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

NAIRO Announces Fall Conference on Health Insurance Regulatory & Industry Trends

$
0
0
National Thought Leaders to Address Key Issues Impacting Appeals & Medical Reviews

Washington, D.C. (PRWEB) August 31, 2016

The National Association of Independent Review Organizations (NAIRO) is hosting its annual conference entitled "Regulatory & Industry Trends Impacting Health Insurance, Appeals & Medical Reviews" is a day-long conference scheduled to take place on October 12, 2016 in Washington, DC.

The interactive symposium will examine key regulatory, legal, industry, and employer trends related to the U.S. health insurance system as the country gets ready to elect a new President. The conference also will feature several sessions on current pressure points impacting the appeal and physician peer review system.

This is a “must attend” event for anyone interested in payer-based medical management transactions. Seats are limited to allow audience participation. To register for the conference, click here.

The conference will be offering a number of exciting and dynamic national health experts as speakers including:· Joy Wilson, Policy Director National Conference State Legislatures
· Michael Reisman, JD, Assistant Attorney General, Health Care Bureau, NY Attorney General’s Office
· Amber Rivers, Deputy Director, Division of Compliance Assistance and Guidance, U.S.
· Eliot Siegel, MD Professor, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Chief Technology Officer, RadSite and former IBM Watson Medical Director
· Carol McDaid, Principle, Capitol Decisions, Inc.
· Michael Thompson, President & CEO, National Business Group on Health
· Meriam Bendat, JD, PhD Founder, PsychAppeals
· Brad Lerner, JD, Associate General Counsel and Director of Parity Compliance, Beacon Health Options, Inc.
· Garry Carneal, JD, Senior Policy Advisor, The Kennedy Forum and co-founder, RegQuest

Julie O’Brien, RN, BSN, MS, NAIRO President, notes that “many federal and state regulatory protections have been adopted in recent years to promote the integrity of how health plans and others entities make insurance coverage determinations. However, for most Americans, providers, and even the industry itself, the appeal process and supporting regulatory framework remains confusing. The conference goes a long way in providing important updates on how the appeals system is working and what needs to be done to improve the process, along with other current industry, legal and regulatory trends.”

To register for the conference and review the program, click here. The registration fee before October 1, 2016 is $249. After October 1 and onsite, the registration fee is $349. NAIRO Members can register on a complimentary basis.

For additional information about the conference, please feel free to contact NAIRO at Julieobrien(at)alicaremed(dot)com

####

About NAIRO (http://www.nairo.org): The National Association of Independent Review Organizations (NAIRO) is dedicated to protecting the integrity of the independent medical review process. NAIRO was formed by the majority of URAC-accredited independent review organizations (IRO). NAIRO is comprised of 32 members and is dedicated to protecting the integrity of the independent medical peer review processes. Utilizing the expertise of thousands of board-certified clinicians throughout the country, NAIRO members embrace an evidence-based approach to independent medical peer review, in order to help resolve coverage disputes between enrollees and their health plans. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.

Oregon loses a round in Oracle settlement suit

$
0
0
A judge has, for a second time, refused to dismiss Oracle America’s lawsuit seeking to enforce an alleged settlement of all litigation pertaining to the failed Cover Oregon health insurance website. That means the case could be heading to trial November 14, ahead of the main litigation over who was to blame for the technical issues that beset the IT project. Oracle contends Gov. Kate Brown’s former chief of staff entered into an oral agreement with an Oracle executive to settle the half dozen… Reported by bizjournals 18 hours ago.

5 things to know today, and is Sacramento a good place for freelancers?

$
0
0
Happy Wednesday, Sacramento. Apparently, today is Eat Outside Day. Watch out for the flies, and don't forget your headlines. Rejoice, local freelancers Here's another incentive to be your own boss. Sacramento is among the nation's top 10 places for freelancers, according to NerdWallet. The personal finance website evaluated income, living expenses, health insurance and cell phone coverage in the nation's 50 most populous places. Sacramento ranks No. 9 on the list. An excerpt: "Freelancers are likely… Reported by bizjournals 17 hours ago.

Mark Farrah Associates Provides Insights into the Individual Health Insurance Market

$
0
0
Mark Farrah Associates Provides Insights into the Individual Health Insurance Market MCMURRAY, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Mark Farrah Associates released an analysis brief providing insights into the current, uncertain state of the Individual segment and ACA Marketplace Exchange health insurance markets. Reported by Business Wire 17 hours ago.

Health Insurers Are Pulling Out of Exchanges

$
0
0
As the election of 2016 draws closer, it is not surprising that more and more articles relating to the Affordable Act of 2010 (ACA) are appearing on the front pages. If the republicans win the Presidency, they will probably move to repeal the ACA and start a process to replace it. If the democrats win, repeal will be off the table, but changes will still be inevitable. The most pressing of several contentious issues relates to several large insurers who are planning to pull out of the health care exchanges starting in 2017 unless premiums are allowed to go up significantly.

In Tennessee, my home state, Cigna and Humana have received permission to raise premiums by 46 and 44 percent, respectively. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, losing an estimated $500 million on the state's exchange by the end of 2016, has been given permission to raise premiums 62 percent for 2017.

Texas Blue Cross has lost a billion dollars on the state exchange and is requesting a 60 percent premium increase for 2017. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota has pulled out of that state's exchange as losses over the last three years are $500 million.

The average premium rise for plans being offered on the state exchanges will be 24 percent for 2017. The rates must rise to offset losses due to the risk profile of those buying insurance being much worse than originally expected.

Insurance companies were early supporters of the ACA. They envisioned millions of healthy people forced to buy health insurance with higher premiums mandated by the law. The higher premiums were meant to off-set the lower premiums being paid for those with pre-existing conditions. The lower premiums were, again, mandated by the law under the "community standard" provision.

What the insurers failed to properly predict were the millions of healthy people who elected to not buy insurance; instead paying the penalty (tax?) which was much lower than the premiums required. The insurers found themselves paying more for health care than they were receiving in premium income. Predictably, many insurers suffered significant financial losses; many have opted out of the health care business.

One of these large insurers, Aetna, has recently announced that it will pull out of 11 of the 15 states where it currently offers health insurance on the exchanges. This is following the lead of United Health Group which is also planning to withdraw from several exchanges in the same time-frame. If Aetna follows through on its plan, it will only offer exchange plans in 242 counties, down from the current level of 778. In those counties where it is pulling out, consumers will find there are fewer plans to choose from or, in some instances, no plans on the exchanges at all.

Aetna's decision to roll back on its coverage comes on the news that its planned merger with Humana is going to be blocked by the Justice Department. The Justice Department also has moved to block a similar merger contemplated by Anthem and Cigna. The Justice Department believes that consolidating the health insurance industry to just a few key companies will lead to monopolistic practices; there will be less competition and as a result, consumers will face higher costs.

If the consumer is unable to find a suitable plan on the exchange for their county, they have the option of buying their own health insurance from companies who are not participating in the exchanges. However, these buyers would not be eligible for premium and cost sharing supports which are only available for those who buy insurance on the exchanges. Medicaid would be an option but not for those whose income is too high to qualify.

It is foreseeable that state or federal regulators will try to convince some insurers to enter into the counties which have lost their carriers. They could do this by promising the approval of high premiums or perhaps, governmental subsidies to offset any potential losses. High premiums, no competition, and governmental subsidies would be a win for the carrier.

Under the ACA, many people have gained health care coverage through the loosening of restrictions on Medicaid. Many more have gained coverage through the exchanges. Those with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage due to the individual mandate of the law and those same people will not be charged higher premiums due to the community rating requirement. These are all good things.

Medicaid contractors, used to delivering lower cost care, are surviving.

The ability to buy health insurance at any time of the year is another factor leading to healthy people holding off on buying until they needed to be covered. These factors led to healthy people not buying insurance and those who need to use the insurance to buy it now. Not getting the premiums of the non-users has been a game changer for the insurers. Aetna has claimed $430 million in losses on individual products since January 2014.

Promised governmental subsidies to insurers are being blocked by the Congress that has not yet appropriated those funds; the funds are not likely to be appropriated so long as the House is under republican control. Seeing the political lines in the sand, the insurers are not relying on the promise of future funding while their losses continue to pile up.

In order to get the healthier patients to buy insurance, the penalties for not participating will have to be increased. To help off-set the rising costs that the insurers are seeing from the unhealthy patients who are now buying insurance, the premiums and deductibles will have to go up. There will need to be a time frame in which no one will be allowed to buy on the exchanges or apply for Medicaid; these steps are needed to get the healthier people to buy insurance now. These non-users of health care will be subsidizing those who are users but that is how insurance is supposed to work.

As the election draws closer, these rising costs are going to result in political consequences. The democrats passed the law and there was not a single republican vote in support. As the ACA is looking more and more like an entitlement, politics will make reforms more difficult, even unlikely. It will be interesting to see how the press handles this conflict. My guess is that little will be reported until after the election.

Darryl Weiman's website is www.medicalmalpracticeandthelaw.com

-- 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 16 hours ago.

Unresolved Contract Issues Loom Over Mahwah District Days Before School Starts

$
0
0
Unresolved Contract Issues Loom Over Mahwah District Days Before School Starts Patch Mahwah, NJ -- The Board of Education and union remain at odds regarding how much members should have to contribute to their health insurance benefits. Reported by Patch 14 hours ago.

Gen Z might be the hardest workers yet

$
0
0
Gen Z hasn't really entered the workforce yet, but they might give it a boost when they do. 

Today's teens — or the generation after millennials — seem to be more traditional in their workplace priorities and more focused on a job itself, rather than work-life balance,  according to a new survey from the jobs site Monster.

Gen Z's three most important priorities in any job are health insurance, a competitive salary and a boss they respect, the survey found.

Millennials instead value health insurance, paid time off and work-life balance. 

SEE ALSO: 3 Ways Companies Can Reach Generation Z

The youngsters also appear more motivated by money. Fifty-eight percent of Gen Z survey respondents were willing to work nights and weekends for a better salary, compared to 35 percent of millennials.  Read more...

More about Work Life Balance, Monster, Millennials, Gen Z, and Business Reported by Mashable 10 hours ago.

New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange taps interim CEO

$
0
0
Linda Wedeen, the senior communications and marketing director of the New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange (NMHIX) or beWellnm, will step in as interim CEO when Amy Dowd leaves the organization at the end of September. Earlier this month, NMHIX announced that Dowd was leaving the organization for a position with Molina Healthcare. In her new role as associate vice president of marketplace operations for Molina, Dowd will focus on marketplace enrollment and billing for the company. She is expected… Reported by bizjournals 9 hours ago.

Here's how WhatsApp could disrupt healthcare (FB)

$
0
0
Here's how WhatsApp could disrupt healthcare (FB) This story was delivered to BI Intelligence Apps and Platforms Briefing subscribers. To learn more and subscribe, please click here.

WhatsApp’s global cross-platform rollout of end-to-end encryption could incentivize more US doctors to use the messaging service to communicate with patients or colleagues, according to Cello Health Insight (cited by Fortune).

This could vastly improve the reach and speed of communication between doctors and patients.  

Just 4% of doctors in the US use the chat app to communicate with other doctors or patients. The low adoption rate is mostly out of concern about violating Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy regulations. In other markets where regulations aren't as severe, such as Brazil and China, the use of WhatsApp among doctors is much more prevalent. In Brazil, roughly 90% of doctors use the app to communicate with patients. There are more than 100 million WhatsApp users in Brazil, making the chat app a powerful tool for reaching patents.

The use of WhatsApp in healthcare makes sense for a number of reasons:

· *It’s a safe and secure communication portal. *End-to-end encryption makes it extremely difficult for anyone other than the participants of an interaction to gain access to message contents. In fact, the technology is “about one of the best safeguards you can have in place,” according to health data attorney Katie Kenney.
· *It’s everywhere.* The proliferation of WhatsApp, and chat apps in general, means it could vastly improve the reach of health warnings and the like. WhatsApp was integral in tracking the spreading of the recent Zika virus outbreak, Cello notes. Doctors used the service to share symptoms they were seeing, as well as babies’ CT scans.
· *It could save time. *Messaging allows doctors to maintain a patient’s overall health without needing to see them in person. This will help free up time otherwise taken by patients booking appointments simply to ask for advice or to check in.
· *It’s free, for now. *WhatsApp is free to download and does not charge users for access to any of its service. This could be a very appealing incentive to hospital administrators looking for a secure and easy mode of communication, expediting the adoption of the app within healthcare.

Nevertheless, there are still concerns over the genuine security that end-to-end encryption provides for data on the devices, Anurag Lal, CEO of enterprise messaging solutions companyInfinite Convergence told BI Intelligence. This means that while data being transferred between devices is safe, when it is at rest either on the device or on servers, there is no guarantee that the information is encrypted or secure. This could become a massive issue if hospital servers or even individual devices were hacked into or stolen.

Messaging apps such as WhatsApp have evolved beyond simple text communication tools to encompass commerce, file sharing, and more, and this healthcare application could be the next step in that evolution.

BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service, has compiled a detailed report on messaging apps that takes a close look at the size of the messaging app market, how these apps are changing, and the types of opportunities for monetization that have emerged from the growing audience that uses messaging services daily.

*Here are some of the key takeaways from the report:*

· Mobile messaging apps are massive. The largest services have hundreds of millions of monthly active users (MAU). Falling data prices, cheaper devices, and improved features are helping propel their growth.
· Messaging apps are about more than messaging. The first stage of the chat app revolution was focused on growth. In the next phase, companies will focus on building out services and monetizing chat apps’ massive user base.
· Popular Asian messaging apps like WeChat, KakaoTalk, and LINE have taken the lead in finding innovative ways to keep users engaged. They’ve also built successful strategies for monetizing their services.
· Media companies, and marketers are still investing more time and resources into social networks like Facebook and Twitter than they are into messaging services. That will change as messaging companies build out their services and provide more avenues for connecting brands, publishers, and advertisers with users.

*In full, this report:*

· Gives a high-level overview of the messaging market in the US by comparing total monthly active users for the top chat apps.
· Examines the user behavior of chat app users, specifically what makes them so attractive to brands, publishers, and advertisers.
· Identifies what distinguishes chat apps in the West from their counterparts in the East.
· Discusses the potentially lucrative avenues companies are pursuing to monetize their services.
· Offers key insights and implications for marketers as they consider interacting with users through these new platforms.

To get your copy of this invaluable guide, choose one of these options:

1. Subscribe to an ALL-ACCESS Membership with BI Intelligence and gain immediate access to this report AND over 100 other expertly researched deep-dive reports, subscriptions to all of our 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 future of messaging apps.

Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 7 hours ago.

The Two-Party Hamster Wheel Makes a Mockery of Democracy: The Need for Expanded Electoral Options, Open Presidential Debates & Approval Voting

$
0
0
*Current politics is not "Capitalist vs. Socialist," but rather, "Corporatist vs. the People"*

A Republican delegate at the Cleveland Party Convention drew a contrast between Republicans and Democrats, describing "Capitalists" vs. "Socialists." In fact, it is the Corporatists vs. the People that have spawned the huge gulf of wealth disparity and the takedown of democracy. The two major U.S. political parties represent two aspects of the corporatist state. Whether Republicans or Democrats predominate, wealthy elites rule and the financial-medical-military-fossil-fuel-industrial complexes prevail, effectively defining down democracy, the middle class, education, health care - all in service of the huge upward transfer of wealth and power.

No surprise, a 2014 Princeton study attests to the U.S. transformation over several decades from a democracy into an oligarchy, with elites steering the direction of the country regardless of the will of the majority of voters. Researchers cite data since the 1980s demonstrating a trend toward substantial impacts on government policy by prevailing economic elites and business interests, while citizens/groups have had little or no influence.

*The two major political parties reinforce establishment power, not power of the people*

Each of the two major political parties holds as its primary purpose the perpetuation of its own power, enabled by endless campaign cash. The U.S. political system is largely unrepresentative of the electorate by design. Parties act to benefit themselves at the polls - e.g., supporting open primaries or closed primaries in different states, depending which enhances their control over elections. Manipulation of electoral districts and election laws by the parties are designed to tilt competition to one party or another, even as they override individual voting rights.

The two-party stranglehold places the country in a race to the bottom, serving interests of the wealthiest, betraying democracy and holding hostage the common good of the people. The "red vs. blue" narrative greatly restricts people's choices and limits dialogue around issues.

Following 16 years as an Oklahoma Republican congressman Rep. Mickey Edwards described the political parties as the "cancer at the heart of our democracy." He describes how parties so dominate the process that party leaders control who runs for office, what bills make it to the floor, selection of committee chairs and how lawmakers vote, all with an eye to perpetuating a party's power, rather than the interests of the electorate. Power of a political party reinforced by big money becomes more sacrosanct than democracy. Even choice of candidates is dictated by power and money that serves corporate/party goals. The singular goal, describes Edwards, is "to be true to my party" and "defeat the other party."

*DNC Election Interventions*

Even before hacked emails confirmed such intervention, it was no secret that the Democratic National Committee has often intervened on behalf of the party establishment's preferred candidate. The party actively promoted Hillary Clinton before the caucuses/primaries, even as two other candidates vied for the nomination, and a third person's attempted run was bulldozed.

Democratic presidential candidate and former governor of Maryland Martin O'Malley told the Democratic National Committee's 2015 annual summer meeting that the party's process for nominating a candidate for the 2016 presidential election was "rigged" in favor of Hillary Clinton. He noted the committee had scheduled just four debates before the first primary vote in Iowa, just six debates total, most scheduled opposite football games or during the Christmas holiday season when they were least likely to be viewed.

In November 2015 Lawrence Lessig abruptly ended his presidential bid when the Democratic Party changed the rules after he initially met their terms to participate in the Nov. 14 Iowa Democratic primary debate. Lessig achieved the party requisite one percent in three polls during the six weeks prior to the debate, only to have the Party move the goal posts, changing the qualifying deadline to the beginning of October. Consequently, Lessig was denied his chance to participate in any candidate debate, and to advance his single platform item - the Citizen Equality Act of 2017 designed to implement campaign finance reform, ban gerrymandering and expand voting access.

Coincidentally, then-governor and current VP candidate Tim Kaine was chair of the Democratic National Committee in 2010 when the DNC intervened in the Colorado Senate Primary (How the DNC Sandbagged the Colorado Senate Primary). President Obama assumed a prominent role in the Colorado state primary, with an immediate endorsement, money-raising, robo calls, mailers, TV spots, and the enlisting of cabinet members to campaign for the establishment's chosen candidate, Michael Bennet. The president's former campaign group Obama for America (OFA) transitioned from base of the Obama campaign to Organizing for America, described as an adjunct of the DNC. In Colorado DNC efforts more than doubled Bennet's $6 million campaign investment, giving him a 6:1 financial advantage over alternate candidate Andrew Romanoff. Then-state senator and Bennet supporter Chris Romer justified the Obama and DNC interventions, asserting that Obama would be more affected by the outcome of the election than Coloradans, and therefore, the White House had "every right" to get involved in the senate primary.

*Washington Politics: "The art of posturing as a populist while catering to plutocrats"*

In recent history, Republicans have largely represented the party of oligarchs, fundamentalist Christian nationalists and white male supremacists backed by a right-makes-right gun culture. Corporatists advance exclusionary policies that serve the few, while eschewing the common good and accelerating a race to the bottom for the many. The 2016 Republican presidential candidate can be viewed as the culmination of the Republican party's downward spiral to the lowest common denominator of incivility, racism, incoherence and demagoguery.

The Democratic party that once represented working people has over several decades become an echo of Republicans' corporatist narrative, and Democrats have been complicit in rigging the economy for those at the top while undermining the working class. The party has too often been AWOL as corporations pummeled trade unions, Wall St. gambling was unleashed by repeal of Glass-Steagall and rewarded by bailouts, as many lost homes to reckless bank speculation, and "free-trade" NAFTA-like deals increased trade deficits, exported jobs and transferred evermore power to corporate elites - much occurring during Bill Clinton's term. The 1994 crime bill, recently regretted by Bill Clinton, exploded the U.S. prison population to the largest worldwide, its mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offenses leading to disproportionate incarceration of minorities. The transfer of billions of dollars from public housing to the prison system in the '90s also contributed to an explosion of private for-profit prisons.

*Democratic candidates often run as progressives and govern as corporatists.*

Political posturing in 2008 saw primary candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton each accusing the other of supporting NAFTA. Each vowed they would renegotiate or opt out of NAFTA, citing flaws with its labor and environmental provisions. Candidate Obama declared opposition to trade deals that "put the interests of multinational corporations ahead of interests of workers," and stated concern for protections for labor, environmental and consumer safety.

Fast forward to 2015 and President Obama has doubled down to promote the ultimate assault on democracy, jobs, food safety and national sovereignty - the corporate power grab known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade treaty, also referred to as "NAFTA on steroids". Even as Pres. Obama campaigns for Hillary Clinton, effectively seeking a third term for himself, he blatantly promotes lame-duck passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. So confident is party leadership that they do not have to pay heed to the people, that immediately after speaking at the Democratic Party Convention, Virginia Gov. Terry McAullife, expressed confidence that Clinton would reverse her position to support the TPP after the election.

Clinton reportedly garnered more than $2.5 million for speeches made to groups lobbying to fast track the TPP, and millions more speaking to corporations and special interests who were actively lobbying Congress. Hillary Clinton's State Department was reported to approve almost twice as many arms sales to nations as George W. Bush's State Department in his second term. Twenty of those nations, among them Middle Eastern nations including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, also contributed to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family.

Hillary delegates to the DNC rejected a platform plank opposing the TPP ostensibly because they did not want to "embarrass" President Obama. Convention attendees reported that one of the signs confiscated from delegates entering the convention read "no Oligarchs" - "Oligarchs" with a superimposed red circle & slash mark - because, one certainly wouldn't want to embarrass the oligarchs.

Bipartisan corporatists have required that health care reform be structured around for-profit health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. The Affordable Care Act was modeled on a Republican plan for industry-centered health care reform. Serving industries' bottom line, bipartisan legislative efforts continue to make it illegal for Medicare to negotiate bulk drug rates, as the Veterans Administration has done for years.

Democratic leadership has too often been willing to deal away Medicare and Social Security as bargaining chips. In response to a manufactured deficit ceiling crisis in 2011, President Obama made deficit crisis a primary focus of his 2010 State of the Union address, subsequently offering a "grand bargain" of spending cuts (including Medicare and Social Security) at the expense of working people, while refusing to veto extension of Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%.

Language of "entitlement" is manipulated to serve various political agendas. Health care, Social Security, Medicare and civil service pensions have been targeted as "entitlements" by Republicans and Democrats alike, though working people are financially invested in all of these.

*Two-Party Control of Presidential Debates*

Corporate media cover presidential elections like a 2-horse race, reinforcing the two-party stranglehold, while excluding independents and third parties. The two-party duopoly and their corporate backers ultimately determine which candidates will be included in presidential debates.

Associate professor of journalism and former TV journalist Jeff Cohen writes that "the standard that does justice to real democracy is that any candidate who is on enough ballots to achieve 270 electoral college votes should be included in the [presidential] debates." There are very few independent parties or candidates who make it onto enough ballots to achieve the potential of 270 electoral college votes. However, in 2016 he notes, there are four campaigns who have done so, including the Green and Libertarian candidates.

From 1976 through 1984, presidential and vice-presidential debates were sponsored and run by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters. In 1980, the League insisted on allowing independent candidate John Anderson to debate. Ronald Reagan agreed, Jimmy Carter did not, so Reagan debated Anderson without Carter's participation.

In 1985 the national chairs of the Democratic and Republican parties, Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf, signed an agreement designating that future televised presidential/vice presidential debates take place between the two major political parties - that such "joint appearances be principally and jointly sponsored and conducted by the Republican and Democratic Committees." In 1987 the two party chairs announced the formation of the "bipartisan" Commission on Presidential Debates, designed to advance the joint will of the two parties, with themselves as co-chairs.

Kirk and Fahrenkopf Jr. declared the newly formed commission would ''institutionalize'' the debates and strengthen the role of the two political parties in the electoral process. The New York Times quoted Fahrenkopf saying the CPD was "not likely to to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates." Mr. Kirk declared that third party candidates should be excluded, stating "As a party chairman, it's my responsibility to strengthen the two-party system."

In 1988 the League of Women Voters withdrew from its role as debate sponsor because demands of the two campaign organizations "would perpetuate a fraud on the American voter." The League declared the debates had become a charade "devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

After nearly three decades, the two CPD co-creators remain its co-chairs. Both have been long-time high-powered corporate lobbyists, engaging with corporations that have funded the commission, including oil and gas, insurance, pharmaceutical and Wall St.

Through seven presidential elections, major TV networks have bowed to the two-party hegemony that holds hostage the American people and maintains a vice-like grip on the electoral process and presidential debates. An obsequious media have abandoned their journalistic role, acceding to the major-party control of debates, including format, content, moderators, and efforts to freeze out independent and third-party candidates. Only in 1992 did the CPD allow participation by a person outside the two political parties. Billionaire Ross Perot was permitted on stage only because each of the two parties thought they would benefit in some way by his inclusion, at a time when Perot only had 7 to 9 percent support in the polls.

In 2000, majorities of the voting public expressed the will to see Patrick Buchanan and Ralph Nader included in a four-way presidential debate. Nevertheless, the CPD had erected a new barrier, specifying that to participate in the debates, a candidate had to be polling at 15 percent.

In 2016, the CPD has raised the bar yet again for participation by independent or third-party candidates, requiring that candidates poll at 15 percent in five national surveys (of the CPD's choosing) before the three scheduled debates, and that "they garner enough spots on state ballots to chart a path to the White House." The CPD purposefully creates an electoral Catch-22: If you can't get in the debates, you will not be a legitimate candidate; if you're not a legitimate candidate, you can't get into the debates. Another catch-22: Most polling outlets only focus on the 2 major parties.

Hofstra University, scheduled to host the first 2016 presidential debate, has been complicit with exclusionary policy of the Commision on Presidential Debates. In October 2012, Hofstra University President Rabinowitz's administration apparently ordered campus security guards to arrest Green Party's 2012 presidential candidate, Jill Stein and vice presidential candidate Cheri Honkala when they attempted to enter the debate site - never mind the notion that U.S. university campuses are "free marketplaces for all ideas and viewpoints." Stein and Honkala were handcuffed and detained in a warehouse for 8 hours before being released.

Judge Rosemary Collyer dismissed a lawsuit filed in 2015 by the Libertarian and Green parties and their respective 2012 presidential nominees, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and Dr. Jill Stein. The lawsuit argued that the Commission debates violated federal antitrust laws and the First Amendment by their failure to include third-party candidates; that independent and third-party candidates are excluded by imposing arbitrary polling criteria; and the possibility of additional nationally-televised debates being sponsored by anyone other than the CPD is eliminated by "agreements among the CPD and the two major party nominees forbidding participation in other debates or joint appearances."

Collyer judged antitrust law had no relevance to the situation, and that many of the ills the plaintiffs complained of were of their own making, not the debate commission. "Plaintiffs in this case have not alleged a non-speculative injury traceable to the Commission," wrote Collyer, who was appointed by President George W. Bush. "Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are wholly speculative and are dependent entirely on media coverage decisions. Furthermore, because the commission was a private institution and not a government body, the commission was not subject to First Amendment obligations and, therefore, could not violate the amendment."

Furthermore, she stated, the alleged injureds' "failure to receive media coverage and to garner votes, federal matching funds, and campaign contributions--were caused by the lack of popular support of the candidates and their parties sufficient to attract media attention....Plaintiffs have not alleged a concrete injury traceable to the Commission, and thus they lack standing," the judge added. A decision chock full of Catch 22s.

*Media, Do Your Job!*
Media has failed to do its job of fully informing and educating the public about election choices and issues. The media should step up and do its journalistic job, and cease acting as a subsidiary of the two-party system. Even some media figures are questioning the process in 2016 that has narrowed everyone's choice to the least of evils between the two most unpopular candidates in recent history. It is necessary to expand candidate choices and media has the ability to introduce more candidates to the electorate, and to reject the arbitrary constraints applied by the two major parties.

*The Need to Open Up the Electoral Process with Approval Voting*

Coloradoan Frank Atwood, a long-time advocate of Approval Voting, cites three necessities for opening up the electoral process:1) Debate access
2) Approval voting and
3) Ballot access, including the need to address voter suppression laws and voting machine susceptibility to hacking.
By permitting affirmative votes for more than one candidate, Approval Voting would open up the electoral process for voters beyond the choice of least of evils, as well as bypassing the "spoiler" effect, where a vote for a preferred candidate risks electing the least preferred candidate. Voting for more than one candidate levels the field for candidates, provides more candidate choices, and a more accurate account of voters' candidate preferences, while opening up the electoral process to independent and third party candidates.

Atwood notes that Approval Voting, distinct from "ranked voting," permits a "yes" vote on as many candidates or options as appear on a ballot, and has been used in local elections. In 1990, Oregon used approval voting in a statewide advisory referendum on school financing, presenting voters with five different options and allowing them to vote for as many as they wished. Atwood's website ApprovalVotingUSA.org links to The Center for Election Science, which provides evaluation of various voting methods. Watch a short video that illustrates the concept of Approval Voting.

Atwood is currently working to introduce Approval Voting at state and local levels. He is conferring with the Colorado Secretary of State's office about proposed legislation that would set up instructions for optional use of Approval Voting by statutory municipalities and special districts, should they choose to use it.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

Medicaid Market Heats Up, Consolidation Drives Growth Among Leading Insurers, AIS Research Shows

$
0
0
Mergers and acquisitions have increased the Medicaid market share of the top 10 insurers, according to data in Atlantic Information Services’ recently released Medicare and Medicaid Market Data.

Washington, DC (PRWEB) September 01, 2016

The top 10 Medicaid insurers in the U.S. represent 57% of the managed Medicaid market, according to research in the Atlantic Information Services, Inc.’s (AIS) recently released Medicare and Medicaid Market Data — a number that’s sure to keep growing amid industry consolidations. Four of the top 10 companies have been involved with mergers and acquisitions that would allow them to scoop up even more of the market, AIS research shows. While the proposed merger of Anthem Inc. and Cigna Corp. — currently being contested by the Department of Justice (DOJ) — would not add significant Medicaid lives to Anthem, Aetna could stand to gain more than 400,000 Medicaid lives if its proposed merger with Humana survives its own DOJ lawsuit, according to AIS.

What’s clear from AIS’s research is that the Medicaid market is a significant draw for companies looking to make acquisitions: The third-ranking Medicaid insurer, Centene Corp., in spring 2016 completed its acquisition of the number six insurer, Health Net, Inc. The combined entity now has 5,498,062 lives and nearly 12% of the market, catapulting it past previous Medicaid market leader Anthem.

Number four Medicaid insurer Molina Healthcare, Inc. is also ramping up its already robust Medicaid business through mergers and acquisitions, having acquired Preferred Medical Plan in Florida and HAP Midwest in Michigan in 2015. The insurer recently completed its acquisition of the Total Care Medicaid/SCHIP plan from Universal American.

For more information on AIS's Medicare and Medicaid Market Data, including a full table of contents and sample pages, visit https://aishealth.com/marketplace/managed-medicare-and-medicaid-market-data.

About AIS
Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is a publishing and information company that has been serving the health care industry for nearly 30 years. It develops highly targeted news, data and strategic information for managers in hospitals and health systems, health insurance companies, medical group practices, purchasers of health insurance, pharmaceutical companies and other health care organizations. AIS products include print and electronic newsletters, databases, websites, looseleafs, strategic reports, directories, webinars, virtual conferences and training programs. Learn more at http://AISHealth.com. Reported by PRWeb 22 hours ago.

Aeroflow Healthcare Solutions for PAP Supply Patients in Round Two Recompete

$
0
0
With the completion of round two in the Medicare Competitive Bid Program, many PAP patients will need a contracted provider so their health insurance will cover their equipment and supplies.

(PRWEB) September 01, 2016

PAP Supply Patients may be in need of a new provider to prevent any lapse in care or out of pocket expenses. With the completion of round two in the Competitive Bid Program, many patients will need a contracted provider so Medicare will cover their equipment and supplies. While there are numerous providers that can accept and resupply these patients, it is important to consider what is best for your patients as well as your relationships with physicians.

Aeroflow Healthcare can help Medicare patients by providing consistent, quality care with the support of clinical staff to address any adherence issues that may arise and provide guidance that would normally lay outside of a resupply only model. With Aeroflow as their provider, patients experience a smooth transition and receive supplies according to their need and the Medicare replacement schedule.

Aeroflow Healthcare was started and headquartered in Asheville, NC and continues to grow and provide for Medicare patients nationwide. While servicing large areas of the country through subcontracting, Aeroflow also provides an avenue for previous bid winners to ensure their patients receive the support they need throughout the length of the round two recompete contracts.

Patients can choose their preferred contact method—phone call, text message, email, or through patient portal access. The Aeroflow portal allows patients to access all of their patient documents, see previous orders, and order more supplies according to the Medicare resupply schedule. Aeroflow offers a seamless migration plan for these patients and high levels of service once established.

In 2015 and 2016, Aeroflow was named in Inc. 5000 magazine as one of the fastest growing private companies in America. Aeroflow is an accredited Medicare and Medicaid provider and accepts most commercial insurances. Product lines other than listed above provided include; urological, incontinence, diagnostic testing, Breastfeeding, pediatric, call center, and billing services. Their staff prides itself on having years of valuable experience in healthcare. For more information, visit http://www.aeroflowinc.com, or call (888) 345-1780. For subcontractor inquiries go to http://www.aeroflowinc.com/subcontracting. Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.

AgentCubed Announces Integration with Quotit®

$
0
0
Partnership Will Allow AgentCubed Users to Easily Quote Individual and Medicare Products

Boise, ID (PRWEB) September 01, 2016

AgentCubed, which provides a single, cloud-based platform that encompasses lead management and distribution, customer relationship management and agency management features, announced its latest integration with Quotit Corporation, an industry leader in health insurance quoting solutions.

AgentCubed’s all-in-one, fully customizable solution maximizes return on investment (ROI) on every lead through real-time lead distribution, automated workflows, detailed business intelligence and reporting. These features, along with quoting data and comparison options from Quotit, will allow AgentCubed users to accurately quote both Individual and Medicare plans within AgentCubed’s software solutions.

“We are excited to expand the Individual and Medicare quoting options for our clients as a result of our new integration with Quotit,” said Jeff Morgan, CEO of AgentCubed. “We consistently look for partners who add value to our core product and this collaboration significantly enhances AgentCubed’s quoting service offerings.”

Headquartered in Orange, California, Quotit Corporation is a leading Internet application service provider for the health insurance and employee benefits industry. Quotit’s software enables insurance organizations to increase productivity and reduce costs by directly connecting insurance companies, brokers, e-agencies and consumers with insurance rates and benefits online, in real time.

“AgentCubed is a great solution for carriers and brokers, and we are delighted to partner with them to supply IFP and Medicare product quotes,” said Quotit Senior Vice President Chad Hogan. “We look forward to helping their clients become even more successful in serving the needs of consumers in today’s changing insurance and health care marketplace.”

About AgentCubed
AgentCubed successfully powers the member acquisition efforts for Health, Medicare, and Property and Casualty carriers, as well as many of the largest agencies and brokerages across the country. AgentCubed provides a single, cloud-based platform that encompasses lead management and distribution, customer relationship management and agency management features. For more information, visit http://www.agentcubed.com. AgentCubed is headquartered in Boise Idaho.

About QuotIt
Quotit Corporation has established relationships with more than 300 insurance carriers representing over 40,000 plan designs in the health, life, dental and vision insurance markets across the United States, including such names as Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, Health Net, Humana, Celtic, and Anthem as well as other independent licensees of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Quotit’s database of carriers and plans extends across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Media Contact: Ali Hall, ahall@agentcubed.com

### Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.

Medical Billing Services: Is It Worth Hiring Experts For?

$
0
0
The healthcare industry has always embraced technology in order to offer better patient care and medical treatment.

In fact, technology has played a crucial role in elevating the quality of healthcare services, but it was primarily restricted to the clinical areas of medical treatment.

Back in the days, the focus was mostly on upgrading medical processes of treatment by using new and advanced techniques. Similar advancement can be seen in the areas of laparoscopic surgery.

However, since the enactment of HIPAA (The Health Insurance Portability and accountability Act) in 1996, it became mandatory for medical practitioners to use technology for administrative and management functions as well.

This resulted in the use of software for medical billing that has become a standard of the health care industry today.

It all began with the transition of the U.S. Healthcare from paper to electronic information systems in 2009 through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act that was passed by the Congress. It mandated the use of Electronic Health Records by all hospitals and physicians by 2014.

Doctors have benefited immensely from this transition. They can retrieve all patient related information just by pressing a button. Patient history is revealed in a click and better treatment is provided.

The medical billing process has enabled doctors to run their business more efficiently. Revenues have increased as claims are filed more accurately and reimbursements are made faster.

This has boosted cash flow that is the lifeline of business. Incidents of rejections and denials get reduced, and complete reports are available that highlight the accounts receivables.

Practicing doctors have now become efficient businessmen too by using the electronic medical billing process.

*Implementing the System*

But how do doctors make use of the new technology? And how should they go about choosing one? Do they create an in-house facility to implement it or should they outsource it?

The electronic billing process is like a mini enterprise system that has to be run and managed by trained people. Doctors have the following options of implementing it:

• Get well trained on the software to implement it, and devote considerable time to manage it.
• Even if they want to do it in-house, they have to hire specialized staff to manage it.
• There are several companies that offer medical billing services to doctors and physicians at affordable rates.

Outsourcing the billing services to a medical billing company is often a better option as doctors are able to concentrate in their core area of competence to deliver better healthcare.

Moreover, the medical billing process has a direct interface with the legalities of the healthcare system. Driving the system requires knowledge about compliance with the laws that keep changing frequently.

Like the introduction of ICD-10 coding in October 2015, which is a far more complicated system that needs special knowledge and expertise to implement. Overall, it is a specialized job that can be handled best by experts.

-- 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.

Distributed: Health Conference Draws Global Healthcare, Technology and Blockchain Leaders to Nashville

$
0
0
Ground-breaking Distributed: Health conference to attract a list of world leaders in technology, blockchain and healthcare.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (PRWEB) September 01, 2016

The inaugural Distributed: Health Blockchain Conference on October 3 in Nashville opens a new era of technology to support more cost-effective and consumer-oriented delivery of healthcare in the U.S. and around the world.

Event host BTC Media announced leading healthcare, blockchain and financial services innovators as sponsors of Distributed: Health, which will convene at Nashville’s Schermerhorn Symphony Center.

The title sponsor of the event is Gem, a blockchain application platform company based in Venice, Calif. Conference sponsors EY, State Farm, BlackLine Payments Advisors, BitFiniti, PNC Bank, Tierion, Comcast and eVue Digital Labs are pioneering the exploration and development of blockchain applications that effect fundamental change in healthcare as well as financial services, insurance and other industries.

Those companies are joined by sponsors Frost Brown Todd LLC and Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis LLP, law firms representing major healthcare clients, as well as by the Nashville Entrepreneur Center, Nashville Technology Council and The Innovation Center at Vanderbilt University, among others.

The Distributed: Health conference will bring leading blockchain technology companies together with healthcare leaders to address how distributed ledger technology can disrupt and optimize healthcare and related services providers.

Distributed: Health sponsors and speakers will continue to be announced in the coming weeks. Discounted registration tickets remain available for purchase through September 2, 2016.

The event will be preceded on Oct. 1-2 by a 24-hour Distributed: Health blockchain hackathon to be held at the Nashville Entrepreneur Center and sponsored by State Farm, Gem, BitFiniti and Tierion. Teams from around the U.S. and world will compete in the hackathon for $28,500 in prizes to the best applications built with distributed ledger technology.

During the conference, BTC Media will also host a two credit-hour CLE session focused on the regulation of blockchain technology and its intersection with HIPAA.

“The healthcare industry stands to benefit immediately from blockchain technology,” said BTC Media co-founder and CEO David Bailey. “As in banking and other financial sectors, transactional trust and efficiency are absolutely critical. In healthcare, those same values are even more important, because people’s lives are at stake.”

Originally the basis for recording digital currency transactions, blockchain technology is now being used in applications for financial services, healthcare, insurance, real and intellectual property, transportation and manufacturing.

Tierion creates global collection and storage systems using blockchain technology to immutably record and verify data.

"Tierion is proud to be the first company to apply blockchain technology to healthcare through our partnership with Philips Blockchain Lab,” said Wayne Vaughan, CEO. “After a year of work, we're ready to share our findings with the attendees at Distributed: Health."

Blockchain solutions innovator Gem, based in Venice, Calif., has been at the forefront of initiatives in an array of industries including financial services, insurance and healthcare.

"Healthcare is experiencing a tech renaissance, a shift toward a patient-centric, interconnected and data-driven ecosystem. Gem is ready to deliver blockchain technology to healthcare, to provide pipelines that make data more available with uncompromised security and integrity," said Micah Winkelspecht, founder and CEO of Gem and a keynote speaker at the forthcoming conference.

Humana, one of the largest health insurance providers in the United States, will also be participating in the conference with Chief Innovation Officer Chris Kay giving the opening keynote at Distributed: Health.

“Blockchain allows for interoperability at a new level for health care,” said Humana president and CEO Bruce Broussard. “Competitors [can start] working together for the consumer. Blockchain is all about removing barriers, and that focus will enable consumers to better manage their health….The promise of blockchain is about putting the consumer at the center of health care, instead of the other way around.”

For more information or to register for Distributed: Health, visit https://goDistributed.com/health/.

About BTC Media:
Headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, BTC Media LLC is the publisher of Distributed, Bitcoin Magazine and yBitcoin. The company is the world’s largest provider of multimedia
educational and informational resources about the blockchain and digital currency industries.

Contact:
BTC Media
Tyler Evans, CTO
615-454-4861
health(at)goDistributed(dot)com Reported by PRWeb 13 hours ago.

The Re-Emergence Of Paleoconservatism And Progressive Liberalism

$
0
0
The 2016 Presidential election is a watershed for two movements long marginalized by both major political parties. For the Republicans, the nomination of Donald Trump symbolized the re-emergence of "paleoconservatives." On the Democratic side, the Bernie Sanders movement represents the return of the progressive left as a formidable force in the Democratic Party.

Donald Trump won the GOP nomination by emphasizing limiting the U.S. role around the world, halting illegal immigration, curtailing legal immigration, limiting the size and scope of the federal government, and instituting a trade policy of economic nationalism. Trump brands his program "Putting America First."

This nationalistic approach is known as paleoconservatism because it was once the prevailing orthodoxy on the right. It can also be referred to as the "alternative right." This variant of conservatism has, until this election been subjugated by a globalist conservative mindset.

The golden years for the ideology that Trump's espouses in the GOP were the 1920's. In 1920, Republican Warren G. Harding won the Presidency with 60.3% of the vote by running on an eerily similar platform as Trump. With WWI having recently ended, the American people were apprehensive toward foreign entanglements. Capitalizing on this sentiment, Harding used the slogan "America First." He averred: "We decided long ago that we objected to foreign government of our people."

In his 1921 inaugural address, Harding told the American people: "America can be a party to no permanent military alliance. It can enter into no political commitments, nor assume any economic obligations which will subject our decisions to any other than our own authority." This is similar to Trump questioning the U.S. commitment to defending NATO allies in case of an attack. Trump said he would aid NATO allies only if they "fulfilled their obligations to us." Trump also supports charging countries like South Korea and Germany for U.S. military protection.

Like Trump, Harding was an adherent to the gospel of limited immigration to the U.S. In his first year as President, Harding signed the Emergency Quota Act into law, which limited immigration through the application of a quota system.

On international trade, Harding, like Trump, sang from the same economic nationalism hymnbook. He signed the Emergency Tariff Act, which increased tariffs on many agricultural products imported into the U.S.

Harding's Republican successor, Calvin Coolidge, opposed U.S. entry into the League of Nations. He was an exponent of "restrictive immigration." In 1924, he singed the all-encompassing Comprehensive Immigration Act, which leveled quotas on each nation based on their percentage of the population in 1890. In the "America First" view, Coolidge, after signing the legislation, vocalized: "America must remain American."

Coolidge was also an economic nationalist who borrowed a catchphrase from Republican President William McKinley (1897-1901), calling for the "full dinner pail," meaning that the effects of protective tariffs would be advantageous for the entire nation.

The last time a Republican candidate ran on these ideals and was taken seriously was in 1996. That year, former Republican operative Pat Buchanan astounded the political establishment by upending establishment Republicans and winning the New Hampshire Presidential Primary. However, after a loss in South Carolina, known as the firewall for the GOP establishment, the campaign and the movement faded from the GOP mainstream.

Buchanan promoted "a wholesale review of our foreign policy and our Defense policy." His message of "a new nationalism" resuscitated the dormant paleo-conservative movement." Buchanan called U.S. intervention "imperial overreach" and called for a halt to all foreign aide.

In addition, Buchanan advocated for a five-year moratorium on legal immigration and was an ardent economic Nationalist, opposing U.S. involvement in NAFTA, and calling for protective tariffs to protect U.S. industry. In true paleoconservative oratory, Buchanan declared: "When I walk into that Oval Office, we start looking out for America first."

On the left, in 2016 Bernie Sanders became the torchbearer for a brand of progressivism that only had quick flashes in the Democratic Party. This version of progressivism calls for a redoubtable federal government, increases in social spending, establishing a single-payer health care system, decreases in the military budget, and opposition to most U.S. military interventions.

Since the Democratic Party usually offers up more moderate Presidential candidates, Sanders' ideological antecedents have sometimes come from left wing third party candidates.

In 1924, the Democratic Party nominated the conservative John W. Davis. The Republicans selected the conservative Calvin Coolidge. This left an aperture on the left for a progressive Presidential candidate. U.S. Senator Robert La Follette Sr. of Wisconsin became the nominee of the Progressive party and filled that vacuum. La Follette, like Sanders, was skeptical of power held in private hands. His flagship goal was "to break the combined power of the private-monopoly system over the political and economic life of the American people." La Follette was probably to the left of Sanders in his anti-war approach, calling for a national plebiscite where the American people can decide whether to enter war "except in cases of actual invasion." That year the American Socialist Party endorsed La Follette, marking the only time it has supported with a nominee from another party. La Follette mustered 16.6% of the vote.

In 1948, the Progressive Party nominated former Vice President Henry Wallace, who was to the left of Democratic President Harry S. Truman. Interestingly, Wallace was a former Republican. When Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated him for Vice President in 1940, some in the party thought he was too conservative. When his name was placed in nomination at the convention, a Democratic Stalwart commandeered a microphone demanding: "Give us a Democrat! We don't want a Republican."

By 1948, Wallace advocated a rapprochement with the Soviet Union, calling for "a peaceful foreign policy," instituting single-payer health insurance, and racial desegregation. Wallace pocketed just 2.4% of the vote.

Sanders' style of progressivism reached its high water mark in 1972 when U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD) miraculously won the Democratic Presidential nomination despite 200-1 odds against him when he announced his candidacy. McGovern advocated bringing U.S. troops home from the Vietnam War, emphasizing that he had long held this position. McGovern's slogan was "Right From The Start." In addition, McGovern proposed to truncate the U.S. military budget by "$30 billion a year in fat by 1975." Moreover, his plan to bestow every American with a $1,000 income supplement was seen as too radical for moderate voters.

McGovern proved too liberal for the vox populi, losing 49-states. Since that time period, the progressives have occasionally popped up, only to be batted back down.

In 1992, Irvine, California Mayor Larry Agran ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination with a plan for economic convergence, calling for a $150 billion cut in the military budget, with some of the proceeds being pipelined directly to the cites. His campaign gained little traction, and many major media outlets ignored his candidacy. In fact, in one poll, Agran was ahead of former California Governor Jerry Brown. However, ABC News, in reporting on the poll, mentioned Brown's numbers but not Agran's. In a surreal moment, Agran attended a debate as an audience member (He had not been invited as a participant) and was arrested for heckling the moderator.

More recently, in 2004 and 2008, U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) captured the enthusiastic support of hardcore progressives by calling for a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq. He also supported the U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, single-payer health care, and the establishment of a Federal Department of Peace in the Cabinet. However, Kucinich did not win a single state or territory in either campaign.

2016 is "back to the future" for the paleoconservative and liberal progressive movements. Both are no longer an ostracized bloodline in their respective parties.

A chasm has developed in the GOP between supporters of contemporary conservatives like U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and paleoconservatives like Republican nominee Donald Trump. Contrariwise, a schism has emerged on the left between supporters of contemporary center-left Democrats like the party's Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and progressive devotees of Bernie Sanders. The ideological divide in both parties is the underlying legacy of the 2016 Presidential sweepstakes. view

-- 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 13 hours ago.

2016 Presidential Election Sees The Re-Emergence of Paleoconservatism (The Alternative Right) and Progressive Liberalism

$
0
0
The 2016 Presidential election is a watershed for two movements long marginalized by both major political parties. For the Republicans, the nomination of Donald Trump symbolized the re-emergence of "paleoconservativism." On the Democratic side, the Bernie Sanders movement represents the return of the progressive left as a formidable force in the Democratic Party.

Donald Trump won the GOP nomination by emphasizing limiting the U.S. role around the world, halting illegal immigration, curtailing legal immigration, limiting the size and scope of the federal government, and instituting a trade policy of economic nationalism. Trump brands his program "Putting America First."

This nationalistic approach is known as paleoconservatism because it was once the prevailing orthodoxy on the right. It can also be referred to as the "alternative right." This variant of conservatism has, until this election been subjugated by a globalist conservative mindset.

The golden years for the ideology that Trump's espouses in the GOP were the 1920's. In 1920, Republican Warren G. Harding won the Presidency with 60.3% of the vote by running on an eerily similar platform as Trump. With WWI having recently ended, the American people were apprehensive toward foreign entanglements. Capitalizing on this sentiment, Harding used the slogan "America First." He averred: "We decided long ago that we objected to foreign government of our people."

In his 1921 inaugural address, Harding told the American people: "America can be a party to no permanent military alliance. It can enter into no political commitments, nor assume any economic obligations which will subject our decisions to any other than our own authority." This is similar to Trump questioning the U.S. commitment to defending NATO allies in case of an attack. Trump said he would aid NATO allies only if they "fulfilled their obligations to us." Trump also supports charging countries like South Korea and Germany for U.S. military protection.

Like Trump, Harding was an adherent to the gospel of limited immigration to the U.S. In his first year as President, Harding signed the Emergency Quota Act into law, which limited immigration through the application of a quota system.

On international trade, Harding, like Trump, sang from the same economic nationalism hymnbook. He signed the Emergency Tariff Act, which increased tariffs on many agricultural products imported into the U.S.

Harding's Republican successor, Calvin Coolidge, opposed U.S. entry into the League of Nations. He was an exponent of restrictive immigration. In 1924, he singed the all-encompassing Comprehensive Immigration Act, which leveled quotas on each nation based on their percentage of the population in 1890. Exhibiting his "America First" conviction, Coolidge, after signing the legislation, vocalized: "America must remain American."

Coolidge was also an economic nationalist who borrowed a catchphrase from Republican President William McKinley (1897-1901), calling for the "full dinner pail," meaning that the effects of protective tariffs would be advantageous for the entire nation.

The last time a Republican candidate ran on these ideals and was taken seriously was in 1996. That year, former Republican operative Pat Buchanan astounded the political establishment by upending establishment Republicans and winning the New Hampshire Presidential Primary. However, after a loss in South Carolina, known as the firewall for the GOP establishment, the campaign and the movement faded from the GOP mainstream.

Buchanan promoted "a wholesale review of our foreign policy and our Defense policy." His message of "a new nationalism" resuscitated the dormant paleo-conservative movement." Buchanan called U.S. intervention "imperial overreach" and called for a halt to all foreign aide.

In addition, Buchanan advocated for a five-year moratorium on legal immigration and was an ardent economic Nationalist, opposing U.S. involvement in NAFTA, and calling for protective tariffs to protect U.S. industry. In true paleoconservative oratory, Buchanan declared: "When I walk into that Oval Office, we start looking out for America first."

On the left, in 2016 Bernie Sanders became the torchbearer for a brand of progressivism that only had quick flashes in the Democratic Party. This version of progressivism calls for a redoubtable federal government, increases in social spending, establishing a single-payer health care system, decreases in the military budget, and opposition to most U.S. military interventions.

Since the Democratic Party usually offers up more moderate Presidential candidates, Sanders' ideological antecedents have sometimes come from left wing third party candidates.

In 1924, the Democratic Party nominated the conservative John W. Davis. The Republicans selected the conservative Calvin Coolidge. This left an aperture on the left for a progressive Presidential candidate. U.S. Senator Robert La Follette Sr. of Wisconsin became the nominee of the Progressive party and filled that vacuum. La Follette, like Sanders, was skeptical of power held in private hands. His flagship goal was "to break the combined power of the private-monopoly system over the political and economic life of the American people." La Follette was probably to the left of Sanders in his anti-war approach, calling for a national plebiscite where the American people can decide whether to enter war "except in cases of actual invasion." That year the American Socialist Party endorsed La Follette, marking the only time it has supported with a nominee from another party. La Follette mustered 16.6% of the vote.

In 1948, the Progressive Party nominated former Vice President Henry Wallace, who was to the left of Democratic President Harry S. Truman. Interestingly, Wallace was a former Republican. When Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated him for Vice President in 1940, some in the party thought he was too conservative. When his name was placed in nomination at the convention, a Democratic Stalwart commandeered a microphone demanding: "Give us a Democrat! We don't want a Republican."

By 1948, Wallace advocated a rapprochement with the Soviet Union, calling for "a peaceful foreign policy," instituting single-payer health insurance, and racial desegregation. Wallace pocketed just 2.37% of the vote.

Sanders' style of progressivism reached its high water mark in 1972 when U.S. Senator George McGovern (D-SD) miraculously won the Democratic Presidential nomination despite 200-1 odds against him when he announced his candidacy. McGovern advocated bringing U.S. troops home from the Vietnam War, emphasizing that he had long held this position. McGovern's slogan was "Right From The Start." In addition, McGovern proposed to truncate the U.S. military budget by "$30 billion a year in fat by 1975." Moreover, his plan to bestow every American with a $1,000 income supplement was seen as too radical for moderate voters.

McGovern proved too liberal for the vox populi, losing 49-states. Since that time period, the progressives have occasionally popped up, only to be batted back down.

In 1992, Irvine, California Mayor Larry Agran ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination with a plan for economic convergence, calling for a $150 billion cut in the military budget, with some of the proceeds being pipelined directly to the cites. His campaign gained little traction, and many major media outlets ignored his candidacy. In fact, in one poll, Agran was ahead of former California Governor Jerry Brown. However, ABC News, in reporting on the poll, mentioned Brown's numbers but not Agran's. In a surreal moment, Agran attended a debate as an audience member (He had not been invited as a participant) and was arrested for heckling the moderator.

More recently, in 2004 and 2008, U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) captured the enthusiastic support of hardcore progressives by calling for a complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq. He also supported the U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, single-payer health care, and the establishment of a Federal Department of Peace in the Cabinet. However, Kucinich did not win a single state or territory in either campaign.

2016 is "back to the future" for the paleoconservative and liberal progressive movements. Both are no longer an ostracized bloodline in their respective parties.

A chasm has developed in the GOP between supporters of contemporary conservatives like U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and paleoconservatives like Republican nominee Donald Trump. Contrariwise, a schism has emerged on the left between supporters of contemporary center-left Democrats like the party's Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and progressive devotees of Bernie Sanders. The ideological divide in both parties is the underlying legacy of the 2016 Presidential sweepstakes.

-- 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 11 hours ago.

Obamacare rate hikes rattle consumers, could threaten enrollment

$
0
0
A certain deja vu for those who had health insurance before the Affordable Care Act.

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Reported by USATODAY.com 11 hours ago.

Top official says health law's insurance markets are viable

$
0
0
WASHINGTON (AP) — Addressing concerns about rising premiums and dwindling competition, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell asserted Thursday that the federal health law's insurance markets clearly are sustainable. HealthCare.gov and other state-level markets provide taxpayer subsidized private health insurance and now cover about 11 million people. Burwell's stance reflects resolve by the Obama administration to mount a successful 2017 sign-up season in the face of a new round of problems for the president's signature domestic legislation. —A better system for resolving documentation problems with citizenship, legal residence and income. Reported by SeattlePI.com 9 hours ago.

Fact-Checking Donald Trump's Immigration Speech

$
0
0
The following post first appeared on FactCheck.org.

In Donald Trump’s anticipated speech on illegal immigration, he said “the facts aren’t known because the media won’t report on them.” But the Republican presidential nominee was wrong about the facts in several instances:
· Trump cited federal data to claim that there are “at least 2 million … criminal aliens now inside our country.” But “criminal aliens” are those living in the U.S. both legally and illegally. An estimated 820,000 are illegally in the U.S., and about 690,000 of those were convicted of serious crimes.· Trump used a questionable figure for the costs of illegal immigration, claiming it was “$113 billion a year.” That’s from a conservative group, includes a sizable public education cost for U.S.-born children, and doesn’t factor in tax receipts. Other estimates show a modest state and local cost and a net positive impact on the federal budget.· He accurately cited a report that found “62 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants” receive public welfare benefits, but he falsely claimed that this violates federal law. In fact, the benefits are primarily for U.S.-born children living in those households, the report said.· He claimed that immigrants living in the country illegally “in many cases” are “treated better than our vets.” That’s a matter of opinion, but government programs and benefits are largely off-limits to those here illegally.· Trump said that 13,000 “criminal aliens” were released from federal custody “on Hillary Clinton’s watch” as secretary of state. But their release was forced by a 2001 Supreme Court decision, and carried out by another federal agency, not the State Department.· He said that “we’ve admitted nearly 100,000 immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan” in the last five years. The U.S. admitted more than 108,000. But more than one-fifth of those obtaining legal permanent resident status were Iraqi and Afghan employees of the U.S. government.· Trump oversimplified nuanced policy positions when he said President Obama and Hillary Clinton “support sanctuary cities.” Obama has tried to work with local law enforcement to deport undocumented immigrants convicted of serious crimes. Clinton has said she supports sanctuary policies for minor offenses.· Trump falsely claimed that Clinton has a “plan to bring in 620,000 new refugees from Syria and that region over a short period of time.” Clinton last year proposed accepting 65,000 Syrian refugees in fiscal 2016, which ends Sept. 30. She has not said how many she would accept in fiscal 2017 or beyond.· He claimed the government has “no idea” how many immigrants are in the country illegally, and that it could be anywhere from 3 million to 30 million. Not so. The government estimated there were 11.4 million immigrants in the country illegally in 2012, and it’s a figure that tracks estimates from independent immigration groups.
Trump gave his speech in Phoenix on Aug. 31 after a short trip to Mexico earlier that day to meet with President Enrique Pena Nieto. Over the past week, Trump has sought to clarify his position on what to do with the estimated 11 million immigrants who are living in the United States illegally. And we found he had stretched the facts in doing so. His speech in Arizona was no different in that regard.

-‘Criminal Aliens’-

Early in his speech, Trump explained that he would “deliver a detailed policy address on one of the greatest challenges facing our country today, illegal immigration.” So some in his audience can be forgiven if they were left with the false impression that 2 million people have been convicted of a crime while living illegally in the U.S.

*Trump:* According to federal data, there are at least 2 million, 2 million, think of it, criminal aliens now inside of our country, 2 million people criminal aliens. We will begin moving them out day one. As soon as I take office.

A fiscal year 2013 Department of Homeland Security report says: “ICE estimates that 1.9 million removable criminal aliens are in the United States today.”

However, the term “criminal alien” refers to any noncitizen — whether in the U.S. legally or illegally — who has ever been convicted of a crime in the United States, as explained in a 2012 report by the Congressional Research Service.

ICE does not say how many of the 1.9 million were living in the U.S. illegally, but the Migration Policy Institute estimates in a July 2015 report that most of them are here legally. It says 820,000 of the 1.9 million are living in the U.S. illegally. Furthermore, about 690,000 of the 820,000 would be considered priorities for removal under policies adopted in 2014 — that is, the 690,000 have been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor. (See summary on page 25 of the report.)
 

-Questionable Cost Estimate-

Trump claimed that “illegal immigration costs our country more than $113 billion a year.” That’s a conservative group’s estimate that includes the cost of public education and health care for U.S.-born children of immigrants who came to the country illegally.

Other studies have estimated a net positive impact on the federal budget, and a modest one on state and local budgets.

Trump’s number comes from a 2010 study (updated in 2011) by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which “seeks to reduce overall immigration to a level that is more manageable.” The report actually said that the net cost of illegal immigration, taking into account federal and local tax collections from these immigrants, was $99 billion. The $113 billion was for costs only, not monetary benefits to government coffers.

FAIR, which bases its estimates on an undocumented population of 13 million, figures $29 billion in federal costs and $84 billion for states and localities. Most of the state and local costs — 59 percent — come from education, including the public school education costs for U.S.-born children, and therefore U.S. citizens, of those living in the country illegally. Costs for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program for those U.S. citizens are also included. But tax income from such children once they become adults isn’t factored in. FAIR uses an estimate of 4.7 million for the minor children of immigrants here illegally, with 72 percent of those children being born in the United States.

The figure also includes costs for immigration enforcement and prosecution, such as the Department of Homeland Security’s $2.5 billion budget for its Office of Detention and Removal.

As for other estimates, a 2007 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that while it is “difficult to obtain precise estimates,” the net impact on state and local budgets was “most likely modest.” A 1997 report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences found most immigrants — both legal and illegal — would have a net positive effect on government budgets over the immigrants’ lifetimes, due to a “strongly positive” fiscal impact at the federal level. The state and local costs, however, would be “concentrated in the few states that receive most of the immigrants.”

The impact on federal budgets includes payroll taxes paid by immigrants in the country illegally, including Social Security taxes they can’t collect unless they obtain legal status. The chief actuary of the Social Security Administration said that for 2010, those working in the country illegally contributed a net $12 billion to Social Security.

-Welfare and Immigrants-

As part of his argument that people living illegally in the U.S. are a drain on taxpayers, Trump cited a Center for Immigration Studies report on the use of welfare programs by immigrants who live in the U.S. both legally and illegally.

*Trump:* The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 62 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants use some form of cash or non-cash welfare programs like food stamps or housing assistance. Tremendous costs, by the way, to our country. Tremendous costs. This directly violates the federal public charge law designed to protect the United States Treasury. Those who abuse our welfare system will be priorities for immediate removal.

We cannot vouch for the accuracy of the CIS report, but Trump did cite it accurately. The group, which advocates for “low immigration,” issued a September 2015 report that said, “Among households headed by an illegal immigrant, we estimate that 62 percent use one or more welfare programs.”

But Trump gets it wrong when he says, “This directly violates the federal public charge law designed to protect the United States Treasury.” As the report noted, U.S.-born citizens and adult green card holders living in “households headed by illegal immigrants” are legally entitled to food stamps, Medicaid and other welfare programs.

The report says that “illegal immigrant households primarily benefit from food programs and Medicaid through their U.S.-born children.” It also says that “pregnant women illegally in the country can sometimes be enrolled” legally in Medicaid, and “there is the Emergency Medicaid program that covers predominately illegal immigrants.”

“A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children,” the report said. “This is especially true of households headed by illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrant-headed households without children make much more modest use of welfare programs.”

-Treated Better than Veterans?-

Trump claimed that immigrants living in the country illegally “in many cases” are “treated better than our vets.” We realize how well one group is treated compared with another is a matter of opinion, but immigrants in the U.S. illegally are largely barred from receiving benefits or participating in government programs, with few exceptions.

They can’t get Social Security, or enroll in government health care programs such as Medicaid or Medicare. They don’t qualify for food stamps, government housing or unemployment benefits, and they can’t vote.

As the U.S. Code says, an immigrant in the country without legal authorization “is not eligible for any State or local public benefit,” with a few exceptions: They can get emergency medical care; “short-term, non-cash” disaster relief; limited immunizations and treatment of communicable diseases; in-kind community assistance such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling or short-term shelter that “are necessary for the protection of life or safety.”

And, of course, they can be deported, as more than 400,000 immigrants in the country illegally were in fiscal 2014.

Some noncitizen veterans, however, have been deported too, after committing a crime or because they were in the U.S. illegally.

-On ‘Clinton’s Watch’?-

Trump blamed Clinton for the release of 13,000 “criminal aliens” from federal custody back into the U.S. But their release wasn’t up to Clinton when she was secretary of state. It was mandated by a Supreme Court decision*, *and carried out by the Department of Homeland Security.

*Trump:* According to a report for the Boston Globe, from the year 2008 to 2014 nearly 13,000 criminal aliens were released back into U.S. communities because their home countries would not, under any circumstances, take them back. Hard to believe with the power we have. Hard to believe. … These 13,000 releases occurred on Hillary Clinton’s watch. She had the power and the duty to stop it cold, and she decided she would not do it.

It’s true that the Boston Globe reported that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement “freed 12,941 criminals nationwide from 2008 to early 2014.” But Clinton served as secretary of the State Department — not the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE — from January 2009 to February 2013. So, not all of those criminal immigrants were released “on her watch,” as Trump said, and none was released by her department.

Plus, the release of those nearly 13,000 individuals was not discretionary. Instead, their release was mandated by a 2001 Supreme Court ruling, according to the Globe article.

*Boston Globe, June 4:* But ICE has also released tens of thousands of criminals in the United States — and in far greater numbers than they have disclosed to the Globe.

ICE told the news organization that the agency freed 12,941 criminals nationwide from 2008 to early 2014.

But [Sarah] Saldaña, the ICE director, told the House committee that the agency freed 36,007 criminals in fiscal 2013 alone. They are among 86,288 criminals they released from 2013 to fiscal 2015.

ICE officials said in an e-mail that the agency only provided the Globe the names of criminals they were forced to release under the Supreme Court decision; the additional releases were for other reasons.


The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that, if another country refuses to accept them, the U.S. cannot hold convicted criminals (who have served their sentences) in detention without justification for longer than six months if their removal from the U.S. is not “reasonably foreseeable.”

Trump may have been alluding to a point made by others, that the State Department could do more, by not issuing visas, to pressure recalcitrant nations to take back their citizens convicted of crimes in the U.S. As Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley wrote in a letter in June, the U.S. has not imposed such sanctions, which are to be made after consultation between the secretaries of homeland security and state, on any nation since Guyana in 2001.

-Immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan-

Trump said that the U.S. has admitted about 100,000 immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan over the last five years. But about a quarter of those obtaining legal permanent resident status were Iraqis and Afghans working abroad for the U.S. government.

From 2010 to 2014, the U.S. granted green cards, or legal permanent resident status, to more than 108,000 people from Iraq (90,117) and Afghanistan (18,005), according to the most recent data from the Office of Immigration Statistics. But about one-fifth of those individuals came to the U.S. on special immigrant visas given mainly to employees of the U.S. government and their dependents.

From fiscal year 2010 to fiscal 2014, the U.S. awarded 22,595 special immigrant visas to Iraqis and Afghans who worked for the U.S. government. Of those, 8,859 visas were for the principal applicant and 13,736 visas were for their spouses and children.

Over that same time period, the U.S. awarded 697 additional visas to Iraqi and Afghan translators and interpreters. Those were split between 226 principal applicants and 471 dependents.

In all, according to a February 2016 report from the Congressional Research Service, from fiscal 2007 through the end of fiscal 2015, more than 37,000 individuals were granted special immigration status through the government’s programs for Iraqi and Afghan nationals.

-Sanctuary Cities-

Trump claimed that “President Obama and Hillary Clinton support sanctuary cities.” While it’s true that there has been no blanket crackdown on “sanctuary cities” by the Obama administration, there have been some efforts made to get cities to cooperate with federal authorities seeking deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed serious crimes.

As for Clinton, she has expressed support for sanctuary cities, including those that overlook federal requests for detainers when immigrants in the U.S. illegally have committed minor offenses. But she said she has “no support” for communities that ignore federal requests to deport violent undocumented immigrants, such as the man who killed Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco.

Sanctuary cities are those that do not automatically turn over immigrants without legal status to federal immigration authorities. Although these policies — which vary by city — have been a contentious political issue for years, the sanctuary city issue took on new prominence in July 2015 after the murder of Steinle, who prosecutors allege was shot and killed in San Francisco by a Mexican national with a felony criminal record who had been deported several times.

The White House has publicly opposed Republican bills that sought to deny federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. In part, the administration argued that such blanket policies would lead to mistrust between communities and local law enforcement.

Faye Hipsman, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, told us it is fair to say “there hasn’t been a crackdown” on sanctuary cities by the Obama administration.

But last year, she noted, the administration rolled out the Priority Enforcement Program, which seeks to get jurisdictions to voluntarily cooperate with federal immigration officials, with the understanding that federal officials would only target for deportation those immigrants who have been convicted of certain felonies, domestic or sexual abuse, drug dealing and drunk driving, as well as those involved in a gang or suspected terrorists. That would exclude undocumented immigrants who were jailed on routine driving offenses or other minor criminal offenses.

In opposing the Republican bills targeting sanctuary cities, the administration has argued that “Congress should give PEP a chance to work” because it “prioritizes the worst offenders.”

Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that describes itself as an advocate for “low immigration,” told us PEP itself is an indication of support for sanctuary cities because it “explicitly tolerates sanctuary policies and required ICE Field Offices to accommodate them.”

The Department of Justice — at the urging of Republicans in the House appropriations subcommittee — warned earlier this year that some sanctuary policies violated federal law and jeopardized certain grant funding.

Republican Rep. John Culberson, who has been pushing the issue, cited a recent report from the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General as evidence that some jurisdictions are not complying with the federal law. According to Culberson, under the new DOJ guidelines, jurisdictions that fail to cooperate with federal immigration officials “will now have to choose between receiving law enforcement grant money or protecting criminal illegal aliens. They can no longer do both.”

Hipsman, of the Migration Policy Institute, said that the policy shift may be an indication that the Obama administration is moving toward a harder line with regard to some sanctuary policies. But both she and Vaughan said they were not aware that any grant money has been denied to any jurisdiction yet.

As for Clinton, she made her position clear in the aftermath of Steinle’s murder. She said in aCNN interview on July 7, 2015, that San Francisco “made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported” and that she has “absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.” But she also expressed support for sanctuary policies as they relate to minor crimes.

*Clinton on CNN, July 7, 2015*: Well, what should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it, urged them to deport this man again after he got out of prison another time. Here’s a case where we’ve deported, we’ve deported, we’ve deported.  He ends back up in our country and I think the city made a mistake.  The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported.

So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.

However, there are – like if it were a first-time traffic citation, if it were something minor, a misdemeanor, that’s entirely different. This man had already been deported five times. And he should have been deported at the request of the federal government.


After that interview, the Clinton campaign released a statement clarifying Clinton’s position.

“Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years,” said Xochitl Hinojosa, a campaign spokeswoman, in a July 2015 statement. “As she made clear, this particular individual should not have been on the streets. … She believes that we need a system where people like this don’t fall through the cracks and that is why she continues to fight for comprehensive immigration reform.”

-*Syrian Refugees*-

Trump falsely claimed that Clinton has a “plan to bring in 620,000 new refugees from Syria and that region over a short period of time.” Clinton last year proposed accepting 65,000 Syrian refugees in fiscal 2016, which ends Sept. 30. She has not said how many she would accept in fiscal 2017 or beyond.

First of all, Trump got his own misleading talking point wrong. As we have written, the 620,000 figure refers to a flawed Senate Republican staff report that assumed Clinton in her first term would accept 155,000 refugees each year from all regions — not just “from Syria and that region,” as Trump said.

How did the Republican staff arrive at that number? Clinton last year said that she would have accepted up to 65,000 Syrian refugees in fiscal year 2016, which will end Sept. 30, instead of the 10,000 set by Obama. The GOP report assumes Clinton would accept 65,000 Syrian refugees and an additional 100,000 refugees from other countries for a total of 155,000 each year.

There’s one problem with that: Clinton has not said how many refugees she would seek to admit over four years.

The Clinton campaign told us that she still remains committed to accepting more than 10,000 Syrian refugees — provided that they can be properly screened. But she has not said how many more she would accept in the future or how many refugees in total she would admit.

Trump also said the Syrian refugees seeking admission to the U.S. have “no documentation” and “no paperwork.” That’s false. As we have written, Barbara Strack, chief of the refugee affairs division of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, told Congress last year that “we’ve found with Syrian refugees … in general they have many, many documents.” She also said documents are only one part of the vetting process that includes interviews by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and security checks by the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense.

Finally, Trump said that “we are going to stop the tens of thousands of people coming in from Syria.” That may be so in the future, but it is not the case right now.

The number of Syrian refugees admitted to the U.S. under Obama, from Jan. 20, 2009, through Aug. 31, totaled 12,670, according to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center. That includes 10,066 this year, meeting the goal set by the administration for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. Obama has set a goal of accepting another 10,000 in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, although he leaves office in January.

-Illegal Immigration Estimates-

Trump claimed the government has “no idea” how many immigrants are in the country illegally, and that the number could be anywhere from 3 million to 30 million. Actually, the government has a pretty good estimate: 11.4 million. It’s a figure that nearly mirrors estimates from independent immigration groups.

*Trump, Aug. 31*: The truth is, the central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants or however many there may be — and honestly we’ve been hearing that number for years. It’s always 11 million. Our government has no idea. It could be 3 million. It could be 30 million. They have no idea what the number is.

We looked into this when Trump offered the same speculation in an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN on Aug. 25. As we wrote then, the most recent estimate from the Department of Homeland Security is that there were 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2012. DHS used U.S. Census Bureau data on the foreign-born population, and then subtracted legal residents such as naturalized citizens, asylees and refugees. It then added in the estimated number of foreign-born individuals missed by the Census Bureau’s population survey.

Although that’s a four-year-old figure, it jibes with more recent estimates from independent immigration groups.

The Center for Migration Studies, a think tank that studies international migration, estimated that the illegal population was about 10.9 million as of 2014. Similarly, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, based on preliminary figures, estimated that there were 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. that year.

Immigration experts allowed that there is some uncertainty in the estimates, but they told us it is likely only to be off by a million or so. Uniformly, experts told us it is not possible that there could be as many as 30 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., as Trump suggested. Nor, they said, could the number be as low as 3 million.

Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors fewer legal immigration admissions to the U.S., estimated the population of illegal immigrants to be 11.5 million in 2015 and 11.7 million in 2016. That’s in the range of 10 million to 12 million that “most people believe,” Camarota told us in an interview.

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images