Bernie Sanders and Iowa's Moment of Truth

January 12, 2016, 2:44 pm

≫ Next: Public Sector Unions Pin Hopes on Antonin Scalia Going Rogue

≪ Previous: The Internet of Things Era Is Here. Is Washington Ready?

$

0

0

On February 1, 2016 voters in Iowa will vote in the 2016 Democratic Caucuses. Iowa is one of ten states that still use the Caucuses to elect delegates and decide the state's preference for Democratic Presidential nominee. Since 1996, the Democratic candidate that won the Iowa Caucuses has gone on to win the presidential nomination. The importance of winning Iowa this year cannot be overstated. Most recent polls have shown a marginal lead for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders with the margin of error making the polls a veritable tie. Sanders, long portrayed by mainstream media as being on the sidelines of the presidential race has indubitably become a front-runner both by the measure of his presence on the internet as well as his showings in hypothetical general election mashups in which he is the front-runner in Iowa among all voters. With such a small margin of difference in the polls, a victory in Iowa is likely to provide the momentum needed to sway voters in other states and win a presidential nomination.

In the lead up to February 1, campaigning will intensify as will the rhetoric from the candidates. Voters in Iowa will be the focus of campaign workers both within the state as well as from all over the country pitching their candidate through telephone calls and postings in online forums. Political experts on television and in news journals will be analyzing polls and making predictions. The stakes, therefore, are high for the presidential hopefuls.

More importantly, the stakes are high for America.

Incompetence and vested interest have been polluting the political system to the point that many have lost faith in Government. Movements such as Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party on either side of the spectrum have gained popularity through their rejection of the current political dispensation. While one sees the nation having become an oligarchy subject to the whims of the rich and powerful, the other blames a bloated and intrusive Federal Government. Ultimately, what most Americans desire in the here and now, regardless of their vision of what it should look like, is change; tangible and distinct from the status quo.

Change is indeed both called for and necessary to fix America's problems and restore public faith in Government. The question is who out of all the candidates is most likely to create change? Let's start with who is unlikely to do so.

It is not going to be the candidate who voted for the Iraq War and oversaw as Foreign Secretary the transfer of arms to Syrian Rebels that ended up in the hands of ISIS. Who has ties with the Financial Sector going back 41 years. Who along with her husband has received $69 million in contributions from Wall Street. Who has since running for Senate in 2000, taken $1 million from pharmaceutical and biotechnology giants and more than $2.7 million from health insurance companies. Who first as a powerful first lady and then as Foreign Secretary presided over an unprecedented intrusion of lobbyists in American politics, the housing bubble that led to the recession of 2007-2008 and an undeserving bailout of the banks that through their short-sighted and corrupt practices caused so much harm to the economy.

No, Hillary Clinton is not the candidate of change but the candidate of the establishment. Electing her is the equivalent of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Now try the candidate who passionately opposed and voted against the 2003 Iraq Invasion. Whose largest campaign finance contributors are workers unions and the bulk of whose campaign money comes from small personal contributions. Who has from his induction into the political field championed the poor and the Middle Class and campaigned against lobbying. Who has promised, without mincing words, to take on Corporate America, make the super-rich pay their fair share of income and estate tax and bring back the Public Option to Healthcare.

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who is not polluted by the corruption of the establishment. He is the only candidate that qualifies as the candidate of change. There are many who fear that the office of president is fast becoming a figurehead for an oligarchic dispensation that has taken power away from the people. Voting for Bernie Sanders will give us a chance of reversing this trend and putting political power back where it belongs -- with the people.

This is Iowa's moment of truth. May the state become the harbinger of what is to come in all subsequent caucuses and primaries and in the presidential elections in November 2016 -- and elect Bernie Sanders as it's Democratic Presidential Nominee.

-- 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.

---

Public Sector Unions Pin Hopes on Antonin Scalia Going Rogue

January 12, 2016, 3:19 pm

≫ Next: EWTN files brief before Supreme Court in mandate challenge

≪ Previous: Bernie Sanders and Iowa's Moment of Truth

$

0

0

You know that public employee unions are in dire legal straits when their best chance for survival may rest with the Supreme Court's most volatile, cranky and impulsive conservative: Antonin Gregory Scalia. Yet, according to some very sophisticated, progressive court watchers, that is the exactly the situation in the latest assault on public union operations, in the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (CTA).

Argued before the justices Monday, Friedrichs concerns the right of unions to collect limited "fair-share" fees from nonmember employees in lieu of full formal dues to help defray the costs of collective bargaining.

By any yardstick, the case packs blockbuster potential, both legally and politically. A decision against the 325,000-member teachers association could harm every government employee union in the country, draining their coffers and conceivably sending some into bankruptcy. In the process, the nation's entire public sector would become one uniform right-to-work jurisdiction.

To understand why some observers believe that Scalia, who rarely aligns with liberal causes, might play the critical role of swing voter in Friedrichs, a little digression is required, but rest assured: We'll get back to him.

The plaintiffs in Friedrichs are the Christian Educators Association International and 10 anti-union California schoolteachers, including lead litigant Rebecca Friedrichs, who has taught kindergarten through fourth grade for nearly three decades in Orange County. They object to paying fair-share fees to the CTA. All were once CTA members but have since resigned.

Collectively, the plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), a nonprofit, ultra-right-wing law firm in Washington, D.C., that has made a name for itself in suits opposing affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act, Obamacare and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. According to SourceWatch.org, the CIR is funded by many of the American right's big-money patrons, such as the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Koch brothers' Donors Trust network.

Although the CIR handles much of its docket with its own in-house counsel, it has teamed up on Friedrichs with conservative super-lawyer Michael Carvin of the powerful Jones Day law firm.

Carvin and the CIR contend that collective bargaining in the public sector is inherently political and that, as a result, the fair-share system violates the First Amendment rights of nonunion workers. The amendment, they note, protects not only the affirmative right to speak without governmental interference, but also the passive right to not be compelled by government to speak or endorse the offending speech or acts of other individuals or groups. Requiring dissenting employees to pay fees to a union they don't want to join, their analysis continues, amounts to such compelled speech and must be declared unconstitutional across the board.

To carry the day, however, the plaintiffs will have to persuade a majority of five justices to overrule a landmark 1977 decision dealing with government unions, one handed down long before any current justice's tenure on the court began--Abood v. Detroit Board of Education--which upheld the constitutionality of fair-share arrangements.

This is where Scalia enters the picture.

Prior to the oral arguments in Friedrichs, Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, clearly seemed poised to jettison Abood, based on their prior voting records in cases on the fair-share question. A close reading of Scalia's previous pronouncements on Abood, however, suggested that he might not be ready to fall in line, at least not entirely.

Oral arguments are sometimes poor barometers of how the justices ultimately will vote. Sometimes they play devil's advocate, and sometimes they ask questions because they haven't yet made up their minds. But the court's nine members appeared to divide sharply along familiar ideological lines in the Friedrichs hearing, with the panel's Democratic appointees supporting the CTA, and its five Republicans--including Scalia--siding with the plaintiffs.

Justice Kennedy remarked during the arguments that fair-share fees "are matters of public concern" and amounted to "coerced speech." Dissenting employees, he charged, are "being silenced" by being forced to pay them.

Scalia, while not tipping his hand, was described by New York Times reporter Adam Liptak, who attended the session, as "consistently hostile" to the union. "The problem is that everything that is collectively bargained with the government is within the political sphere," Scalia said from the bench, echoing the CIR's request to overrule Abood.

Under Abood and other provisions of current labor law generally, no one can be forced to join a union, even one that has been selected by a majority of workers to negotiate on their behalf. States are also free to enact right-to-work measures, as 25 have to date, prohibiting unions from demanding fair-share fees from nonmembers. But because of Abood and other cases decided in succeeding years, in non-right-to-work states like California, fair-share fee arrangements are lawful in the public sector (as they are privately), and they are mandatory once a union has been duly elected.

In fair-share venues, dissenting nonunion workers typically are billed in the form of payroll deductions for full regular union dues. They then have the right annually to "opt out" of making full payments, remitting instead only the portion that is needed to match the union's bargaining expenses. Fair-share fees (also called "agency fees" in reference to the union's status as the sole agent authorized to act on bargaining) cannot be used to pay for other union expenses, such as contributions to political campaigns and most lobbying.

As Abood recognized, the fair-share system is designed to equitably distribute the cost of union activities among those who benefit. The system is also aimed at countering the incentive that employees might otherwise have to become "free riders" who refuse to contribute to unions while reaping the advantages they bring, including higher wages, pensions, health insurance, and assistance with workplace grievances and employer disciplinary hearings.

The free-rider problem is real and significant. In California and most other jurisdictions, even in right-to-work states where unions operate, unions have a duty to represent and enforce the contractual rights of all employees in a bargaining unit, both members and nonmembers alike.

Such services don't come cheap. The fair-share fee for the estimated 9.7 percent of California teachers who, like Rebecca Friedrichs and her co-plaintiffs, have opted not to join their union comprises about 68 percent of full membership dues.

There is little question that in return they receive a handsome payout. According to figures compiled by The Century Foundation, unionized teachers on average earn an hourly wage 24.7 percent higher than their nonunion counterparts.

Should Friedrichs and her cohorts prevail in their quest to topple the fair-share system, more teachers no doubt would leave the CTA, reasoning that they could retain the gains of union contracts without paying a dime for them. Public employees in other occupations probably would do the same, believing that they too could free ride without adverse consequences.

During the oral arguments, attorney Carvin sought to assure the justices that the loss of fair-share fees would have a minimal impact on union membership. The evidence, however, shows that he is dead wrong.

If the recent labor strife in Wisconsin is any bellwether, a plaintiffs' victory in Friedrichs could be disastrous for unions and the benefits they deliver. In the aftermath of Gov. Scott Walker's 2011 assault on public unions and the state's subsequent implementation of right-to-work policies, for example, the declines in public union membership and dues collected have been monumental.

The Madison local of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has lost 18,000 of its previous 32,000 members and has seen its annual revenue fall from $10 million to $5.5 million. The state's largest teachers union, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, has lost more than a third of its members. As the Wisconsin experience shows, free riding isn't free.

For all the loopy phrases in his recent court opinions--"argle bargle,""jiggery pokery,""pure applesauce," to invoke just a few--and notwithstanding his regressive positions on such issues as gay marriage, Obamacare, the Second Amendment, affirmative action and voting rights, Scalia in the past has expressed a distaste for free riders.

In 1991, in a case (Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association) involving the relevance of the Abood decision to a small Michigan state college, Scalia penned an opinion in which he found the fair-share system served a compelling state interest in workplace regulation, declaring:

Our First Amendment jurisprudence ... recognizes a correlation between the rights and the duties of the union, on the one hand, and the nonunion members of the bargaining unit, on the other. Where the state imposes upon the union a duty to deliver services, it may permit the union to demand reimbursement for them; or, looked at from the other end, where the state creates in the nonmembers a legal entitlement from the union, it may compel them to pay the cost.

But that was 25 years ago. The question now is whether Scalia will remain consistent or join with the court's other conservatives to end the fair-share system once and forever. Those who hope for consistency can point to other areas of the law--for example, Fourth Amendment privacy issues--in which Scalia, despite amassing an enormously right-wing record overall, has displayed occasional maverick tendencies.

Should the maverick Scalia reappear in Friedrichs when the opinion is finally handed down, there will be ample grounds for rejecting the plaintiffs' First Amendment analysis. In addition to affirming the compelling purpose of the fair-share system, the court, with Scalia as the fifth swing vote, could recognize that union dissenters like Rebecca Friedrichs in fact have sustained no substantial First Amendment injuries.

Despite their fair-share payments, Friedrichs and company remain free to speak out against their union and its views. No reasonable person would construe their payment of fair-share fees as an ideological endorsement of the union. Indeed, as the solicitor general has observed in his brief in the case, the inference to be drawn about the beliefs of fair-share employees is just the opposite.

In the end, unfortunately, the pull of party politics may prove too strong for Scalia. In 2012 (Knox v. SEIU) and again in 2014 (Harris v. Quinn), Scalia joined his Republican brethren in 5-4 opinions that chipped away at the fair-share system and criticized but fell short of overruling Abood.

The Knox and Harris cases, however, dealt with more limited issues than Friedrichs. Knox concerned a midyear dues assessment imposed on state workers to defeat two anti-union measures placed on the 2005 California ballot by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican. The Harris case involved Illinois in-home care providers, who were held not to be full-fledged public employees. Both cases were financed and litigated by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Whatever the final lineup of the justices proves to be in Friedrichs, the court's decision will have profound political ramifications.

Public unions are the last bastion of organized labor in America. In 2014, the percentage of unionized wage and salary workers in the U.S. dropped to 11.1 percent from 20.1 percent in 1983. The unionization rate in the private sector stands at an abysmal 6.6 percent. The public sector, by contrast, boasts an aggregate unionization rate of 35.7 percent.

Unions are also a consistent supporter of Democratic Party candidates and initiatives, spending, according to some estimates, over $1.7 billion on political campaigns in the 2012 election cycle.

The American right has long demonized unions, particularly in the public sphere, falsely blaming them instead of Wall Street and the crippling financial crisis of 2007-2008 for municipal bankruptcies and pension fund shortfalls around the country. Influential segments of the right, such as the Cato Institute, have openly called for public-sector collective bargaining to be outlawed nationwide for all workers, as it has been for schoolteachers in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas.

As I've written before in this column, the right's lesson plan is simple: "Kill the fair-share regime and you kill public sector unions. Kill public sector unions and you kill off the labor movement as a whole." In the end, the only parties left unscathed will be the big-money corporate donors who have bankrolled the anti-union crusade for decades.

Will Scalia buck the tide and come to the rescue of the unions? We won't know for certain until the court's term ends in June. In the meantime, don't count on 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 5 hours ago.

EWTN files brief before Supreme Court in mandate challenge

January 13, 2016, 10:11 am

≫ Next: Desplazados: The Invisible Citizens

≪ Previous: Public Sector Unions Pin Hopes on Antonin Scalia Going Rogue

$

0

0

Washington D.C., Jan 12, 2016 / 08:52 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a religious freedom case against the federal contraception mandate, the EWTN Global Catholic Network has filed a brief with the court.

“Our brief argues that the government’s mandate and its subsequent ‘accommodation’ scheme seek to coerce EWTN and other religious organizations into violating our strongly held beliefs,” EWTN Chairman and CEO Michael Warsaw said Jan. 11. “The Supreme Court needs to find the mandate to be unconstitutional.”

EWTN Global Catholic Network was founded by Mother Angelica, a Franciscan nun. It is the largest religious media network in the world and is among hundreds of organizations to challenge the mandate. However, its legal appeal is still pending with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments in February 2015.

The Department of Health and Human Services mandate requires employers to offer health insurance plans covering contraception, sterilization and some drugs that can cause early abortions.

Employers who fail to comply with the mandate face crippling penalties. Many Catholic and non-Catholic organizations have filed lawsuits against the mandate, saying it violates religious freedom and compels them to act against their religious and moral beliefs.

On Nov. 6, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear several remaining legal challenges to the mandate, including plaintiffs like Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh and the Little Sisters of the Poor.

For failing to comply with the mandate, EWTN said it could face fines of $35,000 per day, about $12.7 million per year. Its amicus curiae, “friend of the court” brief charged that the government aims to force EWTN into “complicity with wrongdoing.”

“Giving in would not only violate EWTN’s conscience, but would destroy EWTN’s credibility as a witness to the Catholic faith it proclaims every day to a worldwide audience,” the network’s brief said.

Warsaw said EWTN’s Jan. 11 brief with the Supreme Court “allows EWTN to have its voice heard as the court gives consideration to these important cases challenging the government’s contraceptive mandate scheme.”

The brief noted that the government’s religious exemption to the mandate applies to churches, auxiliaries and their religious orders. This exemption did not help EWTN. Although the network is dedicated to proclaiming Catholic teaching, “it is not an arm of the Catholic Church, and while EWTN was founded by the head of a cloistered order of nuns, it is not a religious order.”

The lawsuit was dismissed on technical grounds in March 2013. The network again filed a lawsuit on Oct. 28, 2013, joined by the State of Alabama and its Attorney General Luther Strange.

In 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, a closely-held private company whose Christian owners objected to parts of the mandate. EWTN then secured an injunction from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The injunction allowed EWTN to continue its court challenge without facing fines.

EWTN broadcasts to over 258 million television households in more than 145 countries and territories. It also broadcasts via satellite radio, internet radio and other media. Its publications include the National Catholic Register. Its news services include Catholic News Agency.

  Reported by CNA 11 hours ago.

Desplazados: The Invisible Citizens

January 12, 2016, 9:18 pm

≫ Next: AIS Newsletters Identify Top Health Insurance Trends for 2016

≪ Previous: EWTN files brief before Supreme Court in mandate challenge

$

0

0

By Andres Hernandez, Andrea Martinez, Liliana Villa, and Dee Dee WeiAs we boarded the plane from Boston to Medellin, Colombia, and our tickets were being scanned one by one, we realized the importance of being counted. This was a stark difference to the many conversations we had been having with our Colombian colleagues. Half of our group is from Medellín and is familiar with the realities of Granizal, a community of desplazados (internally displaced people) that we would soon visit and see first-hand. Our Colombian colleagues described to those of us living in the US, the problems desplazados have faced throughout their lives. Most troubling to us was the reality of not being accounted for.

After being forced to move from different rural regions of the country coupled with a lack of recognition from Colombia's national and local governments, a community was created without social cohesion and was further isolated from the rest of the Colombian society. A major point of contention and challenge is their alleged illegal occupation of the land. In one of our lectures, Dr. Gregg Greenough, Assistant Professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, discussed the importance of having accurate demographic data for populations when planning public health initiatives. In creating efficient interventions, key data are critical to collect in order to better understand and describe the social conditions of the people in the community. Without this demographic data public health professionals are uncertain of the various health issues and living conditions of these displaced populations, and are therefore, unable to allocate resources accordingly. This lack of information can often result in inadequate public health programs for this marginalized population and makes it difficult for the people of Granizal to advocate for recognition by the government and the subsequent access to services necessary for living as productive citizens in the greater urban society.

This absence of government recognition creates many additional problems that affect the health and quality of life of the people in Granizal. Two major health-related issues that the people of this community face are poor sanitation and unsafe drinking water. These essential needs are a right that the government should guarantee for all of its citizens. However, the government hesitates to provide these services as it claims that Granizal's settlements are illegal. For similar reasons, this population has difficulty accessing health and social services, such as medical care, health insurance, and pensions. The children of Granizal also lack access to proper education. Many of the children do not attend school, and the local school has been identified as one of the poorest in Colombia. Thus, it is imperative to count and map the population to graphically illustrate their needs. New mapping technologies using GPS, cellphones, drones, and satellite images can facilitate the process. Nonetheless, executing a census should be the ultimate goal as it includes health indicators in addition to socio-demographic data. Despite the fact that a census can be expensive, Granizal's population is relatively small and the benefits would likely outweigh the costs.

As Colombia transitions into peace, we must emphasize community empowerment and social cohesion, especially among the disenfranchised, in order to promote and maintain peace. Formal government recognition is not merely an identification document that represents residency status; it also represents community belonging and social identity. Formally recognizing displaced populations promotes social inclusion and peace.

As our plane took off, we continued to think about these issues, our hopes, and concerns. Those of us from the US worried about how, as outsiders, we could propose sustainable solutions to the community we aim to help. Those of us from Colombia, hoped our combined efforts with our American colleagues will help one of our country's most vulnerable populations. In this instance and with the start of our journey, we were counting on each other.

This post is part of a series entitled "Post-Conflict Colombia and Public Health" a project of the Open Hands Initiative and the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, in collaboration with the School of Medicine - Universidad de Antioquia. For more information about the project, read here.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.

AIS Newsletters Identify Top Health Insurance Trends for 2016

January 13, 2016, 3:03 am

≫ Next: Ohio ambulance company owner pleads guilty to fraud

≪ Previous: Desplazados: The Invisible Citizens

$

0

0

Health care industry insiders identify top trends in health insurance, Medicare Advantage, compliance and pharmacy, in Atlantic Information Services’ January 2016 newsletters.

Washington, DC (PRWEB) January 13, 2016

Editors at Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) interviewed health industry insiders to identify the top trends for 2016 in health insurance, Medicare Advantage (MA), compliance and pharmacy areas, the results of which were published in the company’s first newsletters of the year. Here's what they found:· Insiders tell Health Plan Week that this year will bring health insurance executives some much-needed clarity on issues such as what the next three to five years will look like in terms of the viability of Affordable Care Act exchanges, how far to push plan designs featuring narrow networks, and what moves employers will make with the beginning of an end to non-ACA compliant coverage.
· The AIS Report on Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans finds that the Blues are searching for ways to become more efficient, perhaps by outsourcing key back-office operations, as they prepare to compete with two coming industry giants created by the combinations of Aetna Inc./Humana Inc. and Anthem, Inc./Cigna Corp. (Not affiliated with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association or its member companies.)
· Medicare Advantage News says Medicare Advantage plans are also preparing for more competition, as the number of provider-sponsored MA plans grows and more Medicaid companies enter the Medicare space.
· Drug Benefit News warns that employers, insurers and pharmacy benefit managers are adopting new strategies in the face of price spikes among both generic and brand-name drugs, including moving some therapies to higher tiers or off the formulary altogether.
· Even as hospital compliance managers continue to deal with short hospital stays and physician contracts, Report on Medicare Compliance says they have their eye on new compliance challenges from looming regulations on several fronts, including discharge planning and the 60-day rule.
· HIPAA privacy and security officers also face new issues, according to Report on Patient Privacy, including the need to address the “Internet of Things,” reduce the threats posed by workforce members through a renewed focus on training, and ensure that vital new technology doesn’t inadvertently compromise protected health information.

For more information on AIS’ newsletters and other publications, visit https://aishealth.com/marketplace.

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 19 hours ago.

Ohio ambulance company owner pleads guilty to fraud

January 13, 2016, 4:34 am

≫ Next: Kony and Medical Mutual of Ohio Deliver Innovative Mobile Healthcare and Incentive Apps for Members and Employees

≪ Previous: AIS Newsletters Identify Top Health Insurance Trends for 2016

$

0

0

CINCINNATI (AP) — An ambulance company owner accused of submitting more than $1.4 million in fraudulent bills to Medicare and Medicaid has pleaded guilty in Ohio to health care fraud and money laundering charges. Court documents say Johnson fraudulently billed the federal health insurance programs for about seven years for transportation services when patients were not transported. Reported by SeattlePI.com 17 hours ago.

Kony and Medical Mutual of Ohio Deliver Innovative Mobile Healthcare and Incentive Apps for Members and Employees

January 13, 2016, 5:37 am

≫ Next: Weak Bounce Wednesday

≪ Previous: Ohio ambulance company owner pleads guilty to fraud

$

0

0

AUSTIN, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Kony, Inc., the leading enterprise mobility company, today announced it has helped Medical Mutual of Ohio, the oldest and largest health insurance company based in Ohio, deliver unique mobile app experiences for its members and employees. Medical Mutual of Ohio was founded in 1934 and is the oldest and largest health insurance company headquartered in Ohio offering a variety of health plans to individuals, businesses, and professional sports teams. Faced with hea Reported by Business Wire 16 hours ago.

Weak Bounce Wednesday

January 13, 2016, 6:16 am

≫ Next: Chelsea Clinton Just Said Bernie Sanders Would Take Health Care From Millions

≪ Previous: Kony and Medical Mutual of Ohio Deliver Innovative Mobile Healthcare and Incentive Apps for Members and Employees

$

0

0

*Not too exciting so far.*

*As we predicted on Monday, the 5% Rule™ is in play and we have, so far, held the line at the bottom but now we need to see if our bounces are weak (+1%) or strong (+2%) into Friday's options expirations.  It's entirely possible, since it benefits the most Fund Managers, that we pop 2.5% and end up even for the month - right back where we started when they sold all those option contracts on Dec 18th.  *Yes, that's right, the markets are a manipulated joke but, as long as you understand and accept that - you can play along with the manipulators and make some good money.  Clearly the markets are a bit oversold here and, oddly enough, it's the overwhelming level of doom and gloom coming from the MSM that makes us want to go long now.  

After all, what are they telling you to worry about?  China, the Fed, Oil, Commodities, Terrorism, North Korea, Junk Bonds, Brazil, Puerto Rico...  These are all things we've been talking about all year when we went SHORT at S&P 2,100.  Now that we're back to 1,900 (down 10%), I'm a lot more comfortable that the market is now taking into account these risk factors.  None of these problems are new folks - the media simply stopped ignoring them this month.  

As I mentioned yesterday in our Live Webinar, we KNOW the energy sector's earnings are going to be a disaster - that's a given.  How much of that will spill over to bad debt for the banks is something we'll find out this week as JPM, BLK, C, PNC, FRC and RF all give their earnings reports (Thursday night and Friday morning).  If they manage to be relatively unscathed by the collapse in commodities and the collapse in China - then the main reason to panic will quickly fade into the background.*For those who watched the Obama's final State of the Union Address last night *(and here's the 2 min version)* it was starkly apparent that the American people have been hammered with negativity about our economy from a dozen GOP candidates but, in fact, it's very easy to paint a much more positive picture - and that's exactly what Obama did last night.  Will it cheer up the markets - that remains to be seen*.  

As you can see from this Bloomberg chart, big and small companies, as measured by the Russell 3000 Index, are growing at an annual rate of 15.5% since March, 2009 and outperforming the rest of the world by 7.4%. During the 20 years prior to Obama's presidency, the Russell's yearly gain was 4.5% and it outperformed the rest of the world by 3.9% each year.

What's especially compelling is that U.S. firms are investing in their growth at a record pace. Capital expenditures of the S&P 500 are the most since at least 1990, when Bloomberg began compiling such data, and increased 68 percent since 2010. The only comparable investment spree occurred between 1995 and 2000, when the Internet began transforming U.S. commerce.  American companies also are healthier than they have ever been. The ratio of net debt to Ebitda (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of the S&P 500 -- the most widely-used measure of corporate well-being -- improved the most during the Obama presidency and hovers at all-time lows, according to Bloomberg data. 

The US Auto Industry and their 5M workers, who Obama saved over the strong objections of Republicans, just reported their best year ever and 17.6M more Americans have Health Insurance through Obamacare, which has led to a boom in the health care sector (by covering 10% more people - something we predicted in our 2010 Market Outlook, when Obama first took office).  Something else we predicted in our 2010 Outlook has also, sadly played out exactly as we thought.  Income disparity has gotten worse and worse and inequality in America has passed the worst excesses of the Roaring 20's - right before the economy collapsed.

*Notice that, on this chart, the AVERAGE wages, which include the top 1%, seem OK but, once you remove the top 1%, the average for the other 99% drops to less than 1% per year in wage growth and, if you remove the next 9% from that group, the bottom 90%'s share of wages has actually DECLINED over the past 7 years.  THAT is the one thing holding down the US economy - our consumers are tapped out and that's put the brakes on our expansion.  As the positive effect of job growth slows, we NEED wage increases or this economy will stagnate or worse*.  

As you can see from the above chart, those record Auto Sales came at a cost of $300Bn in additional debt to the consumers (+$3,500 per family) and Student Loans have cost the Average Family another $5,000 and, if that's not you - think about how awful the debt load must be for the other guy!  Student Loan Debt and Income Inequality is what Bernie Sanders talks about on the campaign trail and he's beginning to take the lead in the polls because these are the biggest problems facing America - not whether or not a Mexican rapist is lurking behind a wall somewhere!  

I will be downright bullish about the economy if Bernie is elected President in November but that's still a long shot and we'll have to settle for Hillary but maybe she'll be smart enough to make Bernie her VP - clearly he's able to strike a chord with the voters that Hillary has never been able to - who would be better to go out and be the spokesman for the President's policies?

*Keep in mind though, that you don't know how well Bernie Sanders is doing because it's being actively covered up by the MSM, which is owned by the very same 400 Billionaires that Bernie has in his sights.  In recent polls, voters under 45 are favoring Sanders 2:1 over Clinton - if Bernie can energize that voting block in the election *(very hard to do but Kennedy and Clinton the 1st pulled it off)* - he may end up sitting in the big chair in November - and that is scaring the crap out of the Top 1%!*  

 -- 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.

---

Chelsea Clinton Just Said Bernie Sanders Would Take Health Care From Millions

January 13, 2016, 7:06 am

≫ Next: Aetna Promotes Genetically-Personalized Wellness Program, But Does It Really Work?

≪ Previous: Weak Bounce Wednesday

$

0

0

The Clinton campaign's assault on Bernie Sanders over health care got more intense on Tuesday.

This time it wasn't presidential candidate Hillary Clinton or one of her aides delivering the attack lines. It was her daughter, Chelsea, who argued that Sanders would dismantle Medicare and Medicaid -- and "strip millions and millions and millions of people of their health insurance."

Like so many statements the Clinton campaign has made about Sanders position on health care, Chelsea’s contained some true statements -- and some wildly misleading implications.

For the last few weeks, Clinton has been attacking Sanders over his longtime advocacy for single-payer health care. That's a system in which everybody, or almost everybody, gets insurance directly from a government-run program. 

Countries like Taiwan, Sweden and Canada have single-payer. The U.S. has a version of it in Medicare, which serves the elderly and disabled. Many progressives have long dreamed of extending it to everybody else. Some even call it "Medicare for all."

During his Senate career, Sanders has repeatedly introduced single-payer legislation -- most recently in 2013, when he introduced the American Health Security Act. And while Sanders has also voted for less ambitious measures, including the Affordable Care Act, he has always envisioned those initiatives as incremental steps toward a single-payer system. 

That has made him a hero to many liberal voters. It has also drawn the wrath of the Clinton campaign, which has attacked the scheme in two separate ways -- each making a factual claims and then leaving out critical context.

Because a single-payer plan would require the government to raise literally trillions of dollars in revenue, Clinton has assailed Sanders for calling for a massive tax hike. That's true. What Clinton never mentions is that those taxes would displace existing private insurance premiums.

And because Sanders' version of single-payer envisions separate state programs, Clinton and her allies have suggested that hostile state officials could thwart his plan. That's also true. But what Clinton never adds is that Sanders' scheme would also impose regulations, limiting state leeway over who to insure and what kind of coverage to supply. 

During a campaign appearance in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Chelsea offered a version of these arguments -- but went a little further. 

"Sen. Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the [Children's Health Insurance Program], dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance," she said, according to an account from NBC News. "I worry if we give Republicans Democratic permission to do that, we'll go back to an era -- before we had the Affordable Care Act -- that would strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance."

It's true that, under a scheme like the one Sanders envisions, most people would lose the insurance they have today. But that's because everybody would have the new government-provided insurance instead. And while the transition from the old system to a new one would be far more complicated than single-payer advocates like to acknowledge, the whole point of a single-payer plan is to make sure that coverage is simpler, more comprehensive and more reliable than it is today.

If anything, a single-payer plan like the one Sanders envisions would result in more coverage than current arrangements would allow. The Affordable Care Act has produced a historic reduction in the number of people without coverage, but something like 9 or 10 percent of Americans remain uninsured. One reason is that the system depends upon people signing up for insurance. The Sanders bill states quite explicitly that "every individual who is a resident of the United States is entitled" to insurance, and then requires the states to enroll people automatically. 

Characteristically missing from Chelsea's comments was any recognition of these facts -- or acknowledgment that Sanders has a long record of arguing that people need more protection from medical bills, not less. Maybe the most generous interpretation of Chelsea's comments is that she was making a political argument: that, by calling for single-payer, Sanders undermines enthusiasm for the Affordable Care Act and makes it more vulnerable to repeal. But Sanders has been a loud, consistent critic of GOP efforts to wipe away the law. It's hard to see how that constitutes giving "permission" for repeal.

Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin stood by Chelsea's comments when contacted by The Huffington Post. 

"It is risky to try to replace the Affordable Care Act, CHIP, Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE with a new plan that counts on Republican governors who have already rejected Medicaid expansion to foot some of the cost of care," he said. "And it has the potential to cause disruption in health care for millions of Americans who just got covered."

Clinton of all people should be sensitive to misleading attacks on health care plans. As a chief architect of the universal coverage plan former President Bill Clinton proposed in 1993, she confronted all kinds of outlandish claims. Most famously, one conservative commentator claimed falsely that this health plan would force doctors to go to jail if they refused to accept the new, government-regulated insurance. 

Health care was also a major issue in the 2008 Democratic primaries. At the time, Clinton supported an individual mandate, which requires that everybody get insurance or pay a fine, and then-Sen. Barack Obama did not. When Obama's campaign sent mailers to Ohio voters, warning them that Clinton would force every single person to buy health insurance, Clinton called it a tactic "right out of Karl Rove's playbook." In other words, it was something that Republicans would do to Democrats, not what Democrats should do to each other.

"It is not only wrong, it is undermining core Democratic principles," she said. "Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?"
Clinton has long been skeptical of a single-payer plan, even though it's beloved by much of the progressive base. 

"I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single-payer system," she told The New York Times in a March 2008 interview. 

Her argument against it was, in part, political. Selling such a plan would be hard because most Americans "become very nervous about socialized medicine," she said.

"They don’t really know that Medicare is a single-payer system," she added. "They don’t really think about that." 

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.

Aetna Promotes Genetically-Personalized Wellness Program, But Does It Really Work?

January 13, 2016, 7:29 am

≫ Next: $100M education fund created by Netflix chief

≪ Previous: Chelsea Clinton Just Said Bernie Sanders Would Take Health Care From Millions

$

0

0

If I buy olives, sundried tomatoes and anchovies from an Italian gourmet shop and put them in a blender, do I then have tapenade from that Italian gourmet shop?

That, in a nutshell, is the question about the science behind personalized weight loss programs.

When a company claims that it uses scientific evidence to build personalized prevention plans, it often means its experts picked risk factors and weight loss strategies from the scientific literature. It does not mean that the "blending," the design of these personalized plans, is supported by scientific evidence. Not at all.

According to The Wall Street Journal, health insurance company Aetna has signed up six firms to offer personalized weight loss to their employees through the genetic wellness program of Newtopia. Aetna had first tried the program on its own employees in a scientific study, which was published last month in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Aetna claims that "more than three-quarters of the participants lost an average of 10 pounds during the pilot, helping to save the company about $600,000."

But that is not exactly what the study showed.

The genetic test of Newtopia analyzes "three specific weight-related genes that were chosen based on the strength of scientific research to date. The genes that are analyzed are the body fat gene, the appetite gene, and the behavior (or reward) gene." By their scientific notation, these are the FTO, MC4R and DRD2 genes. FTO and MC4R are indeed among the more than 150+ genetic variants that are robustly associated with weight-related traits, but the evidence for DRD2 is equivocal.

Newtopia's website does not disclose the rationale for selecting DRD2, but the publication of the Aetna study does give a scientific reference: It cites a Nature Neuroscience article with the title, "Dopamine D2 receptors in addiction-like reward dysfunction and compulsive eating in obese rats [italics added]." Oops.

Like most companies in the business, Newtopia does not publicly share how it uses genetic information to personalize weight loss. The Wall Street Journal article writes that "the company would advise more high-intensity exercise for a person whose 'body fat' gene suggests they are likely to retain fat" and that Holly Savage, who "carried two genetic variations that make her more prone to holding weight [and] one variation of the 'appetite' MC4R gene, which affects signals telling the body it is full" was advised to "cut back on habit-forming foods such as sugar." She had also "taken up running because her gene test suggested she requires more vigorous exercise to lose weight."

But why does a person with genetic variants in the body fat gene need high-intensity exercise? And how much? How much better is high-intensity exercise compared to alternatives? And what is the optimal wellness program for combinations of the variants in the three genes? How does the company know what works best for specific genetic profiles? Ideally, that is the evidence that is needed to claim that the program is based on science.

But there are no published scientific studies that provide this evidence, and also the Aetna study did not investigate which wellness strategy works best for people with different genetic profiles. Aetna investigated whether, overall, a personalized wellness program provides health and financial benefits without disclosing how programs were optimized for individual participants.

The Aetna study showed that participants on average lost 10 pounds, but surprisingly, it did not show whether the weight loss was different between people who received the wellness program and those who didn't. There were only minor differences between the groups for some health outcomes such as cholesterol level and waist circumference, but not for all. And while Aetna believes that the program helps save money, this did not follow from its study.

The study showed substantial differences in health care costs between people who joined the program and those who didn't (which is miraculous for a wellness program that had no clear health benefits), but this comparison does not prove that the program saves money: There may have been differences in health care use between the two groups before the start of the study. The researchers should have compared the medical costs of participants before and after they completed the wellness program to see whether the program made a difference.

The Aetna study fits in a tradition of poorly reported, and potentially poorly conducted, scientific studies that aim to provide the scientific basis of genetically personalized wellness programs. So far, these studies have failed to do so. While personalized programs can have personal utility, as demonstrated by the testimonials, the benefits of such programs might be limited to those who believe in them.

If someone tells me that people with red hair have much trouble losing weight, I am eager to believe that: I have red hair and trouble losing weight, and, after many failed attempts, I would welcome an explanation for the failed weight loss that is outside my personal control. If they tell me that, for best results, I should replace my bad eating habits with hair color-matched vegetables, such as tomatoes, carrots and red bell peppers, my extra pounds will fade away. At least for a while.

That is how a genetically personalized diet works.

Is there anything wrong with that?

No.

But it is nonsense.

-- 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 14 hours ago.

$100M education fund created by Netflix chief

January 13, 2016, 8:23 am

≫ Next: 3 Common Misconceptions and 1 Important Truth About Privacy Policies

≪ Previous: Aetna Promotes Genetically-Personalized Wellness Program, But Does It Really Work?

$

0

0

 -More- 

*Save 6.5% on your total health care spend.*
It's a fact: most employer-sponsored health care plans are complex and costly. But there can be a more cost-effective way. RightOpt^®, a private health insurance exchange from Xerox HR Consulting, drives down your costs through volume-based contracting and optimized provider discounts - with no cost-shifting to employees. *>Discover more* Reported by SmartBrief 13 hours ago.

3 Common Misconceptions and 1 Important Truth About Privacy Policies

January 13, 2016, 5:29 pm

≫ Next: UHY LLP Reports: Affordable Care Act Requirement for W-2s - What Employers Should Know

≪ Previous: $100M education fund created by Netflix chief

$

0

0

*3 Common Misconceptions and 1 Important Truth About Privacy Policies *

It’s right there, somewhere. Buried deep in a menu under “legal” in an app, or lurking somewhere in the footer of a website that never seems to stop adding content while you scroll. Each of us encounters dozens of them every day and yet most of us never give any thought to them. It is, of course, the privacy policy.

There is an implicit promise apparent in the phrase “privacy policy,” an indication that a business is going to respect your privacy—or, at the very least, that you have some privacy. It’s right there in the name, so “privacy” must be involved somewhere, right? Somehow?

The policies are definitely about privacy, yes, so it is involved . . . it’s just not actually guaranteed.

Nearly every website, service, app, and online business has a privacy policy. Sometimes it’s right there, linked from a homepage. Sometimes it’s a few paragraphs buried thousands of words into a user agreement you’ll likely never read.

In spite of their prevalence, most of us don’t know what these policies say, do, or are—and misconceptions abound.

This is our attempt to clear up some of those myths, like . . .

*Myth #1: Federal Law Requires All Online Businesses to Have a Privacy Policy
*

*Reality: False*

There is no global right to privacy, online or off, under U.S. law (other nations’ laws vary), nor is there a universal legal requirement that privacy policies be written or posted.

You can feel the “but” coming though, right?

Yes, there’s a but: there are several specific industries and types of data that, under federal law, do require a certain kind of handling or disclosure, as well as some relevant state laws—and that patchwork quilt of laws and regulations is pretty widespread.

Health care providers, for example, are covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). However, not all entities that might hold sensitive health data are covered by or required to adhere to the HIPAA rules, which is becoming a problem as the world of personalized and wearable health tech expands.

Another type of highly-protected data involves your money. There are two important laws out there dealing with businesses that handle consumers’ financial info, and the privacy parts of both are enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.

One is the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which was first passed in 1970 and has been updated and amended a few times in the 45 years since. The other is the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which changed a number of banking rules.

These are two complicated pieces of legislation, but businesses that have data about your money are often covered under one or the other. The FCRA generally applies to consumer reporting agencies, and the the GLBA covers any business that’s “significantly engaged” with financial activity—a larger pool of businesses than you might think.

The FTC has guides explaining which businesses need to adhere to the FCRA or to Gramm-Leach-Bliley, but both are full of lots of conditional statements and very important details.

In short, these are the rules that cover your banking transactions, your Social Security number, your credit history, and even information that relates to your “character, reputation, or personal characteristics,” depending on who is gathering it and what it’s being used for.

There are also other, narrower laws and regulations applying to even more niches of data. Cable and telecoms’ uses of consumer data are regulated by the Cable Act and Telecommunications Act, for example, and enforced by the FCC.

Federal government sites and services have their own regulations and disclosure rules. And then there’s a whole separate world of privacy, COPPA, that applies to the data of children under age 13.

Beyond all that, though, there is also one state-level law that has had a large impact. California passed its Online Privacy Protection Act in 2003, and that law requires anyone who operates a website that California residents can access or use to “conspicuously post its privacy policy.”

Because of the way the Internet works, the list of websites accessible to California residents is functionally the same as a list of all websites, and so in a sense that California law has become a de facto national policy.

*Myth #2: Privacy Policies Guarantee That My Data Will Be Kept Private*

*Reality: False*

A privacy policy is a document disclosing what information a business gathers and what they do with it, not a guarantee that your data will be treated with any particular sensitivity or regard.

In a general sense, most privacy policies are telling you three things:

1. What data is this business collecting about you and your actions?
2. How and why (for what uses) does the company collect that data?
3. With whom, and under what circumstances, does the company share that data?

For most online businesses, those disclosures are going to be about how they collect, use, and share your interactions with them—things like your web browsing and purchase histories—with third-party data brokers and marketers who can use this info to try to sell you more stuff.

They may also include descriptions of which sharing you can or can’t opt out of, and explanations of how to do that.

This is easier to understand with examples.

Take Bank of America’s consumer privacy notice. As a bank, they’re limited under the laws we just discussed. Even so, though, the bank is quite clear that it will share whatever data it can share with third-party marketers. And BofA tells you quite clearly which kind of marketing you can or cannot opt out of.

Most policies, though, strive to be at once both accurate and vague. Take Kohl’s, for example, a brick and mortar retailer with a sizable online presence. And, like many other retailers who exist in both the on- and offline spheres, Kohl’s has a privacy policy that tries to cover all the bases.

Under “types of information we collect,” Kohl’s says:

“Information from other sources” is a broad category that covers Kohl’s in the physical and virtual worlds.

Likewise, under the heading “how we share this information,” Kohl’s says it shares with “companies that provide support services to us and our business partners.” That category of “support services” and “business partners” is also very broad, and could effectively encompass any company that does business with Kohl’s.

As for that language . . .

*Myth #3: Privacy Policies Always Have to Be in Incomprehensible Legalese
*

*Reality: False*

Granted, many privacy policies are so positively impenetrable that you could go cross-eyed in about ten seconds flat trying to parse them, but they don’t necessarily have to be.

In fact, there has been a consumer-friendly trend over the past few years of trying to make privacy policies almost comprehensible to the casual reader. This trend toward readability has picked up so much steam that even The Wall Street Journal has noticed it. (Consumer Reports is working to improve the readability of its own privacy policies.)

Perhaps surprisingly, Facebook is one of the exemplars in this move toward increased coherence. While the company might have its fingers in basically every aspect of the online world, its privacy policy is (now) clear and explicitabout what data the site collects and how it is used.

The layout, too, is meant to be readable, using plain English headers, white space, and color-coding to make sure that you don’t completely glaze over between learning that data includes not only things you do but things everyone else you know does, and learning the long list of entities it can be shared with.

Crowdfunding platform Kickstarter likewise has a plain-English policy, as do Pinterest and Spotify. But there’s a reason that even the policies that try hard to be accessible still use very, very carefully crafted, lawyer-friendly language. It’s because . . .

*Myth #4: A Business Must Adhere to the Terms of Its Posted Privacy Policy, Whatever It Says
*

*Reality: True*

This last part is where companies get in trouble: if you say you’re going to do a thing, you are beholden to that thing.

Regardless of whether you are required under any specific law to protect any data in a certain way or post a privacy policy, if you do post one, you must adhere to it.

It’s the FTC’s job to protect consumers from false, misleading, or deceptive advertising or promises, and failing to adhere to your statements about privacy counts.

For example, if you happen to be an app that promises that content vanishes into the ether 10 seconds after someone views it, you actually need to make sure that content is not accessible (and stealable) more than ten seconds after someone views it.

That’s what got Snapchat in trouble with the FTC back in 2014: the company made claims about privacy that the feds found were just not true. Messages did not, as claimed, vanish completely after being viewed. Users did not, as claimed, always receive a notice when someone permanently saved their content. And users were not, as claimed, connected only to their friends but sometimes, accidentally, to complete strangers.

In a statement at the time of the settlement, FTC chair Edith Ramirez made the agency’s position clear: “If a company markets privacy and security as key selling points in pitching its service to consumers, it is critical that it keep those promises.” She added, “Any company that makes misrepresentations to consumers about its privacy and security practices risks FTC action.”

*Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2016 Consumers Union of U.S.*

*Subscribe now!*
Subscribe to *ConsumerReports.org* for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
--------------------
Update your feed preferences
   
   
   
   
    Reported by Consumer Reports 4 hours ago.

UHY LLP Reports: Affordable Care Act Requirement for W-2s - What Employers Should Know

January 13, 2016, 11:05 am

≫ Next: Free or Low-Cost Health Insurance Nassau-Suffolk Hospital Council - NSHC

≪ Previous: 3 Common Misconceptions and 1 Important Truth About Privacy Policies

$

0

0

As employers begin issuing W-2s to employees, it is important to note and understand certain developments that have taken place in recent years.

Sterling Heights, Michigan (PRWEB) January 13, 2016

As employers begin issuing W-2s to employees, it is important to note and understand certain developments that have taken place in recent years. Since 2012, the Affordable Care Act has required some employers to report the cost of coverage under employer-sponsored group health plans.

Currently, the inclusion of health insurance premiums on employee W-2s is not taxable, but rather serves to provide employees useful and comparable consumer information on the cost of their health care coverage.

Transition relief has been available to certain employers since the introduction of the reporting requirements. Employers filing fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for the previous calendar year have not been required to report the cost of coverage (though optional reporting is allowed). This transition relief has been rolled forward and applies to the 2015 tax year and will continue to apply to future calendar years until the IRS publishes additional guidance. Employers who are filing 250 or more Forms W-2 are subject to the reporting requirements per the healthcare legislation.

Employers that are subject to this requirement should report the value of the health care coverage in Box 12 of the Form W-2, with Code DD to identify the amount. In general, the amount reported should include both the portions paid by the both the employer and employee. Additionally, an employer is not required to issue a Form W-2 solely to report the value of the health care coverage for retirees or other employees or former employees to whom the employer would not otherwise provide a Form W-2.

For more information regarding the Affordable Care Act and general payroll taxation, please contact your professional at UHY LLP in Detroit 313 964 1040, Farmington Hills 248 355 1040 or Sterling Heights 586 254 1040, or visit us on the web at http://www.uhy-us.com. Reported by PRWeb 11 hours ago.

Free or Low-Cost Health Insurance Nassau-Suffolk Hospital Council - NSHC

January 13, 2016, 11:44 am

≫ Next: Switch to single-payer system could fix health care: A letter to the editor

≪ Previous: UHY LLP Reports: Affordable Care Act Requirement for W-2s - What Employers Should Know

$

0

0

Patch Riverhead, NY -- Free program at Riverhead Free Library Reported by Patch 10 hours ago.

Switch to single-payer system could fix health care: A letter to the editor

January 13, 2016, 11:41 am

≫ Next: Here's What We Can Expect From The Gig Economy In 2020

≪ Previous: Free or Low-Cost Health Insurance Nassau-Suffolk Hospital Council - NSHC

$

0

0

Recent headlines speak of skyrocketing drug prices, rising health insurance premiums, high deductibles that discourage people from seeking care, and private health plans threatening to leave markets if they don't make enough profit. Our health system does not work. One-third... Reported by nola.com 10 hours ago.

---

Here's What We Can Expect From The Gig Economy In 2020

January 13, 2016, 1:49 pm

≫ Next: Multiple states join federal probe into Humana-Aetna deal

≪ Previous: Switch to single-payer system could fix health care: A letter to the editor

$

0

0

Throughout 2015, the gig economy has gained traction, driven by mobile, on-demand platforms where workers can capitalize on their skills and create work schedules that better meet their needs, consumers enjoy greater convenience, and companies gain greater visibility and control over large distributed teams.

With growing consumer popularity and business adoption, the future of the gig economy is bright and will expand well beyond the industries it currently touches, like retail, home services and food delivery. The gig economy is poised to have an even more significant impact in the next five years, and some of these trends are already in motion. So what's next?

*Infiltration In The Enterprise*

We will continue to see rapid adoption of the on-demand model by the enterprise sector. Implementation of technology for managing on-demand mobile workforces will expand dramatically as geographically distributed organizations want increased control and rapid scalability provided by the on-demand model, and workers want both control and flexibility over their work schedules. This trend will accelerate as mobile becomes the de facto standard for not just communication, but for assigning, managing and executing work across large organizations.

*More Than Millennials*

There is a popular misconception that the gig economy is made up entirely of young people looking for supplemental income. While Millennials are thriving in the gig economy, they represent only one element of a diverse and growing workforce. According to our recent survey of more than 1,000 freelance and on-demand workers, there is a large contingent of workers age 60+ freelancing in professional services and educational services such as tutoring or college counseling. As the use cases for tapping into mobile, on-demand labor platforms continue to grow and change, contingent workforces will become even more diverse.

*Increased Global Adoption*

Rapid adoption of mobile technology in the developing world is accelerating the gig economy on a global scale. Freelancer models and improving collaboration tools are becoming more common for sharing work across country boundaries. Transportation (e.g. Lyft/Blablacar/Didi Kuadi, Uber) and hospitality (e.g. AirBnB) are already established on a global scale. As cell phones become the de facto technology for work, especially in developing economies, management of geographically dispersed teams in the on-demand model will become more common. McKinsey has estimated that on-line talent platforms, including the gig economy, could provide up to 72 million full-time-equivalent positions, and boost global GDP by $2.7 Trillion by 2025.

*A New Worker Classification*

Thanks to the recent explosion of apps providing on-demand services, the conversation around how we classify freelance workers has gained widespread attention. Both public and private leaders are driving a call to action to resolve this classification issue. For example, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) has advocated for a new labor category for the gig economy. As we move into an election year, there will be increasing pressure on the presidential candidates to not only advocate for change but craft actionable proposals to address labor reform. As the gig economy spreads and contingent workers become a core component of the enterprise business model, the private sector will gain a greater stake in the debate and increase the pressure on the next president sworn into office to drive change.

*Finally, Government Reform Isn't Enough *

While the government will play a crucial role in adapting and enforcing labor regulations to protect the growing contingent workforce, ultimately the private sector will step forward to offer innovative solutions to solve the problem of benefits, provide training and create forums for open discussion. We are already seeing companies like Peers.org gain traction in alleviating concerns around benefits like health insurance. Other companies, like Crowded.com, have launched training programs and office hours where workers can discuss needs and concerns.

*Ready, Set, Gig*

The gig economy has already demonstrated tremendous value for employers and workers alike. Employers benefit from better tools to manage large, distributed workforces, and workers benefit from greater flexibility and control over their work schedule. That said, the gig economy is set to undergo substantial changes in 2016 and beyond. Expansion into the enterprise and the emergence of a new classification system are just some of the shifts we can expect. One thing is for sure, though: the gig economy is here to stay.

-- 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.

Multiple states join federal probe into Humana-Aetna deal

January 13, 2016, 1:41 pm

≫ Next: Just Sayin' - Periodic Comments on Our Political Situation

≪ Previous: Here's What We Can Expect From The Gig Economy In 2020

$

0

0

Attorneys general in about 15 states have joined a federal investigation into two major health insurance mergers, according to a report from Reuters. The proposed mergers include Louisville-based insurer Humana Inc. (NYSE: HUM) with Connecticut's Aetna Inc. (NYSE: AET) and Anthem Inc. with Cigna Corp., which are currently being reviewed by the U.S. Justice Department for antitrust concerns. If both of those mergers went through, there would be only three major health insurers in the U.S. instead… Reported by bizjournals 8 hours ago.

Just Sayin' - Periodic Comments on Our Political Situation

January 13, 2016, 2:50 pm

≫ Next: ​Nearly 12,000 Hawaii residents have signed up for health insurance since November

≪ Previous: Multiple states join federal probe into Humana-Aetna deal

$

0

0

Welcome to Just Sayin' what will be some common sense comments on what is going on in the world of politics. Posts will be brief, to the point, and usually cover a certain topic.

For the first post since the State of the Union is today, I wonder why all the Republicans think our country is in such a bad state. When President Obama took over, the economy was in the worst state since the Great Depression. Seven Years late the stock market has nearly doubled and unemployment is at 5%. Most surprisingly for Republicans must be that the job growth has come mostly from the private sector as public sector employment has gone down. Regular monthly totals constantly show over 200,000 new jobs created. Yet they'll say the economy is a disaster. There is a way to go like ensuring pay equity and getting more full time employment for people, but Republicans don't seem to have these as their priorities.

Millions of more people have health insurance thanks to Obamacare, giving them more security that they will get the care they need when they get sick. Republicans don't like this and so want to get rid of Obamacare and will say that it's ruining America.

These are a couple of the accomplishments that many will not give Obama credit for. However it's been that way for seven years just voters need to be aware of the truth when Republican distort it on the campaign trail this year. Just sayin'......

-- 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 7 hours ago.

​Nearly 12,000 Hawaii residents have signed up for health insurance since November

January 13, 2016, 8:12 pm

≫ Next: ACA Marketplace Enrollment Solutions Provides Tips On How Americans Can Avoid Tax Penalties For Not Purchasing 2016 Health Coverage

≪ Previous: Just Sayin' - Periodic Comments on Our Political Situation

$

0

0

Nearly 12,000 Hawaii residents have signed up for coverage through healthcare.gov in the absence of the Hawaii Health Connector, according to the latest national count. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Wednesday released enrollment figures as of Jan. 9. Approximately 11,949 people in Hawaii have signed up or received renewals on health coverage since open enrollment began on Nov. 1. Nationally, almost 8.7 million consumers signed-up or had their coverage automatically renewed. Friday… Reported by bizjournals 1 hour ago.

ACA Marketplace Enrollment Solutions Provides Tips On How Americans Can Avoid Tax Penalties For Not Purchasing 2016 Health Coverage

January 13, 2016, 8:12 pm

≫ Next: AIS, Softheon Partner on Complimentary Webinar on Strategies for Submitting CSR Data

≪ Previous: ​Nearly 12,000 Hawaii residents have signed up for health insurance since November

$

0

0

The final trigger dates for purchasing 2016 Health coverage are as follows: Friday, January 15th for an effective date of February 1, 2016 and Sunday, January 31st, for an effective date of March 1, 2016.

Orland Park, Illinois (PRWEB) January 13, 2016

Although Open Enrollment Period continues thru January 31, 2016, it serves as the final opportunity to enroll for 2016 health insurance coverage without having a Special Qualifying Event.

The ACA Marketplace Enrollment Solutions (ACAenroll.com) team of licensed & certified health insurance agents are available in person, over the phone, and to chat on-line to provide free enrollment assistance, secure health coverage and avoid tax penalties.

“It is surprising that many people do not realize that time is quickly running-out to enroll for their 2016 health plan in order to avoid a hefty fine,” began Bob Dial, Chief Compliance Officer, ACAenroll.com.

Working with an ACAenroll.com licensed health insurance agents is advantageous for the consumer. First, at no charge to the consumer, they can utilize the ACAenroll.com years of health insurance experience and comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of the Affordable Care Act. Second, ACAenroll.com offers a variety of health insurance plans that meet Affordable Care Act requirements through our diverse group of top-rated insurance companies. And third, our trained agents will determine the subsidy eligibility that may help cover some of the cost of the individual’s insurance!

Dial added, “The tax penalty has increased for not having health insurance in 2016. The fee from not having health coverage is calculated in one of two ways. If you or your dependents don’t have insurance that qualifies as minimum essential coverage in 2016, then you will pay the higher amount of these two amounts,”:·         2.5% of yearly household income. (Only the amount of income above the tax-filing threshold, about $10,000 for an individual, is used to calculate the penalty. (The maximum penalty is the national average premium for a bronze plan.
·      $695 per person for the year. ($347.50 per child under age 18). The maximum penalty per family using this method is $2085.
·      The fee is due on the federal income tax return filed for each year without coverage.

According to the US Department of Health and Human Services (1), 78% of Illinois consumers who obtained health insurance qualified for an average tax credit of $208 per month through the Marketplace. Additionally, 49% of Illinois Marketplace enrollees obtained coverage for $100 or less after any applicable tax credits. Dial added, “These statistics illustrate how affordable obtaining health insurance is for Illinoisans. Enrolling now during the Open Enrollment Period ensures the consumer will not be subject to the costly penalties for not obtaining qualified health insurance.”

Call (800) 342-0631 to speak to a live ACAenroll.com health insurance agent or visit ACAenroll.com to complete your 2016 Health Plan enrollment. Walk-ins are welcome at ACAenroll.com’s main enrollment center located at 6640 S. Cicero, Bedford Park, Illinois, which is one mile south of Midway Airport.

Source:
(1) http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts-and-features/state-by-state/how-aca-is-working-for-illinois/index.html

About ACAMES:
ACA Marketplace Enrollment Solutions (ACAenroll.com) is a national enrollment firm specializing in the Health Insurance Marketplace and the Senior Product Market. ACA Marketplace Enrollment Solutions is not affiliated with any governmental agency. We work with consumers to determine their subsidy eligibility, review benefits and plans that will meet their healthcare needs and get them enrolled for coverage. We offer opportunities for producers to have access to our carriers on a national level. Our Call Center is staffed with multi-lingual and licensed health insurance agents who also are certified on the exchange. The company’s website http://www.ACAenroll.com and our Call Center staff are available to assist enrollees through the entire enrollment process. Go to http://www.ACAenroll.com or contact 1-800-342-0631 for more information. Reported by PRWeb 1 hour ago.