarily.  If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest.  *But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.*

Bring it. Reported by Zero Hedge 16 hours ago.

Uninsured numbers drop, but many would rather pay fines

January 3, 2016, 10:11 pm

≫ Next: Do You Speak Health Insurance? It’s Not Easy.

≪ Previous: One American's Rage Spills Over: Dear Liberal... Here's Why I'm So Hostile

$

0

0

WASHINGTON -- Clint Murphy let the deadline for getting health insurance by the new year pass without a second thought. Reported by TwinCities.com 3 hours ago.

Do You Speak Health Insurance? It’s Not Easy.

January 4, 2016, 2:28 am

≫ Next: Sign up by Jan. 15 for Obamacare Feb. 1

≪ Previous: Uninsured numbers drop, but many would rather pay fines

$

0

0

Do You Speak Health Insurance? It’s Not Easy. Reported by ajc.com 1 day ago.

Sign up by Jan. 15 for Obamacare Feb. 1

January 4, 2016, 7:01 am

≫ Next: Why So Many People Think That Uber And Lyft Can Rot In Hell After Their New Year's Eve Price Surges

≪ Previous: Do You Speak Health Insurance? It’s Not Easy.

$

0

0

Open enrollment for coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace runs through Jan. 31, but you need to sign up by Jan. 15 for coverage to start Feb. 1.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Reported by Delawareonline 19 hours ago.

Why So Many People Think That Uber And Lyft Can Rot In Hell After Their New Year's Eve Price Surges

January 4, 2016, 9:27 am

≫ Next: Great American Insurance Group Launches Accident and Health Insurance Programs

≪ Previous: Sign up by Jan. 15 for Obamacare Feb. 1

$

0

0

In 500 years when deregulated, highly competitive capitalism is next to feudalism and communism in the dustbin of history, professors will argue how the Amazon business model decimated our society.

Many years ago there was a joke flying around that went like this: *"Amazon is losing money on every sale. But they are making up for it in volume!"*

When I was at university there were political theorists who posited that we won the Cold War in a very calculated manner: because we were able to outspend the Russians and thus bankrupt their economy as they tried to keep up with our military spending. It was planned in the early 1970s and in December of 1991 the once mighty Soviet Union disintegrated into fifteen separate countries. Crippling their economy enabled us to avoid the "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) of any nuclear attack.

Similarly, companies with deep pockets like Uber can also win races to the bottom. But sadly the business model appears to be more similar to that of crack cocaine than that of anything sustainable. They get you hooked and once addicted you do not notice the predatory price surges until it is too late. Like so many people did this weekend when they woke up with "Uber Hangovers."

*And this is how and why deregulated capitalism is cannibalizing itself: because it exploits the worst aspects of human nature, such as slothfulness.*

For example, when the stock of Blockbuster Video (remember them?) was exploding, the company was not earning most of their profits from rentals; they were earning their profits from *late fees* and thus taking advantage of people's laziness.

Magazines will always send you 3-6 free copies because they know that enough people will be too lazy to cancel their subscriptions at the end of the trial period. Again, taking advantage of people's inherent slothfulness.

How much do movies theaters earn from your $13.50 tickets? Zero. Movie theaters earn 100% of their profits from popcorn and soda which they buy for pennies and sell for $6-$10 per serving.

*Regulations - like speed limits - exist to protect people*. Sometimes from other people; sometimes from themselves. For example, people smarter than you and me spent years studying complicated algorithms to maximize safety on our roads. And yet when we are pulled over for speeding we do not thank the cop for potentially saving your life: we think of the idiot who ruined our day trying to meet his monthly ticket quota.

Similarly, taxis are highly regulated and insured to protect consumers. But not Uber or Lyft. Not yet, at least.

The first time I took an Uber it was under $5 to get me 15 miles from Malibu to Santa Monica. Awesome. The second time it was $12 each way back and forth to Beverly Hills. Great.

Going to dinner at 10:30pm on New Year's Eve I took an Uber to Beverly Hills and due to a surge it cost $18. Reasonable. At 12:30 when I pressed the button for Uber Pool (share the car with another passenger) I noticed the inconspicuous "Estimated Charge" icon and tapped it: *$70* popped up. I cancelled the Uber and ordered a Lyft shared ride for $45. That was the good news; the bad news was that the screen read "Your driver is 4 minutes away" for the next 35 minutes. At 1:15am I managed to flag down a taxi that got me home for $41 plus tip. Cancelled the Lyft. Priceless.

If $70 for 10 miles in a Prius is not price gouging then I'm Ronald Reagan, the myopic imbecile who started the deregulation that pivoted our culture away from a meritocracy and onto an axis of unbridled nepotism, bribery, greed, inequality, and corruption.

And if all of the above is not sufficient cause for regulation, then talk to Uber and Lyft drivers whose turnover rate is excessively high. 12-14 hours per day sitting in their cars, paying for gas, paying for their own auto insurance, no benefits and no health insurance, and reimbursed with not much more than minimum wage.

*In the long-run this is clearly an unsustainable lose-lose situation.*

I remember chatting many years with a taxi driver in Manhattan as he explained that he could no longer park near any McDonalds to use their restrooms so he was forced to pee into a modified plastic water bottle. At the next traffic light he opened the door and spilled a full bottle of urine onto 5th Avenue.

*Ahhhh... the good old days :-)*

-- 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 17 hours ago.

Great American Insurance Group Launches Accident and Health Insurance Programs

January 4, 2016, 10:41 am

≫ Next: Health Care Enrollment Jan. 12

≪ Previous: Why So Many People Think That Uber And Lyft Can Rot In Hell After Their New Year's Eve Price Surges

$

0

0

CINCINNATI--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Great American Insurance Group is pleased to announce the launch of its Special Risk Accident and Health Insurance Programs. Reported by Business Wire 15 hours ago.

Health Care Enrollment Jan. 12

January 4, 2016, 3:20 pm

≫ Next: Fines coming for those failing to get health insurance

≪ Previous: Great American Insurance Group Launches Accident and Health Insurance Programs

$

0

0

Patch Andover, MA -- Merrimack Valley residents needing health insurance or needing to renew coverage invited to a free sign-up event Jan. 12 from 12-7 p.m. Reported by Patch 11 hours ago.

---

Fines coming for those failing to get health insurance

January 4, 2016, 11:58 am

≫ Next: MNsure enrollments top last year's pace

≪ Previous: Health Care Enrollment Jan. 12

$

0

0

Another deadline is approaching to sign up for health insurance through the federal government's marketplace -- the last before individuals and families without any coverage face increasing fees. Adults who fail to sign up at Healthcare.gov or obtain their own health... Reported by nola.com 14 hours ago.

MNsure enrollments top last year's pace

January 4, 2016, 1:17 pm

≫ Next: The Franchise Forecast: Planning for the Year Ahead

≪ Previous: Fines coming for those failing to get health insurance

$

0

0

Just under 68,000 people have enrolled in private health insurance plans through the state-run MNsure exchange as of Jan. 1, MNsure reported today. Reported by TwinCities.com 13 hours ago.

The Franchise Forecast: Planning for the Year Ahead

January 4, 2016, 1:56 pm

≫ Next: ​Minimum penalty not having health insurance to rise to $695 this year

≪ Previous: MNsure enrollments top last year's pace

$

0

0

As 2015 comes to a close, it's the best time to reflect on the passing year and take a second look at established plans for 2016. Does the forecast for the new year simply rollover from the previous year or is there a renewed sense of purpose, determination and drive?

With a global changing landscape, in terms of economics, politics, policy and security, 2016 will prove to pose perhaps the most impact for franchisees than in years past. This year will lay the foundation for changes and adaptations for future strategies and business planning. More than ever, businesses will have to focus on stability because a lot of these changes will have long-term effects and as always, the goal is to be prepared ahead of time.

Here are four developments that franchisee owners will want to watch out for in 2016, as it could have tremendous impact on their businesses:

*The 2016 Election *
The 2016 election will take over and companies will have to compete to get the attention from consumers. Experts are predicting that this election cycle will have the highest and most consistent political TV spending in U.S. history, so businesses will have a hard time cutting through the clutter.

If you are buying local television and radio, it's smart to secure your plan at the beginning of the year so you can lock the best rates. You will need to take a proactive approach to media strategy in order to secure good advertising deals ahead of time.

More importantly, a new President will be taking office next year and with that, comes a lot of changes that can potentially impact small businesses. And, in your local communities, those who you elect to state and local offices also can have a big impact in policy and ultimately in your business. Make sure you take the time to evaluate the candidates and their stance on locally owned businesses.

*Interest Rates *
After a nine-year interval between interest rate rises, the U.S. Federal Reserve has raised interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point, from 0.25% to 0.5%.

The unemployment rate is now at 5%, a normal level. Falling oil and gas prices, in addition to tame inflation, has also created moderate household savings that may be translating into improving creditworthiness.

But, as interest rates rise, it will definitely affect business planning, especially if you don't have a fixed loan rate. Higher loan payments may lead to a reduction in profitability, which can make securing future funding more difficult.

Additionally, higher interest rates will affect customer spending and saving due to less disposable income and it also means limited cash flow for your business.

As interest rates remain low and everything else seems stable, now is the time for businesses to invest in expansion, whether opening new locations or improving their current locations. Consider securing a revolving credit line now to ensure you can take advantage of today's rates.

*Affordable Healthcare*
Individual health insurance is an appealing option that benefits small business employees because of its ability to be flexible, personalized, accessible and affordable -- especially when the employer offers a monthly allowance to defray monthly premium expenses.

"Today's numbers on national health spending show that as millions more Americans gained coverage in 2014, healthcare spending growth stayed well below the trend seen prior to the Affordable Care Act," said Richard Frank, an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services.

The truth is that it will take a while before we truly know what the long-term effects of Obamacare will be on businesses as there are still many changes that the White House is trying to implement.

Business owners that provide employees with healthcare options and invest in them--will definitely have more satisfied employees, which will help retain them and in turn, help have lower team member turnover.

*Minimum Wage*
Fourteen states will be raising their minimum wages in 2016, according to an analysis of state laws by Yannet Lathrop of the National Employment Law Project. This change will have a big impact on small businesses across the country, which employ nearly half of America's private sector workforce.

As franchise owners, your workforce may be comprised of skilled professionals and several employees earning minimum wage. Whether you believe that raising the minimum wage will be good for your business because it will retain employees and boost the economy; or you may have to pass along the higher wages to consumers, look for new operational efficiencies or simply cut hours and reduce hiring--you must have a plan in place and be prepared.

As a franchisee, there will always be multiple factors that will impact the business, positively and negatively, what's important it to understand these challenges. 2016 will be a year of many changes that will affect both businesses and consumers. The important thing is that franchisees remain informed and try to plan as much as possible for the year ahead.

-- 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.

​Minimum penalty not having health insurance to rise to $695 this year

January 4, 2016, 6:04 pm

≫ Next: Short-Term Insurance Broker Health Insurance Innovations Will Reward Shareholders In The Near Term

≪ Previous: The Franchise Forecast: Planning for the Year Ahead

$

0

0

It’ll get more expensive this year to go without health coverage, the West Coast regional administrator for Medicare said Monday. David Sayen, Medicare’s regional administrator for Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the Pacific Territories, urged anyone who is uninsured to get acquainted with Healthcare.gov and its resources. Individuals who wish to receive coverage for this year must sign up through Healthcare.gov by Jan. 31. “With financial assistance, seven out of 10 people can find… Reported by bizjournals 8 hours ago.

Short-Term Insurance Broker Health Insurance Innovations Will Reward Shareholders In The Near Term

January 4, 2016, 10:19 pm

≫ Next: Casenet TruCare selected by ConnectiCare to enhance Care Management for its members

≪ Previous: ​Minimum penalty not having health insurance to rise to $695 this year

$

0

0

Reported by SeekingAlpha 4 hours ago.

Casenet TruCare selected by ConnectiCare to enhance Care Management for its members

January 5, 2016, 12:03 am

≫ Next: What Is Population Health Anyway? PYA’s Five-Part Series Provides Answers

≪ Previous: Short-Term Insurance Broker Health Insurance Innovations Will Reward Shareholders In The Near Term

$

0

0

TruCare will enable ConnectiCare care managers to collect and use medical and behavioral health data along with psychosocial and caregiver-related information.

Bedford, MA (PRWEB) January 05, 2016

Casenet®, LLC, a leading provider of extensible care management solutions, today announced that ConnectiCare, a leading Connecticut-based health plan, successfully implemented the Casenet TruCare® care management platform. ConnectiCare selected TruCare for its unique workflows, interoperability and streamlined implementation methodology along with the ability to enable more effective care coordination and better health outcomes for its members.

TruCare will enable ConnectiCare care managers to collect and use medical and behavioral health data along with psychosocial and caregiver-related information. Having a complete view of a member –clinical and non-clinical information — will help the care manager identify and address barriers to care such as access to transportation, adequate nutrition, ability to pay for medications and any communication issues. Care managers can share appropriate member information with healthcare providers quickly and efficiently to ultimately drive better health outcomes for members.

“TruCare will advance the care management our team delivers by combining all clinical systems: case management, disease management and ultimately utilization management, into one platform. This combination will give our care managers a more complete view of each member, including barriers and financial struggles, so they can collaborate with healthcare providers to support the delivery of higher quality, personalized care to those who need it most,” said Lauren Williams, Vice President, Medical Operations, ConnectiCare.

In addition to providing a holistic view of each member, the new system will allow ConnectiCare to take a population health approach to care management. It will provide data for members in the individual, exchange, employer group and Medicare business segments. Analyzing data for groupings of ConnectiCare members and the membership as a whole, will allow for customized programs and incentives to drive improved member outcomes and healthy behaviors.

Additional capabilities are planned as future enhancements to the TruCare platform. For example, this central repository of information will include a wellness component which will allow ConnectiCare to interact with even more of its members. And, members will be able to access the platform themselves and interact electronically with their care managers.

“We are pleased to be partnering with ConnectiCare. Their dedicated team is well known in the industry for delivering high quality, high touch care management. TruCare will enable them to provide even higher quality care management to individual members and the populations they serve,” shared Peter Masanotti, Chief Executive Officer, Casenet.

# # #

About ConnectiCare
ConnectiCare is a leading health plan in the state of Connecticut. Based in Farmington, Connecticut, ConnectiCare’s mission is to make it easy for members to get the care they need. A local company for more than 34 years, ConnectiCare has a full range of products and services for businesses, municipalities, individuals and those who are Medicare-eligible. A subsidiary of EmblemHealth, ConnectiCare leads the individual, Medicare and small group markets in the state, and is ranked among the top commercial health plans in the nation, according to the National Committee for Quality Assurance. For more information, visit connecticare.com. To learn about ConnectiCare’s health insurance plans, visit chooseconnecticare.com.

About Casenet, LLC
Casenet provides a comprehensive suite of extensible, enterprise care management software and services solutions for commercial, Medicaid, Medicare, TPA, provider/ACO and carve out organizations. These solutions enable our customers to improve care coordination and the quality and delivery of care through enhanced case, disease, utilization and home and community-based services management as well as tools for total population management. Casenet supports small to very large enterprise customers that require tremendous scalability, have many lines of business and require comprehensive configuration for each targeted member population. These solutions enable organizations to meet their unique requirements and adapt quickly to changing market and regulatory dynamics, identify and target populations having unique risk characteristics and deliver specific care management programs for those members — taking the first step toward better individual health and total population health management. For more information, visit http://www.casenetllc.com.

Casenet Media Contact:
Kelli L. Bravo, 781-357-2706, kbravo@casenetllc.com Reported by PRWeb 2 hours ago.

What Is Population Health Anyway? PYA’s Five-Part Series Provides Answers

January 5, 2016, 12:03 am

≫ Next: Tax Guy: Are you eligible for the health insurance premium tax credit?

≪ Previous: Casenet TruCare selected by ConnectiCare to enhance Care Management for its members

$

0

0

National certified public accounting and consulting firm PYA (Pershing Yoakley & Associates) announces the release of a five-part series which explores the various facets of population health and offers a “plan of attack” for developing a viable population health management program.

Knoxville, TN (PRWEB) January 05, 2016

PYA has announced the release of a five-part series, What Is Population Health Anyway?, which provides valuable insight into various components of population health and how it can be managed to promote health within a particular population.

The series, which is available on the PYA website and is organized into five tabbed sections, dissects population health and breaks it down into manageable components, starting with an operational definition of the term. Subsequent sections explore the clinical, organizational, and technical aspects of population health, making the series a comprehensive and valuable resource for countless providers.

“This series has greater implications than merely defining population health. It informs healthcare professionals, C-suites, boards, and vendors who provide technology and other solutions within a variety of healthcare settings,” said PYA Principal Martie Ross. “It offers strategic approaches that providers can utilize to improve the experience of care and overall health, while lowering healthcare costs for entire communities.”

Due to its all-inclusive nature, the series should assist providers across the healthcare continuum in orienting their staff, systems, and facilities toward a population-health-minded approach. The series culminates in a thorough and detailed plan for developing an effective population health management program.

According to PYA Principal Kent Bottles, MD, who also teaches at the Thomas Jefferson University College of Population Health, “Implementing a viable, practical population health management program should be a priority for all providers. The ‘10-part plan of attack’ presented in this series assists providers with the deployment of population health strategies aimed at the entire population served, while addressing the needs of individuals within that population. This series is a launch point for patient engagement and effecting positive, proactive changes in lifestyle.”

With a team of healthcare industry professionals including physicians, infectious disease experts, nurses, executives, attorneys, data scientists, and policy analysts, PYA helps providers pursue collaborative efforts to define, implement, and enforce standards of care; evaluate the best approaches for achieving success; develop appropriate strategies for patient engagement; and utilize the latest technological tools that will have the most impact on their patients’ lives.

---
About PYA

For over three decades, Pershing Yoakley & Associates (PYA), a national healthcare consulting firm, has helped clients navigate and derive value amid complex challenges related to regulatory compliance, mergers and acquisitions, governance, business valuations and fair market value assessments, multi-unit business and clinical integrations, best practices, tax and assurance, business analysis, and operations optimization.

PYA’s steadfast commitment to an unwavering client-centric culture has served the firm’s clients well. PYA is now ranked by Modern Healthcare as the nation’s 9th largest privately owned healthcare consulting firm. PYA affiliate companies offer clients world-class data analytics, professional real estate development and advisory resources for healthcare providers, self-insured employer health insurance claims audits for Fortune 500 companies, wealth management and retirement plan administration, and business transitions consulting.

For more information, please visit http://www.pyapc.com/ Reported by PRWeb 2 hours ago.

---

Tax Guy: Are you eligible for the health insurance premium tax credit?

January 5, 2016, 2:27 am

≫ Next: AIS Webinar: Insurance Exchange Experts to Dissect New Proposed Rules on Health Insurance Exchanges

≪ Previous: What Is Population Health Anyway? PYA’s Five-Part Series Provides Answers

$

0

0

Reported by MarketWatch 1 day ago.

AIS Webinar: Insurance Exchange Experts to Dissect New Proposed Rules on Health Insurance Exchanges

January 5, 2016, 3:04 am

≫ Next: Bay Area guide to Obamacare open enrollment events in January

≪ Previous: Tax Guy: Are you eligible for the health insurance premium tax credit?

$

0

0

Three nationally recognized insurance exchange experts will offer analysis of how CMS proposes to change the rules for exchanges — and steps organizations must take to stay competitive in a Jan. 13 webinar sponsored by Atlantic Information Services.

Washington, DC (PRWEB) January 05, 2016

Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is pleased to announce “New CMS Rules on Exchanges: Impact on Health Plans, Providers and Brokers,” a Jan. 13 webinar explaining proposed changes to health insurance exchanges issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in late November.

CMS’s notice of proposed rulemaking on the 2017 Benefit and Payment Parameters contemplates myriad significant changes to the health insurance exchanges, potentially creating new consumer protections for in-network and out-of-network providers, tighter enforcement of plans and brokers alike, and new standardized plan requirements. Will the tighter restrictions on networks and tiers make it tougher for insurers to slow rate increases? To what extent will proposed changes to risk adjustment methodology improve risk scores for plans with healthier enrollees? Will tighter standards for conduct of agents and brokers lead to more suspensions and terminations?

Michael Adelberg, senior director at FaegreBD Consulting, Christopher Condeluci, principal of CC Law & Policy, and Patrick Holland, a principal at KPMG LLP, will dissect the new changes proposed by CMS and outline steps organizations should consider in response. They’ll answer questions such as:· How much will the new set of six standard plan designs for individuals eligible for cost-sharing reductions — with just one in-network provider tier, four drug tiers, expanded services to be covered outside the deductible and other features — affect rate setting and selection?
· What will be the biggest challenges in adopting CMS’s proposed network adequacy requirements, which go beyond major changes proposed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, including new continuity-of-care requirements and notification rules for surgical patients if out-of-network providers work in an in-network facility?
· What has CMS proposed to improve the Affordable Care Act’s risk-mitigation programs?
· To what extent will proposed changes to the risk-adjustment methodology improve risk scores for plans with healthier enrollees and provide protection against patients who join plans only long enough to have an expensive procedure?
· Why are insurance agents and brokers worried about CMS’s proposal to take a more active role in overseeing their practices?
· How would insurers be impacted by proposed changes to 2016 reinsurance and risk-corridor programs, and 2016 and 2017 changes to risk adjustment?

Visit https://aishealth.com/marketplace/c6r02_011316 for more details and registration information.

About AIS
Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is a publishing and information company that has been serving the health care industry for nearly 30 years. It develops highly targeted news, data and strategic information for managers in hospitals and health systems, health insurance companies, medical group practices, purchasers of health insurance, pharmaceutical companies and other health care organizations. AIS products include print and electronic newsletters, databases, Websites, looseleafs, strategic reports, directories, webinars and virtual conferences. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.

Bay Area guide to Obamacare open enrollment events in January

January 5, 2016, 6:43 am

≫ Next: Sanders' Economic Plan Best For The 99 Percent

≪ Previous: AIS Webinar: Insurance Exchange Experts to Dissect New Proposed Rules on Health Insurance Exchanges

$

0

0

With less than a month to go before Obamacare's Jan. 31 sign-up deadline for a 2016 healthcare plan, California's health insurance exchange is holding weekly enrollment events throughout the Bay Area to provide consumers free, confidential enrollment assistance. Reported by San Jose Mercury News 20 hours ago.

Sanders' Economic Plan Best For The 99 Percent

January 5, 2016, 8:04 am

≫ Next: Sanders' Economic Plan Best for the 99 Percent

≪ Previous: Bay Area guide to Obamacare open enrollment events in January

$

0

0

The Democratic presidential campaign - unlike the Republican circus - has actually produced a debate in which each candidate's economic agenda has gotten better and more populist.  But as you can see at http://candidatescorecard.net/, there are also big differences.

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders agree that America's long period of declining wages and growing inequality has been due to chronic slow growth and high unemployment.  In Hillary's words "getting closer to full employment is crucial to raising wages."  Both are committed to some amount of increased public spending on infrastructure and investments in "green industries."  But the difference between the two candidates on public investment is a matter of scale.

Hillary Clinton wants $275 billion more in infrastructure investment in the next five years.

Bernie Sanders would increase by $1 trillion our public investments in jobs-creating infrastructure over the same five year period - creating one million new jobs, while helping to retool the US economy to reduce carbon emissions.

One explanation for the difference in size of their spending plans may be found in Bernie Sanders' willingness to tax the wealthy and corporations.  While Hillary has outlined some plans for higher capital gains taxes, she still has not rolled out detailed plans that would show us whether she would ask corporations pay a larger share of taxes to pay for growth-producing public investments - or whether her corporate tax plans would be "revenue-neutral."  Clinton's reluctance to raise taxes on corporations limits her ambitions on public investment.

Secretary Clinton has also drawn a line that is limiting her ability to help create programs to support the incomes of middle-class and poor Americans.  She has declared she will not raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000 per year.  Other Democrats have locked themselves into similar pledges - notably Barack Obama in 2008 - but Hillary has now pivoted to attacks on Bernie that are more typical of Republicans than Democrats.

This is unfortunate. If Democrats of earlier eras had adopted the Clinton approach there would be no Medicare or Social Security - and no publicly-funded elementary schools or high schools.

Here's how the debate has turned ugly: Secretary Clinton is attacking Bernie Sanders' Medicare For All proposal because she says it will raise taxes on the middle class.  What she doesn't say is that the Sanders plan would allow Americans to stop paying health insurance premiums, that their deductibles and copayments would be dramatically reduced, and that insurance executives would no longer interfere with their care.

The Sanders Medicare For All proposal would save the average family more than $5,000 per year.  It also would increase, not lower, incomes for 95 percent of Americans, according to Professor Gerald Friedman, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Professor Friedman writes that if Medicare for All was enacted "we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation."

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich notes that Bernie's proposals would cost less than what we'd spend without them. Most of the "cost" . . . would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices.Paul Waldman recently wrote in the Washington Post that "Every single-payer system in the world, and there are many of them of varying flavors, is cheaper than the American health care system.  Every single one.  So ... you can't say (Sanders' proposal) represents some kind of profligate, free-spending idea that would cost us all terrible amounts of money."

But rather than argue the case on its merits, Secretary Clinton has chosen to use the anti-government framing of the right by pledging that she will never "raise taxes" on the middle class (a group which, by her definition, includes people making $250,000 per year.)

Social Security would never have been created if Democrats had taken this position in the 1930s, since it is funded by payroll taxes. But that funding is one of its sources of political and fiscal strength, since it is forbidden by law from contributing to the federal deficit.

And if Democrats had taken Secretary Clinton's tax position in the 1960s we wouldn't have Medicare today, since that program is also partially funded through a payroll tax. Both Social Security and Medicare have provided enormous benefits and savings for the middle class. They provide better service than private corporations could provide, at a much lower cost. Medicare For All would do the same.

Sen. Sanders has proposed to increase Social Security benefits for all recipients, a move which would increase the income of a typical senior by roughly $1,300 per year. He would fund his proposal by having the wealthiest 1.5 percent of Americans pay into the program at the same rate as everyone else.

That happens to conform to Secretary Clinton's pledge not to raise taxes for households with less than $250,000 in income. Nevertheless, she has refused to support the Sanders proposal and has not ruled out a Social Security benefit cut.

Then there's college education.  Sen. Sanders proposed to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, as many were in the past (and has they are in a number of other countries today). Vice President Biden supports this concept*.*  But Secretary Clinton opposes it, even though it would save middle-class families more than $9,400 on average for each child they send to public college.

Sanders would pay for his college tuition plan with a tax on Wall Street speculation, so there's no middle-class tax involved. But Hillary Clinton has rejected it for a much more limited plan that would cost middle-class families much more. She says she is "not in favor of making college free for Donald Trump's kids." But how likely are billionaires' children to attend a public college? And you could use that logic to oppose free high schools or elementary schools, too.

In reality, it won't be Donald Trump's kids who lose out if Sanders' plan is blocked. The sons and daughters of the middle class will pay the price instead.

What about the minimum wage? Bernie Sanders has called for a gradual increase to $15 per hour by 2020. For her part, Secretary Clinton has called for a $12 per hour minimum wage. Under the Sanders plan, full-time minimum wage workers would receive an additional $6,240 more per year than under Clinton's proposal.

Together these wage and jobs proposals would help the middle class by increasing demand for workers while at the same time raising the floor on their income. By contrast, Secretary Clinton has offered a weaker minimum wage proposal and not proposed a major jobs plan.

The middle class bore the brunt of the 2008 financial crisis, which cost the US economy at least $6 trillion. Sen. Sanders predicted that Wall Street deregulation could lead to a taxpayer bailout and a financial crisis, and he has a plan for preventing the next one - by reinstating the Glass-Steagall rule and breaking up commercial banks, investments banks, hedge funds and insurance companies which now threaten the global economy.  Hillary Clinton opposes both measures.

Secretary Clinton's use of anti-government, anti-tax rhetoric is counterproductive at best.  It prevents her from supporting excellent proposals like Sen. Kristin Gillibrand's FAMILY Act, which Sen. Sanders supports. It would provide American families with at least 3 months of paid leave to care for a newborn baby or seriously ill or injured family members. This would particularly benefit working women, and it would only cost the average worker just $1.61 per week.

What's more important - another Grover Norquist "no taxes" pledge, or a comprehensive plan for caregivers which costs less per week than a cup of coffee?

A framing like Secretary Clinton's paints government as inherently bad, even when it can deliver urgently needed programs more fairly and cost-effectively than the private sector. It closes the door on important proposals like the FAMILY Act and Medicare For All, and it undermines successful programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Here's the bottom line:  The middle class is in crisis, and Secretary Clinton's proposals merely tinker at the margins of that crisis. They would not shift the fundamental direction of an economy that is growing more unequal every day. Nor would they offer greater security for the millions of Americans who live in fear of the future and wonder how they'll make it through today.

What's more, Secretary Clinton's agenda has been presented with a framing that threatens to undermine her own party's greatest achievements and make future advances for the middle class more difficult to achieve.  The leader of the Democratic Party should fight for better government, not reinforce the anti-government tropes of the right. That sort of talk may have had an audience in the 1990s, but it is politically unwise today.

Bernie Sanders offers the best economic plan for the middle class. And he has shown that he is willing to challenge the Republican Party's rhetoric, rather than offer a pale reflection of 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 19 hours ago.

Sanders' Economic Plan Best for the 99 Percent

January 5, 2016, 9:46 am

≫ Next: One in five insured Americans still struggle to pay medical bills – survey

≪ Previous: Sanders' Economic Plan Best For The 99 Percent

$

0

0

The Democratic presidential campaign -- unlike the Republican circus -- has actually produced a debate in which each candidate's economic agenda has gotten better and more populist.  But as you can see at candidatescorecard.net/, there are also big differences.

Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders agree that America's long period of declining wages and growing inequality has been due to chronic slow growth and high unemployment.  In Hillary's words "getting closer to full employment is crucial to raising wages."  Both are committed to some amount of increased public spending on infrastructure and investments in "green industries."  But the difference between the two candidates on public investment is a matter of scale.

Hillary Clinton wants $275 billion more in infrastructure investment in the next five years.

Bernie Sanders would increase by $1 trillion our public investments in jobs-creating infrastructure over the same five year period - creating one million new jobs, while helping to retool the US economy to reduce carbon emissions.

One explanation for the difference in size of their spending plans may be found in Bernie Sanders' willingness to tax the wealthy and corporations.  While Hillary has outlined some plans for higher capital gains taxes, she still has not rolled out detailed plans that would show us whether she would ask corporations to pay a larger share of taxes to pay for growth-producing public investments -- or whether her corporate tax plans would be "revenue-neutral." Clinton's reluctance to raise taxes on corporations limits her ambitions on public investment.

Secretary Clinton has also drawn a line that is limiting her ability to help create programs to support the incomes of middle-class and poor Americans.  She has declared she will not raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000 per year.  Other Democrats have locked themselves into similar pledges -- notably Barack Obama in 2008 -- but Hillary has now pivoted to attacks on Bernie that are more typical of Republicans than Democrats.

This is unfortunate. If Democrats of earlier eras had adopted the Clinton approach there would be no Medicare or Social Security -- and no publicly-funded elementary schools or high schools.

Here's how the debate has turned ugly: Secretary Clinton is attacking Bernie Sanders' Medicare For All proposal because she says it will raise taxes on the middle class. What she doesn't say is that the Sanders plan would allow Americans to stop paying health insurance premiums, that their deductibles and copayments would be dramatically reduced, and that insurance executives would no longer interfere with their care.

The Sanders Medicare For All proposal would save the average family more than $5,000 per year.  It also would increase, not lower, incomes for 95 percent of Americans, according to Professor Gerald Friedman, Professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Professor Friedman writes that if Medicare for All was enacted "we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation."

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich notes that Bernie's proposals would cost less than what we'd spend without them. Most of the "cost" ... would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices.Paul Waldman recently wrote in the Washington Post that "Every single-payer system in the world, and there are many of them of varying flavors, is cheaper than the American health care system.  Every single one.  So ... you can't say (Sanders' proposal) represents some kind of profligate, free-spending idea that would cost us all terrible amounts of money."

But rather than argue the case on its merits, Secretary Clinton has chosen to use the anti-government framing of the right by pledging that she will never "raise taxes" on the middle class (a group which, by her definition, includes people making $250,000 per year.)

Social Security would never have been created if Democrats had taken this position in the 1930s, since it is funded by payroll taxes. But that funding is one of its sources of political and fiscal strength, since it is forbidden by law from contributing to the federal deficit.

And if Democrats had taken Secretary Clinton's tax position in the 1960s we wouldn't have Medicare today, since that program is also partially funded through a payroll tax. Both Social Security and Medicare have provided enormous benefits and savings for the middle class. They provide better service than private corporations could provide, at a much lower cost. Medicare For All would do the same.

Sen. Sanders has proposed to increase Social Security benefits for all recipients, a move which would increase the income of a typical senior by roughly $1,300 per year. He would fund his proposal by having the wealthiest 1.5 percent of Americans pay into the program at the same rate as everyone else.

That happens to conform to Secretary Clinton's pledge not to raise taxes for households with less than $250,000 in income. Nevertheless, she has refused to support the Sanders proposal and has not ruled out a Social Security benefit cut.

Then there's college education.  Sen. Sanders proposed to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, as many were in the past (and has they are in a number of other countries today). Vice President Biden supports this concept*.*  But Secretary Clinton opposes it, even though it would save middle-class families more than $9,400 on average for each child they send to public college.

Sanders would pay for his college tuition plan with a tax on Wall Street speculation, so there's no middle-class tax involved. But Hillary Clinton has rejected it for a much more limited plan that would cost middle-class families much more. She says she is "not in favor of making college free for Donald Trump's kids." But how likely are billionaires' children to attend a public college? And you could use that logic to oppose free high schools or elementary schools, too.

In reality, it won't be Donald Trump's kids who lose out if Sanders' plan is blocked. The sons and daughters of the middle class will pay the price instead.

What about the minimum wage? Bernie Sanders has called for a gradual increase to $15 per hour by 2020. For her part, Secretary Clinton has called for a $12 per hour minimum wage. Under the Sanders plan, full-time minimum wage workers would receive an additional $6,240 more per year than under Clinton's proposal.

Together these wage and jobs proposals would help the middle class by increasing demand for workers while at the same time raising the floor on their income. By contrast, Secretary Clinton has offered a weaker minimum wage proposal and not proposed a major jobs plan.

The middle class bore the brunt of the 2008 financial crisis, which cost the US economy at least $6 trillion. Sen. Sanders predicted that Wall Street deregulation could lead to a taxpayer bailout and a financial crisis, and he has a plan for preventing the next one - by reinstating the Glass-Steagall rule and breaking up commercial banks, investments banks, hedge funds and insurance companies which now threaten the global economy.  Hillary Clinton opposes both measures.

Secretary Clinton's use of anti-government, anti-tax rhetoric is counterproductive at best.  It prevents her from supporting excellent proposals like Sen. Kristin Gillibrand's FAMILY Act, which Sen. Sanders supports. It would provide American families with at least 3 months of paid leave to care for a newborn baby or seriously ill or injured family members. This would particularly benefit working women, and it would only cost the average worker just $1.61 per week.

What's more important - another Grover Norquist "no taxes" pledge, or a comprehensive plan for caregivers which costs less per week than a cup of coffee?

A framing like Secretary Clinton's paints government as inherently bad, even when it can deliver urgently needed programs more fairly and cost-effectively than the private sector. It closes the door on important proposals like the FAMILY Act and Medicare For All, and it undermines successful programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Here's the bottom line:  The middle class is in crisis, and Secretary Clinton's proposals merely tinker at the margins of that crisis. They would not shift the fundamental direction of an economy that is growing more unequal every day. Nor would they offer greater security for the millions of Americans who live in fear of the future and wonder how they'll make it through today.

What's more, Secretary Clinton's agenda has been presented with a framing that threatens to undermine her own party's greatest achievements and make future advances for the middle class more difficult to achieve.  The leader of the Democratic Party should fight for better government, not reinforce the anti-government tropes of the right. That sort of talk may have had an audience in the 1990s, but it is politically unwise today.

Bernie Sanders offers the best economic plan for the middle class. And he has shown that he is willing to challenge the Republican Party's rhetoric, rather than offer a pale reflection of 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 17 hours ago.