The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") recently prevailed in a deceptive marketing practices investigation involving Partners In Health Care Association ("PIHC") and its owner. Reported by Mondaq 1 day ago.

Ohio will join several other states in a bid to block the merger of Aetna (NYSE: AET) and Humana (NYSE: HUM), two of the nation's five largest health insurance companies, Ohio AG Mike DeWine said in a statement Thursday. According to the lawsuit filed in federal court Thursday, the $37 billion merger would hurt consumers by substantially lessening competition and, in turn, raise prices, make service worse and stunt innovation in a market already under the thumb of a limited number of companies. “Our… Reported by bizjournals 23 hours ago.

At 75 minutes long, Donald Trump’s acceptance speech to be the GOP’s presidential nominee, broke records for length ― and we suspect volume. But while we can debate ‘til the cows come home whether Melania wore the same dress twice or Ivanka used a fan for that wind-blown hair look during her speech, there is one thing that there is no debate about:

Trump did not so much as utter the words “Social Security” or “Medicare.”

And what should we conclude from that?

There are 10,000 people a day turning 65 in this country and the federal safety nets for them, by most accounts, are going to collapse under the strain. And Trump said nothing.

If nothing is done, the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2034 (the Congressional Budget Office says it could be as soon as 2025), at which point the system will shrink benefits to 79 percent of current levels. And Trump said nothing.

By 2030, fully 18 percent of the nation will be at least 65, according to Pew Research Center population projections. Social Security represents almost 40 percent of our elderly’s monthly income. About half of older single people ― think widows here ― rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income, says the SSA. And still, Trump said nothing.

In 2015, spending on Medicare was 15 percent of the entire federal budget. For perspective, 16 percent of the budget, or $602 billion, paid for all our military, defense and security-related international activities. When Trump talks about making America safe again, does that include older people being safe from poverty? We don’t know because, again, Trump said nothing.

Older people are the biggest group of users of prescription drugs. In the past two years, the prices of commonly used generic drugs have surged, with some prices 15, 25, and even 75 times what they cost just months ago. According to a recent report by federal health officials, prescription-drug spending rose 12.6 percent in 2014, the latest year for which data are available. It is expected to rise another 7.3 percent a year through 2018. Who uses prescription drugs the most? Older people do. And Trump said nothing.

So besides those painfully long 75 minutes of Trump speaking in the RNC spotlight, what has the GOP nominee said about Social Security and Medicare up til now? Not much. His website does not include either under “Issues,” and in primary debates, he has said he would go after fraud and waste in these government programs with the implication that that would make it all better. And in addition to pledging to get  the ACA (Obamacare) repealed as one of his first acts in office, he also doesn’t think it’s necessary for people to be forced to have health insurance.

He just hasn’t said anything about what they should do if they get sick.

With The Donald, sometimes you need to read the pauses ― not just be grateful for them.

-- 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 21 hours ago.

There is a lot being written spoken about Trump by intelligent and articulate commentators whose insights I respect. But as a longtime researcher in cognitive science and linguistics, I bring a perspective from these sciences to an understanding of the Trump phenomenon. This perspective is hardly unknown. More that half a million people have read my books, and Google Scholar reports that scholars writing in scholarly journals have cited my works well over 100,000 times.

As a longtime researcher in cognitive science and linguistics, I bring a perspective from these sciences to an understanding of the Trump phenomenon.
Yet you will probably not read what I have to say in the New York Times, nor hear it from your favorite political commentators. You will also not hear it from Democratic candidates or party strategists. There are reasons, and we will discuss them later this piece. I am writing it because I think it is right and it is needed, even though it comes from the cognitive and brain sciences, not from the normal political sources. I think it is imperative to bring these considerations into public political discourse. But it cannot be done in a 650-word op-ed. My apologies. It is untweetable.I will begin with an updated version of an earlier piece on who is supporting Trump and why -- and why policy details are irrelevant to them. I then move to a section on how Trump uses your brain against you. I finish up discussing how Democratic campaigns could do better, and why they need to do better if we are to avert a Trump presidency.*Who Supports Trump and Why *Donald J. Trump has managed to become the Republican nominee for president, Why? How? There are various theories: People are angry and he speaks to their anger. People don't think much of Congress and want a non-politician. Both may be true. But why? What are the details? And Why Trump?He seems to have come out of nowhere. His positions on issues don't fit a common mold.He has said nice things about LGBTQ folks, which is not standard Republican talk. Republicans hate eminent domain (the taking of private property by the government) and support corporate outsourcing for the sake of profit, but he has the opposite views on both. He is not religious and scorns religious practices, yet the Evangelicals (that is, the white Evangelicals) love him. He thinks health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, as well as military contractors, are making too much profit and wants to change that. He insults major voting groups, e.g., Latinos, when most Republicans are trying to court them. He wants to deport 11 million immigrants without papers and thinks he can. He wants to stop Muslims from entering the country. What is going on?The answer requires a bit of background.In the 1900s, as part of my research in the cognitive and brain sciences, I undertook to answer a question in my field: How do the various policy positions of conservatives and progressives hang together? Take conservatism: What does being against abortion have to do with being for owning guns? What does owning guns have to do with denying the reality of global warming? How does being anti-government fit with wanting a stronger military? How can you be pro-life and for the death penalty? Progressives have the opposite views. How do their views hang together?The answer came from a realization that we tend to understand the nation metaphorically in family terms: We have founding fathers. We send our sons and daughters to war. We have homeland security. The conservative and progressive worldviews dividing our country can most readily be understood in terms of moral worldviews that are encapsulated in two very different common forms of family life: The Nurturant Parent family (progressive) and the Strict Father family (conservative).What do social issues and the politics have to do with the family? We are first governed in our families, and so we grow up understanding governing institutions in terms of the governing systems of families.In the strict father family, father knows best. He knows right from wrong and has the ultimate authority to make sure his children and his spouse do what he says, which is taken to be what is right. Many conservative spouses accept this worldview, uphold the father's authority, and are strict in those realms of family life that they are in charge of. When his children disobey, it is his moral duty to punish them painfully enough so that, to avoid punishment, they will obey him (do what is right) and not just do what feels good. Through physical discipline they are supposed to become disciplined, internally strong, and able to prosper in the external world. What if they don't prosper? That means they are not disciplined, and therefore cannot be moral, and so deserve their poverty. This reasoning shows up in conservative politics in which the poor are seen as lazy and undeserving, and the rich as deserving their wealth. Responsibility is thus taken to be personal responsibility not social responsibility. What you become is only up to you; society has nothing to do with it. You are responsible for yourself, not for others -- who are responsible for themselves.*Winning and Insulting*As the legendary Green Bay Packers coach, Vince Lombardi, said,"Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing." In a world governed by personal responsibility and discipline, those who win deserve to win. Why does Donald Trump publicly insult other candidates and political leaders mercilessly? Quite simply, because he knows he can win an onstage TV insult game. In strict conservative eyes, that makes him a formidable winning candidate who deserves to be a winning candidate. Electoral competition is seen as a battle. Insults that stick are seen as victories -- deserved victories.
Electoral competition is seen as a battle. Insults that stick are seen as victories -- deserved victories.
Consider Trump's statement that John McCain is not a war hero. The reasoning: McCain got shot down. Heroes are winners. They defeat big bad guys. They don't get shot down. People who get shot down, beaten up, and stuck in a cage are losers, not winners.*The Moral Hierarchy*The strict father logic extends further. The basic idea is that authority is justified by morality (the strict father version), and that, in a well-ordered world, there should be (and traditionally has been) a moral hierarchy in which those who have traditionally dominated should dominate. The hierarchy is: God above Man, Man above Nature, The Disciplined (Strong) above the Undisciplined (Weak), The Rich above the Poor, Employers above Employees, Adults above Children, Western culture above other cultures, Am,erica above other countries. The hierarchy extends to: Men above women, Whites above Nonwhites, Christians above nonChristians, Straights above Gays.We see these tendencies in most of the Republican presidential candidates, as well as in Trump, and on the whole, conservative policies flow from the strict father worldview and this hierarchyFamily-based moral worldviews run deep. Since people want to see themselves as doing right not wrong, moral worldviews tend to be part of self-definition -- who you most deeply are. And thus your moral worldview defines for you what the world should be like. When it isn't that way, one can become frustrated and angry.There is a certain amount of wiggle room in the strict father worldview and there are important variations. A major split is among (1) white Evangelical Christians, (2) laissez-fair free market conservatives, and (3) pragmatic conservatives who are not bound by evangelical beliefs.*White Evangelicals*Those whites who have a strict father personal worldview and who are religious tend toward Evangelical Christianity, since God, in Evangelical Christianity, is the Ultimate Strict Father: You follow His commandments and you go to heaven; you defy His commandments and you burn in hell for all eternity. If you are a sinner and want to go to heaven, you can be 'born again" by declaring your fealty by choosing His son, Jesus Christ, as your personal Savior.Such a version of religion is natural for those with strict father morality. Evangelical Christians join the church because they are conservative; they are not conservative because they happen to be in an evangelical church, though they may grow up with both together.Evangelical Christianity is centered around family life. Hence, there are organizations like Focus on the Family and constant reference to "family values," which are to take to be evangelical strict father values. In strict father morality, it is the father who controls sexuality and reproduction. Where the church has political control, there are laws that require parental and spousal notification in the case of proposed abortions.Evangelicals are highly organized politically and exert control over a great many local political races. Thus Republican candidates mostly have to go along with the evangelicals if they want to be nominated and win local elections.*Pragmatic Conservatives*Pragmatic conservatives, on the other hand, may not have a religious orientation at all. Instead, they may care primarily about their own personal authority, not the authority of the church or Christ, or God. They want to be strict fathers in their own domains, with authority primarily over their own lives. Thus, a young, unmarried conservative -- male or female --may want to have sex without worrying about marriage. They may need access to contraception, advice about sexually transmitted diseases, information about cervical cancer, and so on. And if a girl or woman becomes pregnant and there is no possibility or desire for marriage, abortion may be necessary.Trump is a pragmatic conservative, par excellence. And he knows that there are a lot of Republican voters who are like him in their pragmatism. There is a reason that he likes Planned Parenthood. There are plenty of young, unmarried (or even married) pragmatic conservatives, who may need what Planned Parenthood has to offer -- cheaply and confidentially by way of contraception, cervical cancer prevention, and sex ed.
Young or middle-aged pragmatic conservatives want to maximize their own wealth... That is why Trump wants to keep Social Security and Medicare.
Similarly, young or middle-aged pragmatic conservatives want to maximize their own wealth. They don't want to be saddled with the financial burden of caring for their parents. Social Security and Medicare relieve them of most of those responsibilities. That is why Trump wants to keep Social Security and Medicare.*Laissez-faire Free Marketeers*Establishment conservative policies have not only been shaped by the political power of white evangelical churches, but also by the political power of those who seek maximally laissez-faire free markets, where wealthy people and corporations set market rules in their favor with minimal government regulation and enforcement. They see taxation not as investment in publicly provided resources for all citizens, but as government taking their earnings (their private property) and giving the money through government programs to those who don't deserve it. This is the source of establishment Republicans' anti-tax and shrinking government views. This version of conservatism is quite happy with outsourcing to increase profits by sending manufacturing and many services abroad where labor is cheap, with the consequence that well-paying jobs leave America and wages are driven down here. Since they depend on cheap imports, they would not be in favor of imposing high tariffs.But Donald Trump is not in a business that makes products abroad to import here and mark up at a profit. As a developer, he builds hotels, casinos, office buildings, golf courses. He may build them abroad with cheap labor but he doesn't import them. Moreover, he recognizes that most small business owners in America are more like him -- American businesses like dry cleaners, pizzerias, diners, plumbers, hardware stores, gardeners, contractors, car washers, and professionals like architects, lawyers, doctors, and nurses. High tariffs don't look like a problem.Many business people are pragmatic conservatives. They like government power when it works for them. Take eminent domain. Establishment Republicans see it as an abuse by government -- government taking of private property. But conservative real estate developers like Trump depend on eminent domain so that homes and small businesses in areas they want to develop can be taken by eminent domain for the sake of their development plans. All they have to do is get local government officials to go along, with campaign contributions and the promise of an increase in local tax dollars helping to acquire eminent domain rights. Trump points to Atlantic City, where he build his casino using eminent domain to get the property.If businesses have to pay for their employees' health care benefits, Trump would want them to have to pay as little as possible to maximize profits for businesses in general. He would therefore want health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to charge as little as possible. To increase competition, he would want insurance companies to offer plans nationally, avoiding the state-run exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. The exchanges are there to maximize citizen health coverage, and help low-income people get coverage, rather than to increase business profits. Trump does however want to keep the mandatory feature of ACA, which establishment conservatives hate since they see it as government overreach, forcing people to buy a product. For Trump, however, the mandatory feature for individuals increases the insurance pool and brings down costs for businesses.*Direct vs. Systemic Causation*Direct causation is dealing with a problem via direct action. Systemic causation recognizes that many problems arise from the system they are in and must be dealt with via systemic causation. Systemic causation has four versions: A chain of direct causes. Interacting direct causes (or chains of direct causes). Feedback loops. And probabilistic causes. Systemic causation in global warming explains why global warming over the Pacific can produce huge snowstorms in Washington DC: masses of highly energized water molecules evaporate over the Pacific, blow to the Northeast and over the North Pole and come down in winter over the East coast and parts of the Midwest as masses of snow. Systemic causation has chains of direct causes, interacting causes, feedback loops, and probabilistic causes -- often combined.Direct causation is easy to understand, and appears to be represented in the grammars of all languages around the world. Systemic causation is more complex and is not represented in the grammar of any language. It just has to be learned.Empirical research has shown that conservatives tend to reason with direct causation and that progressives have a much easier time reasoning with systemic causation. The reason is thought to be that, in the strict father model, the father expects the child or spouse to respond directly to an order and that refusal should be punished as swiftly and directly as possible.Many of Trump's policy proposals are framed in terms of direct causation.Immigrants are flooding in from Mexico -- build a wall to stop them. For all the immigrants who have entered illegally, just deport them -- even if there are 11 million of them working throughout the economy and living throughout the country. The cure for gun violence is to have a gun ready to directly shoot the shooter. To stop jobs from going to Asia where labor costs are lower and cheaper goods flood the market here, the solution is direct: put a huge tariff on those goods so they are more expensive than goods made here. To save money on pharmaceuticals, have the largest consumer -- the government -- take bids for the lowest prices. If Isis is making money on Iraqi oil, send US troops to Iraq to take control of the oil. Threaten Isis leaders by assassinating their family members (even if this is a war crime). To get information from terrorist suspects, use water-boarding, or even worse torture methods. If a few terrorists might be coming with Muslim refugees, just stop allowing all Muslims into the country. All this makes sense to direct causation thinkers, but not those who see the immense difficulties and dire consequences of such actions due to the complexities of systemic causation.*Political Correctness*There are at least tens of millions of conservatives in America who share strict father morality and its moral hierarchy. Many of them are poor or middle class and many are white men who see themselves as superior to immigrants, nonwhites, women, nonChristians, gays -- and people who rely on public assistance. In other words, they are what liberals would call "bigots." For many years, such bigotry has not been publicly acceptable, especially as more immigrants have arrived, as the country has become less white, as more women have become educated and moved into the workplace, and as gays have become more visible and gay marriage acceptable.

As liberal anti-bigotry organizations have loudly pointed out... bigotry, those conservatives have felt more and more oppressed by what they call 'political correctness.'

As liberal anti-bigotry organizations have loudly pointed out and made a public issue of the unAmerican nature of such bigotry, those conservatives have felt more and more oppressed by what they call "political correctness" -- public pressure against their views and against what they see as "free speech." This has become exaggerated since 911, when anti-Muslim feelings became strong. The election of President Barack Hussein Obama created outrage among those conservatives, and they refused to see him as a legitimate American (as in the birther movement), much less as a legitimate authority, especially as his liberal views contradicted almost everything else they believe as conservatives.
Donald Trump expresses out loud everything they feel -- with force, aggression, anger, and no shame. All they have to do is support and vote for Trump and they don't even have to express their 'politically incorrect' views, since he does it for them and his victories make those views respectable. He is their champion. He gives them a sense of self-respect, authority, and the possibility of power.Whenever you hear the words "political correctness" remember this.
*Biconceptuals*
There is no middle in American politics. There are moderates, but there is no ideology of the moderate, no single ideology that all moderates agree on. A moderate conservative has some progressive positions on issues, though they vary from person to person. Similarly, a moderate progressive has some conservative positions on issues, again varying from person to person. In short, moderates have both political moral worldviews, but mostly use one of them. Those two moral worldviews in general contradict each other. How can they reside in the same brain at the same time?Both are characterized in the brain by neural circuitry. They are linked by a commonplace circuit: mutual inhibition. When one is turned on the other is turned off; when one is strengthened, the other is weakened. What turns them on or off? Language that fits that worldview activates that worldview, strengthening it, while turning off the other worldview and weakening it. The more Trump's views are discussed in the media, the more they are activated and the stronger they get, both in the minds of hardcore conservatives and in the minds of moderate progressives.This is true even if you are attacking Trump's views. The reason is that negating a frame activates that frame, as I pointed out in the book Don't Think of an Elephant! It doesn't matter if you are promoting Trump or attacking Trump, you are helping Trump.A good example of Trump winning with progressive biconceptuals includes certain unionized workers. Many union members are strict fathers at home or in their private life. They believe in "traditional family values" -- a conservative code word -- and they may identify with winners.Why Has Trump won the Republican nomination? Look at all the conservative groups he appeals to!*Why His Lack of Policy Detail Doesn't Matter*I recently heard a brilliant and articulate Clinton surrogate argue against a group of Trump supporters that Trump has presented no policy plans for increasing jobs, increasing economics growth, improving education, gaining international respect, etc. This is the basic Clinton campaign argument. Hillary has the experience, the policy know-how, she can get things done, it's all on her website. Trump has none of this. What Hillary's campaign says is true. And it is irrelevant.Trump supporters and other radical Republican extremists could not care less, and for a good reason. Their job is to impose their view of strict father morality in all areas of life. If they have the Congress, and the Presidency and the Supreme Court, they could achieve this. They don't need to name policies, because the Republicans already of hundreds of policies ready to go. They just need to be in complete power.*How Trump Uses Your Brain to His Advantage*Any unscrupulous, effective salesman knows how to use you brain against you, to get you to buy what he is selling. How can someone "use your brain against you?" What does it mean?All thought uses neural circuitry. Every idea is constituted by neural circuitry. But we have no conscious access to that circuitry. As a result, most of thought -- an estimated 98 percent of thought is unconscious. Conscious thought is the tip of the iceberg.Unconscious thought works by certain basic mechanisms. Trump uses them instinctively to turn people's brains toward what he wants: Absolute authority, money, power, celebrity.The mechanisms are:1. Repetition. Words ore neurally linked to the circuits the determine their meaning. The more a word is heard, the more the circuit is activated and the stronger it gets, and so the easier it is to fire again. Trump repeats. Win. Win, Win. We're gonna win so much you'll get tired of winning.2. Framing: Crooked Hillary. Framing Hillary as purposely and knowingly committing crimes for her own benefit, which is what a crook does. Repeating makes many people unconsciously think of her that way, even though she has been found to have been honest and legal by thorough studies by the right-wing Bengazi committee (which found nothing) and the FBI (which found nothing to charge her with, except missing the mark '(C)' in the body of 3 out of 110,000 emails). Yet the framing is working.There is a common metaphor that Immorality Is Illegality, and that acting against Strict Father Morality (the only kind off morality recognized) is being immoral. Since virtually everything Hillary Clinton has ever done has violated Strict Father Morality, that makes her immoral. The metaphor thus makes her actions immoral, and hence she is a crook. The chant "Lock her up!" activates this whole line of reasoning.3. Well-known examples: When a well-publicized disaster happens, the coverage activates the framing of it over and over, strengthening it, and increasing the probability that the framing will occur easily with high probability. Repeating examples of shootings by Muslims, African-Americans, and Latinos raises fears that it could happen to you and your community -- despite the miniscule actual probability. Trump uses this to create fear. Fear tends to activate desire for a strong strict father -- namely, Trump.4. Grammar: Radical Islamic terrorists: "Radical" puts Muslims on a linear scale and "terrorists" imposes a frame on the scale, suggesting that terrorism is built into the religion itself. The grammar suggests that there is something about Islam that has terrorism inherent in it. Imagine calling the Charleston gunman a "radical Republican terrorist."Trump is aware this to at least some extent. As he said to Tony Schwartz, the ghost-writer who wrote The Art of the Deal for him, "I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration -- and it's a very effective form of promotion."5. Conventional metaphorical thought is inherent in our largely unconscious thought. Such normal modes of metaphorical thinking that are not noticed as such.Consider Brexit, which used the metaphor of "entering" and "leaving" the EU. There is a universal metaphor that states are locations in space: you can enter a state, be deep in some state, and come out that state. If you enter a café and then leave the café , you will be in the same location as before you entered. But that need not be true of states of being. But that was the metaphor used with Brexist; Britons believe that after leaving the EU, things would be as before when the entered the EU. They were wrong. Things changed radically while they were in the EU. That same metaphor is being used by Trump: Make America Great Again. Make America Safe Again. And so on. As if there was some past ideal state that we can go back to just by electing Trump.6. There is also a metaphor that A Country Is a Person and a metonymy of the President Standing For the Country. Thus, Obama, via both metaphor and metonymy, can stand conceptually for America. Therefore, by saying that Obama is weak and not respected, it is communicated that America, with Obama as president, is weak and disrespected. The inference is that it is because of Obama.7. The country as person metaphor and the metaphor that war or conflict between countries is a fistfight between people, leads the inference that just having a strong president will guarantee that America will win conflicts and wars. Trump will just throw knockout punches. In his acceptance speech at the convention, Trump repeatedly said that he would accomplish things that can only be done by the people acting with their government. After one such statement, there was a chant from the floor, "He will do it."8. The metaphor that The nation Is a Family was used throughout the GOP convention. We heard that strong military sons are produced by strong military fathers and that "defense of country is a family affair." From Trump's love of family and commitment to their success, we are to conclude that, as president he will love America's citizens and be committed to the success of all.9. There is a common metaphor that Identifying with your family's national heritage makes you a member of that nationality. Suppose your grandparents came from Italy and you identify with your Italian ancestors, you may proud state that you are Italian. The metaphor is natural. Literally, you have been American for two generations. Trump made use of this commonplace metaphor in attacking US District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is American, born and raised in the United States. Trump said he was a Mexican, and therefore would hate him and tend to rule against him in a case brought against Trump University for fraud.10. Then there is the metaphor system used in the phrase "to call someone out." First the word "out." There is a general metaphor that Knowing Is Seeing as in "I see what you mean." Things that are hidden inside something cannot be seen and hence not known, while things are not hidden but out in public can be seen and hence known. To "out" someone is to made their private knowledge public. To "call someone out" is to publicly name someone's hidden misdeeds, thus allowing for public knowledge and appropriate consequences.This is the basis for the Trumpian metaphor that Naming is Identifying. Thus naming your enemies will allow you to identify correctly who they are, get to them, and so allow you to defeat them. Hence, just saying "radical Islamic terrorists" allows you to pick them out, get at them, and annihilate them. And conversely, if you don't say it, you won't be able to pick them out and annihilate them. Thus a failure to use those words means that you are protecting those enemies -- in this case Muslims, that is, potential terrorists because of their religion.I'll stop here, though I could go on. Here are ten uses of people's unconscious normal brain mechanisms that are manipulated by Trump and his followers for his overriding purpose: to be elected president, to be given absolute authority with a Congress and Supreme Court, and so to have his version of Strict Famer Morality govern America into the indefinite future.These ten forms of using with people's everyday brain mechanisms for his own purposes have gotten Trump the Republican nomination. But millions more people have seen and heard Trump and company on tv and heard them on the radio. The media pundits have not described those ten mechanisms, or other brain mechanisms, that surreptitiously work on the unconscious minds of the public, even though the result is that Big Lies repeated over and over are being believed by a growing number of people.Even if he loses the election, Trump will have changed the brains of millions of Americans, with future consequences. It is vitally important people know the mechanisms used to transmit Big Lies and to stick them into people's brains without their awareness. It is a form of mind control.People in the media have a duty to report it when the see it. But the media comes with constraints.Certain things have not been allowed in public political discourse in the media. Reporters and commentators are supposed to stick to what is conscious and with literal meaning. But most real political discourse makes use of unconscious thought, which shapes conscious thought via unconscious framing and commonplace conceptual metaphors. It is crucial, for the history of the country and the world, as well as the planet, that all of this be made public.And it is not just the media, Such responsibility rests with ordinary citizens who become aware of unconscious brain mechanisms like the ten we have just discussed. This responsibility also rests with the Democratic Party and their campaigns at all levels.Is the use of the public's brain mechanisms for communication necessarily immoral? Understanding how people really think can be used to communicate truths, not Big Lies or ads for products.This knowledge is not just known to cognitive linguists. It is taught in Marketing courses in business schools, and the mechanisms are used in advertising, to get you to buy what advertisers are selling. We have learned to recognize ads; they are set off by themselves. Even manipulative corporate advertising with political intent (like ads for fracking) is not as dangerous as Big Lies leading to authoritarian government determining the future of our country.*How Can Democrats Do Better?*First, don't think of an elephant. Remember not to repeat false conservative claims and then rebut them with the facts. Instead, go positive. Give a positive truthful framing to undermine claims to the contrary. Use the facts to support positively-framed truth. Use repetition.Second, start with values, not policies and facts and numbers. Say what you believe, but haven't been saying. For example, progressive thought is built on empathy, on citizens caring about other citizens and working through our government to provide public resources for all, both businesses and individuals. Use history. That's how America started. The public resources used by businesses were not only roads and bridges, but public education, a national bank, a patent office, courts for business cases, interstate commerce support, and of course the criminal justice system. From the beginning, the Private Depended on Public Resources, both private lives and private enterprise.Over time those resources have included sewers, water and electricity, research universities and research support: computer science (via the NSF), the internet (ARPA), pharmaceuticals and modern medicine (the NIH), satellite communication (NASA and NOA), and GPS systems and cell phones (the Defense Department). Private enterprise and private life utterly depend on public resources. Have you ever said this? Elizabeth Warren has. Almost no other public figures. And stop defending "the government." Talk about the public, the people, Americans, the American people, public servants, and good government. And take back freedom. Public resources provide for freedom in private enterprise and private life.The conservatives are committed to privatizing just about everything and to eliminating funding for most public resources. The contribution of public resources to our freedoms cannot be overstated. Start saying it.And don't forget the police. Effective respectful policing is a public resource. Chief David O. Brown of the Dallas Police got it right. Training, community policing, knowing the people you protect. And don't ask too much of the police: citizens have a responsibility to provide funding so that police don't have to do jobs that should be done by others.Unions need to go on the offensive. Unions are instruments of freedom -- freedom from corporate servitude. Employers call themselves job creators. Working people are profit creators for the employers, and as such they deserve a fair share of the profits and respect and acknowledgement. Say it. Can the public create jobs. Of course. Fixing infrastructure will create jobs by providing more public resources that private lives and businesses depend on. Public resources to create more public resources. Freedom creates opportunity that creates more freedom.Third, keep out of nasty exchanges and attacks. Keep out of shouting matches. One can speak powerfully without shouting. Obama sets the pace: Civility, values, positivity, good humor, and real empathy are powerful. Calmness and empathy in the face of fury are powerful. Bill Clinton won because he oozed empathy, with his voice, his eye contact, and his body. It wasn't his superb ability as a policy wonk, but the empathy he projected and inspired.Values come first, facts and policies follow in the service of values. They matter, but they always support values.Give up identity politics. No more women's issues, black issues, Latino issues. Their issues are all real, and need public discussion. But they all fall under freedom issues, human issues. And address poor whites! Appalachian and rust belt whites deserve your attention as much as anyone else. Don't surrender their fate to Trump, who will just increase their suffering.And remember JFK's immortal, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Empathy, devotion, love, pride in our country's values, public resources to create freedoms. And adulthood.Be prepared. You have to understand Trump to stand calmly up to him and those running with him all over the country.*___*George Lakoff is Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics Emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley. His most recent book is The ALL NEW Don't Think of an Elephant! His previous books on politics and social issues are Moral Politics (1996, 2002), Don't Think of an Elephant! (2004), Whose Freedom? (2008), The Political Mind (2008), and The Little Blue Book, with Elisabeth Wehling (2012). The third edition of Moral Politics will be published in September in time for the 2016 election.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 19 hours ago.

*What are the Four Phases of a Movement?*

By Rishon Blumberg, 10x Management Founder

Political change generally occurs as a reaction to injustice. All great societal change grows out of a movement that finds the right environment within which to flourish -- some result in relatively quick change, others take decades or more to come to fruition. There is a current movement that has been gaining traction over the last few decades. It's a movement of workers from full time W2 positions transitioning by choice to work as independent contractors, classified as 1099 -- some have called it the Freelance Revolution, others call it the shift towards a Gig Economy.

In this article I'll briefly examine some of the elements required in order for a social movement to truly take hold and I'll relate these factors back to the current freelance movement that is accelerating at a rapid pace.

1) *Injustice *- Most political movements are a response to some form of injustice. The Freelance Revolution exists for several reasons. Workers are discovering there's a work alternative offering much more freedom and satisfaction than working in an office 40-50 hours a week for someone else, with only 2 weeks of vacation per year, and be at risk of being laid off at any moment at the whim of corporate executives. Or for others, freelancing isn't their first preference, they must work freelance because there aren't full-time jobs available in their field.

2) *Spark and Ignition* - It's often very hard to pin-point the start of a movement to a single event; it's usually a variety of events that occur that all have, at their root, a similar problem. But in short, it's the point at which someone or some group feels like they've had just about enough with the status quo injustice.

Today, in the jobs market we are seeing the result of events that were set in motion perhaps in the 1980's as the Japanese brought Just-In-Time manufacturing to the forefront. This concept, with an emphasis on efficiency, altered the way companies dealt with their manufacturing and kicked off a movement towards leaner, more efficient processes.

After a tipping point event like the one outlined above occurs, a movement needs additional supporting events to fuse into a broader course of action. Supporting events ignite participation from the wider population, and add the fuel that fans the flame. In short, without a sufficient number of other events occurring, a movement dies.

The Suffragette movement began in earnest in 1848 with a small convention. Within a few decades however, there were dozens of such groups whose activism across the US ultimately spread to the UK in the early part of the 20th century. The US groups filed a variety of lawsuits in the hopes of having the Supreme Court weigh in on the matter, or have Congress act. Ultimately when all of these groups coalesced, their membership swelled to more than two million.

Likewise, in the jobs market today, what started out with innovation in the manufacturing sector has spread to innovation and efficiency in virtually every sector of the public and private marketplace. Robotics led to far faster production in manufacturing and the rise of the computer, smart phone, and tablets has created faster and simpler ways to multitask and work remotely.

3) *An Environment for Growth* - It's not enough for a single act or even a series of acts to occur for change to happen. What's required is for those events to occur at a time, and in an environment that is able to receive them and integrate them into everyday life.

The same is true for the Freelance Movement. If not for the rise of cloud computing, the size and speed of chips, the ease of access to health care (and many other factors), there would be no way for a seismic freelance population to work effectively. Many of these elements work in concert to create the right environment.

For example, without the adoption of the American Care Act (ACA), individuals would have a far harder time finding affordable health care and would seek out full time employment with companies that can supply them with health insurance. Simultaneously, the adoption of cloud computing that allows for seamless remote work, would not alone push individuals and companies to seek remote solutions; there would likely be too few takers as most would still be seeking W2 positions to obtain vital benefits. But these two elements working together -- easy access to insurance and exceptional tools for remote work -- create a potent environment within which freelancers can thrive.

4) *The Movement Takes Hold* - When you have an initial event supported by additional broader events all within an environment that allows a movement to prosper, you have the recipe for a societal change to occur. Whether it's small or large, steps 1-3 must occur for a movement to take hold. Once a movement takes hold, broader adoption of a movement's core elements seep into the world gaining momentum with the passage of time. Today we're in the early stages of a shift from W2-full time dominance to a blended workforce where more workers are defined as 1099 freelancers. Currently, we see about 35% of the workforce categorized as 1099. Many predictions call for more than 50% of the workforce to fall under the 1099 categorization within the next 5-10 years.

5)* Legislation Makes Change Permanent* - As adoption grows, so does the need for legislation in order to help ensure there are adequate societal protections in place to protect those who fought against injustice and created the movement. For example, it wasn't until Congress passed the nineteenth amendment that women were guaranteed the right to vote.

As the freelance economy grows, so does the need for legislation to protect freelance workers. The recent Uber class action settlement was a step in the right direction...it forced Uber to work with their drivers to find mutually beneficial solutions to a variety of issues. But more is required. As a larger and larger proportion of the workforce shifts out of W2 positions, the challenge will be to provide access to similar safety net benefits as afforded W2 workers. It is quite likely that over the next decade we will see legislation that requires employers of certain classifications of freelancers to contribute to a benefits pool that will provide the funding mechanism for obtaining various types of insurance.

Through legislation, a freelance classification system will emerge that will group freelancers into a few different categories broadly defined as non-strategic freelancers -- those workers who provide services (uber drivers, etc), and strategic freelancers -- those who work on mission critical projects or augment management teams (like the kinds of tech talent we represent at 10x). Each classification would carry a different approach to taxation and access to benefits.

In order for a movement to alter the way the world works, a variety of events need to unfold in an environment that is fertile, and then governments must act in order to legislate and protect the members that comprise that movement. The current shift in the jobs market from W2 to 1099 is just such a movement that is leading to a paradigm shift. This Freelance movement is nearing the legislation phase that will alter the way work has happened over the last 100 years.

For some insightful data and real-time stats regarding the future of work, the growth rate of demand for tech jobs, and the freelance revolution, check out this infographic.

We'd love to hear your comments or feedback about this article! If you liked this article you might also enjoy reading, How Firms Can Prepare Themselves For The Freelance Economy - That Sucking Sound Is Your Workforce Going 1099.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 19 hours ago.

Dr. Jeffrey Katz became the first full-time physician at what was a brand new neighborhood clinic chain called ZoomCare back in 2006. Katz helped Zoom grow to 25 clinics, mostly in Portland, but also Seattle, some in the urgent care mold and others branching into primary and specialty care, along with a health insurance plan. In seeking to be closer to family, he left the rebranded Zoom+ last year to work at Steward Health Care System in Boston, the second-largest health system in New England.… Reported by bizjournals 18 hours ago.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance. The ruling Thursday by U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton addresses a section of President Barack Obama’s health care law that requires insurers […] Reported by Seattle Times 17 hours ago.

Recent memos allegedly leaked from the Colombian Embassy in Washington describe intense pressure by the pharmaceutical industry and its Congressional allies to discourage Colombia's efforts to half the local price of Novartis' Gleevec, one of the leading medications used to treat Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML). See Huffington Post "Colombia Fears U.S. May Reject Peace Plan To Protect Pharma Profits."

As a US citizen, as the Representative of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia since 2012, and as a person with CML, I believe that if US citizens and members of Congress know what I know about Colombia -- and about CML -- they would see that these strong-arm tactics cruelly threaten human lives, and also undermine our own economic and security interests at a critical time for Colombia.

Without medication, CML -- a cancer that starts in the bone marrow -- kills almost everyone who has the disease. Gleevec, approved in 2001, and its successors, radically changed the outlook for CML patients, and more than two out of three people who are able to follow the current protocol of lifelong treatment can expect to achieve a normal, productive lifespan.

The yearly price tag for Gleevec is $106,322 in the U.S. and $31,867 in the U.K. A generic version costs about $8,000 in Brazil. My six years of treatment have cost $635,000 for the drugs alone, most of this thankfully covered by my UN health insurance. But, in Colombia, I am not the norm. Without government intervention, many Colombians with CML today will simply die.

Like almost all countries in the world, apart from the US, Colombia treats access to health care, including medication, as a right: the government covers the medication costs of all but a small minority of citizens who have private health insurance. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has indicated to Colombia that it must ensure that those with limited incomes have access to life-saving medicines.

As Novartis' biggest-selling drug, Gleevec in 2015 produced revenues of $4.7 billion. Advocates estimate the material cost of producing a year's supply of Gleevec at $159.

As our bilateral trade agreement with Colombia indicates, and as President Obama reiterated during his March 2016 visit, Colombia is one of the US's most important Latin American partners. Fifty years of civil war in Colombia have cost US taxpayers billions of dollars - and now, finally, Colombia is on the brink of a comprehensive peace accord that will end the armed conflict and create a framework for enormous social changes needed for a lasting peace grounded in respect for human rights.

We recently committed $450 million to support the peace process, but leaked communications reported that US Congressional members have threatened to reduce this commitment if Colombia insists on purchasing generic Gleevec.

Such threats are short-sighted. Cost savings on Gleevec would allow Colombia to divert hundreds of millions of dollars to projects that ensure Colombians' basic human rights and promote the long-term economic development and stability essential for peace.

As a U.S. citizen who lives and works in Colombia and owes his life to the scientists who helped create Gleevec (Brian Druker of Oregon Health and Science University, Nora Heisterkamp, Janet Rowley, Peter Nowell and David Hungerford) and to the US government grants that contributed to developing this vital medication, I invite members of Congress threatening to withhold support for the peace process to join me in visiting the areas of Colombia devastated by 50 years of conflict and to meet ordinary Colombians, including those with CML, whose future is at stake.

The United States has a historical commitment to peace and human rights, and Colombia has a moral, and legal, obligation to do its utmost to protect the lives of its people. We have a choice: we can punish Colombia -- and the individuals who suffer from CML -- for striving to respect the fundamental human right to health, and in doing so, undermine Colombia's progress toward peace and stability; or we can build on our investment and promote an ethical and humane foreign policy, facilitating a human rights success story.

Todd Howland is the Representative of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Colombia, the commentary reflects the personal views and experiences of the author, and do not necessarily represent any official position on the part of the United Nations.

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

By 2020 average income earners will be forced to buy private health insurance or pay extra tax after the government quietly extended a freeze in the threshold for the Medicare Levy Surcharge. Reported by Brisbane Times 2 hours ago.

The potential bust-up of two mega deals among America's largest health insurance companies may have an unintended result - more mergers. The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday sued to blockAetna Inc.'s $37 billion purchase of Humana Inc.and Anthem Inc.'s proposed $54... Reported by Newsmax 17 hours ago.

The Internet of Things (IoT) Revolution is picking up speed and it will change how we live, work, and entertain ourselves in a million ways big and small.

From agriculture to defense, retail to healthcare, everything is going to be impacted by the growing ability of businesses, governments, and consumers to connect to and control their environments:

· “Smart mirrors” will allow consumers to try on clothes digitally, enhancing their shopping experience and reducing returns for the retailer
· Assembly line sensors will detect tiny drops in efficiency that indicate critical equipment is wearing out and schedule down-time maintenance in response
· Agricultural equipment guided by GPS and IoT technology will soon plant, fertilize and harvest vast croplands like a giant Roomba while the “driver” reads a magazine
· Active people will share lifestyle data from their fitness trackers in order to help their doctor make better health care decisions (and capture discounts on health insurance premiums)

No wonder the Internet of Things has been called “the next Industrial Revolution.” It’s so big that it could mean new revenue streams for your company and new opportunities for you. The only question is: Are you fully up to speed on the IoT?

After months of researching and reporting this exploding trend, John Greenough and Jonathan Camhi of Business Insider Intelligence have put together an essential briefing that explains the exciting present and the fascinating future of the Internet of Things. It covers how IoT is being implemented today, where the new sources of opportunity will be tomorrow and how 17 separate sectors of the economy will be transformed over the next 20 years, including:

· Agriculture
· Connected Home
· Defense
· Financial services
· Food services
· Healthcare
· Hospitality
· Infrastructure
· Insurance

· Logistics
· Manufacturing
· Oil, gas, and mining
· Retail
· Smart buildings
· Transportation
· Connected Car
· Utilities

 

If you work in any of these sectors, it's important for you to understand how the IoT will change your business and possibly even your career. And if you’re employed in any of the industries that will build out the IoT infrastructure—networking, semiconductors, telecommunications, data storage, cybersecurity—this report is a must-have.

Among the big picture insights you’ll get from *The Internet of Things: Examining How the IoT Will Affect The World*:

· IoT devices connected to the Internet will more than triple by 2020, from 10 billion to 34 billion. IoT devices will account for 24 billion, while traditional computing devices (e.g. smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, etc.) will comprise 10 billion.
· Nearly $6 trillion will be spent on IoT solutions over the next five years.
· Businesses will be the top adopter of IoT solutions because they will use IoT to 1) lower operating costs; 2) increase productivity; and 3) expand to new markets or develop new product offerings.
· Governments will be the second-largest adopters, while consumers will be the group least transformed by the IoT.

And when you dig deep into the report, you’ll get the whole story in a clear, no-nonsense presentation:

· The complex infrastructure of the Internet of Things distilled into a single ecosystem
· The most comprehensive breakdown of the benefits and drawbacks of mesh (e.g. ZigBee, Z- Wave, etc.), cellular (e.g. 3G/4G, Sigfox, etc.), and internet (e.g. Wi-Fi, Ethernet, etc.) networks
· The important role analytics systems, including edge analytics, cloud analytics, will play in making the most of IoT investments
· The sizable security challenges presented by the IoT and how they can be overcome
· The four powerful forces driving IoT innovation, plus the four difficult market barriers to IoT adoption
· Complete analysis of the likely future investment in the critical IoT infrastructure: connectivity, security, data storage, system integration, device hardware, and application development
· In-depth analysis of how the IoT ecosystem will change and disrupt 17 different industries

*The Internet of Things: Examining How the IoT Will Affect The World* is how you get the full story on the Internet of Things.

To get your copy of this invaluable guide to the IoT universe, choose one of these options:

1. Purchase an ALL-ACCESS Membership that entitles you to immediate access to not only this report, but also dozens of other research reports, subscriptions to all 5 of the BI Intelligence daily newsletters, and much more. >> *START A MEMBERSHIP*
2. Purchase the report and download it immediately from our research store. >> *BUY THE REPORT*

The choice is yours. But however you decide to acquire this report, you’ve given yourself a powerful advantage in your understanding of the fast-moving world of the IoT.

Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 11 hours ago.

Boomers nearing retirement need to plan for healthcare costs -- now. Reported by Motley Fool 4 hours ago.

Justice Department will sue to prevent the latest round of big health insurance mergers. That could be great news for consumers Reported by CBS News 6 hours ago.

Florida Trend has selected EverCheck as one of Florida's Best Small Companies to Work For in 2016.

Jacksonville Beach, Florida (PRWEB) July 25, 2016

EverCheck, a leading nationwide provider of automated license verification services to the healthcare industry, has been recognized as one of Florida’s Best Places To Work by Florida Trend. The official list will be released in the August issue of Florida Trend magazine.

Companies that participated in the evaluation process underwent an evaluation of their workplace policies, practices, philosophy, systems and demographics. The process also included a survey to measure employee satisfaction. The combined scores determined the top companies and the final ranking.

Small Company, Big Culture
“The Best Companies find ways to make the workplace an easy place to be,” says Florida Trend Executive Editor Mark Howard. EverCheck, a software firm with 16 Florida-based employees, focuses on its employees’ well-being both inside and outside of the office as a way to promote workplace engagement. It offers an organic produce subsidy, free “super juices” delivered every week, and fitness allowances. There’s also ample opportunity to enjoy a leisurely stroll or bike ride to the beach, located just a few blocks from the office. “There’s a clear connection between the health and wellness of our team and employee engagement. The happier and healthier you are, the more opportunity you have to truly connect with your work and your teammates,” says Angie Cardona, Director of Client Services at EverCheck.

Promoting Ownership Thinking
In addition to its health and wellness component, EverCheck also maintains that a culture of transparency and personal accountability has a direct impact on the bottom line. “We encourage staff to think like a partner in the business rather than simply as employees,” says Brian Solano, Founder & CEO at EverCheck. In addition to utilizing communication tools like Slack and Zoom for transparency and collaboration, EverCheck also offers a yearly monetary incentive to all eligible employees based on the year’s profits. "Top companies provide excellent pay, health insurance, 401k plans, and other "hard" benefits, but they also offer the leadership and communications that encourage employees to participate in the organization's overall success," says Florida Trend Publisher Andy Corty.

The Best Companies To Work For In Florida program was created by Florida Trend and Best Companies Group and is endorsed by the HR Florida State Council. Best Companies Group managed the registration, survey and analysis and determined the final rankings. For a list of the 100 Best Companies To Work For In Florida, go to http://www.FloridaTrend.com/BestCompanies.

About EverCheck
EverCheck is a leading automated license verification solution for healthcare employers across the United States. Our mission is to simplify the impact that regulation has on the healthcare industry. Our web-based solution has modernized license verification, automatically monitoring the credentials of healthcare providers daily and ensuring they remain properly licensed to provide patient care at all times. EverCheck allows employers to remain compliant with state and federal standards for license verification while improving efficiencies and helping to reduce their carbon footprint.

About Florida Trend
Florida Trend is an award-winning business magazine read by 250,000 senior business executives, civic leaders and government officials each month. Delivered via print, tablet, mobile and e-newsletter, Florida Trend covers business news, executives, industry analysis, regional news round-ups and executive lifestyle. For more information, visit http://www.FloridaTrend.com.

-END- Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.

July 22 (Reuters) - The potential bust-up of two mega deals among America's largest health insurance companies may have an unintended result - more mergers. Reported by Reuters 5 hours ago.

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany wants to extend a price brake for drugs covered by statutory health insurance for five years beyond 2017, stretching out the measure introduced in 2009, a draft law seen by Reuters shows. Reported by Reuters 17 minutes ago.

It is a common misperception that the U. S. has the best health care in the world, another example of "American exceptionalism." By constant repetition over many years, this myth has become a meme, a part of our language without regard to its merit. It is assumed by many that our rapid adoption of high technology and high spending on health care must bring us the best health care. However, as Drs. Elliott Fisher and Gilbert Welch of the Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences at Dartmouth Medical School pointed out early on, there are diminishing returns to many of these technological "advances". (1)

Lewis Thomas, a leading analyst of medical progress, saw this coming as early as 1975 when he described these three useful ways of looking at medical technologies:
1. Nontechnology--non-curative care for patients with advanced diseases whose natural history cannot be changed (e.g. intractable cancer, advanced cirrhosis).3. Halfway technology--also care that is non-curative but may delay death (e.g. liver or heart transplants).5. High technology--curative treatment or effective prevention techniques (e.g. polio vaccination). (2)
Unfortunately, most of our technological advances are of the halfway non-curative type. Since they are often overused at great expense, this presents society a challenging task to manage their adoption in a cost-effective way.

*How More Technology Does NOT Bring Us Better Health Care*
These are some of the factors that undermine the quality of care in our profit-driven corporatized health care system:
· Medicalization of preventive and therapeutic services, which are then promoted by direct to consumer advertising. Examples abound, including widespread use of full-body CT scans as a screening procedure without approval by either the FDA or the American College of Radiology (3), and MRIs in completely asymptomatic patients finding "abnormalities"--one study found that one-half of young adults were found to have lumbar disc bulge without any back pain. (4)· Early adoption of technologies without adequate testing. Adverse events in robotic surgery give us one example. Between 2007 and 2013, more than 1.74 million robotic procedures were performed in the U. S., most commonly in gynecology and urology, with 144 deaths (1.4 percent), 1,391 patient injuries (13.1 percent) and more than 8,000 device malfunctions (75.9 percent). (5)· Corporate-friendly regulators. As one example, a large part of the budget of the FDA comes from user fees from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, which are constantly pushing the FDA for earlier, accelerated approvals of their products. As a result, many products and procedures have to be withdrawn from the market as their harms become obvious, with these decisions often delayed by their manufacturers (e.g. withdrawal of morcellators for the treatment of uterine fibroids). (6)
Although many technological advances have been of great benefit to individual patients and society, such as replacement of hips and knees, coronary bypass surgery, and cataract surgery with prescription intra-ocular lens replacement, there are downsides to the rapid adoption of new technologies as well.

Despite our emphasis on technology, comparative studies of eleven health care systems around the world show how poorly we rank in terms of access and quality of care. (Table1) (7)

*Can Health Care Technologies Be Managed in the Public Interest?*
We have to ask why we haven't been more effective over the years in evaluating and regulating the adoption and use of medical technologies. The answer, not surprisingly, is the economic and political power of corporate stakeholders in our market-based system. Two national organizations were established by Congress in the 1970s--the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1975 and the National Center for Health Care Technology (NCHCT) in 1978. Both were later abolished after a strong backlash from vested interests, especially the medical device industry and several professional medical societies. (8-10)

The FDA, as our major regulator for evaluation and approval of new health care technologies, has long been handcuffed by political forces preventing comparative evaluations of competing technologies based on required evidence for positive long-term outcomes. It has been underfunded, lacks sufficient authority, and is dependent on the industries it attempts to regulate through recurrent authorizations of user fees--a fox in the henhouse situation. There are many conflicts of interest among reviewers on its panels, and it is not permitted to use cost-effectiveness in its approval process. Health care industries collectively spent $489 million on lobbying in 2014, about one-half of which was spent by the drug industry in its ongoing effort to gain more rapid FDA approval based on weaker evidence. (11) As just one example, the FDA allowed expanded marketing of off-label cancer drugs in 2009 despite the lack of clinical evidence of their effectiveness. (12)

These problems can be fixed when we come to understand their adverse impacts on patients, families and taxpayers, develop the political will to confront the power of corporate interests in the status quo, and enact legislation for universal access through single-payer national health insurance, together with a stronger science-based regulatory system free from lobbying and political interference.

John Geyman, M.D. is the author of The Human Face of ObamaCare: Promises vs. Reality and What Comes Next and How Obamacare is Unsustainable: Why We Need a Single-Payer Solution For All Americans

Visit: http://www.johngeymanmd.org

*References: *

1. Fisher, ES, Welch, HG. Avoiding the unintended consequences of growth in medical care: How might more be worse? JAMA 281: 446-453, 1999.

2. Thomas, L. The Lives of a Cell: Notes from a Biology Watcher. New York. Bantam Books, 1975.

3. Brenner, DJ, Hall, EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357: 2277-2285, 2007.

4. Jensen, MC, Brant-Zaawadzki, MN, Obuchowski, N et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med 331: 669-673, 1994.

5. Alemzadeh, H, Iyer, RK, Kalbarczyk, Z et al. Adverse events in robotic surgery; a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. Cornell University Library, July 21, 2015.

6. Thompson, D. FDA warns against procedure for uterine fibroids, hysterectomy. CBS News, April 18, 2014.

7. U. S. health system ranks last among eleven countries on measures of access, equity, quality, efficiency and healthy lives. New York. The Commonwealth Fund, June 16, 2014.

8. Perry, S. The brief life of the National Center for Health Care Technology. N Engl J Med 307: 1095-1100, 1982.

9. Mervis, J. Technology assessment faces ax. Science 266: 1636, 1994.

10. Leary, RL. Congress's science agency prepares to close its doors. New York Times, September 24, 1995.

11. Demko, P. Healthcare's hired hands: When the stakes rise in Washington, healthcare interests seek well-connected lobbying firms. Modern Healthcare, October 6, 2014.

Abelson, R, Pollack, A. Medicare widens drugs it accepts for cancer care: More off-label uses. New York Times, January 27, 2009.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 10 minutes ago.

Dear Carrie,
I'm 55 years old and trying to be smart about planning for my retirement years. What I'm struggling with is whether buying long-term care insurance makes sense. What do you think--is it a smart move, or just a waste of money?

--A Reader

Dear Reader,

The value of long-term care insurance (LTCI) is an ongoing conundrum. There's no doubt we're living longer. And according to LongTermCare.gov, a site provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, at least 70 percent of people 65 and older will need long-term care services and support at some time in their lives.

A major concern is that LTCI is expensive, but then again so are the costs of long-term care. Some stats from the Genworth Financial 2016 Cost of Care study (1) are pretty sobering. For instance, the current median annual cost for assisted living is $43,539; for a private room in a nursing home, it's $92,378. Costs vary across the country--in California, that same private room costs $112,055, and in Tennessee, $75,716. But wherever you live, I believe there's one constant: Costs are only going to go up.

Another concern is that there's no way to accurately predict whether you'll need long-term care. A lot depends on your own health and family history. However, to me, planning for the eventuality is key.

This was brought home recently by a colleague who shared her story. Neither of her parents had LTCI and both needed to be in a nursing home. Her parents had assumed they could live with one of their four children, if necessary. But when the time came, due to divorce and illness, none of the kids were in a position to take them in. As you can imagine, it was a challenging situation for the entire family both emotionally and financially. Stories like this only underscore the need to consider LTCI as part of your financial planning process.

*Consider all your options for covering the cost*

Many people don't realize that Medicare and other types of health insurance don't cover most of the cost of long-term care--what insurers call the "activities of daily living" such as bathing, dressing, eating, using the bathroom, and moving. Medicare will only pay for medically necessary skilled nursing and home care, such as giving shots and changing dressings, not assisted-living costs like bathing and eating. Supplemental insurance policies generally don't pay for this type of care either.

*So what are your options?*
· If you have family to care for you, that might minimize your need for LTCI (realizing, of course, that providing this type of on-going, hands-on care can be a huge task for anyone).· Paying for care out-of-pocket may be an option, if you have considerable assets.· At the other extreme, people with a low net worth might qualify for long-term care provided under Medicaid.
However, if none of the above fits you, LTCI could be a worthwhile choice--as long as you do your homework.

*Be sure to comparison shop*

LTCI can cover a wide range of services, from home health care and nursing services to adult day care. But not all policies are equal, so it's very important to comparison shop.

Start by checking the quality of the insurer: financial strength rating and length of time in business. Moody's Investor Service, Standard and Poor's, and A.M. Best are all reliable rating services.

Then, review the terms of the policy to make sure you understand:· What's covered: Skilled nursing, custodial care, assisted living?· Whether Alzheimer's disease is covered since this is a leading reason for needing long-term care· Limitations on pre-existing conditions· Maximum payouts and whether payments are adjusted for inflation· Lag time until benefits kick in· How long benefits will last· Whether there is a waiver of premium benefit, which suspends premiums when you are collecting long-term care benefits· Whether there is a non-forfeiture benefit, which offers limited coverage even if you cancel the policy· Whether the current premiums are guaranteed in future years, or if there are constraints on future increases· How many times rates have increased in the past 10 years
If you buy a group policy through an employer, find out if it's portable, meaning whether you can take it with you if you change jobs.

*Buy early--but not too early*
LTCI can protect your retirement assets down the road, but you also need to consider the cost of premiums now--and in the future.

Generally speaking, age 50 to 65 is the most cost-effective time to buy LTCI if you're in good health. The younger you buy, the lower the cost--but you will be paying premiums for a longer period of time. On the flip side, premiums tend to go up the older and less healthy you are, and there's a chance you'll be denied coverage if your health deteriorates. So, while it's not inexpensive, buying LTCI sooner rather than later may be the smartest move.

Since you're in the prime age group, I suggest you do some further research. AARP.com and LongTermCare.gov are both good resources. Then, talk to your financial advisor.
Buying a policy now could be a smart way to protect yourself, your assets, and your family in case of a long illness. Just make sure you exercise a healthy dose of due diligence before you buy.

(1) Genworth 2016 Cost of Care Survey, conducted by CareScout®, April 2016

*For more updates, follow Carrie on LinkedIn and Twitter.*

Looking for answers to your retirement questions? Check out Carrie's new book, "The Charles Schwab Guide to Finances After Fifty: Answers to Your Most Important Money Questions."

This article originally appeared on Schwab.com. You can e-mail Carrie at askcarrie@schwab.com, or click here for additional Ask Carrie columns. This column is no substitute for an individualized recommendation, tax, legal or personalized investment advice. Asset allocation and diversification cannot ensure a profit or eliminate the risk of investment losses. Where specific advice is necessary or appropriate, consult with a qualified tax advisor, CPA, financial planner or investment manager. Diversification cannot ensure a profit or eliminate the risk of investment losses.

The information on this website is for educational purposes only. It is not intended to be a substitute for specific individualized tax, legal or investment planning advice. Where specific advice is necessary or appropriate, consult with a qualified tax advisor, CPA, financial planner or investment manager.COPYRIGHT 2016 CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC. (MEMBER SIPC.) (#0716-2632)

-- 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 22 hours ago.

*PHILADELPHIA*--While the media--and Democratic party leaders--obsess about whether Debbie Wasserman Schultz should be allowed to "gavel in" the Democratic National Convention here today, hundreds of doctors and dentists are returning to their day jobs after spending three days a few miles from where I grew up treating patients--human patients--in animal stalls.

Frankly, I suspect the Democrats would rather deal with the Wasserman Schultz debacle than acknowledge that the Affordable Care Act, which will be praised many times this week, justifiably to a large extent, nevertheless falls so far short of making care either accessible or affordable to millions of Americans that many are willing to suffer the indignity of being examined in a place where just a few weeks earlier people had come to see which cows and pigs would win blue ribbons.

So where was this place? The Wise County, Virginia fairgrounds. In the southwest corner of the state that one of the stars of the Democrat's convention, Tim Kaine, represents in the United States Senate.

It's too bad that Kaine, who became Hillary Clinton's running mate just hours after the 17th annual Remote Area Medical clinic at the Wise Country, Va., fairgrounds got underway, couldn't change his and Clinton's campaign schedule to be able to shake hands with folks waiting to get care they couldn't otherwise afford. It's also too bad that other politicians, regardless of party affiliation, didn't make it to Wise. If they had, they would have seen firsthand why Obamacare, for all the good it has done for many Americans, hasn't done nearly enough for many others, especially in states like Virginia that haven't yet expanded Medicaid to cover more low-income families.

If they had visited Wise County, Clinton and Kaine would have come face to face with the men, women and children who have fallen through the cracks of our still badly broken health care system. They would have witnessed people standing in long lines for hours on end, in sweltering heat and humidity and occasionally in the rain, hoping to spend a few minutes with a doctor or dentist. And the candidates probably would have been as horrified as I was a few years ago to see that many of those lines led to animal stalls that volunteers had cleaned as much as possible so they could be used as makeshift examining rooms.

It was at the 2007 RAM clinic in Wise that I had what I have described as a Road to Damascus experience. That was three years before Obamacare was signed into law, and I was still head of corporate communications for one of the country's biggest health insurance companies. I had flown back home to visit family, and while I was there I read a story in my hometown paper about the nearby RAM clinic, which annually attracts growing crowds of people seeking care.

The article said many of those folks would be driving from as far away as Ohio and South Carolina, and that many of them would be sleeping overnight in their cars and trucks in the fairgrounds' parking lot. I was intrigued enough to go check it out, a spur-of-the-moment decision that would change the course of my life.

When I walked through the fairgrounds' entrance on that Saturday morning nine years ago, I realized right away that I was partly responsible for the stunning scene before me. I was being paid well to help perpetuate the myth that the United States has the world's best health care system and that the problem of the uninsured wasn't such a big deal, that many of the 50 million who were uninsured at the time were simply shirking their responsibility to buy health insurance.

What I came to realize was that the vast majority of the people lined up for care that day were either unable to afford the coverage my company and others were selling or they'd been blackballed by insurers because of a pre-existing condition. The folks who had been sick in the past, or been born with a congenital disease or affliction, couldn't buy coverage at any price.

I also learned that many of the people there actually had insurance. They were paying premiums every month but were in plans with such high deductibles they couldn't afford to use their benefits. They didn't have the money to pay for care out of their own pockets until their insurance would kick in. (Today, six years after Obamacare became law, growing numbers of Americans find themselves in the same outrageous situation because insurers continue to implement their years-long strategy of moving all of us into high deductible plans.)

Here's something else I learned that day at in Wise: about 70 percent of those folks who come to that pop-up clinic every year come primarily for dental care. Many others come primarily to have their eyes examined and to get glasses. If anything, the percentage of people seeking dental and vision care has gone up in recent years because Obamacare does little to improve access to either. And the reason many of the people waiting in those lines were senior citizens is because Medicare doesn't cover dental and vision care. Far more Americans lack dental and vision benefits than lack medical insurance.

(That said, Obamacare made much-needed changes in the ways insurance companies do business. Insurers can no longer declare people uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions, and they can't charge people more because of gender or health status. They also can't cancel people's policies when they get sick just to avoid paying for expensive medical care.)

A few months after my first trip to RAM's Wise County clinic, I quit my insurance job and ultimate because an advocate for fixing America's absurdly--and inhumanely--dysfunctional health care system.

Even though Kaine and Clinton were no-shows at this year's Wise County clinic, Kaine knows a lot about it (as does Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, who did attend for the second year in a row). In fact, to his credit, Kaine and his wife have volunteered at previous RAM clinics. His familiarity with them undoubtedly is one of the reasons, as Modern Healthcare, a trade publication, reported Friday, Kaine has been a strong proponent of improving and expanding Obamacare, which he voted for in 2010.

The article noted that Kaine has sponsored several bills "to fix gaps and glitches in the ACA and to encourage more states (including his own) to extend Medicaid to low-income adults." None of those bills, unfortunately, have been approved by the Republican-controlled Congress, which has voted more than 50 times to repeal Obamacare.

I can't thank Remote Area Medical enough, not only for all the good it does--over the past 31 years, RAM's corps of more than 100,000 volunteers have delivered $102 million worth of free health care services to 650,000 men, women, and children--but also for the role it played in changing the course of my life. And I'm encouraged that the man who might be our next vice president--even though he didn't make it to Wise this year--has a proven record of trying to make care in this country truly affordable and truly accessible.

Bernie Sanders also knows about Remote Area Medical. In fact, he invited its founder, Stan Brock, to testify at a Senate hearing a few years ago. Undoubtedly Brock's testimony made Sanders more determined than ever to push for an improved Medicare-for-all type of system.

It's just too bad that Sanders, Clinton and Kaine didn't make it a priority to visit Wise County before heading to Philly. If they had, the politicians and pundits would have a real and continuing crisis to talk about. Not the relatively inconsequential one about Debbie Wasserman Shultz' political future.

-- 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 18 hours ago.

Another week, and more concerns about the Italian banking system. A reminder: Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS), the world's oldest bank founded in 1472, has an estimated $55 billion in bad loans on its books and is expected to be among the worst performers in European banking stress tests next week. Shares in the 544-year old bank, the third-largest in Italy by assets, are trading at 8% of book value. Italian officials have been pushing for government assistance to help bail out the bank, but E.U. banking rules require private investors to be wiped out first before there is public assistance. Some private investors are sophisticated institutional investors who were aware of risks, but about half of Monte dei Paschi's 5 billion euros in outstanding junior bonds are believed to be in the hands of Italian households.

Earlier this year, concerns about capital levels prompted Portuguese lender Novo Banco SA to wipe out some two billion euros worth of junior bonds, while Deutsche Bank's uncertainty over its willingness to make optional interest payments on its so-called contingent-convertible (CoCo) bonds raised concerns about its ability to meet obligations on less risky bonds. A backstop fund or private sector solution has been floated by the Italian government to buy bad loans from Monte de Paschi, which are legal within the E.U. framework, but the sheer magnitude of sour debt and destruction of MPS' equity valuation is making such deals hard to consummate. Getting money from non-performing loans in Italy is also no easy task due to the glacial pace of legal processes in the country. If no deal is reached with the E.U. allowing the government to absorb bad debt, it could lead to a run on Italian bank deposits and a full-blown banking crisis.

By July 29, E.U. banking officials are likely to demand an emergency infusion of capital for Monte dei Paschi, which cannot take place without wiping out individual savers. The move would be politically unpopular and the likely nail in the coffin for youthful Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. In the words of a high-ranking Italian official, if Matteo Renzi, known as the "Demolition Man" within Italian politics, penalizes MPS, "he is politically dead an hour later."

This fall's referendum on constitutional reforms would be the formal mechanism by which the Italian people would remove Renzi from power, with the nationalist Five-Star Movement waiting in the wings after winning local elections in Rome and Turin. Five-Star Movement's populist leader, comedian Beppe Grillo, this week likened the Greek bailout to "explicit Nazism," calling for a nationalization of Italian banks and exit from the euro. Given what's at stake in the rescue of Monte dei Paschi, Renzi's greatest hope is that E.U. officials allow for a compromise in order to save the E.U. from further unraveling. The negotiations ultimately amount to a high-stakes game of chicken. Get your popcorn ready.

*SoftBank-Arm Deal Leads M&A Wave*

Deals, deals, deals. Despite growing uncertainty in the global economy, this week brought a wave of merger and acquisition (M&A) activity. Let's start with the big one:

Japanese private equity giant SoftBank agreed to buy U.K. chip designer ARM in a $32 billion cash deal representing a 43% premium over ARM's most recent closing price. The acquisition is SoftBank's largest ever investment, giving it control of a company that designs around 95% of microprocessors powering the world's smartphones. Private equity firms rarely move so far upstream, but the deal indicates a renewed focus from SoftBank on creating a vertically-integrated technology firm capable of reducing lead time in new innovative projects. Because ARM only designs and licenses its microprocessor intellectual property (outsourcing the production of the chips to the companies using them) it carries a small debt load and is viewed as being very nimble.

The deal is seen primarily as a bold bet by Chief Executive Masayoshi Son on the so-called "Internet of Things." More immediately, gaining control of ARM could help SoftBank accelerate its robotics ventures. SoftBank has a robot called Pepper that uses artificial intelligence to read and respond to human emotions, potentially allowing it to replace many human job functions. At the Nikkei Asian Review last month, SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son said, "I think we are about to see the biggest paradigm shift in human history. The Singularity is coming. Artificial intelligence will overtake human beings not just in terms of knowledge, but in terms of intelligence. That will happen this century."

SoftBank shares fell 10% on the deal, which was also viewed simultaneously as a lamentable consequence of Brexit and vote of confidence for the U.K. corporate sector. The ARM deal came together quickly in the two weeks following the referendum, but with ARM shares higher than they were prior to the vote, SoftBank didn't get much of a discount. However, the hasty completion of the acquisition could also be a harbinger of bargain hunting that could take place due to the cheaper pound, which has fallen more than 10% versus the dollar and 21% against the yen in the last month.

The deal will also be viewed as a blow to Intel and Qualcomm in the microprocessor wars. Because of their massive importance to all technology systems, microprocessors are viewed as a national security imperative. China has earmarked $10 billion for microprocessor research and development. While SoftBank is a Japanese company best known for owning Yahoo! Japan and Sprint, it's also a major player in China's internet economy, controlling nearly a third of Alibaba, which itself invests heavily in other Chinese internet companies like Weibo. And who knows, maybe the Chinese government could even end up as the eventual buyer of ARM in a few years, speculates SouthBay Research.

The SoftBank-ARM marriage wasn't the only piece of M&A news this week. Unilever agreed to buy Dollar Shave Club for $1 billion in an escalation of its battle against Proctor & Gamble's Gillette. Dollar Shave Club's success in eating into Gillette's market share is the latest example of how e-commerce has leveled the playing field for new entrants.

Other prospective deals met opposing fates this week, with the AB InBev-SAB Miller merger getting the blessing of regulators, while U.S. anti-trust officials moved to block unprecedented consolidation in the national health insurance market. Anthem's (ANTM) proposed purchase of Cigna (CI) and Aetna's (AET) proposed takeover of Humana (HUM) would reduce competition, raise prices and stifle innovation for U.S. consumers, said the U.S. Department of Justice in its anti-trust lawsuit filing.

Finally, on Friday news broke that Yahoo! (YHOO) was in exclusive negotiations with Verizon (VZ) to sell its core business for around $5 billion. While Yahoo! had several earnest bidders for around the same figure, Verizon is seen as a good long-term home for Yahoo!'s once-proud content operation as the latter tries to create a vertically integrated media and the telecommunications company. AOL CEO Tim Armstrong in particular is seen as the ideal candidate to restore Yahoo!'s former glory.

*Brexit Weighs on U.S. Economy*

The first major signs of distress have hit the U.K. economy following Brexit as the kingdom's Markit composite purchasing managers index (PMI) fell to 47.7, an 87-month low. The contraction in economic activity was the result of order cancellations and investment project postponements amid currency volatility and uncertainty over the U.K.'s ongoing relationship with the E.U. The figure represented the sharpest slowdown in the U.K. economy since April 2009. Export-related statistics usually offer some lag, so the full effect of Brexit may not be felt for months.

In the U.K. real estate market, Brexit has triggered a dramatic increase in asking-price reductions. The number of price cuts surged by 163% in the 12 days following the referendum compared with the 12 days beforehand, according to research firm LonRes. Sales of London homes under construction also fell 34%.

The rise in economic pain and anxiety is not limited to the U.K., though. German investor confidence fell to a four-year low on Brexit fears, while Euro-area consumer confidence also declined.

Brexit has caused the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to trim its growth forecasts for 2016 and 2017, while Ireland could be facing its biggest foreign crisis in 50 years because of its close economic ties with Britain.

Meanwhile, Deutsche Bank has educated guesses on where all those London bank jobs could be heading.

*Wall Street Cost-Cutting Boosts Profits*

Q2 earnings season is off and running, with corporate profits expected to shrink for the fourth consecutive quarter.

Goldman Sachs (GS) this week reported Q2 profits soared on strong bond trading results. Despite a "challenging backdrop" for revenue, cost-cutting measures boosted the firm's profits by 78%. Expense reduction has been a common theme for banks this year. Bank of America (BAC) also topped earnings estimates despite seeing profits shrink from the year ago period, and has promised to cut another $5 billion in costs by 2018 in response to the persistently low interest rate environment. Morgan Stanley also topped profit estimates on bond trading gains despite an overall drop in revenue. BBVA, Spain's second-largest bank, announced plans to eliminate 2,000 jobs or more. Running out of jobs to cut, many banks are now also cutting executive pay.

Within tech, Microsoft earnings beat expectations as CEO Satya Nadella's turnaround continues to take hold. The company is becoming a serious force in the cloud, while its Bing search engine is no longer a complete joke.

*The American Economic Exception*

While Europe has seen a dramatic decline in sentiment, the U.S. economy keeps plugging along. A lackluster housing market has begun to show signs of life, with existing home sales hitting their highest level since 2007 on Thursday. New home construction also rebounded in June, with J.P. Morgan pointing out an uptick in the build out of single-family homes versus apartments is reflective of Americans' increasing wherewithal to buy rather than rent.

The resurgence in real estate prices has, however, prompted many to wonder whether low interest rates could be cultivating another housing bubble. In the U.S., some observers contend U.S. real estate is not overheating, but is merely an expensive market, while on the other hand in places like Canada, Australia and Sweden, extraordinarily low rates could be giving rise to housing bubbles.

The U.S. has so far been relatively impervious to pain from Brexit, causing Federal Reserve officials to gain confidence they can raise rates this year, although the market still believes there is less of a 50% chance of monetary tightening by year-end. Short-term Treasury yields have rebounded but remain in a historically low range, with the yield curve showing few signs of steepening materially. Tim Duy, a University of Oregon professor and noted Fed expert, believes the Fed can't and shouldn't raise interest rates.

Global central banks, meanwhile, are eyeing moves in the opposite direction. New U.K. finance minister Philip Hammond urged the Bank of England (BOE) to take the first steps to steer the British economy through its Brexit shock, while European Central Bank (ECB) President Mario Draghi hinted he may boost stimulus later this year. With the Nikkei strengthening markedly over the past month, Japanese policy officials are also more likely to double down on dovish "Abenomics."

-- 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 20 hours ago.