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

BCI Group Awarded State Grants to Help Oregonians Enroll in Individual Health Insurance

0
0
Benefits agent to host an enrollment workshop Sept. 29 from 6–7 p.m. in Hood River, Oregon

Hood River, Oregon (PRWEB) September 21, 2016

BCI Group was awarded three grants from the state of Oregon to assist individuals in the Columbia Gorge community with enrolling in individual health insurance. The grant funding allows BCI Group to invest in technology and allocate resources specifically to help residents of Hood River, The Dalles and beyond efficiently enroll in Oregon’s health insurance marketplace.

“The individual health insurance market can be a confusing and difficult process, but we’re here to help,” said Karissa Way Hamm, individual and medicare accounts manager at BCI Group. “Our agents offer consultations and step-by-step enrollment assistance so that individuals and families can get the coverage they need and our services are always offered at no cost.”

BCI Group is one of several agents selected by the state to partner with the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) agent storefront enrollment program. In 2016, the DCBS program helped more than 4,750 residents enroll in Oregon’s health insurance marketplace.

Way Hamm and the team at BCI Group can help residents choose a health insurance plan, apply for coverage, ensure claims are paid correctly and more. BCI Group also provides year-round assistance with individual insurance needs, including dental, vision, travel and life insurance.

In anticipation of the open enrollment period for 2017 — which is Nov. 1, 2016–Jan. 31, 2017 — BCI Group will host an Individual Insurance Workshop Sept. 29, from 6–7 p.m., at the Hood River Fire Department, located at 1785 Meyer Pkwy, Hood River, Oregon. This free and open event will review market and plan updates, how to calculate subsidies, legal updates and open enrollment deadlines for 2017.

“It’s difficult to keep up with all the changes in the health insurance marketplace, especially if you’re self-employed, between jobs or doing contract work,” Way Hamm said. “Life happens, which is why we’re here to provide the free assistance you need to put your health first.”

About BCI Group
BCI Group works with the best employers in the Northwest to provide benefits and retirement planning, employee education, third party administration and business consulting. The company has established strong relationships with investors and insurance product providers to provide companies with access to competitive pricing and astute planning services. With corporate offices in Hood River and Portland, BCI Group helps promote overall employee and financial wellness. Learn more at bcigroup.com. Reported by PRWeb 21 hours ago.

Too Close to Broke: Three Fixes for the Affordable Care Act

0
0
Look for health care to take center stage during the upcoming presidential debates. The two candidates and their parties have taken opposing viewpoints on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - one wants to keep it and the other wants to repeal it. There is actually a middle ground.

Since the ACA became law in 2010, 20 million more Americans have health insurance and health care cost growth has slowed. But myriad problems still exist. I believe the majority of Democrats and Republicans - by definition, those in the middle of the policy spectrum - would like to see major fixes to the ACA without repeal, but what would it take to get there?

Here are three critical problems and corresponding solutions that would not require repeal:

*1. How affordable is the Affordable Care Act? *In the recent Texas Medical Center Nielsen Survey, 85 percent of respondents across 5 states (California, Florida, New York, Ohio, and Texas) said they wanted universal health care coverage. However, 87 percent of the uninsured who visited the health exchanges could not afford to pay the premium and out-of-pocket expenses in plans offered on the exchange marketplace.

We all agree that we spend too much on health care. In fact, we waste about one-third of our health care dollars - that's almost $1 trillion per year including $192 billion on "overtreatment." For example, seven times the rate of heart procedures are done in West Virginia than in San Francisco. The patients in West Virginia are no sicker and have the same end result, i.e. many in West Virginia likely did not need the procedure and were "overtreated." There are a number of possible reasons for this overtreatment, but a prominent one is that the doctors doing these procedures are paid for each one - so called "fee-for-service." In the majority of cases, physicians are not consciously making the decision to overtreat, but we do know that fee-for-service is associated with overtreatment.

*A fix:* The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS, the largest payer in the U.S.) has committed to changing the way physicians are paid by 2018. One way to do that is to pay physicians a salary - just like at the renowned Mayo and Cleveland clinics - where they have the highest quality health care and a lower overall price. But Mayo and Cleveland don't skimp on paying their physicians and that is not what I am suggesting. CMS clearly has the concept right to pay for quality, but paying doctors a salary plus a bonus for quality is a lot simpler than the highly complex way they are currently considering. Not to mention the CMS proposal leaves fee-for-service in place, which is a bad idea.

*2. U.S. citizens with the lowest incomes are uninsured in 40 percent of the country. *Before the ACA, if a person was between 19 and 64 years old and without children, even if she or he had very low income, Medicaid did not cover them and there was no program for health care coverage. Now with the ACA, Medicaid can be extended to cover those people. However, the Supreme Court decided that states have the option not to expand Medicaid, again leaving the lowest income citizens without a safety net for health care. Today 19 states have not expanded Medicaid for various reasons.

*A fix: *The federal government should consider new ways of covering this group of people, while not adding to the Medicaid roles. By creating a new program that combines Medicaid dollars with funding for subsidies in the health care exchange, this program could accomplish the same goals without being labeled "Medicaid expansion." Alternatively, the state could privatize the marketplace exchange and the marketplace could receive federal dollars, covering the uninsured with commercial plans.

*3. The insurance mandates are unpopular.* No one likes to be told what to do - neither Democrats nor Republicans. However, the fact is that people who do not need insurance today must subsidize those who do; there's no way around it. Remember the "pre-existing condition exclusion"? Everyone hated it, and it should be buried, but it was a way to incentivize people who did not need insurance today to buy it, knowing that at some point in the future, they would get sick or have a serious accident and need insurance. With the pre-existing condition gone, thankfully, there must be a way to incentivize people to buy insurance.

*A fix:* The ACA should require catastrophic coverage, as that is really what insurance is about - covering serious diseases and accidents. But preventive care should also be covered.

What's in this for all of us? With more pressure on quality in health care, maybe the eight-minute doctor visit will be a thing of the past. Maybe with more people having public or private insurance, the mandates will be less of a burden.

Tune in to the presidential debates, and you'll see health care emerge as a topic. The partisan mud-slinging will occur, but whoever is elected will face the reality that bipartisan fixes are necessary. The health of our country is too important.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 21 hours ago.

Fragmob Announces Partnership with IDSA and DScoverage.com

0
0
Partnership aims to provide industry leading cost effective insurance solutions to independent direct sellers

SAN DIEGO, CA (PRWEB) September 22, 2016

Fragmob, a mobile sales automation software provider, and DScoverage.com in conjunction with Independent Direct Sellers Association (IDSA), today announced a new partnership in which the organizations will support independent sales reps with industry-leading insurance services and compliant materials through DScoverage.com and the FragDS 3.0 mobile platform.

Fragmob builds mobile apps that help direct sellers through game-like digital instruction and provides compliant training materials and product assets. Yet with technological advances and superior business tools comes scrutiny and strict regulations. Through DScoverage.com, direct sellers can receive cost effective insurance solutions as an independent worker. Coverage is available in the United States and Canada.

“Collectively, we see independent business owners exposed to greater liability all the time. This exposure is coupled with more hotels and events asking for proof of business liability coverage. Not being covered could cause business owners great economic hardship and or even cost them their entire business. Therefore, there is a real and immediate need for our $75 annual insurance solutions,” said John Parks, Partner at IDSA.

“Through IDSA and DScoverage.com’s partnership with Fragmob, we will help direct sellers ensure protection of their business. We are very grateful and excited about this partnership, and look forward to helping the Fragmob family of clients.”

Fragmob and IDSA will join forces on October 5-7 for the Fragmob Technology Convention. The IDSA team is attending this premier technology event for direct sales corporate executives in San Diego, CA.

About Fragmob
Fragmob is a San Diego based mobile software company offering white-label sales and productivity tools for independent salespeople worldwide. As a mobile app creator, Fragmob specializes in understanding what goes on in the brains of professionals who aren't trapped behind a computer and focuses on products and methodologies that drive, or instigate, specific actions and behaviors. Learn about instigating action at Fragmob.com.

About Independent Direct Sellers Association (IDSA)
With nearly 40 years of experience working with direct sellers, the core purpose of IDSA is to help members become more profitable and successful. Members of the Independent Direct Sellers Association have access to a wide array of benefits, including health insurance, business tools, educational opportunities, and discount programs designed to help sales reps succeed. Reported by PRWeb 8 hours ago.

Why Medicare For Pets Should Be A Thing

0
0
You don’t need to convince Samantha Bonar of Los Angeles about the value of health insurance for her two dogs. Kaya, her Pitbull rescue, recently had more than $12,000 in cancer treatment bills paid for by a policy that Bonar has carried for the past year.

Our pets, thanks to medical advances and greater awareness of preventative care, are living longer ― just like we are. But also just like humans, there is a price tag attached to that greater longevity. Medical bills can be hefty. They can bankrupt you or, in the case of our canine companions, force you to make life-and-death decisions based on your bank account. Yet the value of pet ownership on human health is well-documented. Americans spent more than $60 billion on caring for their pets in 2015.

Three years ago, after Bonar noticed changes in Kaya’s bark, she was told that her otherwise healthy and much beloved Pittie had a laryngeal rhabdomyosarcoma ― a cancerous mass wrapped around her larynx. Kaya had surgery and 20 rounds of radiation at Veterinary Specialty Hospital in San Diego and Bonar paid nearly $20,000 out-of-pocket to have her diagnosed and treated. Bonar took on extra work, friends donated money and she received donations from two dog cancer groups. She also dipped into her Roth IRA and borrowed against her home equity to cover Kaya’s care.
 
In August 2015, Bonar, 47, bought Kaya pet health insurance that costs about $45 a month. And good thing she did.

In January of this year Bonar noticed Kaya had pain in her neck and shoulder that wasn’t getting better. X-rays and an ultrasound first suggested arthritis, then a rotator cuff injury. It wasn’t until Kaya began losing the use of her back legs in July that her vet suspected something more serious. An MRI uncovered a spinal cord mass. It was unclear if it was malignant or not, but Kaya’s vets (a neurologist, oncologist and radiologist) said it was most likely a meningioma, a benign tumor that arises in the meninges, the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord. They all agreed that this was completely unrelated to her earlier throat cancer.

“Kaya was in bad shape,” said Bonar. “She was in a lot of pain and could barely walk. One vet gave her only three to nine months to live.”

Healthy Paws, her insurer, stepped up and agreed to pay for the oncologist’s recommended treatment ― a highly targeted form of radiation called stereotactic radiosurgery ― that is commonly used on inoperable brain tumors in humans.

Bonar had to pay out of pocket (on her credit card) but was reimbursed within a week for 80 percent of the amount from Healthy Paws. The radiosurgery alone cost $14,000 and her MRI was $3,000. Both were covered. 

Here’s the unpleasant reality, according to Bonar: “Had I not gotten her the insurance, I would not have gotten her the treatment. I love Kaya to death, but I could not have paid tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket twice. She would have gotten palliative care and indeed probably would have just lived a few more months.”

Instead, it’s been a month since her treatment and Kaya is back to her normal self, reports Bonar. “Her pain is gone, she is taking walks, running, playing, harassing my other dog, ripping things up ― the usual.” And her prognosis is great. Her tumor is expected to shrink away to nothing over the next year, said Bonar. “If by some chance the radiosurgery missed any of the tumor cells, we can zap it again ― and again the treatment will be paid for by her insurance.”

All of which raises the question: If having companion animals is so good for us  isn’t there some logic to the idea that having a way to keep them healthier and around longer will mean we ourselves will be healthier? 

Yes, Medicare for our pets. Why not? It might even reduce our own human need for 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.

Hayes Client Symposium Brings Together Health Plan Leaders for Inaugural Event

0
0
Hayes, Inc. will hold its first client symposium on September 22-23 in Philadelphia, PA.

Lansdale, PA (PRWEB) September 22, 2016

Hayes, Inc., a leading provider of unbiased health technology assessments and consulting services, will hold its first client symposium on September 22-23 in Philadelphia, PA. Attendance at the Hayes Client Symposium is limited to Hayes Health Plan clients; Hayes’ clients represent 83% of all covered lives in the United States.

“This symposium was created in direct response to client requests for a forum to discuss the impact of evidence in healthcare,” said Hayes Founder and CEO Winifred S. Hayes, PhD, ANP, RN. “We are pleased to offer an environment where our clients, who represent some of the biggest and most highly regarded health insurance companies in the world, can exchange insights and network with their peers.”

The symposium was designed to be educational and interactive, offering opportunities for attendees to network with their colleagues as well as with the Hayes staff. The symposium agenda will include 6 sessions, 3 of which will be accredited for continuing education. Topics were chosen based on client feedback and cover critical issues for payers around containing costs while improving clinical outcomes. Sessions include:· How the FDA Approval Process Impacts Coverage Policy
· Specialty Drugs: Opportunities to Improve Quality and Ensure Affordability
· Getting Health Plans & Providers in Sync with Genetic Tests
· Genetic Testing: Tools for Success
· Hayes Methodology – Getting You Results Faster
· How To Handle a “C” Hayes Rating

Scheduled speakers include:· Douglas Hillblom, PharmD, President, Arena Health
· John D. Jones, RPh, JD, FAMCP, URAC Board Member
· Anne Docimo, MD, MBA, Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer, Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson Health
· Phillip P. Krebs, R. EEG T., MHP, Director, Medical Policy and Clinical Guidelines, Geisinger Health Plan
· Chelle Moat, MD, MPH, Medical Director, Medical Policy and Clinical Coding, Premera Blue Cross
· Subject matter experts from Hayes

        o Winifred S. Hayes, PhD, ANP, RN, Founder and CEO
        o Karen Crotty, PhD, MPH, Sr. Director, Evidence Solutions and Sr. Scientific Officer
        o Renee Balliet, PhD, MBA, Product Manager, Genetic Test Evaluation Program

The Hayes Client Symposium is expected to become an annual event focused on the issues impacting health plans.

About Hayes
Hayes, Inc., an internationally recognized leader in health technology research and consulting, is dedicated to the delivery of high-quality healthcare and improved outcomes through the integration of evidence into decision making and policy development. The unbiased information and comparative-effectiveness analyses we provide enable evidence-based decisions about acquiring, managing, and paying for health technologies. Our worldwide clients include hospitals, healthcare systems, government agencies, health plans, and employers.
For more information about Hayes, Inc., visit http://www.hayesinc.com. Follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. Reported by PRWeb 6 hours ago.

Research and Markets - Global Health Insurance Market CAGR Growth of 11.14% by 2020 - Trends, Technologies & Opportunities Report 2016-2020 - Key Vendors: Kaiser Foundation, AIA Insurance, Aetna Foundation

0
0
DUBLIN, September 22, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Research and Markets has announced the addition of the "Global Health Insurance Market 2016-2020" report to their offering. The global health insurance m... Reported by FinanzNachrichten.de 5 hours ago.

Watch Hillary Clinton sit down with Zach Galifianakis in his hilarious 'Between Two Ferns' interview

0
0
Watch Hillary Clinton sit down with Zach Galifianakis in his hilarious 'Between Two Ferns' interview Hillary Clinton has become the latest politician to go on Zach Galifianakis' fake Funny or Die interview show "Between Two Ferns."

The Democratic presidential nominee sat down with the comic to dish out the jokes as well as take them.

The interview opens with Galifianakis, dressed in a Halloween mask, attempting to scare Clinton. He is quickly detained by the secret service.

Clinton, whose name comes up on screen as "Hilary Clinton, Had Pneumonia," is then hit with a barrage of silly questions from Galifianakis like "Are you excited to be the first girl president?""As secretary [of state] how many words-per-minute could you type? And how does President Obama like his coffee, like himself, weak?""What happens if you become pregnant?"

Clinton also takes some jabs at her opponent, Republican nominee Donald Trump. When Galifianakis asks if Clinton would move to Canada if Trump won, she says she would stay in the US and "try to prevent him for destroying the United States."

Later in the interview Galifianakis interrupts Clinton to play a Trump ad. When Clinton asks why he would play the ad, he says Trump paid him in steaks.

"I'd be afraid to eat them if I were you," Clinton replies.

In March 2014, President Obama went on "Two Ferns" to urge people to sign up for health insurance. The video instantly went viral.

Watch the complete interview below:

Between Two Ferns With Zach Galifianakis: Hillary Clinton from Funny Or Die

*SEE ALSO: The 37 most famous guest stars who have ever been on "Law & Order: SVU"*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: An aspiring cop went undercover in a jail and says inmates have more power than guards Reported by Business Insider 3 hours ago.

Climate change could cross key threshold in a decade - scientists

0
0
The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting accelerating loss of glaciers, steep declines in water availability, worsening land conflicts and deepening poverty, scientists said this week.

Last December, 195 nations agreed to try to hold world temperature rise to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius, with an aim of 1.5 degrees Celsius. But the planet is already two-thirds of the way to that lower and safer goal, and could begin to pass it in about a decade, according to Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre. With world emissions unlikely to slow quickly enough to hit that target, it will probably be necessary to remove some carbon pollution from the atmosphere to stabilise the planet, scientists said at a University of Oxford conference on how to achieve the 1.5 degree goal.

That could happen by planting forests or by capturing and then pumping underground emissions from power plants. Or countries could turn to controversial "geoengineering" techniques, such as blocking some of the sunlight arriving on the planet, to hold down temperatures, they said. "Negative emission technologies are likely to be needed, whether we like them or not," said Pete Smith, a plant and soil scientist at the University of Aberdeen. But other changes - such as reducing food waste and creating more sustainable diets, with less beef and fewer imported greenhouse vegetables - could also play a big role in meeting the goal, without so many risks, he said.

"There are lots of behavioral changes required, not just by the government ... but by us," Smith said. The scientists said building resilience to deal with climate change impacts was likely to prove tricky, not least because their scale and timing remains hard to predict with precision. "We need to get ready to deal with surprise," said Jim Hall, director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford.

-*To warn or not to warn?*-

Maarten van Aalst, director of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre, said officials in the Netherlands failed to issue a heat warning earlier this month, despite a prediction of very hot days, because they assumed - falsely - that lower nighttime temperatures in September would help moderate the problem. That kind of difficulty in making good decisions about changing conditions is playing out in many places, van Aalst said. "This is the sort of misperception ... that will determine how we cope with these risks," he said.

Virginie Le Masson, a researcher on disaster risk, climate change and gender issues at the London-based Overseas Development Institute, said climate change was another factor - on top of widespread problems such as bad governance and social inequality - adding to the pressures people face. Helping those most vulnerable to climate change to withstand the problem will require efforts to help them not only adapt to changes but also to absorb shocks, van Aalst said.

Ethiopia's government, for instance, operates a public works programme that pays poor people cash or food for work on public projects, such as improving water channels or roads. The programme can be quickly scaled up in times of drought to provide a social safety net for those affected, while the work done improves water systems and builds drought resilience, said Stephane Hallegatte, a senior economist working on climate change issues at the World Bank.

Other effective ways to boost resilience among the poor include Rwanda's push to provide health insurance - 80 percent of people now have coverage - and giving poor people access to savings accounts, as a safer alternative to the tradition of putting cash into disaster-vulnerable livestock, Hallegatte said.

-*Competition for land*-

The problem, the scientists said, is that some of the coming pressures may be very hard to reduce. Competition for land, for instance, is likely to grow in coming years as it is simultaneously needed to grow food, to protect biodiversity and store carbon in forests, and to grow more climate-friendly biofuel crops. That makes holding down global temperature rise - currently on a path toward at least 2.7 degrees Celsius of warming - more difficult, the scientists said.

"We are woefully behind in our current response to climate change," said Stefan Raubenheimer, the director of SouthSouthNorth, a Cape Town-based organisation.

ReportSci/TechReutersEngland

· Global Warming
· Climate Change
· University of Oxford
· World Bank

Thu, 22 Sep 2016-10:00pm
Date updated: 
Thursday, 22 September 2016 - 10:00pm
Article Images: 
Getty Images
Short URL: 
dnai.in/dAaH
Embargo: 
Syndicate: 
Hide lead image: 
Page views: 
3
From Print Edition:  Reported by DNA 44 minutes ago.

The maker of EpiPen kept repeating one stat to Congress, and it's total nonsense

0
0
The maker of EpiPen kept repeating one stat to Congress, and it's total nonsense On Wednesday Heather Bresch, the CEO of Mylan, the company that makes EpiPens, appeared before Congress to explain why her company raised the price of the lifesaving drug 500%, causing public outrage.

Bresch was less than effective, to say the least.

One of the points she made over and over in her defense was that Mylan had saved the American people $180 billion on drugs. She didn't explain how.

But Bresch did use that figure to justify her 617% compensation increase. Bresch, who started out at Mylan as an executive assistant, made $18 million in 2015.

Anyway, back to that $180 billion number. It's pretty big, so we had to ask Mylan how it calculated it. Here's the company's response:

According to the Generic Pharmaceutical Association’s 2015 Generic Drug Savings in the U.S. report, from 2005 to 2014 generic drugs saved the U.S. healthcare system $1.68 trillion. During this time period, Mylan’s average market share of the generics market was about 11%, which equates to Mylan delivering approximately $180 billion in savings to the US healthcare system.

So let me get this straight, Mylan. You're saying that over a 9-year period, your company saved the country $180 billion by simply being in the generics business? 

If that's the case, we're not talking heroism here. We're not talking big discounts or any kind of major sacrifice or goodwill from the company, we're talking about the company literally just performing its function. The inherent nature of a generic drug is to cost less than a branded drug.

This is like Toyota saying Camrys save the US money because Americans could've been buying Ferraris. 

Bresch didn't specify in her testimony that she was talking about generics, or that she was talking about a specific time period. She just threw that number out there into the wind with no context. 

And the thing is, whatever we're saving on generics doesn't seem to be enough anyway. Health insurance premiums are going up in this country in part because the cost of drugs is so high.

Business Insider's Bob Bryan broke it down why out of pocket costs for healthcare are going up this way:

One explanation for this is that increasing drug prices and costs from medical suppliers have gotten so bad that employers finally decided to share the price hikes with workers. Additionally, there is some evidence that people tend to be more cautious with their healthcare spending in general when they have a high-deductible plan, even for nondeductible costs, so employers are trying to slow the total spending.

In short: The question shouldn't be how much we're saving on generic drugs, it should be why aren't we saving enough to keep costs from exploding? Apparently that $180 billion effort from Mylan is not up to the task.

EpiPen, by the way, is a branded product, so it had no hand in Mylan's "savings to the US healthcare system." It also makes up just under 10% of the company's revenue, according to Bresch's testimony. Of course, she didn't bring exact figures with her as Congress requested, so that's just a ballpark figure.

Lots of wild figures flying around here.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Things are getting worse for Wells Fargo and now the FBI is getting involved Reported by Business Insider 2 hours ago.

PM National Health Insurance scheme will be a gamechanger: Union Minister

0
0
Minister of State for Health, Faggan Singh Kulaste today said that Prime Minister National Health Insurance Scheme which is under consideration will be a game-changer in coverage and enhanced benefits.Inaugurating the Health Insurance Summit in New Delhi, Mr Kulaste called for continuous dialogue with all stakeholders, including health and insurance industry for its successful implementation. He said, the present scheme for BPL people, under Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana has expanded the insurance scheme with more than 75 per cent coverage. Reported by All India Radio 2 hours ago.

Just Plain Pathetic

0
0
Just Plain Pathetic Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

We are speaking, of course, of the Fed’s decision to punt yet again, and for a reason that is not mysterious at all. *To wit, our financial rulers are petrified of a stock market hissy fit,* and will go to any length of dissimulation and double-talk to avoid triggering a crash of the very bubbles their policies have inflated.

So now the money market rate will be pinned to the zero bound for *96 months running—–*through at least December. Indeed, hell itself could freeze over before these cowardly fools would raise rates at their next meeting a week before the elections—–and most especially not when the Donald is remonstrating loudly and correctly that the whole thing is rigged.

Not that any more evidence was needed, but today’s decision surely proves that our financial rulers have wandered so deep into their monetary puzzle palace that they have now lost touch with every vestige of the real world. That’s because there is not a shred of evidence that more free money for the Wall Street gamblers will do anything except further inflate financial asset values that are already tottering in the nosebleed section of history.

*So the entirety of what they are doing is simply paving the way for an even bigger crash. Yet to hear Janet Yellen tell it, they decided to keep their Big Fat Thumb on money market rates because “there is still slack coming out of the labor market” and because the Fed is still “undershooting our inflation goals”.*

But so what!

There is not a single thing the Fed can do about either of these macroeconomic conditions. The massive amount of true slack in the US labor market is owing to structural, not cyclical factors, and is powerfully impacted by global wage rates and domestic welfare and regulatory policies over which the Fed has no sway whatsoever.

Likewise, what in the world is Yellen’s beef about undershooting inflation? The core CPI was up 2.3% on a Y/Y basis during the most recent month, while the headline undershoot is due to deflationary pressures arising from the world oil and commodity markets which are actually a boon, on net, to the US economy.

Besides that, Flyover America doesn’t need any help on the “moar inflation” front from the Fed, even if it could deliver it, which it self-evidently can’t. To wit, the cost of shelter as measured by asking rents is up by 5.6% during the past year; and on top of that you have medical services up by* 5.1%*—-along with a *6.3%* rise in prescription drugs and *9.2%* gain in the cost of health insurance.

Yet, Yellen rattled on repeatedly during her presser about deferring a rate increase for the Wall Street gamblers on the grounds that inflation has been insufficient. As we said, the Eccles Building morphed into a monetary puzzle palace cut off from the real world long ago.

So what our dithering money printers are actually doing is fueling a monumental orgy of corporate bond issuance. Yet it serves no purpose other than to enable companies to speculate in their own stocks with borrowed money, while heaping windfall gains on the fast money traders who hound corporate boards into strip-mining their own balance sheets.

*As shown below, the level of high grade corporate debt outstanding has gone nearly parabolic in the last few years and now stands at more than 2X its pre-crisis peak.* Yet even Yellen admitted during her mindlessly meandering presser that business CapEx has been extraordinarily weak.

In fact, non-defense CapEx orders excluding aircraft peaked in mid-2104 and are now down by *10%.* Even more to the point, real net fixed business investment after depreciation is still *20% below the level it each way back in early 2000.*  That is, two bubbles ago.

Perhaps the question about where all this hand-over-fist corporate borrowing is going might have occurred to at least one of the nine geniuses who voted to stand pat. But apparently it didn’t because once again Yellen insisted that despite constant surveillance no one in the Eccles Building has spotted any sign of bubbles, and that “valuations are largely in line with their historical trends”.

What in the world is our clueless school marm talking about? At the closing price today, the S&P 500 traded at *25X* the $87 per share reported for the LTM period ending in June. And that was in the face of earnings that have plunged *19%* since peaking in the September 2014 LTM period.

Yellen is right about the historical trends, of course, but not at all in a good way. In fact, on the eve of the last crash when the market peaked in October 2007 at about 1550, S&P 500 earnings during the most recent LTM period had posted at $79 per share, meaning that the peak pre-crash multiple was substantially lower than today at *19.7X.*

Even when S&P earnings peaked at $54 per share in September 2000, the trailing multiple was only a tad higher than today at *26.5X*. So, yes, the market is in line with history. *T**hat is, the history of crashes!*

Then again, Yellen is undoubtedly getting her “normal” valuation nonsense via the Wall Street two-year forward ex-items hockey sticks. At the present time, for example, the “operating earnings” consensus for CY 2017 is about $133 per share, implying a PE multiple of *16.3X. *Apparently, there is nothing bubbly about that.

There is nothing credible about it, either. Back in March 2014, the two-year forward ex-items estimate for 2015 was also $135. It actually came in a *$100 per share or 25% lower.*

Likewise, in March 2015, the two-year forward ex-items estimates was, yes, also $135 per share. By contrast, the actual number for the June 2016 LTM period was just *$98.33.*per share. Even if S&P 500 earnings grow by 10% in each of the next two quarters—–which is wholly improbably given current guidance and recent profits warnings—-CY 2016 would come in at just *$103 per share* on an ex-items basis—or about *24% below* the year ago hockey stick.

It would also amount to a PE multiple on the broad market of *21X*, and that’s anything but historically normal.

*So is Janet Yellen professing a capacity to see way out to the end of 2017 and divine that the third time is a charm for profits? Has she even fathomed that to be “normal” at the 16.3X PE multiple cited above, 2017 operating earnings would have to rise by 36% from the level they posted for the June LTM, and in a purportedly 1.8% growth full employment economy, at that?*

The truth is, the Fed is inherently, relentlessly and radically in the financial bubble business, but the Keynesian school marm who runs it wouldn’t know a bubble if one transported her to the moon and back.

In the meanwhile, she blathers on professing to see signs that 93 months of ZIRP are beginning to coax some “slack” out of the labor market.  In fact, the question is why the labor force participation rate for prime age adults at *81.3%* is still lower than it was in late 2012 and far lower than the *83.3%* level on the eve of the recession.

Worse still, in the case of prime-age male workers there has been no upward blip at all. Despite massive intrusion in the financial markets and falsification of asset prices by the Fed, their participation rate has been marching downhill for decades, and for one good and substantial reason.

*To wit, in today’s globalized, technologically dynamic, gig-based economy, labor market participation rates and labor slack” is not a monetary problem in the first place; its structural and rooted in global economics and domestic policies. Yet Yellen and her posse keep banging the money markets with their interest rate hammers because that’s the only tool in their chest.*

*Finally, we offer proof that the Fed is witlessly fueling another crash by referencing today’s announcement by Microsoft of another $40 billion stock buyback program. Apparently, the last $40 billion “investment” in its own vastly inflated stock has already been completed.*

The point here is that this exercise in Ponzi economics is being funded with cheap debt, compliments of Yellen and her ship of fools. In fact, Mr. Softie is sitting on a giant pile of cash, but has chosen to increase his balance sheet debt from *$23 billion* a decade ago to *$54 billion* today in order to what?

That would be to help fund massive stock buybacks and dividend payments, of course. After all, even this dying once and former monopoly is not earning enough to make ends meet. To wit, during the last 10-years Microsoft earned net income of *$178 billion*, but paid out to shareholders even more—-*$186 billion*—-in stock buybacks and dividends.

Needless to say, flooding Wall Street with this deluge of cash did wonders for its stock price. In fact, between June 2013 and the present, its market cap soared by *$175 billion or 65%*. And that was no inconsiderable feat because in no way, shape or form has Microsoft recovered its earnings mojo during the last 40 months.

To the contrary, its LTM net income of *$16.5 billion* for the period ending in June 2016 was *down by 27%* from three years ago. Indeed, it as only marginally higher than the $10 billion it earned way back on the eve of the dotcom crash in the year 2000.

*The magic, of course, was in the PE multiple expansion. Gorging the Wall Street gamblers on these massive amounts of cash—some of it borrowed—–its PE multiple soared from 15X to more than 35X recently; it still stands at better than 28X.*

*In short, MSFT is a beached, no-growth old tech whale trading at the valuation multiple of a high growth youthful disrupter. In that capacity, it is just one more example of the bubbles that are invisible to the inhabitants of the Eccles Building.*MSFT Net Income (TTM) data by YCharts

Let’s be very precise. There is a massive arb trade underway in which trillions of term debt and bonds are being funded with free overnight money gifted by the Fed and other central banks.

*In turn, these speculative carry trades have driven benchmark debt prices to insensible heights, thereby unleashing a stampede for yield among fund managers and homegamers alike that knows no bounds.*

To satisfy this relentless demand for yield, of course, corporate balance sheets have been strip-mined and leveraged like never before. Yet as all this cash flows into the stock market, it surely does not increase the productive capacity of American corporations by a whit; it simply inflates the stock market bubbles even further.

In short, instead of scrutinizing the “labor market” through the clouded lens of the BLS statistical mill, Yellen should spend a little time studying the bond market, and tracking down the flows of the trillions upon trillions of new cash that has been raised there.

*Even she might then discover that valuations are not “normal” at all, and that the financial markets have, in fact, between transformed into bubble-ridden gambling dens.*

  Reported by Zero Hedge 36 minutes ago.

Patient Advocacy Groups Send Joint Letter to CMS Defending Charitable Premium Assistance Programs

0
0
The Chronic Disease Coalition, Women’s Bleeding Disorder Coalition, Idaho Parkinson’s Action Network, Cascade AIDS Project and others urge Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to protect patients’ access to third-party premium payment programs

Washington, DC (PRWEB) September 22, 2016

The Chronic Disease Coalition and numerous other groups advocating for Americans’ health-care needs today submitted a joint letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in response to a proposal that could limit patients’ abilities to use charitable premium assistance programs, ultimately threatening many people’s access to the care they need.

In its Aug. 23 request for information, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) questioned whether some health-care providers are steering people away from Medicare and Medicaid; however, it did not examine the activities of health insurance companies and their efforts to reject coverage for high-cost and fragile populations, a move that would harm thousands of patients with chronic illnesses.

While CMS’ initial inquiry targets kidney dialysis providers, concerned patient organizations say that allowing insurance carriers to limit choice based on a specific health condition presents a slippery slope that could ultimately extend to patients beyond those with end-stage renal disease.

“While the current focus is on charitable premium assistance supporting kidney patients, many others rely on financial aid to help cover the cost of their premiums or co-pays,” their letter states. “Patients needing treatment for bleeding disorders and hemophilia, cancer, psoriasis, diabetes, arthritis and many more chronic conditions are among those looking to charitable assistance programs to help pay related health-care costs.”

Groups signing onto the letter include the Chronic Disease Coalition, the Women’s Bleeding Disorder Coalition, Cascade AIDS Project, Idaho Parkinson’s Action Network, Familias en Accion, Good Days (formerly the Chronic Disease Fund) and Advocates for the Elderly Inc., demonstrating the widespread support for protecting patients’ access to charitable premium assistance programs.

“By prohibiting charitable premium assistance, the insurance industry will place the burden of lifesaving interventions on the few who could afford the treatments,” they wrote. “A patient’s need for charitable assistance shouldn’t disqualify them from having a choice in their health insurance. As CMS looks to fix the Affordable Care Act, we urge you to avoid harming the millions of Americans with chronic diseases.”

The letter comes on the last day of the official comment period offered by CMS. During this time, hundreds of chronic disease patients protested the idea that CMS would allow insurance companies to prohibit patients’ access to charitable premium assistance programs.

From a man with fighting cancer in Alabama, to an Alaska resident with chronic myeloid leukemia, to a leukemia patient living on a fixed income in Florida, to a diabetes patient in Oregon, to a Virginia family dealing with hemophilia, many people spoke out in favor of charitable assistance programs.

“Without the help of nonprofit patient assistance organizations, Americans like me would live in fear of losing our jobs, our homes, and our lives,” wrote leukemia patient Wayne Rentschler in a comment submitted to CMS. “Without access to patient assistance, my family faces economic hardship due to health care costs that far exceed a reasonable portion of the family income. Please ensure access to these donations in order to keep my family from potential economic ruin.”

About the Chronic Disease Coalition:

The Chronic Disease Coalition is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of chronic disease patients against discriminatory policies, practices and attitudes. Founded in 2015, the Coalition has since worked to ensure that those with chronic conditions, whether diabetes, kidney disease, MS, psoriasis, cancer or others, are able to access the adequate provider networks and financial assistance programs that support their care. For more information on the CDC and its mission, please visit ChronicDiseaseCoalition.com. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.

This Is Everything That's Wrong With Caregiving In America Today

0
0
The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine just published a very sobering look at the state of family caregiving in the U.S. Here are some of the things the group found. 

1. Washington needs to get real already.

Public policy lags woefully behind today’s reality. There are nearly 18 million people caring for a relative who is 65 or older and yeah, they pretty much all need help. The report said caregivers aren’t being supported, are cracking under the strain, and therefore it behooves the next administration to actually deal with the problem. We’d add that perhaps the two main party presidential candidates would like to elaborate on what they intend to do for the the nation’s family caregivers ― in total there are 34 million of them ― whose unpaid services are worth about $500 billion a year, according to the Rand Corp. 

The Academies’ report found that people caring for elderly family members devote 253 hours a month to caregiving — almost the equivalent of two full-time jobs. Five years is the median duration that family members care for older adults with high needs and that’s one heck of a long time to live in purgatory. 

Plus those who do step up and take on the responsibility get financially dinged as a thank-you. Caregivers miss work, don’t apply or accept advanced jobs because of the time commitment, and some just drop out of the workforce altogether to care for their loved one. The report says that lost wages and benefits average $303,880 over the lifetimes of people 50 and older who stop working to care for a parent. Plus for added insult to that injury, a lower earnings history also means reduced Social Security payments for caregivers when they become eligible.

2. As a nation, we’ve been asleep at the wheel.

Way back in 2009, a solution to that last problem was proposed and its simplicity is hard to understate: Just give caregivers a Social Security credit for a defined level of deemed wages during a specified time period. So far, nothing has happened.

And while you’re at it, how about some job protections for workers who carry the weight of caregiving on their already overburdened shoulders? 

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act doesn’t cover 40 percent of the workforce. The FMLA lets eligible employees take 12 weeks of unpaid time off to care for certain family members, but only applies to those who work for federal, state and local governments and private companies with more than 50 employees. And ineligible family relationships for leave include sons- and daughters-in-law, stepchildren, grandchildren, siblings, nieces and nephews. More to the point: Who can afford to give up 12 weeks of pay? 

In 2011, 17 percent of caregivers didn’t take leave because they feared losing their jobs, according to the report.

Again, a simple solution: Make caregivers a protected class under existing job discrimination laws and make sure employers support their workers caring for family members.

3. You can’t care for the patient without caring about the caregiver. And nobody cares about caregivers.

Beyond just the economic costs of caregiving, the report notes that the social and physical toll of caregiving gets little attention ― and it damn well should. 

“If their needs are not recognized and addressed, family caregivers risk burnout from the prolonged distress and physical demands of caregiving, and the nation will bear the costs,” the report said. Preach it, man, preach it.

Caregivers have told us how they lose themselves and life becomes entirely centered on the patient. Cathie Harmon, who cares for her husband, told us about going for her annual physical only to have the doctor spend most of the visit asking questions about her husband. “I only get probably 18 minutes a year with a health professional,” she told The Huffington Post. “I realize I am a boring patient and that his case is likely fascinating for them, but as a caregiver, I need my appointment to be about my health.”

Spot on, Cathie. Instead of delivering “patient-centered” care, health-care providers should adopt “family-centered” models that include making sure that caregivers don’t lose their identities ― or minds.

4. Caregiving can actually kill you.

Family caregivers were found to have lower physical well-being, higher stress levels, higher rates of chronic disease, and greater risk for depression, social isolation and financial losses than their non-caregiving counterparts, notes the report. It’s called “Caregiver Syndrome” and a Stanford University study reported that 40 percent of Alzheimer’s caregivers die from stress-related disorders before their patient dies.

 

5. Caregivers are daughters, sons, and spouses. They are not skilled nurses.

Until you’ve become a caregiver, you just have no idea what it entails these days.

In a nutshell: Caregivers do what nurses used to. They deal with feeding and drainage tubes, catheters, dialysis ports and other complicated medical devices; they perform wound care, deliver injections, test and record glucose and blood pressure; they perform personal hygiene tasks for their patients and prepare dietician-directed meals. They do a whole bunch of other things that they never in a million years would have thought they would be asked to do and many of those tasks are extremely unpleasant. Among themselves, family caregivers share tips online about how not to puke when you change your father’s diaper. Or how to handle it when you are wiping his behind and he orders you to “go deeper to where it itches.” 

And yes ― surprise, surprise ― delivering these services that once fell squarely into the purview of trained, skilled medical professionals causes caregiver stress. The study’s authors noted that most caregivers are “learning by trial and error and fearing that they will make a life-threatening mistake.” Think about that. You put forth your best effort and you might accidentally kill someone.

“He can do home dialysis,” one well-meaning visiting nurse suggested to me in reference to my husband’s need for kidney dialysis. In-home dialysis means I would be the one inserting sterile needles into his arm and hooking up tubes that remove his blood from his body, put it in a machine for cleansing and then return it to his body. All this in the comfort of our bedroom! This is presumably something we’d have to do at night because it’s necessary that I monitor the process and during the day, I go to work. There was no mention of when I would sleep. And why was that? Because I’m just the caregiver, not the patient.

6. Caregivers are often unwilling participants and most always voiceless ones.

Medicare and private insurers are to blame for the unwilling part. To save money, they rush to discharge patients from the hospital with the implicit expectation that family caregivers can support the patient at home and manage the transition from hospital to home ― again with little or no training.

Family caregivers must deal with a wide range of providers in a variety of systems ― doctors, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, physical and occupational therapists, insurance companies, and billing offices. They routinely provide information about their patient’s health history, medications, past diagnoses and previous treatment attempts. Caregivers are on the job every day and are the first to see changes in a patient’s well-being or temperament. Simply put: We know when something is going wrong.

Yet nobody listens to caregivers. Despite the integral role that family caregivers play, “they are often marginalized or ignored” when it comes to having a voice at the table, the report said. Caregivers are regularly excluded from treatment discussions and decisions by the very providers who assume the availability and willingness of those caregivers to carry out the tasks included in that care plan. 

And public policy allows that to happen. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) law protects a patient’s privacy and can mean the doctor doesn’t have to talk to family caregivers, notes the report. The report also noted that there are financial incentives to not spending time with family caregivers. Dealing with family caregivers takes time, and time is money. Let’s face it, there is no insurance or Medicare billing code for taking a call from your patient’s wife. Harsh, but true.

 

7. Things are only going to get worse.

It’s really just a numbers game. While the need for family caregivers is increasing, the number of available caregivers is decreasing. 

The 65 and older demographic was 46 million strong in 2014 and is projected to be 98 million by 2060, according to the Administration on Aging. The percentage of the elderly who are projected to need caregiver support is expected to jump from 27 percent in 2012 to 37 percent in 2050. Lower birth rates, a hike in never-married or divorced older adults, and geographic distance from family members, all indicate that the pool of potential caregivers is shrinking.

So now that we all know this, the question becomes “what are we going to do about 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 1 day ago.

Securing an Early Retirement: The Blogosphere's 7 Best Lessons

0
0
At a time when many struggle to save enough for a comfortable retirement, there are a few people who can not only retire comfortably but can do so earlier than the expected 65 years old. As part of my job at Personal Capital, I have been lucky to get to know today's top personal finance bloggers. The expertise and success that the most sought after ones have achieved has allowed them to do what some have deemed impossible - retire in their 30s. Not surprisingly, the rest of us regular folks follow their journeys to be inspired and learn. How did they do it?

Here are some of the most important lessons I've learned from a few of the top personal finance bloggers on how to fast track your retirement. (Many of them I know personally. So while they often have colorful pen names, I can assure you their stories are very real.)

*1. Make a Plan*

Justin from Root of Good retired at 33, and his wife retired just a few years later. They've got three "generally wonderful" children. What Justin hits home in his writing is the need to make a plan.

"We made an early retirement plan right after I started my post-college job. We had all this money coming in the door. Way more money than we had before. I knew back then that this was a powerful force that, if harnessed, could lead to something big one day," he writes. He also encourages that plan to be flexible and to embrace the unknown: "There is always uncertainty. The best you can do is plan for it, and understand that flexibility will get you a lot further in uncertain times than rigidly holding to a plan."

*2. You've Got to Save A Lot*

Sam Dogen's pen name is the fearsome Financial Samurai. Despite living in San Francisco, the country's most expensive city, the now-retired blogger managed to save 50-75% of his income every year. Working in finance made it possible for him to save so much, but he also didn't give in to the temptation to spend as lavishly as his colleagues.

As he wrote, "If you don't find it painful saving money, you're not saving enough. If you're not sweating at the gym and your muscles don't feel sore the next day, you might as well go eat a double cheeseburger with a milkshake and fries because you're just wasting your time. The same goes with saving."

His directness and charts of ideal savings levels by age often make me feel far behind where I could/ should be. And that's the point. I can always be saving more.

*3. Start While You're Young*

Joe Udo retired from his engineering career to become a stay at home dad/blogger at age 38. He started saving aggressively early on. He outlines the "two huge benefits" of saving a huge chunk of your income: (a) you live on less because you don't have as much disposable income and (b) you can turbo-charge your investments because they have a long time to compound. As he writes, "Every experienced investor wishes they invested more when they were young. Time is on your side when you're young."

One of the most popular personal finance bloggers, whose frugal lifestyle puts many of the other bloggers to shame, is Mr. Money Mustache. He advocates saving aggressively and investing in the markets, writing, "As soon as you start saving and investing your money, it starts earning money all by itself. Then the earnings on those earnings start earning their own money. It can quickly become a runaway exponential snowball of income." So get to saving, kids!

*4. Give Up As Little As Legally Possible in Taxes*

I've spent some time with Brandon, the man behind the cleverly named Mad Fientist blog. Earlier this year, he retired early - at the age of only 34. Brandon saved a lot to reach that goal and the low cost-of-living in Vermont certainly didn't hurt. He was smart about maximizing his use of tax-preferential savings vehicles. He's keeping a lot more money in his pocket and away from Uncle Sam than the rest of us are - and he's doing it legally.

Some of the things he discusses are using a Traditional IRA over a Roth IRA because you can always convert the Traditional IRA to a Roth IRA once you've reached financial independence, when it will be tax-free. He also shares that unassuming but powerful Health Savings Accounts are "the Clark Kent of retirement accounts" for those with high-deductible health insurance plans.

*5. Passive Investing Is The Best*

Like the rest of the bloggers I work with, Financial Samurai subscribes to a passive investing strategy for two reasons. First, you can't outsmart the market. No one knows what the future will bring. And even the managers of active funds, who are paid to beat the market, often underperform. Second, passive investing is a whole lot cheaper. The fees brokers charge to "manage" your money for you can cost you hundreds of thousands of lost retirement funds, which means retiring a whole lot later.

*6. You Need 25x Your Annual Expenses Saved*

"You can retire safely when you have 25x your annual expenses invested in income generating assets," writes J. Money, one of the more colorful and well-known personal finance bloggers. His mohawk is his most iconic trait. His blog, Budgets Are Sexy, advocates that you can safely assume a 4% withdrawal rate annually from your investments to live on.

So, if you need $40,000 to live on annually, you'd need $1,000,000 saved to be extremely confident you won't run out of money. Increase your expenses to $50,000, and you'd want $1,250,000 before retiring. Want to spend more than that in retirement? Get ready to save a lot more.

Mr. and Mrs. Frugalwoods (aptly named because they are frugal and live in the woods) are financially independent and share their story of their move to 66 acres in central Vermont. Their lifestyle is picture perfect. They grow their own veggies! Like rhubarb! And similar to other personal finance bloggers, they ascribe to the 25x rule. But they recognize that it's a very conservative metric. If the markets have a rough patch, you can always adjust your spending, eat into your principal, or make some extra money. Though they've given up their corporate urban jobs, they still make some side income from blogging and other pursuits. "A 4% Safe Withdrawal Rate doesn't take into account any sort of side income."

*7. Once You've Got Enough, Stop Trying For More*

One of the key tenets of the financial independence movement is that if you can retire, you should retire. Tell your boss you quit, leave the office, never look back, and go pursue your passions. Why would you waste the most precious asset you have? Time.

Jeremy and Winnie from Go Curry Cracker invested enough of their savings from their corporate jobs to quit the rat race and travel around the world. Their story is inspiring and fun to follow. Here's Jeremy's perspective on time and money: "Once you have enough saved and invested to fund your desired lifestyle, the relationship between time and money is completely transformed. More money changes life very little at that point, while time and freedom change everything. Economic concepts like opportunity cost become little more than philosophical musings, with the same price tag."

Not all of us will be able to retire in our 30s. I've got many more years left before I'm ready to join a country club and play golf in the middle of the day, but these tips are going to get me there more quickly. If you want to meet these bloggers, join us at FinCon 2016 this week (Sept. 21-24) in San Diego. You'll be inspired like I am.

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

Kaiser Permanente health plans receive highest ratings

0
0
Kaiser Permanente health plans receive highest ratings Patch Belmont, CA -- KP Northern California only health plan to earn 5 stars for both Commercial and Medicare health insurance Reported by Patch 23 hours ago.

Hillary Clinton: Dead-On Comic, Dull Politician

0
0
It’s a truism in comedy that the hardest role is that of the straight sidekick, the bemused Abbott who, standing in for the audience, uses subtle facial expressions and clarifying questions to allow Costello’s frenzy to have its full absurdist impact. This morning, Hillary Clinton revealed herself to be an excellent sidekick—one with a bit more kick than most—the sharp, funny person her friends have told us about. She was a guest on Zach Galifianakis’s “Between Two Ferns,” an acerbic, occasional series on the comedy Web site Funny or Die. Usually, Galifianakis, who plays a rude, clueless talk-show host, picks movie-star foils—Brad Pitt, Will Ferrell, Steve Carrell—and it’s clear that the back-and-forth insults are all in good fun. Though one previous political guest was President Obama, who jabbed Galifianakis with more abuse than he received. (The success of Obama’s appearance in boosting health-insurance enrollment among millennials is the reason Clinton decided to appear.) In the Clinton interview, Galifianakis brought up the e-mail scandal, Donald Trump’s racism, pantsuits, and misogyny. Clinton presented a persona who was sometimes annoyed and weary, other times earnest, but always at the right straight pitch. The stakes in this particular bit were not merely laughs. The real joke of this episode was that a man even more loathsome and ill-prepared than the one Galifianakis plays may well become our next President. Only once, in a brief exchange, did Clinton make the over-all subtext explicit. She said that if Trump wins the election, she will “try to prevent him from destroying the United States.” It was not a laugh line. Reported by The New Yorker 18 hours ago.

Big names win best value health insurers

0
0
Three of the biggest health insurance providers have picked up awards for outstanding value, but smaller players have also taken out honours. Reported by SBS 14 hours ago.

Millennials: We Owe It To Our Country To Prevent A Trump Presidency

0
0
In order to be heard, you need people in power who are willing to listen.

Without that, nothing else matters. I don't care how obvious you think your cause is - voting rights, climate change, money in politics, inequality, economic growth - you name it. Protests, social media rants, blog posts, petitions - all of it is useless without allies in state legislatures, governorships, Congress, the courts, federal agencies, and the presidency.

No one is happy with the two major parties, including me, but "the two party system" exists because the Constitution created a plurality voting system, in which the candidate with the most votes wins. The two party system is written into the DNA of this country. I'm all in favor of ranked-choice voting, which would help change that, but voting third-party in this election won't accomplish that goal. For reference, Maine is holding a referendum on whether to institute this method for down-ballot races, likely because they keep electing the bigoted and emotionally unstable Paul LePage in three-way races.

In the meantime, you have two flawed, realistic options, and millennials, when you look at the issues, the difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is the difference between a rash and organ failure. If what you hope for is to be heard when you demand a more inclusive society, more widely shared prosperity, and dignity for all Americans no matter their religion, skin color, gender, or sexual orientation, opposing Donald Trump is not enough. You have to vote for Clinton.

Even if you think Hillary Clinton believes in none of those things, the fact that she claims to matters. Voters overestimate the importance of a politician's perceived "genuine" beliefs, which privilege the loudest, charismatic people over the quiet but productive ones. What should matter is their ability to listen to voters and deliver solutions that genuinely improve their lives.

For all her flaws, Hillary Clinton played a crucial role in improving people's lives no matter where she's served:
· She exposed segregationist policies as a lawyer at the Children's Defense Fund.· As First Lady of the US, she pushed for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which in 2014 covered 8 million children.· As senator, she fought for health care research and funding for 9/11 first responders, helped write and pass the Pediatric Research Equity Act, which requires pharmaceutical companies to study the effects of their drugs on children, and was an original co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women to sue for pay discrimination.· As Secretary of State, she rallied the world to impose tougher sanctions on Iran, which forced them to the table, and laid the groundwork for the US-China Climate Agreement and the Paris Agreement.
Where Donald Trump seeks to divide and enrage, Hillary Clinton seeks to build and befriend. Yes, she is awkward, unexciting, intensely private, too friendly with Wall Street, and too comfortable using the military. But she is capable of learning and listening to others - of balancing competing concerns, making informed judgments, and changing her mind when presented with new facts. Those capacities are essential for any president and Trump lacks all of them.

Further, Clinton knows this is not the 1990s, and that her party has turned against financial deregulation, mass incarceration, and cutting the social safety net. She's running on the most progressive platform in the Democratic Party's history and knows that we expect her to enact as much of it as she can.

The temptation to vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein is an understandable one, especially for millennials, who greatly value freedom of choice. But American presidential elections are not marketplaces, but hugely consequential decisions that mean acceptance or oppression - even life or death for many Americans. Voting to punish "the two party system" or because you think a third-party candidate best fits your views will condemn many of your fellow citizens to Trump's wrath and the world to an uncertain and unstable future.

We're obligated to protect and defend one another - in our homes, our schools, our workplaces, and yes, in our elections. Voting for anyone other than Hillary Clinton is forsaking that duty.

Originally published on Reasonable Creature.

-- 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.

How Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump stack up on health care

0
0
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have wildly divergent views on how to handle health insurance. Reported by CNNMoney 14 hours ago.

Study finds 20M would lose health coverage under Trump plan

0
0
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new study that examines some major health care proposals from the presidential candidates finds that Donald Trump would cause about 20 million to lose coverage while Hillary Clinton would provide coverage for an additional 9 million people. Republican candidate Trump would repeal "Obamacare" and replace it with a new tax deduction, insurance market changes, and a Medicaid overhaul. Economist Sara Collins, who heads the Commonwealth Fund's work on coverage and access, said RAND basically found that Trump's replacement plan isn't robust enough to make up for the insurance losses from repealing the Affordable Care Act. The Trump proposals included repealing the Obama health care law, as well as a host of replacement ideas consisting of a new income tax deduction for health insurance, allowing policies to be sold across state lines, and turning the Medicaid program for low-income people into a block grant, which would mean limiting federal costs. The tax deduction and interstate health insurance sales would help some stay covered, but the Medicaid block grant would make even more people uninsured. The Clinton proposals analyzed included a new tax credit for deductibles and copayments not covered by insurance, a richer formula for health law subsidies, a fix for the law's "family glitch" that can deny subsidies to some dependents, and a new government-sponsored "public option" health plan. Reported by SeattlePI.com 10 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images