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

United States: Federal Court Says Employer's All-Or-Nothing Requirement That Employees Submit To Wellness Program Or Lose Health Insurance Is ADA-Safe - Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

0
0
Last month, a district court in Wisconsin dealt a blow to the EEOC and the future of its proposed ADA wellness program regulations. Reported by Mondaq 13 hours ago.

Keeping Children Healthy, In School and Learning

0
0
Brandon, a six-year-old in the Houston Independent School District, had two working parents until his father was laid off. Brandon lost his health insurance when his father lost his job. Brandon’s mother quickly scrambled to try to enroll her son who has asthma in new coverage, but met some obstacles and didn’t know where to turn. Then the school district, which had been working with the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) and AASA (The School Superintendents Association), through a partnership supported by The Atlantic Philanthropies, stepped in and helped her find coverage for Brandon under the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). With his new health coverage, doctors discovered Brandon also had high blood pressure and prescribed medicine to control it. Now the school nurse monitors his blood pressure every day and Brandon is healthy and happy to be in school learning. Watch Brandon's StoryThis morning, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Acting Deputy Secretary Mary Wakefield on behalf of HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell and Acting U.S. Department of Education Secretary John King spoke from Brandon’s school district to encourage other districts across our country to take important steps to ensure children everywhere are in school each day healthy and ready to learn. They called on school districts to recognize the strong link between children’s health and academic performance and to forge deeper connections between health and education for students and families by increasing access to health insurance coverage and health care, creating school environments with physical and mental health supports to help students succeed, and strengthening coordination between health and education systems at the local and state levels. The Secretaries urged state and local health and education entities to collaborate around five action items:
2.
Helping eligible students and family members enroll in health insurance;

5.
Providing and expanding Medicaid reimbursable health services in schools, including immunizations, health screenings and others;

8.
Providing or expanding services that support at-risk students, including through Medicaid-funded case management;

11.
Promoting healthy school practices through nutrition, physical activity, and health education; and

14.
Building local partnerships and participating in hospital community needs assessments.

The Departments of Health and Human Services and Education have created a toolkit of existing resources to support real action in states and communities to strengthen the link between health and education. CDF and AASA’s school-based child health outreach and enrollment model that links health enrollment to school enrollment is one the Secretaries highlight as a best practice to increase enrollment in health coverage for students and their families. After five years of piloting school-based child health outreach and enrollment in Texas, in 2007 CDF began working in partnership with AASA to introduce and expand health enrollment as a routine and ongoing part of school district operations. The model provides a basic question for districts to add to their school registration materials: “What type of medical insurance do you have for this child?” Parents who answer “none” are noted and able to receive information from school district staff on Medicaid, CHIP or other health coverage options. But it doesn’t stop there. Parents can receive help applying for or renewing coverage for their children and for themselves and are introduced to community partners who can help them successfully navigate the process.

CDF and AASA over the years have partnered with school districts in Texas, California, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi including urban, rural and suburban school systems serving elementary through high schools and hundreds of thousands of Black, Latino, Asian and White students. This work has gotten many children health coverage and led to an increased awareness among school superintendents, staff and parents about the important and positive connection between health and academic success. Many now see a link between chronic absences, poor health and lack of health coverage. When children with chronic conditions like asthma have health insurance allowing them regular access to doctors and needed treatment, they come back to school healthier just as Brandon has.

In one of these districts, the Edinburg Consolidated Independent School District (ECISD) in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, health coverage screening has been built into the daily operations of Parental Involvement Assistants, or PIAs. Each of the district’s 41 school campuses has a PIA who, among other responsibilities, calls absent students’ homes every morning to ask why students are missing school. The PIAs make a home visit that same day if they don’t reach anyone, about 80 visits each day. If a child is home sick, the PIA asks about their insurance status and, if the student lacks coverage, offers the parent assistance filling out the application. During a recent phone call, a mother told the PIA all three of her children were previously enrolled in Medicaid but were no longer covered. The mother, whose native language was not English, had received three notices about renewing coverage but hadn’t understood them, and had not been able to renew. The PIA helped her navigate the process to reenroll the children in Medicaid.

Sandra Rodriguez, the district’s PIA Coordinator, is especially excited they have a new school-based health center attached to the district headquarters to refer families to through a partnership with the Doctors Hospital at Renaissance. The clinic serves all students regardless of ability to pay and served about 2,000 children, parents, and school district staff in its first four months of operation. For many Edinburg families this is the first time they can receive care near their home, school, and work, and regardless of their immigration status. Thanks to additional support from another local health system, the 945-square-mile district will soon have two mobile clinics making scheduled visits to school campuses farther from the clinic site.

More students and families need these kinds of supports. It is critically important that school districts and community partners across the country respond to Acting Secretary King’s and Secretary Burwell’s call to action to connect children to needed health coverage and ensure they’re in school and ready to learn. As Superintendent Lillian Maldonado French of the Mountain View School District in El Monte, California puts it, “Being in school matters and if we can do something to make sure our kids are in school every day, then that’s what we need to do.”

-- 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.

Can Your Employer Demand Intrusive Medical Testing? Court Says Yes

0
0
Does your employer have any business sticking its nose into your body (now there's a picture you wanted in your head) by ordering you to undergo medical examinations and biometric testing to determine if you are likely to become ill? According to one court, the answer is yes. A Wisconsin federal court has found that an employer's so-called "wellness program" didn't violate the Americans With Disabilities Act.The employer in this case claimed the program was "voluntary." Sure, voluntary. That is, unless you actually wanted health insurance. Then it was absolutely, 100% mandatory. Employees couldn't get health insurance coverage unless they subjected themselves to a series of medical tests at the hands of a doctor the employer chose (can you say puppet?). Employees were supposed to take, on faith, that the information the employer-chosen doctor received would be kept confidential from the employer.

This mandatory medical examination is a new step on the slippery slope of "wellness programs" that are all the rage with employers. First, employers started offering money to employees who allowed the employer's physician to poke and prod them. Then it was health insurance discounts. "We're just trying to encourage employees to participate, " said employers, lying through their teeth. Because "encouragement" turned to blackmail, and here we are: the mandatory physical exam in order to obtain health insurance.

Right now the exam is only being imposed on employees. When employers get away with this, next will be exams of employee's families. Then will come mandatory exercise programs. Then mandatory dieting. All voluntary, of course. Unless you want insurance.

If any of this testing reveals the existence of a disability or a potential illness and the boss or HR finds out, you could be subjected to discrimination. Why doesn't this all violate the Americans With Disabilities Act? ADA says that employers can't demand physical examinations of employees unless they are both job-related and necessary to the business. How is your cholesterol and blood sugar level related to your employer's business? It isn't. The other exception is if the exam is voluntary. Blackmailing employees with insurance doesn't make the exam very voluntary. So yes, this case should have been an easy employee win in my opinion.

Well, according to the judge in Wisconsin and pretty much any management-side lawyer you ask, there's a safe harbor. A loophole, if you will. ADA exempts employers from its requirements for the purposes of administering terms of a "bona fide benefit plan" that are based on underwriting risks, classifying risks, or administering risks. The court in this case decided the employer could force employees to have these exams because the terms of the health insurance plan (which the employer set since it was self-insured) required it.

So let's recap. Employer has its own insurance plan. It decides that, as a condition of your participation, you have to disclose your medical history, sexual history, whether you plan to have children, family medical history. You then have to give blood, urine, and stool samples. You have to let a doctor poke and prod you in places that haven't seen daylight in 40 years. Then we're supposed to trust that the employer who demanded you do all this won't use the information it obtains against you. Won't use it for evil purposes. Won't be subjected to hacking so your medical records become public. We're supposed to trust that this is all for your benefit, just to encourage you to be healthy and happy.

Sure. If you believe that, I have some land in the Everglades to sell you. Employers are engaging in fat-shaming through thousands of dollars of penalties to overweight employees as we speak. Who is next? Diabetics? Employees with cancer or Parkinson's? What level of employer intrusion is too much?

Fortunately, EEOC is fighting this and other "wellness program" cases and is setting proposed regulations for employer wellness programs that will protect employees from some of these abuses. Unfortunately, employers will keep fighting them. We can only hope that other courts will disagree with this case and say no to abusive employer medical testing.

But don't just wait and hope the courts protect you. If you think employers shouldn't be allowed to force you to submit to this kind of forced examination that has nothing to do with your ability to do your job, tell your member of Congress. They can change it. They won't, because the party currently in charge of both houses won't do anything to help working people, but they can. Only if you speak out, especially in this election year, will your elected officials take action to keep your employer's hands off your body and your private medical information.

In the meantime, if your employer does use your medical information against you, that still likely violates the Americans With Disabilities Act. So employers who are using these programs do so at the risk that their management employees aren't as benevolent or trustworthy as they thought. If you've been subjected to discrimination due to a disability or medical condition, talk to an employment lawyer in your state to find out your rights.

If you need specific legal advice, it's best to talk to an employment lawyer in your state. For more general information about employment law issues, check out Donna Ballman's award-winning employee-side employment law blog, Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home and her employment law articles at AOL Jobs.

-- 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.

Have Health Insurance? Be Ready to Prove It This Tax Season

0
0
By now, you have probably heard that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most individuals to obtain minimum essential health coverage or pay a penalty. If you're like me, the word "penalty" makes you a little nervous--so below is a handy guide to help you avoid the penalty and give you a little background information.

*1. When should I start thinking about this penalty?*
If you don't have minimum essential health coverage, the penalty should be paid when you file your federal tax return (due April 15). If you do have health insurance through your employer, you need to be ready to prove it when you file your tax return.

*2. Okay, great. How do I prove I have health insurance? *
New for this year, you'll receive a form from your insurer or employer. The original idea was that you'd receive the new form by the end of January, the same timing as your W-2. However, in late December, the IRS extended this year's reporting deadline for insurers and employers to March 31, 2016, so a new form should be coming your way by March 31.

*3. March 31? But that only gives me two weeks to file my taxes!*
Don't sweat it--continue to file your taxes as normal. Their reporting delay does not mean a delay for employees. The IRS has clarified that you don't have to delay filing your tax returns because you haven't yet received your form. Back to question #2, here's what the government suggests to keep handy for proving you have health insurance:
• Insurance cards
• Explanation of benefits (EOBs)
• Statement(s) from insurers
• W-2 or payroll statement(s) reflecting health insurance deductions
• Record(s) of advance payments of the premium tax credit, and
• Other statements indicating an individual or family member had coverage.

*4. That's a helpful list, and I probably have most of those items available, but how do I make sure the IRS receives my insurance card, EOBs, etc.? *
This part is easy--you don't have to actually attach or mail your proof of insurance to the IRS. However, you should keep any documentation with your other tax records just in case.

Tax-filing procrastinators won't catch a lucky break this time. The April 15 filing deadline lives on. For more detailed information, check out ACA Reporting Deadline Delay Not a Tax Filing Delay for Employees.

-- 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 10 hours ago.

Obama Pretty Sure Clueless Men Are The Reason Tampons Are Taxed As Luxury Items

0
0
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama said Friday he had "no idea" why many states tax tampons and menstrual pads as "luxury items." Well, he does have one idea.

"I suspect it's because men were making the laws when those taxes were passed," the president told Ingrid Nilsen in a series of interviews with YouTube stars in the White House.

Nilsen pointed out that 40 states require people to pay sales tax on feminine hygiene products, even though states often allow exemptions for "necessities." Tampons and pads, it turns out, are not considered a necessity in those states for sales tax purposes.

That seems wrong, Nilsen said, since she doesn't "know anyone who has a period that thinks it's a luxury."

"I think that's fair to say," Obama said, joking that his wife, Michelle Obama, "would agree with you on that." He said he hadn't known about the issue before.

Some have argued that controversy over the so-called tampon tax is overblown and implies that there is a specific tax on feminine hygiene products, versus broader sales taxes that also apply to those products. 

Still, the movement to exempt feminine hygiene products from sales taxes has gone worldwide. 

Canada's government stopped taxing feminine hygiene products last July, and women in the United Kingdom have protested to do away with their own "tampon tax." A Change.org petition led by Cosmopolitan to end sales taxes on feminine hygiene products garnered more than 40,000 supporters.

After the question, Obama pivoted the conversation to women's health more generally, and talked about his efforts to ensure health insurance coverage for birth control and pregnancy.

"Women should not be at a disadvantage in the health care system," he said.

-- 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.

Repealing Obamacare Would Hurt the Disadvantaged and the GOP

0
0
Repealing Obamacare came up again, briefly but forcefully, in last night's Republican presidential debate. The candidates might want to remember that the Republican Party's own 2012 post-election analysis declared that the GOP needed to do better at showing that it cares about lower-income people and about America's racial and ethnic minorities. Repealing Obamacare goes against these goals.

Obamacare has led to an historic increase in health insurance coverage for low- and moderate-income Americans. Republican plans for health insurance reform will likely cover fewer people, provide fewer benefits to low-income individuals, and possibly increase the federal deficit. This is the wrong direction for the country.

A couple weeks ago, Republicans in Congress demonstrated that they have the power to repeal Obamacare if a Republican is elected president. All of the current Republican candidates for president are committed to this goal. Donald Trump calls Obamacare a "total catastrophe." Senator Ted Cruz says Obamacare is a "horrible experiment [that] has failed." Senator Marco Rubio states, "Obamacare has revealed the painful consequences of placing our faith in big government." They all have vowed to repeal it if elected president.

But the Census Bureau reports that the disadvantaged communities targeted by the Republican Party for outreach had the biggest gains from Obamacare. From 2013 to 2014, by income, households earning less than $50,000 a year increased their health insurance coverage by more than four percentage points while people overall saw an increase of less than three percentage points. This development is beneficial since these households had (and still have) higher uninsured rates than average. Putting low-income Americans' health insurance at risk or replacing it with inferior plans is not a way to convince them that the GOP cares about them.

My analysis of the Census data shows that Obamacare had historic success among America's racial minorities. From 2013 to 2014, the uninsured-rate disparity between black and white children and between Asian Americans and whites was essentially eliminated. It is rare for a racial gap to be closed, but Obamacare has done so while improving health insurance coverage rates for all racial groups.

The Affordable Care Act has also done well in reaching white lower-income populations in the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Kentucky, West Virginia, and Oregon had the largest increases in health insurance coverage among whites due in no small part to increases in Medicaid coverage. More whites as well as non-whites would benefit if all states expand Medicaid.

Of course, Obamacare is not perfect. There are reports that many low-income and moderate-individuals find the premiums and deductibles too expensive. Republicans have ideas to lower costs, but it appears that their favorite method is simply to reduce health benefits. This is far from the ideal solution. Many of our closest international allies have lower per-capita health care spending and provide coverage to a larger share of their population. America is definitely not number one in providing health care. The United States should learn from its international friends.

Rather than insist on repealing and replacing Obamacare, the Republican Party should embrace it. After all, it is essentially a Republican idea. The White House has acknowledged that Mitt Romney's "Romneycare" was a model for Obamacare. Health policy experts are aware that Obamacare is the child of Romneycare. Even Mitt Romney noted, "Without Romneycare, we wouldn't have had Obamacare." (And then he retracted his statement.)

If Republicans claim Obamacare, they could then claim that the historic increase in health-insurance coverage among low-income people and among people of color is due to what is fundamentally a Republican policy. This would be a big step forward in the post-election outreach that they declared was a priority.

-- 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.

Oracle uncovers 'smoking gun' in Cover Oregon board member's email

0
0
A former Cover Oregon board member lamented in a May 2014 email that the board “has very limited influence or impact.” The email from Gretchen Peterson to former board Chair Liz Baxter was included with a letter Oracle sent earlier this week to Sylvia Burwell, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Oracle is asking Burwell to direct Oregon to withdraw its lawsuit accusing Oracle of botching its work to build the Cover Oregon health insurance exchange. The state ended up scrapping the… Reported by bizjournals 8 hours ago.

Maddow Accuses Clinton Of 'Casting Aspersions' On Bernie Sanders' Character

0
0
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow confronted Democratic presidential candidate Hilary Clinton on her program Thursday, asking about her campaign's recent attacks against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who happens to be rising in the polls in early voting states Iowa and New Hampshire.

"Your campaign is essentially fighting with him now in a way that is casting aspersions on his character, calling him dishonest,” Maddow said to Clinton.

Earlier this week, Clinton attacked Sanders for a vote he made in 2005 on a bill backed by the NRA that would provide legal immunity to gun manufacturers if their weapons were used to commit a crime.  

Chelsea Clinton also hammered the candidate on Tuesday over health care, saying he would "dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the [Children's Health Insurance Program], dismantle Medicare and dismantle private insurance." 

Maddow called out Hillary Clinton on her campaign's recent attacks.

“The character of the campaign, the tone of the campaign, the way you are trying to persuade those undecided voters seems to have changed a little bit in the last week or so. Just this afternoon, your campaign, in my estimation, set its hair on fire a little bit,” Maddow told the candidate, pointing to a press phone call that happened earlier that day in which Clinton's campaign asserted that Sanders attacked her in his latest ad.

Watch the Bernie Sanders' advertisement "Two Visions," mentioned by Clinton's campaign, here:
The ad, as Maddow pointed out on her program, did not explicitly name Hillary Clinton.

When pushed by Maddow, Clinton reiterated that there are genuine policy differences between her and Sanders that need to be debated, but she insisted that the attacks will not be personal.

“On anything personal -- we don’t do that in our side of the debate,” Clinton added. “We engage on substantive differences.”

Watch "The Rachel Maddow" clip above.

*Also on HuffPost: *

-- 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.

Tell the Truth about Bernie's Health Care Stand

0
0
The Clinton campaign just made a serious mistake.

They sent Hillary and Bill Clinton's daughter Chelsea out on behalf of her mother to bash Senator Bernie Sanders on the issue of health care.

What's so wrong with that? Don't all candidates use family surrogates when and where they can? The Kennedys, for example, deployed a horde of kinfolk for Jack's campaign for president, then Bobby's, then Teddy's.

But when it's the first time (as this was for Clinton the younger), the surrogate should be sure whereof she speaks, and had better stick to talking about her candidate, not the opponent. Unfortunately, Chelsea Clinton misrepresented Senator Sanders' position, and her premiere performance on the stump backfired, producing a flood of political donations to Sanders.

Here's what she said: "Senator Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the [Children's Health Insurance Program], dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance." Whew! She would have us believe that the Vermont senator is a one-man wrecking crew, an enraged King Kong -- or, to be modern about it, a mendacious Darth Vader -- proposing "to 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."

Uh, not exactly. In fact, not even close. As Karen Tumulty noted in The Washington Post, Bernie Sanders has long been a champion of a single-payer health care system as the only way to assure that all Americans receive medical coverage. Rather than "strip" millions and millions of people of their health insurance, he wants to be sure millions and millions of people actually get health insurance.

This was Sanders' position as far back as 1993 when newly-elected President Bill Clinton put First Lady Hillary Clinton in charge of reforming our disheveled and unjust health care system. Her task force huffed and puffed in secret for months, calling in legions of experts and academics, ultimately producing a plan so complicated and impenetrable - not to mention unexplainable - that it would have collapsed of its own ponderous weight even if the Republicans had not propagandized it into a laughing stock of pretensions and inefficiencies that could only make matters worse.

And here's an ironic note: During that 1993 quest for a health care plan, Secretary Clinton sent Sanders an autographed picture of the two of them, wishing him the best and thanking the senator "for your commitment to real health care access for all Americans."

All these years later, Sanders is still fighting the battle for single-payer, Medicare-like coverage for all, even as fellow Democrats capitulated to the siren songs of the health and insurance industries. President Obama, himself a one-time advocate of single-payer coverage, buckled to the insurance companies and its lobbyists and minions in Congress and agreed to health care legislation (the Affordable Care Act) that would continue to treat healing the sick as a profit center instead of a basic human right.

And look at former presidential candidate and single-payer advocate Howard Dean, Bernie's fellow Vermonter, who went on MSNBC this week and said that the Sanders plan "would in fact undo people's health care... That is something people should be concerned about."

Why the change of heart? Maybe because Dean "now serves as senior advisor to the law firm Dentons, where he works with the firm's Public Policy and Regulation practice, a euphemism for Dentons' lobbying team," Lee Fang reports at The Intercept. "... The Dentons Public Policy and Regulation practice lobbies on behalf of a variety of corporate health care interests, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America [PhRMA], a powerful trade group for drugmakers like Pfizer and Merck."

Fang notes that, "Incumbent health care interests, particularly drug companies and insurers, have long viewed single-payer as a threat to their business model," and points to documents that we uncovered in 2009 on Bill Moyers Journal with the help of former health insurance executive, now whistleblower Wendell Potter. They showed a systematic plan by health insurers to discredit single-payer.

As president of the Clinton Foundation, the richly endowed philanthropy that has become the family's private station for public causes, Chelsea Clinton must know this. The cynic might think the more than $2.6 million given so far by the health industry to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and outside groups supporting her (three times that of any other candidate, Democrat or Republican) might be leading Chelsea Clinton to use the same kind of false accusations so long used against her parents. But why would any of the family, their campaign team, advisors and supporters assume that the public would accept such a wild and irresponsible distortion?

-- 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 4 hours ago.

Friday Talking Points -- The Knives Come Out

0
0
In every 1950s "gang rumble" genre film, there comes a point where the fighting gets more serious. This is, literally, where the knives come out. I begin with this image because, metaphorically, that's exactly where we are in the 2016 presidential campaign. The fight's getting a lot more serious, and there is bound to be some blood on the floor afterwards.

This was prominent last night, as the Republican candidates put on their most vicious debate yet. There were almost too many head-to-head tussles to count. Ben Carson and John Kasich were the only ones not scarred by the infighting, but then neither of them has a prayer of winning the nomination, so it's easy to understand why they were ignored. The rest of the field went at each other harder than we've yet seen this cycle, which certainly had some entertaining moments for Democrats who watched.

The Democratic race is also heating up, though. With less than three weeks to go before Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both dialed up their own attacks, meaning the debate that will happen this weekend (I think it's on at something like 2:00 Sunday morning -- thanks, Debbie Wasserman Schultz!) could become just as contentious as last night's Republican slugfest.

We'll get to all of that in due time, but there was one other big political event this week, as President Barack Obama gave his final State Of The Union speech. It was an unusual speech, in that it didn't conform to the "laundry list" format. Instead, the president laid out the case for his own legacy, and strongly denounced all the nonsense coming from the Republican primary race. Even more extraordinary was the Republican response from Nikki Haley, who also denounced the GOP noise level. This inspired some Republican-on-Republican hatred, the most amusing from Ann Coulter: "Trump should deport Nikki Haley." I wrote about the two speeches earlier, right after they were given (for those interested), and we're also going to devote today's talking points section to Obama's speech, one last time.

But before we get to that, we need to take a deeper dive into the state of the two presidential nominating contests. To begin, here's a quick fact-check of the Republican debate: there weren't any. Check!

Ahem. Sorry about that, but it's been a pretty good week for Democrats, watching the Republican establishment painfully come to grips with the fact that neither one of their two frontrunners is even remotely acceptable to them. If you meet an establishment Republican walking down the street, be kind to him. Living with the prospect of either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz winning their party's nod has got to be like living through some horrifying nightmare, for them. So have pity on the poor guy if you meet one. You'll recognize them by their muttering: "Jeb was supposed to have this race locked up by now!"

Still too snarky? Well, at this point, it's kind of hard not to be. There are already stories circulating that Jeb! is being quietly asked to shutter his campaign (in order to give Marco Rubio a better chance at defeating both Trump and Cruz). Even more embarrassing for Jeb! was a story about the angst of his donors right now. It included the rather extraordinary sentence:



"Hey, I need you to throw away money on Jeb -- out of loyalty," a Bush fundraiser has told donors recently.



Wow. That's just... wow. That's what the guys trying to raise money for you are saying about your campaign? Dang, that's rough.

The bigger news on the Republican side was the throwdown now happening between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Up until very recently, Cruz has been consistently sucking up to Trump, in the hopes of picking up Trump's base of support when he fails. Since Trump hasn't shown any sign of doing so on his own, Cruz has realized it may be up to him to make this failure happen. Trump, for his part, has mostly ignored Cruz up until now (while saying kind things about him occasionally), but since Cruz has caught him in the polls in Iowa, Trump is attacking right back. In fact, Trump has gone "full birther" on Cruz, which political pundits have been predicting (for a long time) would happen if Cruz ever claimed the lead. Trump's already the biggest birther around (over Obama), so it's only natural that he would play the "born in Canada" card at some point.

Democrats, of course, are watching all of this with undisguised glee, but what they're mostly failing to notice is that Donald Trump is actually getting better at running a political campaign. He's gotten better in the debates, he's gotten better in sit-down interviews, and he's gotten a lot better at deflecting attacks from just about any direction.

Don't believe me? You must then have missed, last night, when Donald Trump masterfully "played the 9/11 card." Seriously, Trump was better at it than even Rudy Giuliani ever was -- and that's really saying something (please remember that Giuliani's campaign was famously described as: "a noun, a verb, and 9/11"). Trump was much better at playing the 9/11 card than Hillary Clinton's earlier fumbling attempt (while explaining why she loved Wall Street so much). There's just no denying it: Donald Trump is getting better at campaigning.

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and pretty much the entire party's rank and file have yet to figure out how to take on Trump. They confidently feel that, if Trump is the Republican nominee, the results of the general election will be such a foregone conclusion that it's hardly even worth worrying about. This is dangerous thinking. What we're personally going to be thinking about, while watching this weekend's Democratic debate, is: "Which of these candidates would do better on a debate stage next to Trump?" That question really needs more serious attention than it has been getting. Just laughing off Trump is not going to work. Hopefully, both Hillary and Bernie will realize this, and soon.

There was other (non-Trump) news from the Democratic race, as this week the entire mainstream media woke up and realized that Bernie Sanders was running for president, and that Hillary's poll numbers were slipping. Seriously, Sanders was featured in more stories in the past week than he has been in roughly the last six months. This is good for his campaign, of course, and has helped to build his momentum heading into the first primaries.

Because of this, Hillary Clinton is getting more worried and a lot more snide in her attacks on Sanders. The cynicism she's currently displaying is rather breathtaking, but it does serve to remind folks that Clinton is a no-holds-barred campaigner (as she proved against Barack Obama, eight years ago). How you feel about this depends on how you feel about Clinton -- it could be seen as a good thing (for the upcoming general election fight), or a bad thing (Clinton saying anything to win). But we'll have more on Hillary's campaign in the awards, so we'll just mention it in passing here.

Bernie Sanders had a bit of a stumble this week, too. He's always pledged never to run negative campaign ads, and many said he crossed that line this week with an ad clearly meant to contrast his views on Wall Street with Hillary Clinton's. Team Clinton immediately pointed out that Bernie had (in their opinion) broken his non-negative pledge. Sanders, to his discredit, tried to claim that the ad really had nothing to do with Clinton whatsoever. In an interview, Sanders tried to make this case: "I think anybody who looks at that ad understands it's not a negative ad." When told that Clinton was saying it was, Sanders responded: "Well, I know that that's what Hillary Clinton says, but Hillary Clinton is not right. Did you see any picture of Hillary Clinton in there? Did you see any mention of Hillary in there?"

This is disingenuous, at best. The ad was -- to anyone who hasn't been living under a rock -- clearly aimed at Clinton. Whether it was a "negative ad" or not is debatable (if "negative ad" means "any ad drawing a contrast between two candidates" then that rules out a whole bunch of ads, to put it mildly). It's not a personal attack, or muckraking. The ad isn't trying to personally destroy Clinton over some irrelevant matter. But it is a clear contrast between Bernie and his Democratic challenger. The Sanders campaign was forced to pull the ad, and Bernie tried some more hair-splitting, by now pledging (the ad in question was a web ad) that he's still: "someone who has never run a negative TV ad in his life and never will." At the end of the day, Bernie looked like a normal politician -- but that runs counter to his image, so it didn't exactly help.

And finally, to end on an amusing note, a town in New York is the latest example of life imitating art. Or, more precisely, life imitating South Park. In specific, the episode dealing with the South Park flag. The ironically-named town of Whitesboro, New York got some scrutiny for their bizarre official image, but in the end chose to stick with their town seal depicting a white man choking a Native American. No, really -- click that link if you think we're making this up. It's absolutely impossible to read the image any other way, especially when you consider that this is actually an updated seal (the original one had the Native American almost lying on the ground, while being choked). The town says the image "depicts a friendly wrestling match between village founder Hugh White and an Oneida Indian." Um, OK. Sure, if that's what you say. We wonder, however, what the average Oneida would think about the matter.

 

President Barack Obama, for the second week in a row (and for his 51st time overall -- a point we forgot to make last week), is our *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week*.

His final State Of The Union speech was anything but ordinary, a creative departure from the standard format. Rather than offer up a list of legislative agenda items that would then all be completely ignored by Congress, Obama instead chose to make the case of optimism about America. He even threw in some "American exceptionalism," not that anyone on the right (who have been loudly demanding he do so for years) acknowledged it, of course. He also used his speech to promote the idea that "America is better than our politicians," a clear rebuke to all the hotheadedness on display in the Republican nomination battle.

Whenever a risk is taken, there's always the possibility it will fail. In his departure from the normal speech, Obama could have fallen flat. However, during the official Republican response to his speech, he was in fact vindicated -- as Nikki Haley struck almost exactly the same theme.

There's a new term in politics: Trumpism. Trumpism is defined as "saying things as loudly as possible, never admitting error, and diverting all attacks with clever use of the 'some people are saying' dodge." That's just our personal definition, we hasten to add, as there are plenty of others equally as valid. Barack Obama gave a stirring speech against Trumpism taking over our body politic, and Nikki Haley drove the point home for good measure.

Since our entire talking points section consists of speech excerpts, we really don't need to say a lot more here about Obama's speech. Immediately after he gave it, his job approval poll numbers begin rising, which means the public reacted favorably to his speech as well. For taking a risk and giving a very different kind of speech, Barack Obama deserves his fifty-first *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* award.

[Congratulate President Barack Obama via the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

While we have to give at least a *(Dis-)Honorable Mention* award to Bernie Sanders for his tap-dancing on negative ads this week, the winner of the *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* award was none other than Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea is currently stumping for her mother, making her fair game in the political arena (she's no longer just "the child of a politician," in other words). Here is what Chelsea had to say about Bernie Sanders's plan to move America to single-payer health insurance:



Senator Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance. 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.



Clinton conveniently fails to mention that all of those people would actually have better and guaranteed health insurance as a replacement, as indeed every single American citizen would. We wouldn't need the other programs if this were true, of course. Chelsea Clinton is a smart woman, and she knows this. There's a word for what she is doing, and it is called "fearmongering."

Here is the best response to such fearmongering:



[It is] not only wrong, but it is undermining core Democratic principles. Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care? I thought we were trying to realize Harry Truman's dream. I thought this campaign finally gave us an opportunity to put together a coalition to achieve universal health care.

This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged because this is the kind of attack that not only undermines core Democratic values, but gives aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican Party who are against doing what we want to do for America. So shame on you, [Chelsea Clinton]. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That's what I expect from you.



We changed this quote to insert Chelsea's name. In its original form, the name read "Barack Obama," because this is what Hillary Clinton herself said, eight years ago, after Obama (ironically enough) had put out a fearmongering mailer warning voters that Hillary would require everyone to purchase health insurance.

In 2008, Hillary chastised a fellow Democrat for such attacks on the goal of universal health care. She said such attacks give aid and comfort to Republicans. She said "shame on you" and expressed her outrage at such attacks.

Now? The Clinton campaign has doubled down on the attack, rather than retract it. Look for this to be the biggest fight on Sunday night when the two candidates face each other. If Bernie's smart, he'll read that quote to Hillary's face and ask her why she's changed her position. He's already poking fun at her by releasing a signed photo of Clinton and Sanders from 1993, with the tender inscription from Hillary: "To Bernie Sanders with thanks for your commitment to real health care access for all Americans."

While Hillary herself is arguably who the award should go to, Chelsea twisted Sanders's position worse than anyone else on her mother's campaign. She knew she was misstating Bernie's position, she knew exactly how misleading it would sound to someone who didn't understand that, and she went ahead and did it anyway. This chip off the old Clinton block well deserves this week's *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* award.

[Chelsea Clinton is a private citizen, and as a rule we do not provide contact information for such. We also don't ever link to a campaign site, so you'll have to search for Hillary Clinton's campaign contact information yourself to let her know what you think of Chelsea's actions, sorry.]

 

*Volume 374* (1/15/16)

As we usually do during State Of The Union week, we're pre-empting our usual amateurish attempts at creating Democratic talking points in favor of highlighting some made by the president (and his speechwriters, of course).

Without further ado, here were the most memorable (to us -- bearing in mind it is hard to choose just seven from such a substantial speech) moments from the last Obama State Of The Union speech. All text is taken from a speech transcript provided by the Washington Post.

 *   Peddling non-fiction*Obama started out by reminding everyone that all the doom and gloom from the campaign trail does not accurately reflect the reality of our economic situation.



Let me start with the economy and a basic fact. The United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world.

We're in the middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history.

More than 14 million new jobs, the strongest two years of job growth since the 1990s, an unemployment rate cut in half. Our auto industry just had its best year ever.

That's just part of a manufacturing surge that's created nearly 900,000 new jobs in the past six years. And we've done all this while cutting our deficits by almost three-quarters.

Anyone claiming that America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction.



 *   The little guy's not to blame*Obama made this point more forcefully than he has in the past -- the little guy didn't screw our economy over, so why try to pin the blame on him?



But after years of record corporate profits, working families won't get more opportunity or bigger paychecks just by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at everybody else's expense.

Middle-class families are not going to feel more secure because we allowed attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered. Food stamp recipients did not cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did.

Immigrants aren't the principal reason wages haven't gone up. Those decisions are made in the boardrooms that all too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns. It's sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts.



 *   We didn't deny Sputnik was up there*This was one of the strongest lines of the night, and it drew a clear contrast between good old-fashioned American can-do spirit and hiding our collective heads in the sand.



And this brings me to the second big question we as a country have to answer: how do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?

Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn't deny Sputnik was up there.

We didn't argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight, and twelve years later, we were walking on the moon.

Now, that spirit of discovery is in our DNA. America is Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers and George Washington Carver. America is Grace Hopper and Katherine Johnson and Sally Ride. America is every immigrant and entrepreneur from Boston to Austin to Silicon Valley racing to shape a better future.



 *   They call us*This might possibly be the most jingoistic thing we've ever heard a Democrat say. It's extraordinary considering what Obama's detractors used to say about his reluctance to buy into "American exceptionalism." You can't get much more exceptionalist than this, in fact.



I told you earlier all the talk of America's economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. Let me tell you something. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth, period. Period.

It's not even close. It's not even close. It's not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined.

Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world.

No nation attacks us directly or our allies because they know that's the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead. They call us.



 *   Not an existential threat*We've been waiting for quite some time to hear any politician frame the issue of the Islamic State in such a fashion. Quite a contrast to all the Republicans now quaking in fear, isn't it?



But as we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks, twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages, they pose an enormous danger to civilians, they have to be stopped, but they do not threaten our national existence. That is the story ISIL wants to tell; that's the kind of propaganda they use to recruit.

We don't need to build them up to show that we're serious, and we sure don't need to push away vital allies in this fight by echoing the lie that ISIL is somehow representative of one of the world's largest religions.

We just need to call them what they are: killers and fanatics who have to be rooted out, hunted down, and destroyed.



 *   All the people, not just some*There were many similar passages which took on Trumpism and denied that it should be who we as a nation are. This was our pick, but there were plenty of others to choose from.



And that's why we need to reject any politics -- any politics that targets people because of race or religion.

Let me just say this.

This isn't a matter of political correctness. This is a matter of understanding just what it is that makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal, it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith. His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I'm standing on tonight that "to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place." When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad, or fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid is called names, that doesn't make us safer. That's not telling it what -- telling it like it is, it's just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world.

It makes it harder to achieve our goals. It betrays who we are as a country.

"We the People." Our Constitution begins with those three simple words, words we've come to recognize mean all the people, not just some. Words that insist we rise and fall together, that that's how we might perfect our union.



 *   Admitting his own failure*Obama admits for the first time that he has failed on the promise to change the "red states and blue states" back into "the United States of America." He's right -- the Republicans fought tooth and nail against everything he tried to do, and Obama himself could have done a much better job at using the bully pulpit to communicate with the public (especially in his first term). It's rare to hear any politician admit to such a failure, in fact.



A better politics doesn't mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country, different regions, different attitudes, different interests. That's one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, fiercely, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.

But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn't -- it doesn't work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, it doesn't work if we think that our political opponents are unpatriotic or trying to weaken America.

Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise or when even basic facts are contested or when we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get all the attention. And most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn't matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some special interest.

Too many Americans feel that way right now. It's one of the few regrets of my presidency -- that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. I have no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I'll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.



 

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

 

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

Why I Ignore Chelsea Clinton and You Should Too

0
0
Having come of age during the Clinton era, I always had a soft spot for Chelsea Clinton. She wasn't much younger than I was, so to watch her receive heartless slights and vicious criticisms about her appearance and pubescent awkwardness always hit home. Even though I didn't have a father who was the leader of the free world, I could viscerally relate to Chelsea's desire to be left alone. Today, I think, like myself, she is probably quite relieved to have experienced much of her own coming of age prior to the digital era. I can't imagine what social media might have done to her had it been around in the '90s.

Fast forward to now, and Chelsea is a very bright and academically accomplished professional. For the most part, she managed to tiptoe around her mother's politics as U.S. Senator, Secretary of State, and candidate for Democratic presidential nominee. In the meantime, Chelsea racked up a B.A. from Stanford, a Ph.D. from Oxford, and a M.P.H. from Columbia. The last degree is of particular interest, considering Chelsea's recent false assertions regarding Bernie Sanders's plan to address the Affordable Care Act and the general state of healthcare within the U.S. should he become president, but we'll get to that in a minute. Chelsea, meanwhile, also worked for the management consulting firm, McKinsey & Company, as well as the private equity firm, Avenue Capital Group. She rounded out this primarily financial pedigree by marrying a particularly well-to-do investment banker. So, in short, like her mother before her, Chelsea has a lot of impressive titles as well as some arguably varied experience. It also doesn't hurt to be wealthy enough to purchase a $10.5 million condo in Manhattan.

Having said this, Chelsea really doesn't have much to stand on when it comes to politics. I suppose that, as the daughter of both a former U.S. president and a potential U.S. president, she is somewhat credible by association, but what does that truly net? Her accomplishments are difficult to pin down in spite of all of the exposure, connections, resources and power that a daughter of a U.S. president and of a U.S. Senator has. Just to sidebar-contrast her with another bright and academically accomplished woman in Chelsea's relative age bracket -- who also works in politics and in journalism, who also happens to have a B.A. from Stanford and a Ph.D. from Oxford, but who is not the daughter of a U.S. president and of a U.S. Senator -- take a look at Rachel Maddow. I think most of us can agree that Chelsea Clinton is no Rachel Maddow. And my friends who are career journalists know this especially well after having watched Chelsea flub a journalistic opportunity of a lifetime when she was ordained as a special correspondent for NBC with a reported salary of $600,000, but faltered repeatedly, if not ineptly, on NBC's now-cancelled, nationally televised program, Rock Center.

Indeed, Chelsea Clinton is no Rachel Maddow. So what? Chelsea is her own person, with her own attributes and her own contributions (difficult as they may be to identify). Okay, well let's explore her latest "contribution" by observing what now can be considered her official campaigning on behalf of her mother. Earlier this week in New Hampshire -- during her first solo appearance on behalf of Hillary's campaign -- Chelsea made the claim that Bernie Sanders wants
to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, dismantle private insurance...[which would]...strip millions and millions and millions of people of their health insurance.
Uhm, how many millions was that, Chelsea?

Since what many Democrats are calling Chelsea's misleading, if not utterly cynical, attack this week, outlets such as Politifact have debunked her statements, rating them as "mostly false." I find this particularly curious considering Chelsea's post-graduate education in public health. One would think that, no matter how badly she wanted her mother to win the nomination, Chelsea would find a way to speak favorably of her preferred candidate but to remain accurate or, at least, nebulous in her assertions. 'Nebulous' tends to work auspiciously (or, rather, not inauspiciously) for many politicians. Yet Chelsea, who holds a master's degree in public health, spoke plainly inaccurately and, some would even say, with an intention to incite fear and cause confusion (which isn't very nice, is it?).

Yes, politics can get dirty. And, yes, everything a politician or his or her campaign says should be taken with a grain of salt. But some things shouldn't be taken with anything at all, especially from people who don't know what they're talking about. I'm sure Chelsea is a very nice person. She and I happen to have several mutual acquaintances; and just this week I received an invitation to hear her speak at a private fundraising gathering for her mother. Speak about what exactly? I have no idea. More importantly, I have no interest. And neither should you.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.

Court backs Icahn on ending worker benefits at Taj

0
0
ATLANTIC CITY - An appeals court ruled Friday that Atlantic City's Trump Taj Mahal casino was within its rights to end health insurance and pension benefits to its workers, removing the last major obstacle to billionaire Carl Icahn's taking over. Reported by philly.com 23 hours ago.

Personal Finance Q&A: Health insurance subsidy is based on household income

0
0
Dear Liz: We're living on a very tight budget and often have to put groceries and unexpected expenses on a credit card that's in my husband's name only. I have no personal income. My husband is on Medicare, but I'm too young to qualify and need to find low- or no-cost healthcare, (I haven't had... Reported by L.A. Times 19 hours ago.

8 Ways to Save on a Gym Membership

0
0
*8 Ways to Save on a Gym Membership*

It’s January and for many that means making a renewed commitment to improving health and fitness. For fitness clubs, it's also the time of year when they want to sign on as many newly motivated people as they can. So they'll often offer cut-rate prices on their membership plans.

But if you missed initial wave of gym membership mania, you still have plenty of opportunities to get a good deal.“You can often get the biggest discount on a gym membership later in the month,” says Andrea Metcalf, a certified trainer and health coach in Chicago. That holds true in January or during any month of the year. Metcalf says that towards the end of a month, fitness clubs may need to boost their monthly sales quotas and so they will offer even lower rates to entice you to join.

Another good time to lock in an annual membership rate is during the summer. When the weather is good, fewer people sign up for memberships so gyms often reduce fees to attract new members.

There are plenty of other ways to save:

*Sign up for a trial run.* Call fitness clubs near your home and office to ask for a no-commitment trial. Most clubs will give you a one week pass to try out the facility, says Pam Kufahl, director of content at Club Industry, a website for fitness pros. Visit during the hours you’ll be most likely to work out so you can see how crowded it is. Try the classes that interest you, from yoga and pilates to spinning and kettlebells. Be sure to also look closely at the condition of the facilities, including the weight machines, the locker room, and the swimming pool. If you can, ask members what they like and don’t like about the club, and get a copy of the fee schedule so you’ll know what your monthly expenses would be.

*Search for better prices online.* While you’re deciding which gym to join, scour the Web. You may find out about some great deals on fitness websites and even through sites such as Groupon, Living Social, and Gilt City. Kufahl says that these deals usually include discounts on a gym membership or classes.

*Negotiate a deal.* When you decide which club you'd like to join, speak with a manager instead of a sales person. She is more likely to be able to negotiate a better gym membership price for you. Metcalf says you should ask if you can get a month free or not have to pay the initiation fee—especially if you agree to pay for an annual membership upfront. Also find out what the fees would be if you pay monthly instead, so you can compare the total cost.

While you're negotiating, try to get some additional bonuses thrown in without charge, such as a wellness assessment or a personal training session. If the membership includes services you won’t use, such as childcare, classes, or use of a pool, ask for a reduced rate that doesn’t include those perks.

*Be flexible.* A club may offer you a discount as long as you agree to use the facilities only during off-peak hours or on certain days. Consider the offer carefully. The restrictions may be worth it, especially if you can easily fit those hours into your schedule. Such special rates, though, aren’t usually advertised, so you’ll have to ask for them.

*Join with a group. *Many fitness facilities will lower their monthly rates for a large group. One of the easiest ways to take advantage of this benefit is through your employer. The Sporting Club in Philadelphia, for example, has offered discounts of up to 20 percent to Temple University’s full-time employees. Ask your human resources department if your employer has deals with local clubs.

Many fitness clubs offer "family" or "household" discounts to two or more people who live together. You can also gather a group of friends and ask a gym manager if he or she would be willing to cut a deal for the group. If you can't wrangle a discount, find out if your group can get deals on additional services, such as small group personal training sessions, Kufahl says.  

*Check your insurance benefits.* Health insurance plans may provide discounts on a gym membership. Some plans offered by United Healthcare for example, have reimbursed members up to $240 a year if they belong to a participating fitness center. Call your insurance plan's member services number (often listed on the back of your health insurance card) or check with your company's human resources insurance expert to see if you're eligible for a discount. See if there are any special requirements to get a reimbursement—you may have to visit a facility a certain number of times a month.

*Read the contract.* One of the most expensive charges you could eventually encounter is a club’s cancellation fee. Although you might not be able to get it removed, you should be aware of the terms in advance so you don’t get stuck paying a penalty for a membership you no longer use. You might have to let the club know you want to cancel two months in advance, for example, or submit a notarized letter to end the contract.

*Ask if the membership fees have changed.* Once you've joined a club, you'll still want to keep tabs on the monthly or annual fees the gym charges. One of our editors was paying the New York Sports Club in Manhattan a monthly membership fee of more than $90. While the club never announced price reductions, last October he asked the manager if there was a way to lower the monthly fee. Turned out there was. While the club charged him a one-time $50 fee for making the change, the monthly fee for exactly the same membership dropped to just under $60, a monthly savings of over more than 33 percent.

*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 6 hours ago.

5 Most Read Danbury Patch Stories This Week

0
0
Patch Danbury, CT -- Danbury Patch readers had Powerball fever and were outraged to hear of a cancer fighter losing her job and health insurance. Reported by Patch 15 hours ago.

Woman Battling Cancer Loses Job, Health Insurance 5 Months Before Early Retirement

0
0
Patch Danbury, CT -- A Danbury woman and cancer fighter lost her job with the Town of North Salem via email just five months before early retirement. Reported by Patch 10 hours ago.

A Legal Overview of Religious Discrimination in Employment

0
0
Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, among other requirements, prohibits discrimination in employment based upon religion for covered employers who have 15 or more employees (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e). Employees' religious beliefs and practices are entitled to "reasonable accommodation" in the workplace unless it would cause the employer an "undue hardship." Asserted claims of prohibited discrimination must typically be made to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or comparable state agency within 180 days of the discriminating event. Note that many states have similar statutes that may include more employers or have different procedural requirements. This comment provides a brief and incomplete educational overview of the complex topic of religious discrimination in private sector employment. Public employees have a somewhat different situation. Always contact an experienced employment discrimination attorney in a specific situation.

Courts have difficulty precisely defining "religion." Courts do not judge religious doctrines. This is as ancient as the Biblical account in Acts 18 of a Roman Proconsul declining to hear such a case. Numerous modern U.S. court decisions address employer "undue hardship." These cases may conclude, for example, that since customers prefer that employees without tattoos serve them, it is an undue hardship if an employer cannot require their covering, even if the tattoos are religiously inspired.

Courts state that a religious belief or practice is "sincere,""central,""influences behavior," and addresses "ultimate ideas" concerning "life, purpose, and death." However, the courts have concluded that "religion" may exist without the individual believing in a traditional Deity or acting in conformity with an established religious group. In other words, it is legally possible to have a one person "religion."

Courts distinguish "religion" from social, political, or ethical viewpoints. Personal preferences in appearance such as hairstyle, clothing, or jewelry do not constitute "religion." Nutritional preferences or political affiliations are not "religion." The analysis becomes very factually specific. A religious practice or belief is "sincerely held" ("bona fide") based upon both the employee's subjective belief and objective practice. While a court will not determine the ultimate truth or reasonableness of the subjective religious belief, the court will take note of consistent objective practice. The employee must be consistent in belief and practice in order to successfully assert religion.

Courts have determined that both "disparate treatment" (different treatment due to the employee's religion) or a failure to "reasonably accommodate" an employee's religious belief or practice (absent employer undue hardship) are forms of unlawful religious discrimination in employment. Precisely what is a "reasonable accommodation" in a specific situation? This is fact specific.

Note that not only must the employee have a bona fide religious belief, she or he must typically inform the employer of this belief. Why did the employer take the adverse employment action in question? Did the employee fail to comply with a job requirement that conflicted with the communicated religious belief when a reasonable accommodation was possible? A 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision (8:1) involved a successful lawsuit by a prospective employee who was denied employment after wearing a hijab to an employment interview but without requesting a religious accommodation (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch). However, this case involves unique facts.

Consequently, from the employer's viewpoint:

1. Is there notification or reason to know that a reasonable religious accommodation may be appropriate?
2. If so, initiate communication with the employee concerning possible accommodations. The accommodation process involves cooperation and dialogue and cannot be unilaterally undertaken by either party.
3. Listen to the employee's request and why the employee wants it.
4. An employer does not have to provide the employee with her or his requested accommodation if the employer prefers to provide a different but reasonable alternative.
5. An employer needs to be factually objective concerning what accommodation is reasonable or might create an undue hardship.

The following are some general types of proposed reasonable accommodation:

1 . Flex schedules or personal leave policies.
2. Schedule and shift exchanging done voluntarily.
3. Modification in employer grooming standards or dress codes.
4. Voluntary transfers and sometimes voluntary demotion. Be cautious.
5. Allowing non-disruptive prayer and/or religious conversation outside of customer service areas. This is very fact specific.

An employer might possibly reject a proposed accommodation because it:

1. Imposes more than a de minimis (very small) cost or administrative burden.
2. Creates building or business code violations, or other legal violations or safety issues.
3. Violates contract rights or a collective bargaining contract.
4. Creates workplace disruption, workplace conflicts, or damages customer interactions. Be factually objective.
5. Adversely impacts the corporate brand or creates community disdain.

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs regulations require federal contractors and subcontractors to provide employees and prospective employees with accommodations for religious observance and practice, specifically mentioning Sabbath and religious holiday observance (41 CFR 60-50.3). However, in determining what might constitute an undue hardship to the employer, the regulation states that factors such as business necessity, financial costs and expenses, and resulting personnel problems may be considered.

Religious faiths and religious educational institutions may discrimination on the basis of religion in employment decisions. Additionally, when an employee's conduct is contrary to the religious principles of the religious institution, the employee may be terminated. However, determining if a particular employer is "religious" may be difficult. Courts frequently examine the relative mixture of secular and religious activities occurring within the organization.

"Ministerial" employees are not allowed to sue religious employers under anti-discrimination statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 2012 unanimous decision (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC). The teacher in question had completed a course of theological study and accepted a "call," teaching both religious and secular classes in kindergarten and the fourth grade. After a dispute with her employer concerning disability leave for narcolepsy, she was terminated. Upon reviewing the facts of this situation, as well as the history of religious liberty and the First Amendment, the Supreme Court concluded that the ministerial exception bared her lawsuit. The Court noted that it expressed no opinion concerning whether or not the ministerial exception would prohibit other types of lawsuits, such as breach of contract or tort (injury).

Consequently, a religious employee would be advised to have a written employment contract containing provisions for disability and severance benefits, etc.

The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, in broad overview, prohibits government from substantially burdening one's exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates a compelling interest and the governmental burden is the least restrictive method to address this compelling interest (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000bb-1). In 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court utilized this statute to limit regulations under the federal Affordable Care Act that required employers to provide health insurance coverage for some methods of contraception (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores). This complex topic is beyond the scope of a brief comment.

This comment provides a brief and incomplete educational overview of a complex topic and is not intended to provide legal advice. Always contact an experienced employment discrimination attorney in a specific situation.

-- 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.

New Orleans Citywide Day of Enrollment : Photos

0
0
Residents enrolled in health coverage through the Affordable Care Act Health Insurance Marketplace at various sites in New Orleans on Saturday. Reported by nola.com 5 hours ago.

Legislators, Officials and Advocates Push For Health Insurance Enrollment as Jan. 31 Deadline Approaches

0
0
Patch Framingham, MA -- Framingham’s rate of uninsurance is more than twice that of the state as a whole: 7.4 percent of its residents lack health insurance. Reported by Patch 1 minute ago.

What Happens if You Don't Have Health Insurance in 2016?

0
0
Obamacare's individual mandate requires everyone to purchase health insurance. Here's what could happen if you don't. Reported by Motley Fool 12 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images