A new health care firm with a unique business model has picked Orlando for its first location. myDirectMD, a doctor's office that provides primary care services, has opened the doors to its first office at 7350 Sandlake Commons Blvd., Suite 2212B. Instead of relying on health insurance, myDirectMD enrolls patients who pay a set monthly fee for continuous primary care services from a board-certified doctor and urgent-care physician. "We've eliminated overhead costs that come from insurance companies.…
Reported by bizjournals 11 hours ago.
New health care business picks Orlando for first location
↧
↧
President Barack Obama takes victory lap on economy
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is using new jobs numbers to take a victory lap on the economy. Obama says the U.S. has “the strongest, most durable economy in the world.” He pointed to wage and income growth, job growth, lower oil prices and increasing health insurance as evidence of that claim. The president […]
Reported by Seattle Times 10 hours ago.
↧
When It Comes To Veterans Care, Hillary, Bernie, and Rachel Get It
Last evening's Democratic debate was full of fireworks. But, if you managed to stay tuned all the way to the end, you got to see Rachel Maddow ask the question that hasn't been asked in any Democratic debate, or Republican debate. But, that question cuts right to the core of the difference in vision between progressives and the Koch Brothers.
Here's Rachel:
If either one of you is nominated as the Democratic Party's nominee, you will likely face a Republican opponent in the general election who wants to privatize or even abolish big parts of the V.A. It's a newly popular idea in conservative politics.
How will you win the argument on that issue given the problems that have been exposed at the V.A. in the last few years? What's your argument that the V.A. should still exist and should not be privatized?
Rachel is no newcomer to this issue. If you've watched her show, you know that she is really the only television host out there who has been focused on the burgeoning campaign to close down the VA, and throw veterans into the private, for-profit system.
Further, she acutely understands the implications of privatizing the VA. If we can privatize one of the most sacred promises we make in this nation - the guarantee of care of our veterans, when they come home from war - and leave veterans to figure out their own care, with just a voucher and a pat on the back, then privatization of anything else is on the table. Anything.
The responses of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders showed a real awareness of what was is going on, and who is behind it.
Here is Hillary Clinton:
Well, first of all, I'm absolutely against privatizing the V.A. And I am going do everything I can to build on the reforms that Senator Sanders and others in Congress have passed to try to fix what's wrong with the V.A.
There are a lot of issues about wait times and services that have to be fixed because our veterans deserve nothing but the best.
But you're absolutely right, you know, Rachel, this is another part of the Koch brothers agenda. They've actually formed an organization to try to begin to convince Americans we should no longer have guaranteed health care, specialized care for our veterans.
I will fight that as hard as I can. I think there's where we can enlist the veterans service organizations, the veterans of America, because, yes, let's fix the V.A., but we will never let it be privatized, and that is a promise.
And here is Bernie Sanders:
Secretary Clinton is absolutely right, there are people, Koch brothers among others, who have a group called Concerned Veterans of America, funded by the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers, by the way, want to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, every governmental program passed since the 1930s. Yes, there are people out there who want to privatize it.
The last point that I'd make. I had a hearing. I had all of the veterans groups in front of me. And I said to them, tell me when a veteran gets in to the V.A., understanding there are waiting lines and real problems, when a veteran gets into the system, is the quality of care good?
Without exception, what they said, good, excellent, very good. We've got to strengthen the V.A. We do not privatize the V.A.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both hit the nail on the head.
Late last year, VoteVets.org released a report on the Koch-Brothers-funded Concerned Veterans for America. The group's founder, Pete Hegseth (who has since left) said that the Kochs "literally created" the group. And, the group stands entirely apart and alone from every major veterans service organization - the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, and more - when it comes to privatizing the VA.
And, it isn't just the veterans groups. The Vet Voice Foundation commissioned a Democratic pollster and Republican pollster, to conduct a poll of veterans in America, on the issue of privatization. The findings?
· Veterans oppose a proposal in Congress that would have the real effect of leading to privatized VA hospitals. Sixty-four percent oppose, and only 29% support.
· Overall, 57% of veterans would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supported privatizing the VA health care system. Even a majority of Republicans indicate they would be more likely to vote against a candidate who supported privatization. This opposition extends across parties: 67% of Democratic, 57% of Independent/don't know, and 53% of Republican veterans say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate for high-elected office if they supported privatization of the VA health care system.
· Fifty-nine percent of veterans rate their impression of VA hospitals as favorable. When only asked about VA hospitals in their area, 61% of veterans rate their impression as favorable.
· In comparison, only 25% of veterans when asked if they have a favorable impression of for-profit health insurance corporations. And only 12 percent believe that VA hospitals should be run more like private hospitals.
· So what do veterans want? Although veterans think that changes need to be made to the VA hospitals, their biggest want is more doctors. Forty-two percent of veterans think that "needs more doctors" describes VA hospitals in their area very well. That is the most frequently-given prescription for helping the VA perform more efficiently.
Veterans realize the VA has its issues - but they also realize that these issues are fixable, and understand that privatizing the VA only makes things worse. Knowing that, what did the Kochs do? They bought their own veterans group.
Yet, until last night, the issue hadn't been raised, and the candidates weren't asked to address where they stand. Thank God Rachel Maddow brought it up, and gave the entire country a chance to see why veterans need progressives to rally against privatization of the veterans health system.
-- 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 9 hours ago.
Here's Rachel:
If either one of you is nominated as the Democratic Party's nominee, you will likely face a Republican opponent in the general election who wants to privatize or even abolish big parts of the V.A. It's a newly popular idea in conservative politics.
How will you win the argument on that issue given the problems that have been exposed at the V.A. in the last few years? What's your argument that the V.A. should still exist and should not be privatized?
Rachel is no newcomer to this issue. If you've watched her show, you know that she is really the only television host out there who has been focused on the burgeoning campaign to close down the VA, and throw veterans into the private, for-profit system.
Further, she acutely understands the implications of privatizing the VA. If we can privatize one of the most sacred promises we make in this nation - the guarantee of care of our veterans, when they come home from war - and leave veterans to figure out their own care, with just a voucher and a pat on the back, then privatization of anything else is on the table. Anything.
The responses of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders showed a real awareness of what was is going on, and who is behind it.
Here is Hillary Clinton:
Well, first of all, I'm absolutely against privatizing the V.A. And I am going do everything I can to build on the reforms that Senator Sanders and others in Congress have passed to try to fix what's wrong with the V.A.
There are a lot of issues about wait times and services that have to be fixed because our veterans deserve nothing but the best.
But you're absolutely right, you know, Rachel, this is another part of the Koch brothers agenda. They've actually formed an organization to try to begin to convince Americans we should no longer have guaranteed health care, specialized care for our veterans.
I will fight that as hard as I can. I think there's where we can enlist the veterans service organizations, the veterans of America, because, yes, let's fix the V.A., but we will never let it be privatized, and that is a promise.
And here is Bernie Sanders:
Secretary Clinton is absolutely right, there are people, Koch brothers among others, who have a group called Concerned Veterans of America, funded by the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers, by the way, want to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, every governmental program passed since the 1930s. Yes, there are people out there who want to privatize it.
The last point that I'd make. I had a hearing. I had all of the veterans groups in front of me. And I said to them, tell me when a veteran gets in to the V.A., understanding there are waiting lines and real problems, when a veteran gets into the system, is the quality of care good?
Without exception, what they said, good, excellent, very good. We've got to strengthen the V.A. We do not privatize the V.A.
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both hit the nail on the head.
Late last year, VoteVets.org released a report on the Koch-Brothers-funded Concerned Veterans for America. The group's founder, Pete Hegseth (who has since left) said that the Kochs "literally created" the group. And, the group stands entirely apart and alone from every major veterans service organization - the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, and more - when it comes to privatizing the VA.
And, it isn't just the veterans groups. The Vet Voice Foundation commissioned a Democratic pollster and Republican pollster, to conduct a poll of veterans in America, on the issue of privatization. The findings?
· Veterans oppose a proposal in Congress that would have the real effect of leading to privatized VA hospitals. Sixty-four percent oppose, and only 29% support.
· Overall, 57% of veterans would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supported privatizing the VA health care system. Even a majority of Republicans indicate they would be more likely to vote against a candidate who supported privatization. This opposition extends across parties: 67% of Democratic, 57% of Independent/don't know, and 53% of Republican veterans say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate for high-elected office if they supported privatization of the VA health care system.
· Fifty-nine percent of veterans rate their impression of VA hospitals as favorable. When only asked about VA hospitals in their area, 61% of veterans rate their impression as favorable.
· In comparison, only 25% of veterans when asked if they have a favorable impression of for-profit health insurance corporations. And only 12 percent believe that VA hospitals should be run more like private hospitals.
· So what do veterans want? Although veterans think that changes need to be made to the VA hospitals, their biggest want is more doctors. Forty-two percent of veterans think that "needs more doctors" describes VA hospitals in their area very well. That is the most frequently-given prescription for helping the VA perform more efficiently.
Veterans realize the VA has its issues - but they also realize that these issues are fixable, and understand that privatizing the VA only makes things worse. Knowing that, what did the Kochs do? They bought their own veterans group.
Yet, until last night, the issue hadn't been raised, and the candidates weren't asked to address where they stand. Thank God Rachel Maddow brought it up, and gave the entire country a chance to see why veterans need progressives to rally against privatization of the veterans health system.
-- 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 9 hours ago.
↧
When Bernie Sanders ran against me in Vermont
Hillary Clinton is not the first progressive Democratic woman to be challenged by Bernie Sanders. He ran against me in 1986 when I was running for my second term as governor of Vermont. At that time he had little affinity for the Democratic Party. When advised that his third-party candidacy might result in a Republican victory, he saw no difference between Democrats and Republicans, saying: "It is absolutely fair to say you are dealing with Tweedledum and Tweedledee."
Voters did not agree. Sanders received 14 percent of the vote, the Republican candidate, Peter Smith received 38 percent, and I won with 47 percent.
By any measure I was regarded as a progressive governor. If I was vulnerable, it was for being too liberal. As a legislator, my maiden speech on the floor of the Vermont House was in favor of ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. My first priority as governor was universal access to kindergarten. I set a record for a Vermont governor's appointees; women filled half of my cabinet. I sought out talented women, many of whom were the first women to head their agencies.
Women draw on a different network than men and can share an alternative definition of "qualified." Hillary Clinton's campaign staff, according to Fast Company, is over 50 percent female. Sanders' campaign began with a a predominantly male inner circle and continues to face accusation of keeping women out of the top ranks.
When Sanders was my opponent he focused like a laser beam on "class analysis," in which "women's issues" were essentially a distraction from more important issues. He urged voters not to vote for me just because I was a woman. That would be a "sexist position," he declared.

Sanders has emerged as a more sophisticated and astute politician since those early days, and his message has more resonance.
Thirty years later, women and men assume that gender no longer matters in politics. Now only 8 percent of voters would declare in a poll that they would not vote for a woman president. I remember precisely the time and place when a barber in Springfield, Vermont, ran out to tell me, "I will never vote for a woman."
Rare then, even more rare today. But that does not mean that gender no longer plays a role in how we judge a woman's candidacy for the top job. Women, it turns out, are influenced by gender bias to almost the same degree as men. For example, both Clinton and Sanders have declared they are favor paid maternity and sick leave, and equal pay for equal work. What sets them apart? I believe it is both style and substance. Sanders can shout his message and wave his arms for emphasis. Clinton can't. If she appeared on stage as angry at the "system" as he is, she would be dismissed as an angry, even hysterical, woman; a sight that makes voters squirm.
An angry female voice works against women but is a plus for men. It demonstrates passion, outrage and power. Sanders bristled when he was accused of sexism after he implied that Clinton was among the shouters. Ironically, it is he who has, according to his doctor, suffered from laryngitis.
Gender adds muscle to substance. How will a female president differ from the men who have ruled the world?
Living in a woman's body makes the world look different on some - though far from all - issues.
As a new legislator, my first bill introduced in the Vermont House was to increase funding for childcare. I had young children and I knew that finding childcare determined whether or not I could leave my house and come to the capital, Montpelier. And I knew, that for poor women, childcare determined whether they could go to work and support their children. As governor, I saw to it that childcare funding was quadrupled and funding for education doubled. Hillary Clinton's career follows a similar trajectory. Education reform was her priority as the governor's wife in Arkansas. A bill to cover children's health insurance (CHIP) was her achievement as a New York senator. "Women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights" was the message she sent to every country she visited as secretary of state. Yes, Hillary has been around, she's been a determined, consistent fighter for children's welfare and women's rights. It's part of her DNA.
She was drawn to these women's issues - now urgent economic issues - in the same way that I was, by our experiences as working women, wives, and mothers. A number of men will protest: "I believe the same thing as she does."
What's the difference? The difference is how do they rank on the agenda. Is equal pay near the bottom of the list, or is it a priority? Is defense of Planned Parenthood an issue that saves women's lives, or is it only another institution among many? Placement on a competitive agenda is vital to achieve results. I believe that Hillary Clinton will give high priority to equal pay for equal work, not because she has experienced discrimination herself, but as a woman, she can empathize with women who have been discriminated against. It is a kind of empathy that allows no definition, but I felt it every time I made eye contact with the women I met along the parade route or on the factory floor.
One of the criticisms Clinton has received is that she is not authentic, that she is too political (i.e. scheming) and that she has been around for a long time so that she is a captive of various institutions.
If we're counting from when Sanders was elected mayor of Burlington, he has been around for some time, too: 35 years. In part because he is a man, he can run as the ultimate outsider. Clinton can't be the outsider even as her very candidacy defies precedent. Ever since women got the vote, we believed, like the good students we are, that the path to political participation, as instructed years ago by the League of Women Voters, was to be informed, understand the system and play by the rules. That's how we could make it in a man's world.
That responsibility did not rule out reform, but it did crimp revolution. When I campaigned for governor, I believed that I had to assure voters that I would not be that different from the male governors who had preceded me, even when I knew that I would be. Being the first woman and a revolutionary would be too much for the voters to swallow.
Sanders is brave, pairing Socialist with Democrat. And I agree with him on the growing cancer in America of income inequality and a democracy-threatening campaign finance system. He is a bold truth teller, and I am grateful that he has changed the conversation. He makes the answers sound easy, which in turn, makes him look authentic. But the answers are not simple. The word "complex" does not win applause in a political speech. Nuance is not welcomed. "We need a revolution," is more powerful than "I have a plan."
I understand that voters are looking for authenticity; they always have been, asking, "Are you who you claim to be?" A woman, running for a leadership position that has always been held by a man, has to create a new persona. To succeed, she has to play the game as it has always been played, but at the same time, play it differently. It's difficult to find that sweet spot where a woman is "just right" tough enough to be commander in chief and feminine enough to be mother of the nation.
When we elected the first African American as President, we believed that an African American man would be revolutionary and bring us hope.
Barack Obama, in many ways, has changed the rules, and had new priorities on his agenda, but not to the extent that some voters had hoped and others had feared.
Still, the world seen through the eyes of a black man looks different than through those of a white man. As a result of President Obama's leadership, we look at him and ourselves differently.
And the world as seen through the eyes of a woman will not result in revolution, but it will mark a change towards greater gender equality. Visualizing Hillary raising her right hand to take the oath of office, and Bill holding the Bible, will tell every little girl and boy, that, yes, women can achieve anything.
Madeleine May Kunin, who served as governor of Vermont for three terms from 1985-1991, is a Marsh Professor at the University of Vermont, and the author of "The New Feminist Agenda, Defining the Next Revolution for Women, Work and Family."
-- 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.
Voters did not agree. Sanders received 14 percent of the vote, the Republican candidate, Peter Smith received 38 percent, and I won with 47 percent.
By any measure I was regarded as a progressive governor. If I was vulnerable, it was for being too liberal. As a legislator, my maiden speech on the floor of the Vermont House was in favor of ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. My first priority as governor was universal access to kindergarten. I set a record for a Vermont governor's appointees; women filled half of my cabinet. I sought out talented women, many of whom were the first women to head their agencies.
Women draw on a different network than men and can share an alternative definition of "qualified." Hillary Clinton's campaign staff, according to Fast Company, is over 50 percent female. Sanders' campaign began with a a predominantly male inner circle and continues to face accusation of keeping women out of the top ranks.
When Sanders was my opponent he focused like a laser beam on "class analysis," in which "women's issues" were essentially a distraction from more important issues. He urged voters not to vote for me just because I was a woman. That would be a "sexist position," he declared.

Sanders has emerged as a more sophisticated and astute politician since those early days, and his message has more resonance.
Thirty years later, women and men assume that gender no longer matters in politics. Now only 8 percent of voters would declare in a poll that they would not vote for a woman president. I remember precisely the time and place when a barber in Springfield, Vermont, ran out to tell me, "I will never vote for a woman."
Rare then, even more rare today. But that does not mean that gender no longer plays a role in how we judge a woman's candidacy for the top job. Women, it turns out, are influenced by gender bias to almost the same degree as men. For example, both Clinton and Sanders have declared they are favor paid maternity and sick leave, and equal pay for equal work. What sets them apart? I believe it is both style and substance. Sanders can shout his message and wave his arms for emphasis. Clinton can't. If she appeared on stage as angry at the "system" as he is, she would be dismissed as an angry, even hysterical, woman; a sight that makes voters squirm.
An angry female voice works against women but is a plus for men. It demonstrates passion, outrage and power. Sanders bristled when he was accused of sexism after he implied that Clinton was among the shouters. Ironically, it is he who has, according to his doctor, suffered from laryngitis.
Gender adds muscle to substance. How will a female president differ from the men who have ruled the world?
Living in a woman's body makes the world look different on some - though far from all - issues.
As a new legislator, my first bill introduced in the Vermont House was to increase funding for childcare. I had young children and I knew that finding childcare determined whether or not I could leave my house and come to the capital, Montpelier. And I knew, that for poor women, childcare determined whether they could go to work and support their children. As governor, I saw to it that childcare funding was quadrupled and funding for education doubled. Hillary Clinton's career follows a similar trajectory. Education reform was her priority as the governor's wife in Arkansas. A bill to cover children's health insurance (CHIP) was her achievement as a New York senator. "Women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights" was the message she sent to every country she visited as secretary of state. Yes, Hillary has been around, she's been a determined, consistent fighter for children's welfare and women's rights. It's part of her DNA.
She was drawn to these women's issues - now urgent economic issues - in the same way that I was, by our experiences as working women, wives, and mothers. A number of men will protest: "I believe the same thing as she does."
What's the difference? The difference is how do they rank on the agenda. Is equal pay near the bottom of the list, or is it a priority? Is defense of Planned Parenthood an issue that saves women's lives, or is it only another institution among many? Placement on a competitive agenda is vital to achieve results. I believe that Hillary Clinton will give high priority to equal pay for equal work, not because she has experienced discrimination herself, but as a woman, she can empathize with women who have been discriminated against. It is a kind of empathy that allows no definition, but I felt it every time I made eye contact with the women I met along the parade route or on the factory floor.
One of the criticisms Clinton has received is that she is not authentic, that she is too political (i.e. scheming) and that she has been around for a long time so that she is a captive of various institutions.
If we're counting from when Sanders was elected mayor of Burlington, he has been around for some time, too: 35 years. In part because he is a man, he can run as the ultimate outsider. Clinton can't be the outsider even as her very candidacy defies precedent. Ever since women got the vote, we believed, like the good students we are, that the path to political participation, as instructed years ago by the League of Women Voters, was to be informed, understand the system and play by the rules. That's how we could make it in a man's world.
That responsibility did not rule out reform, but it did crimp revolution. When I campaigned for governor, I believed that I had to assure voters that I would not be that different from the male governors who had preceded me, even when I knew that I would be. Being the first woman and a revolutionary would be too much for the voters to swallow.
Sanders is brave, pairing Socialist with Democrat. And I agree with him on the growing cancer in America of income inequality and a democracy-threatening campaign finance system. He is a bold truth teller, and I am grateful that he has changed the conversation. He makes the answers sound easy, which in turn, makes him look authentic. But the answers are not simple. The word "complex" does not win applause in a political speech. Nuance is not welcomed. "We need a revolution," is more powerful than "I have a plan."
I understand that voters are looking for authenticity; they always have been, asking, "Are you who you claim to be?" A woman, running for a leadership position that has always been held by a man, has to create a new persona. To succeed, she has to play the game as it has always been played, but at the same time, play it differently. It's difficult to find that sweet spot where a woman is "just right" tough enough to be commander in chief and feminine enough to be mother of the nation.
When we elected the first African American as President, we believed that an African American man would be revolutionary and bring us hope.
Barack Obama, in many ways, has changed the rules, and had new priorities on his agenda, but not to the extent that some voters had hoped and others had feared.
Still, the world seen through the eyes of a black man looks different than through those of a white man. As a result of President Obama's leadership, we look at him and ourselves differently.
And the world as seen through the eyes of a woman will not result in revolution, but it will mark a change towards greater gender equality. Visualizing Hillary raising her right hand to take the oath of office, and Bill holding the Bible, will tell every little girl and boy, that, yes, women can achieve anything.
Madeleine May Kunin, who served as governor of Vermont for three terms from 1985-1991, is a Marsh Professor at the University of Vermont, and the author of "The New Feminist Agenda, Defining the Next Revolution for Women, Work and Family."
-- 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.
↧
What's Love Got to Do With It?
As he stands there with a wide smile and open arms at the Toronto airport in December welcoming the first refugee families from Syria off the plane where he will not only offer them housing, clothing, and food but also health insurance and citizenship, I think to myself "now there is someone who leads with love." Justin Trudeau, the prime minister of Canada, has shown us, as has Angela Merkel with her acceptance of millions of refugees, that there is another way to respond to violence and war. While Americans are busy thinking about how to build walls to keep out Muslims and Central Americans and defending their ability to own assault weapons, Canadians and Germans are busy figuring out how to effectively integrate Muslim refugees into their countries and fighting violence not with guns but with proactive strategies to combat violence at its root. They are busy thinking about how to build stronger and more inclusive communities and we are busy protecting our individual rights to bear arms and fighting over whose exclusionary agendas are going to win the presidency. Why are the Canadians and even the Germans in 2015 nicer than we are?
The answers most likely lie with America's obsession with the self and individual rights to the exclusion of the community and human rights and to the stereotypes we perpetuate of each other. We tell our children not to listen to others and focus on themselves. We tell them, according to a Harvard University Research Study of parents across the United States, that academic achievement is more important than caring for one another. We define maturity and manhood as being self-sufficient and independent rather than being able to have and maintain healthy relationships. We flood the internet and our daily interactions with dehumanizing stereotypes about gender, race, religion, sexuality, and social class that disconnect us from each other and lead to more hate and violence.
Yet it's hard to focus on caring and our common humanity when we see police officers kill innocent people, when we know about or experience sexual assault at college, when we hear about young men killing scores of people in schools and college campuses, or when ISIS is beheading Muslims and Christians alike. So, instead, we focus on hating. We hate the men who commit the violent crimes. We hate police officers. We hate the people who live in the countries with wars or the people with no jobs. We hate Donald Trump, the government, and/or Hillary Clinton. We blame these people for our alienation and our dissatisfaction. While some of the people we hate may be truly blameworthy, that's missing the point. The larger strategy of responding to hate with more hate and violence with more violence is simply not working.
So what's the alternative? What would Justin Trudeau do? (WWJTD?) What if we responded to the hate and violence by building stronger families, schools, and communities? What if we responded to the next school shooting with town hall meetings to discuss how we can build more connected schools and communities that reach across differences rather than simply "tolerate" (or not) difference? What if we responded to the next terrorist attack by taking in, as Trudeau did, thousands of refugees and provide them with health insurance, housing, clothing, and food? What if we responded to the next sexual assault on campus by bringing together men and women on college campuses to have open and honest conversations about why such assaults are happening? What if we responded to the next shooting of a black man by a white officer with figuring out how to better support, financially and otherwise, community policing that entails officers and community members working together to protect their communities. In other words, what if we responded to the next act of hate with love. It is commonly heard in the news, and President Obama indicated as well, that Trump helps ISIS recruit. Trudeau and Merkel, however, hurt their recruitment efforts.
Martin Luther King said in 1965 in a speech at Oberlin College (where I grew up): "What we are facing today is the fact that through our scientific and technological genius we've made of this world a neighborhood. And now through our moral and ethical commitment we must make of it a brotherhood. We must all learn to live together as brothers - or we will all perish together as fools. This is the great issue facing us today. No individual can live alone; no nation can live alone. We are tied together."
What if we took his words seriously, made a "moral and ethical commitment" to our common humanity, and focused our efforts on building a stronger brotherhood, sisterhood, and a more just and humane world? Violence, suicide, and income inequality would surely diminish. The United States must figure out how to lead with love, as our Canadian neighbors are doing, if we don't want to "perish together as fools."Niobe Way is Professor of Applied Psychology at New York University's Steinhardt School and the Founder of the Project for the Advancement of Our Common Humanity (PACH). PACH is a sponsor of the Love Rally taking place in Washington Square Park in New York City on February 14th from 1-3pm.
-- 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.
The answers most likely lie with America's obsession with the self and individual rights to the exclusion of the community and human rights and to the stereotypes we perpetuate of each other. We tell our children not to listen to others and focus on themselves. We tell them, according to a Harvard University Research Study of parents across the United States, that academic achievement is more important than caring for one another. We define maturity and manhood as being self-sufficient and independent rather than being able to have and maintain healthy relationships. We flood the internet and our daily interactions with dehumanizing stereotypes about gender, race, religion, sexuality, and social class that disconnect us from each other and lead to more hate and violence.
Yet it's hard to focus on caring and our common humanity when we see police officers kill innocent people, when we know about or experience sexual assault at college, when we hear about young men killing scores of people in schools and college campuses, or when ISIS is beheading Muslims and Christians alike. So, instead, we focus on hating. We hate the men who commit the violent crimes. We hate police officers. We hate the people who live in the countries with wars or the people with no jobs. We hate Donald Trump, the government, and/or Hillary Clinton. We blame these people for our alienation and our dissatisfaction. While some of the people we hate may be truly blameworthy, that's missing the point. The larger strategy of responding to hate with more hate and violence with more violence is simply not working.
So what's the alternative? What would Justin Trudeau do? (WWJTD?) What if we responded to the hate and violence by building stronger families, schools, and communities? What if we responded to the next school shooting with town hall meetings to discuss how we can build more connected schools and communities that reach across differences rather than simply "tolerate" (or not) difference? What if we responded to the next terrorist attack by taking in, as Trudeau did, thousands of refugees and provide them with health insurance, housing, clothing, and food? What if we responded to the next sexual assault on campus by bringing together men and women on college campuses to have open and honest conversations about why such assaults are happening? What if we responded to the next shooting of a black man by a white officer with figuring out how to better support, financially and otherwise, community policing that entails officers and community members working together to protect their communities. In other words, what if we responded to the next act of hate with love. It is commonly heard in the news, and President Obama indicated as well, that Trump helps ISIS recruit. Trudeau and Merkel, however, hurt their recruitment efforts.
Martin Luther King said in 1965 in a speech at Oberlin College (where I grew up): "What we are facing today is the fact that through our scientific and technological genius we've made of this world a neighborhood. And now through our moral and ethical commitment we must make of it a brotherhood. We must all learn to live together as brothers - or we will all perish together as fools. This is the great issue facing us today. No individual can live alone; no nation can live alone. We are tied together."
What if we took his words seriously, made a "moral and ethical commitment" to our common humanity, and focused our efforts on building a stronger brotherhood, sisterhood, and a more just and humane world? Violence, suicide, and income inequality would surely diminish. The United States must figure out how to lead with love, as our Canadian neighbors are doing, if we don't want to "perish together as fools."Niobe Way is Professor of Applied Psychology at New York University's Steinhardt School and the Founder of the Project for the Advancement of Our Common Humanity (PACH). PACH is a sponsor of the Love Rally taking place in Washington Square Park in New York City on February 14th from 1-3pm.
-- 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.
↧
↧
Don't make these income tax mistakes
*Don't make these income tax mistakes *
Tax mistakes can mean much more than just a computation error. The tax code is long and complex, so it's not surprising that wrong assumptions about preparing and filing taxes abound. Correcting those misconceptions could save you money. Here are a few commonly misconstrued facts that can lead to tax mistakes, and the real story.*I shouldn't file until I can pay what I owe*
Mistake. Even if you can’t send one cent to the Treasury, file your return by April 18 this year (April 19 if you're in Massachusetts or Maine) to avoid the penalty for failure to file, which is greater than the failure-to-pay penalty.
Keep in mind that if you overestimated your health-insurance premium tax credit last year, you now must reconcile what you got with what you should have recieved. In most cases, you must repay the difference. Here's more from the IRS on calculating what you owe related to your premium tax credit, and making a payment.
The IRS offers arrangements for installment agreements and short-term extensions if you can't pay everything on time. The agency may waive penalties in some cases, but not interest charges on unpaid taxes. If you’re concerned that you can’t pay at all, call the IRS at 800-829-1040, or check out IRS Tax Topics 202, Tax Payment Options, for more information.
*It's always better for married couples to file jointly*
Not always. Couples who recently lost tax breaks when they bid their dependent children goodbye may now benefit from filing separately. So might a married couple whose income is much higher or lower than last year. In some cases, the savings may be in state, not federal, taxes. So to avoid this tax mistake, ask your tax preparer about the cost of comparing the options of filing separately and jointly.*I can't claim my parents as dependents unless they live with me*
No, your parents can live anywhere. What matters is that you and your siblings pay for more than 50 percent of their living expenses. Adult children can share equally or unequally in that support, but only one child can claim the dependent-care exemption each year. Often the children give the exemption to the sibling who deals most with day-to-day issues, even if she or he doesn’t provide the most financial support. (That child must provide at least 10 percent of total support.) For more guidelines, consult IRS Publication 501, "Exemptions, Standard Deduction and Filing Information." [PDF]
*CPAs charge the most to prepare taxes*
Not necessarily. Certified public accountants, with their extensive training, may be considered the most costly tax professionals. But a national survey of members by the National Society of Accountants—including CPAs, tax experts known as enrolled agents, and other credentialed tax professionals—found that tax-prep fees may have less to do with the preparer’s professional designation than with the size of the firm.
*A canceled check is the only proof needed for a charitable deduction*
Wrong. To be eligible for a deduction, any donation of $250 or more requires a donor acknowledgement letter that specifies the amount of cash given and describes any property that was donated. The letter should also state whether the donor received any goods or services from the organization in exchange for the gift. If the letter doesn’t mention the date of the donation, a bank record or receipt will suffice. See IRS Publication 526, "Charitable Contributions," [PDF] for more.
—Tobie Stanger (@TobieStanger on Twitter)*See Consumer Reports' Tax Guide for more advice on avoiding tax mistakes, as well as on preparing, filing and saving on your income tax return.*
*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 17 hours ago.
Tax mistakes can mean much more than just a computation error. The tax code is long and complex, so it's not surprising that wrong assumptions about preparing and filing taxes abound. Correcting those misconceptions could save you money. Here are a few commonly misconstrued facts that can lead to tax mistakes, and the real story.*I shouldn't file until I can pay what I owe*
Mistake. Even if you can’t send one cent to the Treasury, file your return by April 18 this year (April 19 if you're in Massachusetts or Maine) to avoid the penalty for failure to file, which is greater than the failure-to-pay penalty.
Keep in mind that if you overestimated your health-insurance premium tax credit last year, you now must reconcile what you got with what you should have recieved. In most cases, you must repay the difference. Here's more from the IRS on calculating what you owe related to your premium tax credit, and making a payment.
The IRS offers arrangements for installment agreements and short-term extensions if you can't pay everything on time. The agency may waive penalties in some cases, but not interest charges on unpaid taxes. If you’re concerned that you can’t pay at all, call the IRS at 800-829-1040, or check out IRS Tax Topics 202, Tax Payment Options, for more information.
*It's always better for married couples to file jointly*
Not always. Couples who recently lost tax breaks when they bid their dependent children goodbye may now benefit from filing separately. So might a married couple whose income is much higher or lower than last year. In some cases, the savings may be in state, not federal, taxes. So to avoid this tax mistake, ask your tax preparer about the cost of comparing the options of filing separately and jointly.*I can't claim my parents as dependents unless they live with me*
No, your parents can live anywhere. What matters is that you and your siblings pay for more than 50 percent of their living expenses. Adult children can share equally or unequally in that support, but only one child can claim the dependent-care exemption each year. Often the children give the exemption to the sibling who deals most with day-to-day issues, even if she or he doesn’t provide the most financial support. (That child must provide at least 10 percent of total support.) For more guidelines, consult IRS Publication 501, "Exemptions, Standard Deduction and Filing Information." [PDF]
*CPAs charge the most to prepare taxes*
Not necessarily. Certified public accountants, with their extensive training, may be considered the most costly tax professionals. But a national survey of members by the National Society of Accountants—including CPAs, tax experts known as enrolled agents, and other credentialed tax professionals—found that tax-prep fees may have less to do with the preparer’s professional designation than with the size of the firm.
*A canceled check is the only proof needed for a charitable deduction*
Wrong. To be eligible for a deduction, any donation of $250 or more requires a donor acknowledgement letter that specifies the amount of cash given and describes any property that was donated. The letter should also state whether the donor received any goods or services from the organization in exchange for the gift. If the letter doesn’t mention the date of the donation, a bank record or receipt will suffice. See IRS Publication 526, "Charitable Contributions," [PDF] for more.
—Tobie Stanger (@TobieStanger on Twitter)*See Consumer Reports' Tax Guide for more advice on avoiding tax mistakes, as well as on preparing, filing and saving on your income tax return.*
*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 17 hours ago.
↧
Colo. bill aims to curb radon deaths, but some in Boulder County say it's not enough
On Tuesday, the state House committee on Health, Insurance and Environment will hear a newly introduced bill aimed at curbing deaths from exposure to radon. The invisible, odorless gas kills an estimated 500 Coloradans annually — more than drunk driving, drowning, fires and carbon monoxide combined.
Reported by Denver Post 47 minutes ago.
↧
New York Bans Insurance Coverage Of LGBT 'Conversion Therapy'
NEW YORK, Feb 6 (Reuters) - New York state will bar health insurance coverage of therapy aimed at changing the sexual or gender orientation of young people, Governor Andrew Cuomo said on Saturday, decrying the practice as "misguided" and "intolerant."
Top U.S. health officials have long discredited so-called "conversion therapy," saying attempts to change lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth are unethical and often harmful.
"Conversion therapy is a hateful and fundamentally flawed practice that is counter to everything this state stands for," Cuomo said in a statement. "We will not allow the misguided and the intolerant to punish LGBT young people for simply being who they are."
As of August 2015, four U.S. states and the District of Columbia have already banned therapies that seek to "convert" minors, according to a report released in October by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Another 21 states and the U.S. Congress have considered or are considering bans, the report said.
Under New York's new regulations, the state would bar private and public health insurers from paying for coverage for conversion therapy to a person under the age of 18.
Additionally, the state's Medicaid program, which provides health coverage to the poor, will not cover the practice, and the New York State Office of Mental Health will prohibit facilities under its jurisdiction from providing the treatment to minors.
*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.
Top U.S. health officials have long discredited so-called "conversion therapy," saying attempts to change lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth are unethical and often harmful.
"Conversion therapy is a hateful and fundamentally flawed practice that is counter to everything this state stands for," Cuomo said in a statement. "We will not allow the misguided and the intolerant to punish LGBT young people for simply being who they are."
As of August 2015, four U.S. states and the District of Columbia have already banned therapies that seek to "convert" minors, according to a report released in October by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Another 21 states and the U.S. Congress have considered or are considering bans, the report said.
Under New York's new regulations, the state would bar private and public health insurers from paying for coverage for conversion therapy to a person under the age of 18.
Additionally, the state's Medicaid program, which provides health coverage to the poor, will not cover the practice, and the New York State Office of Mental Health will prohibit facilities under its jurisdiction from providing the treatment to minors.
*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.
↧
The "Minimum Wage" Surged In 6 Cities Last Year; Then This Happened
Submitted by Jed Graham via Investors.com,*Hiring at restaurants, hotels and other leisure and hospitality sector venues slowed markedly last year in metro areas that saw big minimum-wage hikes,* new Labor Department data show.
Wherever cities implemented big minimum-wage hikes to $10 an hour or more last year, the latest data through December show tha*t job creation downshifted to the slowest pace in at least five years.*
*Liberals fighting for a dramatic increase in the minimum wage have insisted that there would be a negligible impact on job creation. Though the data are preliminary and overly broad, Washington D.C., Oakland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Chicago seem to be finding out that the reality isn’t so benign.*
A slowdown in job growth can fly below the radar, at least for those who aren’t seeking low-wage work. But the risk of raising the minimum wage too high became fairly obvious last month, when *Wal-Mart* (WMT) bolted from Oakland and Los Angeles and scrapped plans for two stores in low-income areas of D.C.
The big shortcoming in the available data for 5 of the 6 cities is that they cover broad metro areas, far beyond the city limits where wage hikes took effect. *Still, the uniform result of much slower job growth in the low-wage leisure and hospitality sector, even as the pace of job gains held steady in surrounding areas, sends a pretty powerful signal.*
*D.C.’s Great Stagnation*
The data from D.C. are the most reliable because they are confined to the city limits. The latest data show that job gains ground to a halt in the nation’s capital in 2015, with average monthly leisure and hospitality sector employment in the fourth quarter virtually unchanged from a year earlier. That was a sharp drop from the 3% annual job gains in 2014, meaning restaurants, hotels and other employers went from adding 2,000 jobs to adding zero. That’s no small thing in a city with a 6.6% jobless rate.
The timing coincides with the $1 minimum-wage hike to $10.50 an hour last July. That jump followed a boost from $8.25 to $9.50 an hour that took effect in mid-2014. Another jump to $11.50 is set for this July.
*Chicago Hiring Halved*
The Chicago area saw its weakest year of leisure-and-hospitality sector job growth since 2009. The Windy City’s $1.75-an-hour minimum-wage hike to $10 an hour took effect in July. Annual employment gains averaged just 1.1% from October through December, less than half the pace seen in 2014.
Chicago’s minimum wage will get another bump to $10.50 an hour on July 1, another stop on the way to $13 by 2019.
The Chicago data cover the Chicago-Naperville-Arlington Heights area, of which Chicago represents only about 40% of the population.
*The Bay Area’s Twin Wage Peaks*
Leisure and hospitality sector job growth in the Bay Area slumped to a five-year low after San Francisco and Oakland adopted what was, at the time, the highest citywide minimum wage in the country of $12.25 an hour last spring.
Employment gains slowed to just 2.5% from a year ago in fourth quarter, down from 4.7% a year earlier. Meanwhile, such employment rose 4.8% last year in the rest of California, where the minimum wage was generally $3.25 lower — before the $1 statewide hike to $10 on Jan. 1.
Oakland’s minimum wage got an inflation-related bump to $12.55 with the start of 2016. San Francisco’s will jump to $13 in July.
The Bay Area data cover the entire San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward metro area, of which the two cities’ population is one-third.
*L.A.’s Red Carpet For Hotel Workers*
Los Angeles hotel workers get the biggest minimum wage in the country, but their ranks got slightly smaller in 2015. Accommodation industry employment averaged 0.8% lower in the fourth quarter of 2015 compared to a year earlier, the first annual decline since 2009.
In late 2014, the L.A. City Council mandated that hotels with at least 300 rooms start paying workers a minimum of $15.37 an hour, starting last July. The same wage will apply to workers at 150-room locations this coming July.
That move was separate from the council’s adoption of a $15-an-hour citywide minimum wage by 2020. The wage will rise to $10.50 in July, then $12 in July 2017. Los Angeles County followed the city’s lead and will gradually move its wage to $15 over the same period in unincorporated areas of the county.
The hotel employment data cover all of Los Angeles County, of which the city accounts for about 40% of the population.
*Seattle Restaurants Stew*
Job gains at Seattle-area restaurants rose just 1.8% from a year ago, down from 4.6% growth a year earlier, in their worst year for employment since 2009. Meanwhile, in the rest of the Washington state, restaurant employment gains accelerated to 6.3%.
Yet Seattle’s minimum-wage hikes were only just getting started. The minimum wage rose last April from the statewide $9.47 to $11 an hour for companies with more than 500 employees. For smaller employers, the minimum got a smaller bump to $10. That rose again to $10.50 at the start of 2016, or $12 for employees who don’t get employer health insurance.
The Seattle-area data cover the entire Seattle-Bellevue-Everett metro, of which Seattle is one-fourth of the population.
* * *
*So the real minimum wage is $0 after all...* Reported by Zero Hedge 3 hours ago.
↧
↧
State bills would allow automatic voter registration
State legislators have introduced bills to allow automatic voter registration for some citizens who have already met voting requirements through such processes as getting enhanced driver’s licenses, or getting health insurance through the state health exchange.
Reported by Seattle Times 3 hours ago.
↧
AP FACT CHECK: Skewed GOP Claims on Taxes, Health Insurance
AP FACT CHECK: Off-base GOP claims on US tax burden and state of health insurance market under 'Obamacare'
Reported by ABCNews.com 14 minutes ago.
↧
AP FACT CHECK: Skewed GOP claims on taxes, health insurance
Viewers of the latest Republican presidential debate didn't get a straight story from the candidates on U.S. taxes vs. the world, the state of the health insurance marketplace under "Obamacare" or what might happen if that law is taken away.
Reported by MyNorthwest.com 16 minutes ago.
↧
Literally Every Sentence In This Ted Cruz Quote Is Misleading Or False
Health care got some attention in Saturday night’s GOP presidential debate. And when it was Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s turn to speak, he started by cataloging the alleged evils of “socialized medicine.” Here’s the full quote:
Socialized medicine is a disaster. It does not work. If you look at the countries that have imposed socialized medicine, that have put the government in charge of providing medicine, what inevitably happens is rationing. You have a scarcity of doctors. ... And that means the elderly are told: We're going to ration a hip replacement; we're going to ration a knee replacement. We're going to ration end-of-life care.
Every single sentence in that quote is misleading or flat-out false:
*1. "Socialized medicine is a disaster."*
Presumably Cruz is using “socialized medicine” as a euphemism for any kind of universal health insurance -- in other words, any system in which the government guarantees health insurance to all people, either by providing that coverage directly or through some kind of private intermediaries.
The Affordable Care Act, which Republicans have pledged to repeal, is an attempt to build the foundation of such a program here in the U.S. But every other developed country already has such a system in place. And it’s hardly been a disaster.
In those countries, people are far less likely to struggle with medical bills. And contrary to conservatives' claims that the quality of medical care suffers in those countries, the U.S. consistently lags behind other developed countries in “mortality amenable to health care,” which is one way researchers measure the quality of health care systems.It’s not a perfect statistic and there are some things the U.S. health care system happens to do really well. But overall the countries with “socialized medicine” seem to be getting results that are as good if not better than what the U.S. gets from its health care system -- and they do so while spending far less money.
*2. "It does not work."*
See above*.*
*3. "If you look at the countries that have imposed socialized medicine, that have put the government in charge of providing medicine, what inevitably happens is rationing."*
This is opponents' favorite scare tactic: Establishing universal health care will lead to rationing. But of course rationing takes place in every country, and that includes the U.S. The difference is that, in the U.S., rationing tends to be a function of income and insurance status. People who can’t pay for their medical bills have limited access to physicians and to services.
*4. "You have a scarcity of doctors."*
Physician supply isn’t such a great way to measure a nation’s health care system. But, for the record, in a 2014 comparison of physician supply in 34 developed countries, the U.S. ranked 28th. (It had 2.5 physicians per 1,000 people; the average was 3.5.)*5. "And that means the elderly are told: We're going to ration a hip replacement; we're going to ration a knee replacement."*
Hip replacements are more common in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and eight other countries, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The rate of knee replacement really is highest in the U.S., as Cruz’s answer suggested, but other countries, including Austria and Finland, have rates that are nearly as high.Cruz’s broader point here is that, in countries with universal coverage, government agencies or some other kind of democratically accountable organizations make decisions about what treatments to cover, and under what circumstances. He’s right about that.
But all insurance systems, public and private, make such decisions. It is true abroad and it is true in the U.S., and always has been. If you’re on Medicare, then the federal government is making that decision; if you have private insurance, then a private insurer is making that decision, subject to whatever regulations are in place.
*6. "We're going to ration end-of-life care."*
This should sound familiar, because it was conservatives' big lie in 2009 and 2010, while President Barack Obama and the Democrats were trying to get health care reform through Congress. But Obamacare never had any "death panels." And while some other countries make tough rationing decisions based on a variety of criteria, largely because they've decided to keep spending at very low levels, in other countries -- like France, for example -- insurance systems cover the elderly in pretty much the same way Medicare does in the U.S. If there are differences in treatment patterns, they have more to do with cultural differences -- the attitudes of doctors and patients -- than insurance coverage per se.
*Read the latest updates on the debate below:*
-- 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 23 hours ago.
Socialized medicine is a disaster. It does not work. If you look at the countries that have imposed socialized medicine, that have put the government in charge of providing medicine, what inevitably happens is rationing. You have a scarcity of doctors. ... And that means the elderly are told: We're going to ration a hip replacement; we're going to ration a knee replacement. We're going to ration end-of-life care.
Every single sentence in that quote is misleading or flat-out false:
*1. "Socialized medicine is a disaster."*
Presumably Cruz is using “socialized medicine” as a euphemism for any kind of universal health insurance -- in other words, any system in which the government guarantees health insurance to all people, either by providing that coverage directly or through some kind of private intermediaries.
The Affordable Care Act, which Republicans have pledged to repeal, is an attempt to build the foundation of such a program here in the U.S. But every other developed country already has such a system in place. And it’s hardly been a disaster.
In those countries, people are far less likely to struggle with medical bills. And contrary to conservatives' claims that the quality of medical care suffers in those countries, the U.S. consistently lags behind other developed countries in “mortality amenable to health care,” which is one way researchers measure the quality of health care systems.It’s not a perfect statistic and there are some things the U.S. health care system happens to do really well. But overall the countries with “socialized medicine” seem to be getting results that are as good if not better than what the U.S. gets from its health care system -- and they do so while spending far less money.
*2. "It does not work."*
See above*.*
*3. "If you look at the countries that have imposed socialized medicine, that have put the government in charge of providing medicine, what inevitably happens is rationing."*
This is opponents' favorite scare tactic: Establishing universal health care will lead to rationing. But of course rationing takes place in every country, and that includes the U.S. The difference is that, in the U.S., rationing tends to be a function of income and insurance status. People who can’t pay for their medical bills have limited access to physicians and to services.
*4. "You have a scarcity of doctors."*
Physician supply isn’t such a great way to measure a nation’s health care system. But, for the record, in a 2014 comparison of physician supply in 34 developed countries, the U.S. ranked 28th. (It had 2.5 physicians per 1,000 people; the average was 3.5.)*5. "And that means the elderly are told: We're going to ration a hip replacement; we're going to ration a knee replacement."*
Hip replacements are more common in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and eight other countries, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The rate of knee replacement really is highest in the U.S., as Cruz’s answer suggested, but other countries, including Austria and Finland, have rates that are nearly as high.Cruz’s broader point here is that, in countries with universal coverage, government agencies or some other kind of democratically accountable organizations make decisions about what treatments to cover, and under what circumstances. He’s right about that.
But all insurance systems, public and private, make such decisions. It is true abroad and it is true in the U.S., and always has been. If you’re on Medicare, then the federal government is making that decision; if you have private insurance, then a private insurer is making that decision, subject to whatever regulations are in place.
*6. "We're going to ration end-of-life care."*
This should sound familiar, because it was conservatives' big lie in 2009 and 2010, while President Barack Obama and the Democrats were trying to get health care reform through Congress. But Obamacare never had any "death panels." And while some other countries make tough rationing decisions based on a variety of criteria, largely because they've decided to keep spending at very low levels, in other countries -- like France, for example -- insurance systems cover the elderly in pretty much the same way Medicare does in the U.S. If there are differences in treatment patterns, they have more to do with cultural differences -- the attitudes of doctors and patients -- than insurance coverage per se.
*Read the latest updates on the debate below:*
-- 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 23 hours ago.
↧
↧
Donald Trump Was On Fire At Saturday’s Debate
Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, fear-mongering serial liar. But when he’s right, he’s right. And on Saturday night, he was on.
As many Republicans have noted in their attacks against Trump, he does not adhere to conservative-magazine-style orthodoxy on many issues -- particularly economic policy. During Saturday's GOP debate, Trump embraced his economic populism and reluctance to intervene in foreign conflicts with great results. Of course, he also promised to commit war crimes and otherwise disqualify himself.
Trump had skipped the prior GOP debate, which took place on the evening of the Iowa caucus but was the second lowest-rated debate of the cycle. With Trump back, the entertainment returned -- and often, it was at the broad expense of the Republican Party.
In his signature abrasive, arrogant style, Trump put his finger to his lips to shush former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, drawing boos from the crowd. Yet he managed to turn this into one of the best lines of the night. First, he joked that all the boos were coming from Jeb donors. Then, he added that it's actually true that the tickets for the debate had all gone to major donors.
"The RNC told us, 'We have all donors in the audience,'" Trump said he was told when his campaign reached out for tickets. That's the kind of statement that is both true and never spoken in polite company, and gets at the rot in the system that Trump has run against.
He soon got even more controversial, weighing in on North Korea, health care, and much more.China Should Deal With North Korea
From the very beginning, Trump has taken a less bellicose approach to foreign policy than his GOP rivals. He routinely touts his opposition to the Iraq War and the Obama administration’s intervention in Libya to oust Muammar Gaddafi.
And the real estate mogul has welcomed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to get involved in the Syrian war on behalf of Syrian President Bashar Assad, claiming it's better for the country to become Putin’s burden to bear, rather than a responsibility of the United States.
Trump extended this hands-off approach to North Korea on Saturday night, claiming that China could take care of it for the U.S. -- and he’s not wrong.
“China says they don't have that good of control over North Korea,” Trump said. “They have tremendous control.”
Asked whether he would approve a military strike on the isolated nation, Trump said China would be better off dealing with the country, either diplomatically or militarily.
“I would get on with China, let China solve that problem,” Trump said. “They can do it quickly and surgically. That's what we should do with North Korea.”
China is one of the few major countries in the world that has significant support for North Korea, and I think we got to do everything we can to put pressure on China.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Although it may not be quite as simple as he says, Trump’s approach to North Korea is closer to that of Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) than that of his Republican rivals.
Sanders said in the Democratic debate on Thursday night that North Korea is more dangerous for the U.S. than Iran or Russia -- and insisted that China should be a key player in neutralizing that threat.
“Our goal there, in my view, is to work and lean strongly on China to put as much pressure,” Sanders said. “China is one of the few major countries in the world that has significant support for North Korea, and I think we got to do everything we can to put pressure on China.”
The Obama administration has also asked China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear weapons program.
There is a reason for that. China is “North Korea's most important ally, biggest trading partner, and main source of food, arms, and energy,” according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
*Trump’s Health Care Plan Would Not Let People Die On The Street*
Trump has been an outlier among the Republican candidates for openly embracing universal health care, and Saturday night was no exception.
He has not only expressed positive feelings for the single-payer, government-run health insurance programs common in other developed nations, but also refused to disavow his views on the matter at the first Republican debate in August, conceding that such programs work well in Canada and Scotland.
Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and other Republicans have attacked Trump for unapologetically embracing universal health care.
On Saturday, Trump offered a few more details about how he would replace Obamacare. Previously, he had merely described his plan as “something terrific.”
Trump said he would increase competition between insurance companies and encourage individual health savings accounts.
But what was most noteworthy was how he said it, repeatedly attacking private insurance companies.
“The insurance companies are getting rich on Obamacare,” Trump said. “The insurance companies are getting rich on health care and health services and everything having to do with health. We are going to end that.”
What I do say is there will be a certain number of people that will be on the street dying, and as a Republican, I don't want that to happen.
Donald Trump
Trump even embraced his compassionate side, vaguely promising to provide some kind of a government-run solution for poor Americans who would still not be able to afford health care.
“What I do say is there will be a certain number of people that will be on the street dying, and as a Republican, I don't want that to happen,” Trump said. “We're going to take care of people that are dying on the street because there will be a group of people that are not going to be able to even think in terms of private or anything else and we're going to take care of those people.”*Eminent Domain Is Great*
Trump's critics have gone after him for his use of eminent domain -- a legal maneuver that allows businesses or the government to seize private property for some other purpose. Pressed about such practices during the debate, Trump went beyond saying that eminent domain is legal, and that he simply followed the law as a businessperson.
Instead, he made a forthright defense of eminent domain. Without it, he argued, we couldn't build roads, bridges, factories, hospitals, universities -- or, he added with a delicate twist of the GOP knife, the Keystone XL Pipeline.
In the Republican primary, the Keystone pipeline is second to the Lord Christ himself in unquestioned acceptance. "The Keystone pipeline, without eminent domain, would not go 10 feet," said Trump, more or less accurately.
Bush responded by saying that, well, the pipeline is a public project, so that's different. After he regained the platform, Trump shushed him, adding that the pipeline was quite obviously a private project. It is being pursued by the company TransCanada.
Of course, Trump also telegraphed that he would commit war crimes during the debate. "I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding," he said.
Editor's Note: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S.
*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 23 hours ago.
As many Republicans have noted in their attacks against Trump, he does not adhere to conservative-magazine-style orthodoxy on many issues -- particularly economic policy. During Saturday's GOP debate, Trump embraced his economic populism and reluctance to intervene in foreign conflicts with great results. Of course, he also promised to commit war crimes and otherwise disqualify himself.
Trump had skipped the prior GOP debate, which took place on the evening of the Iowa caucus but was the second lowest-rated debate of the cycle. With Trump back, the entertainment returned -- and often, it was at the broad expense of the Republican Party.
In his signature abrasive, arrogant style, Trump put his finger to his lips to shush former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, drawing boos from the crowd. Yet he managed to turn this into one of the best lines of the night. First, he joked that all the boos were coming from Jeb donors. Then, he added that it's actually true that the tickets for the debate had all gone to major donors.
"The RNC told us, 'We have all donors in the audience,'" Trump said he was told when his campaign reached out for tickets. That's the kind of statement that is both true and never spoken in polite company, and gets at the rot in the system that Trump has run against.
He soon got even more controversial, weighing in on North Korea, health care, and much more.China Should Deal With North Korea
From the very beginning, Trump has taken a less bellicose approach to foreign policy than his GOP rivals. He routinely touts his opposition to the Iraq War and the Obama administration’s intervention in Libya to oust Muammar Gaddafi.
And the real estate mogul has welcomed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to get involved in the Syrian war on behalf of Syrian President Bashar Assad, claiming it's better for the country to become Putin’s burden to bear, rather than a responsibility of the United States.
Trump extended this hands-off approach to North Korea on Saturday night, claiming that China could take care of it for the U.S. -- and he’s not wrong.
“China says they don't have that good of control over North Korea,” Trump said. “They have tremendous control.”
Asked whether he would approve a military strike on the isolated nation, Trump said China would be better off dealing with the country, either diplomatically or militarily.
“I would get on with China, let China solve that problem,” Trump said. “They can do it quickly and surgically. That's what we should do with North Korea.”
China is one of the few major countries in the world that has significant support for North Korea, and I think we got to do everything we can to put pressure on China.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Although it may not be quite as simple as he says, Trump’s approach to North Korea is closer to that of Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) than that of his Republican rivals.
Sanders said in the Democratic debate on Thursday night that North Korea is more dangerous for the U.S. than Iran or Russia -- and insisted that China should be a key player in neutralizing that threat.
“Our goal there, in my view, is to work and lean strongly on China to put as much pressure,” Sanders said. “China is one of the few major countries in the world that has significant support for North Korea, and I think we got to do everything we can to put pressure on China.”
The Obama administration has also asked China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear weapons program.
There is a reason for that. China is “North Korea's most important ally, biggest trading partner, and main source of food, arms, and energy,” according to the Council on Foreign Relations.
*Trump’s Health Care Plan Would Not Let People Die On The Street*
Trump has been an outlier among the Republican candidates for openly embracing universal health care, and Saturday night was no exception.
He has not only expressed positive feelings for the single-payer, government-run health insurance programs common in other developed nations, but also refused to disavow his views on the matter at the first Republican debate in August, conceding that such programs work well in Canada and Scotland.
Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and other Republicans have attacked Trump for unapologetically embracing universal health care.
On Saturday, Trump offered a few more details about how he would replace Obamacare. Previously, he had merely described his plan as “something terrific.”
Trump said he would increase competition between insurance companies and encourage individual health savings accounts.
But what was most noteworthy was how he said it, repeatedly attacking private insurance companies.
“The insurance companies are getting rich on Obamacare,” Trump said. “The insurance companies are getting rich on health care and health services and everything having to do with health. We are going to end that.”
What I do say is there will be a certain number of people that will be on the street dying, and as a Republican, I don't want that to happen.
Donald Trump
Trump even embraced his compassionate side, vaguely promising to provide some kind of a government-run solution for poor Americans who would still not be able to afford health care.
“What I do say is there will be a certain number of people that will be on the street dying, and as a Republican, I don't want that to happen,” Trump said. “We're going to take care of people that are dying on the street because there will be a group of people that are not going to be able to even think in terms of private or anything else and we're going to take care of those people.”*Eminent Domain Is Great*
Trump's critics have gone after him for his use of eminent domain -- a legal maneuver that allows businesses or the government to seize private property for some other purpose. Pressed about such practices during the debate, Trump went beyond saying that eminent domain is legal, and that he simply followed the law as a businessperson.
Instead, he made a forthright defense of eminent domain. Without it, he argued, we couldn't build roads, bridges, factories, hospitals, universities -- or, he added with a delicate twist of the GOP knife, the Keystone XL Pipeline.
In the Republican primary, the Keystone pipeline is second to the Lord Christ himself in unquestioned acceptance. "The Keystone pipeline, without eminent domain, would not go 10 feet," said Trump, more or less accurately.
Bush responded by saying that, well, the pipeline is a public project, so that's different. After he regained the platform, Trump shushed him, adding that the pipeline was quite obviously a private project. It is being pursued by the company TransCanada.
Of course, Trump also telegraphed that he would commit war crimes during the debate. "I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding," he said.
Editor's Note: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S.
*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 23 hours ago.
↧
AP FACT CHECK: Skewed GOP Claims on Taxes, Health Insurance
Viewers of the latest Republican debate didn't get a straight story from the candidates on the U.S. tax burden, the state of the health insurance marketplace under "Obamacare" or what might happen if that law is taken away
Reported by ABCNews.com 19 hours ago.
↧
AP FACT CHECK: Skewed GOP claims on taxes, health insurance
WASHINGTON (AP) — Viewers of the latest Republican presidential debate didn’t get a straight story from the candidates on U.S. taxes vs. the world, the state of the health insurance marketplace under “Obamacare” or what might happen if that law is taken away. Among other fumbles: —Marco Rubio seemed unaware that Kurds are Sunnis. —In […]
Reported by Seattle Times 18 hours ago.
↧
Fact Check: Skewed GOP Claims on Taxes, Health Insurance
WASHINGTON—Viewers of the latest Republican presidential debate didn’t get a straight story from the candidates on U.S. taxes vs. the world, the state of the health insurance marketplace under “Obamacare” or what might happen if that law is taken …
Reported by Epoch Times 12 hours ago.
↧
↧
Who hates Obamacare?
Ted Cruz had a teachable moment in Iowa, although he himself will learn nothing from it. A voter told Cruz the story of his brother-in-law, a barber who had never been able to afford health insurance. He finally got insurance thanks to Obamacare — and discovered that it was too late. He had terminal cancer […]
Reported by Seattle Times 4 hours ago.
↧
Oregon Over-the-Counter Birth Control Law a Win for All Women
(Photo: AP/Charles Dharapak)
Protesters in front of the Supreme Court rally on March 25, 2015, as the court heard oral arguments in the challenge to the ACA's requirement that employee health insurance include access to contraceptives.
On January 1, Oregon became the first state to allow women to obtain birth control without a prescription. Under the new law, women 18 years and older can go to their local pharmacies, fill out a questionnaire, and receive a year’s supply of oral contraceptives. It’s not a true “over the counter” transaction, but women no longer have to make a trip to a doctor’s office for a prescription.
Reproductive-rights activists who have advocated over-the-counter birth control for decades say that the new Oregon law is a win for public health. “Birth control is critical to health-care services,” says Megan Donovan of the Washington, D.C.–based Center for Reproductive Rights, an international advocacy group. Over half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended.
A 2015 Guttmacher Institute brief found that the rate of unintended pregnancies is linked to economic status: Nearly 14 percent of poor and low-income women aged 15 to 44 (137 out of 1,000 women) have unintended pregnancies, compared with roughly 3 percent of women in the wealthiest cohort (26 out of 1,000 women).
Low-income women of color use all types of contraceptives less often than other groups. When these women do use birth control, they are more likely to use condoms or other methods that do not provide as much protection against unwanted pregnancies.
Moreover, low-income minority women often lack health-insurance coverage, which means they face additional obstacles to obtaining birth control. In 2010, more than half of the women in the United States who needed contraceptives were low-income or under the age of 20, and relied on publicly funded family-planning services.
Yet fewer women will have access to these services because of federal funding cutbacks. Funds for family planning have dropped dramatically, from $317.5 million in 2010 to $286.5 million in 2014, a 10 percent decrease. State parental-consent laws also pose a problem for young women who are sexually active: 20 states require medical professionals to obtain permission from parents or guardians before minors can receive contraceptives.
The Oregon law may prod other states to increase access to oral contraceptives, which in turn could persuade more women to start using better birth-control methods. “Women use birth control more effectively when barriers are down,” explains Donovan.
Elsewhere, California is set to enact a similar law in March. Washington state and Colorado are also considering lifting restrictions.
On Capitol Hill, Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington and Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire introduced separate bills that would permit the over-the-counter sale of birth control pills. The Center for Reproductive Rights supports the Murray bill because, unlike the Ayotte proposal, it specifically addresses the critical issue of requiring health insurers to cover oral contraceptives, even if they are sold without a prescription.
Despite push for greater access to oral contraceptives, not all pharmacists are sold on the idea. Some pharmacists have declined to provide contraceptives to women, citing their personal religious beliefs.
Oregon does have protections in place. “The Oregon pharmacy board says they can refuse, but that they have to refer the woman to another a pharmacist,” says Mara Gandal-Powers of the National Women’s Law Center in Washington, D.C.
But there have been cases in at least 25 states where pharmacists have refused to provide oral contraceptives, according to the law center. “We’re seeing challenges to access to birth control all over the place,” Gandal-Powers says. The attorney intends to keep a close eye on Oregon. “I’m sure we’ll see some pushback,” she says.
There has been some pushback from some physicians as well. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports over-the-counter sales. But in a recent statement, the group expressed the concern that “women who choose to purchase [oral contraceptives] over-the-counter will forgo [cancer] screenings and other preventive services.”
Donovan says that there has to be movement on both fronts. “We need to promote preventative health care, but health care providers shouldn’t be holding birth control hostage to compel it,” she says. Reported by The American Prospect 18 hours ago.
Protesters in front of the Supreme Court rally on March 25, 2015, as the court heard oral arguments in the challenge to the ACA's requirement that employee health insurance include access to contraceptives.
On January 1, Oregon became the first state to allow women to obtain birth control without a prescription. Under the new law, women 18 years and older can go to their local pharmacies, fill out a questionnaire, and receive a year’s supply of oral contraceptives. It’s not a true “over the counter” transaction, but women no longer have to make a trip to a doctor’s office for a prescription.
Reproductive-rights activists who have advocated over-the-counter birth control for decades say that the new Oregon law is a win for public health. “Birth control is critical to health-care services,” says Megan Donovan of the Washington, D.C.–based Center for Reproductive Rights, an international advocacy group. Over half of pregnancies in the United States are unintended.
A 2015 Guttmacher Institute brief found that the rate of unintended pregnancies is linked to economic status: Nearly 14 percent of poor and low-income women aged 15 to 44 (137 out of 1,000 women) have unintended pregnancies, compared with roughly 3 percent of women in the wealthiest cohort (26 out of 1,000 women).
Low-income women of color use all types of contraceptives less often than other groups. When these women do use birth control, they are more likely to use condoms or other methods that do not provide as much protection against unwanted pregnancies.
Moreover, low-income minority women often lack health-insurance coverage, which means they face additional obstacles to obtaining birth control. In 2010, more than half of the women in the United States who needed contraceptives were low-income or under the age of 20, and relied on publicly funded family-planning services.
Yet fewer women will have access to these services because of federal funding cutbacks. Funds for family planning have dropped dramatically, from $317.5 million in 2010 to $286.5 million in 2014, a 10 percent decrease. State parental-consent laws also pose a problem for young women who are sexually active: 20 states require medical professionals to obtain permission from parents or guardians before minors can receive contraceptives.
The Oregon law may prod other states to increase access to oral contraceptives, which in turn could persuade more women to start using better birth-control methods. “Women use birth control more effectively when barriers are down,” explains Donovan.
Elsewhere, California is set to enact a similar law in March. Washington state and Colorado are also considering lifting restrictions.
On Capitol Hill, Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington and Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire introduced separate bills that would permit the over-the-counter sale of birth control pills. The Center for Reproductive Rights supports the Murray bill because, unlike the Ayotte proposal, it specifically addresses the critical issue of requiring health insurers to cover oral contraceptives, even if they are sold without a prescription.
Despite push for greater access to oral contraceptives, not all pharmacists are sold on the idea. Some pharmacists have declined to provide contraceptives to women, citing their personal religious beliefs.
Oregon does have protections in place. “The Oregon pharmacy board says they can refuse, but that they have to refer the woman to another a pharmacist,” says Mara Gandal-Powers of the National Women’s Law Center in Washington, D.C.
But there have been cases in at least 25 states where pharmacists have refused to provide oral contraceptives, according to the law center. “We’re seeing challenges to access to birth control all over the place,” Gandal-Powers says. The attorney intends to keep a close eye on Oregon. “I’m sure we’ll see some pushback,” she says.
There has been some pushback from some physicians as well. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports over-the-counter sales. But in a recent statement, the group expressed the concern that “women who choose to purchase [oral contraceptives] over-the-counter will forgo [cancer] screenings and other preventive services.”
Donovan says that there has to be movement on both fronts. “We need to promote preventative health care, but health care providers shouldn’t be holding birth control hostage to compel it,” she says. Reported by The American Prospect 18 hours ago.
↧
Wonkblog: New Hampshire primary: The only question that counts for Democrats
In the real world, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are running for president on the same platform.That has nothing to do with breaking up the big banks or bringing about Medicare-for-all or even raising taxes on the rich. It's about stopping the Republicans from deregulating Wall Street, taking health insurance away from millions of people, and slashing taxes on top-earners by trillions more than George W. Bush ever did. In other words, defending the incomplete but still significant victories of the Obama years.
Reported by Washington Post 16 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
