Failing insurers. Rising premiums. Financial losses. The deteriorating Obamacare market that the health insurance industry feared is here. Reported by Newsmax 6 hours ago.

Australians who have private health insurance insure are paying through the nose, and it's not because the insurers are greedy Reported by Brisbane Times 5 hours ago.

OLDWICK, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--A.M. Best has affirmed the Long-Term Issuer Credit Ratings (Long-Term ICR) of “b+” of Universal American Corp. (Universal American) (headquartered in White Plains, NY) [NYSE:UAM]. In addition, A.M. Best has affirmed the Financial Strength Rating (FSR) of B+ (Good) and the Long-Term ICR of “bbb-” of American Progressive Life & Health Insurance Company of New York (headquartered in Lake Mary, FL). Furthermore, A.M. Best has affirmed the FSR of B (Fair) and the Reported by Business Wire 2 hours ago.

WASHINGTON ― House Republicans held a hearing Friday on what they called the “ultimate civil right” in the United States ― the right of a fetus to be born. 

But Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) quickly turned the anti-abortion panel on its head ― and thrilled intersectional feminists everywhere ― when he reminded his GOP colleagues of the real civil rights issue at play: the fact that men have been trying to control women’s bodies, and particularly women of color, “since the days of slavery.” 

“Trolling women’s reproductive processes has been something that men have done for years, or tried to do,” Cohen said, citing feminist icon Gloria Steinem. “They’ve tried to control women, and they’ve tried to control people of different races and people of different sexual orientations because they liked the power they had and wanted to keep it that way. And women since the days of slavery were very much encouraged to have children, because that was good, because you needed lots of more property to bring the crops to make the money.”

Even when the mechanization of agriculture replaced the need for more slaves, Cohen continued, “the people at the top, the people who owned the land and had the controls... wanted to continue to control women’s reproductive systems.” 

The Judiciary Committee hearing, which Republicans titled “The Ultimate Civil Right: Examining the Hyde Amendment and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act,” looked at a pair of anti-abortion policies that Democrats oppose. One, a law George W. Bush signed in 2002, gives legal protection to babies born alive during an abortion attempt. The other, the longstanding Hyde Amendment, which turns 40 next week, prohibits federal programs like Medicaid from covering abortion care for mostly poor and uninsured women.

The Hyde Amendment is not a permanent law, but Republicans routinely attach it to appropriations bills as a policy rider. 

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she plans to abandon it if she is elected, because it’s a discriminatory policy that makes it “harder for low-income women to exercise their full rights.”

Cohen elaborated on that effect of Hyde during the hearing.

"Simply put, the opponents of the right to choose cannot get what they really want, which is to repeal Roe [v. Wade] outright, so instead they've chosen to deny the right as a practical matter to poor women and women of color," he said.

Republicans at the hearing touted the amendment, which they say has financially prevented more than a million women from being able to access abortion since 1976. “One in nine people born under Medicaid in a state that has no Medicaid funded abortion program was saved, thanks to the Hyde Amendment,” said the GOP’s witness, Genevieve Plaster, an anti-abortion policy expert.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) bluntly compared the amendment to a tax on cigarettes, because it prevents “conduct” that policymakers “don’t like.”  

“If there’s something you don’t like as a policymaker ― cigarettes, say ― and you tax it, you’ll get less people to buy cigarettes,” he said. “If you subsidize something, you then get more of it.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) wondered aloud why abortion isn’t “being called genocide by the black community,” since women of color are far more likely to seek abortion care than white women. 

The Democrats’ one witness, reproductive rights activist Kierra Johnson, explained that women of color and immigrant women are more likely to be poor, to face unintended pregnancy and to rely on Medicaid for health insurance. That’s what makes the Hyde Amendment a discriminatory policy, she said ― it creates a world where women with certain incomes and skin colors have an easier time accessing reproductive health care than everyone else.  

“As a black woman, I am outraged that the morally bankrupt Hyde Amendment has been permitted to persist for so long,” she said. “It is a source of pain for many women and should be a source of shame for those who support it.” 

“Each of us,” she added, “not just some of us, should be able to make our own decisions about pregnancy.”

-- 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 hour ago.

Americans are known for our tendency to work until burnout. And a recent survey from NPR adds to a growing pile of research that some jobs can really, really hurt your health.

For their survey, NPR collaborated with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health to ask about 1,600 Americans how they feel their jobs affect factors like their eating and sleep habits, stress levels and social lives. Overall, *16 percent of workers* said they think their jobs have a bad impact on their health as a whole. But in some industries, that number was significantly higher.

These 5 industries included the highest percentage of respondents who said work has a negative impact on their health:
2. Retail outlets, 26 percent4. Construction or outdoor work, 23 percent6. Factory or manufacturing, 21 percent8. Medical, 19 percent10. Store, 16 percent
The NPR survey gave both “store” and “retail outlet” as options for respondents, so there may be a bit of a discrepancy here. In any case, working on a retail floor of any kind seems to bring up fears about negative health effects.

Among survey respondents, the biggest concerns about workplace health were chemicals and contaminants, unhealthy air and accidents or injuries. A very telling *24 percent* of office workers cited long sitting hours as a concern, echoing recent research that shows sedentary jobs can contribute to all sorts of health problems.

What’s the fix?

Of course, there are many ways to ease the tension between your job and your health. But one of the most obvious self-care tricks, taking a vacation day, goes widely underused, according to the report.

Some workers are given vacation days but neglect to use them. Among workers whose companies give them paid vacation days, only *49 percent *said they used most or all of their available days last year, according to the survey.

However, vacation isn’t a given in many of the industries mentioned above. *Forty-seven percent* of workers in low-paying jobs ― that’s almost half! ― don’t get paid vacation days from their employer, the report says. Forty percent of these same low-paying jobs don’t offer health insurance, either.

That’s a huge shame when you consider the positive effects of vacation on stress levels, creativity and productivity.

Here’s to healthier workplaces in the future ― and more time away from them, too.

-- 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.

A remake of Beyoncé’s “Formation” is telling ladies to “get information” about anti-abortion laws. 

Created by feminist organization Lady Parts Justice League, “InFormation” is a badass feminist anthem that’s reminding everyone how damaging the Hyde Amendment and other anti-abortion laws are for women. The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal programs like Medicaid from covering abortion care for mostly poor and uninsured women.

The video, which is part of a pro-abortion rights campaign titled #BeBoldEndHyde, calls for health insurance that covers abortion care and it's smart, clever and more important than ever. 

“Ok ladies now let’s get in-formation, cause I say // We gotta get informed about this whack legislation, like today // Your rights, they might get eliminated,” the song lyrics read. 

The “InFormation” lyrics were co-written by Jean Grae, while the video was produced by Joyelle Nicole and choreographed by Denae Famada.

Below are a few of our other favorite lines from “InFormation”: 
“These laws disproportionately affect poor women and women of color,” according to an on-screen message by Lady Parts Justice in the “InFormation” video. 

“Women ― especially [women of color] ― are not strangers to having our bodies and our physical and mental health be subject to laws that rob us of choices,” Grae told Colorlines on Thursday. “Choices, options, information [are] all things that we should know exist and that we have the right to have access to... While they are the most basic and human statements to make, they are not just being not honored, but taken from us ― both systematically and with what one can describe as a great disdain for our human rights.” 

Anti-abortion politicians and groups are limiting women’s health access in all 50 states by creating laws that make it harder and harder for abortion doctors to practice. Anti-abortion laws also make abortion more expensive and harder for women to obtain. Often referred to as TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers), these restrictions are shutting down clinics left and right across the country.

Although the Hyde Amendment is not a permanent law, Republicans repeatedly attach it to other bills. 

Using the hashtag #BeBoldEndHyde, Twitter users made some great points about why the Hyde Amendment needs to be repealed: 


For 40 years, the #HydeAmendment has denied poor women the right to reproductive freedom—it's time to end the discrimination: #BeBoldEndHyde

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) September 23, 2016


Abortion is legal, it's basic women's health, a medical procedure & should be covered by all insurance plans. #BeBoldEndHyde

— Aღanda (@GrnEyedMandy) September 23, 2016


If men could get pregnant, there would be more abortion clinics than supermarkets. Stop trying to police women's bodies. #BeBoldEndHyde

— Metal Sam (@BigSamSFO28Left) September 23, 2016


Rich white men shouldn’t make family planning decisions for poor WOC. That’s an abuse of power & a violation of #reprofreedom #BeBoldEndHyde

— Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) September 23, 2016

OK ladies, now let’s get in formation... and fight anti-abortion laws. 

-- 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.

*Failing insurers. Rising premiums. Financial losses.* As Bloomberg details, the deteriorating Obamacare market that the health insurance industry feared is *here*.

As concerns about the survival of the Affordable Care Act’s markets intensify, Bloomberg notes *the role of nonprofit “co-op” health insurers -- meant to broaden choices under the law -- has gained prominence.*



*Most of the original 23 co-ops have failed,* dumping more than 800,000 members back onto the ACA markets over the last two years.

 

Many of those thousands of people were sicker and more expensive than the remaining insurers expected -- and they’re hurting results. With more of the nonprofits on the brink of folding, the situation for the remaining providers looks dire. Anthem Inc., for example, is facing an estimated $300 million in losses on its exchange business for individual plans this year, after turning a profit in 2014 and almost breaking even on the program in 2015, according to the company.

 

*“These co-ops have attracted, we think, disproportionately high health-care utilizers,”* Gary Taylor, an analyst with JPMorgan who follows the industry, said in a telephone interview. Their former members “are now enrolled in these for-profit health plans. That’s been a factor driving the deterioration in their profitability.”



*In a death spiral:*



*As options for coverage shrink, insurers attract increasingly sick patients and suffer losse*s.

 

That forces them to raise rates, driving away healthy, profitable customers.

 

Facing more losses, they raise rates again, causing more healthy people to leave, *and so on -- until all that’s left are high premiums and a small pool of the unwell.*



*And that is what is occurring* as some insurers may already be feeling the burden of increasingly sick patients.



*Anthem’s then-Chief Financial Officer Wayne DeVeydt said in April the company was “disproportionately picking up market share” in states where co-ops had folded. *

 

On a July conference call, Chief Executive Officer Joseph Swedish said that as the insurer had brought in new membership, its costs of caring for patients with heart disease, diabetes and especially dialysis had increased. Jill Becher, an Anthem spokeswoman, said the CEO’s comments referred to the company’s overall ACA membership.



*The administration remains in denial...*



People getting insurance in the ACA markets still have access to affordable plans, said Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversees the health-care program.

 

*“America is on stronger footing today because of the Affordable Care Act with 20 million gaining health coverage and the uninsured rate is at the lowest point on record,”* he said in an e-mail. “Consumers are satisfied with their coverage, have better access to care, and greater financial security -- core metrics of success.”



*But, we already know what a health insurance death spiral looks like because we've seen them before, in states such as New York, New Jersey, and Washington. *As we noted previously,



The experience in those states varied somewhat, but they all shared several essential qualities: The states put in place regulations requiring health insurers to sell to all comers (guaranteed issue), and strictly limiting the ways that insurance could be priced based on individual health history such as preexisting conditions (community rating). As a result, insurers ended up with large numbers of very sick customers who were very expensive to cover. Because they were subject to limits on how they could price health history, they responded by signficantly raising premiums for everyone. The new, higher premiums caused the healthiest, most price sensitive people to drop coverage entirely, which caused insurers to raise premiums further, resulting in yet more individuals dropping coverage, and so on and so forth, until all that remained was very small group of very sick, very expensive individuals.

 

*Washington state's experience in the 1990s is particularly instructive:* After the state put in place guaranteed issue and community rating rules, carriers saw an influx of unusually sick and expensive beneficiaries, as well as individuals gaming the system by signing up for coverage in advance of an expensive medical event, then cancelling as soon as that event was over. Insurers simply couldn't make money in the individual market, and so between 1993 and 1998, 17 of the state's 19 plans stopped selling individual insurance plans. The next year, the final two carriers left the individual market. It was a total meltdown.

 

The lesson most observers took from this was that insurance market regulations would not work without a mandate: In 1994, a Republican-led legislature had killed an individual requirement to carry coverage but left guaranteed issue and community rating in place.

*Obamacare, of course, has a mandate, but what's happening in the health law's exchanges is starting to echo what happened in Washington and other states that experienced death spirals.*



*In the meantime, as we noted previously, Obamacare will likely continue to falter... as the remaining co-ops are deep in the red...*

*It’s not clear whether the remaining co-ops can survive without additional funding*, said Deep Banerjee, an analyst with S&P Global.

The law, of course, has avoided multiple potential near-death expenses thus far, and it may still survive. But at the moment, at least, it looks like one sick patient. As The Daily Sheeple's Joshua Krause concludes,



*If the financial well-being of the Millennial generation doesn’t improve, there are really only one of two things that are going to happen in the near future, and they both involve the collapse of Obamacare.* Perhaps the Affordable Care Act is going to crumble, and Americans are going to demand that we all go back to a mostly privatized healthcare system, Obama’s legacy be damned.

 

*On the other hand, if Obamacare falls apart, that event could be used as an excuse to roll out a fully socialized healthcare system. *This shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone. Every time socialist policies fail, their socialist engineers double down, and claim that the real problem with their policy, was that it wasn’t socialist enough.

 

*Which has to make you wonder, was that the plan all along for the Affordable Care Act? *To create a semi public healthcare system that was so expensive and so dysfunctional, that the American people would eventually come to despise it? That instead of discarding it, the public would clamor for a system that was even more socialist?



*Perhaps Obama will get to keep his legacy after all.* Reported by Zero Hedge 1 hour ago.

Secretary Clinton continues to hold the lead in public opinion polling at the national level and in the key states she will need to win in order to reach 270 votes in the Electoral College. *However, in both cases the polls have tightened over the last few weeks, suggesting a competitive race for the White House. *These are the ten biggest questions Goldman Sachs' clients have with regard the election...

*1. Who’s in the lead?*

Secretary Clinton continues to appear to have an advantage, but* the race has tightened considerably over the last few weeks.* Despite this, the public continues to expect a Clinton White House in 2017, with prediction markets assigning around a 65% probability to that outcome (Exhibit 1).

*Exhibit 1: The public expects Clinton to win*

*
*

Source: Iowa Electronic Markets, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

*Sec. Clinton continues to hold a lead in the average of national polls.* As shown in the right panel of Exhibit 2, she leads national polling by around 2.5pp at the moment.* This is a relatively thin margin, but it has been consistent; *Mr. Trump has led in a few polls, but at no point yet this year has he led the national polls on average.

For the last several weeks, Sec. Clinton has held a slightly wider lead in the states that look likely to provide her with the marginal 270th electoral vote required to win in the Electoral College. She appears to hold a lead of 4 to 6 percentage points in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. However, state polls fluctuate just like national polls, and her earlier wide lead in Colorado and Minnesota, for example, has shrunk considerably in the few recent polls that have been published. In fact, if current polling averages are an accurate reflection of the state of the election, her 270th electoral vote might come from Colorado, which she leads by only 2.5% at the moment, based on an average of recent polls. In some cases, these shifts are much sharper than the change seen in the more frequent national polls, often driven by one or two outlier polls.* While this suggests that the state-by-state analysis could once again tilt more heavily in Sec. Clinton’s favor, for now the electoral vote count looks fairly close, with Sec. Clinton holding a slim lead (left panel of Exhibit 2).*

*Exhibit 2: The race for electoral votes has tightened, too*

*
*

Source: Real Clear Politics, Federal Election Commission, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

*The right panel of Exhibit 2 shows the average of national polls as well as a series we have constructed showing the polling average in the state that would provide her with the 270th electoral vote based on polling averages at a given moment. *To do this, we calculate a daily average of polls in each state, using the change in national polling to adjust the average in states where no new polls have been released. We then organize the states each day from the widest Democratic advantage to the narrowest Democratic advantage, stopping when the total electoral vote count (assuming Sec. Clinton wins states she is leading) reaches 270 or more. *The results suggest that, over the last month or so, Sec. Clinton has enjoyed a lead of 6 to 8 percentage points in the marginal state, but this lead has narrowed and, for now, resembles her national polling.*

*2. What could still affect the outcome?*

*The most obvious remaining source of uncertainty is the upcoming series of presidential debates*. It is impossible to predict how these will affect voter perceptions, but expectations are higher for Sec. Clinton; a slim majority of voters expect that she will have a better debate performance (53%/43%), and among voters who indicate they could shift their support before Election Day, 60% expect Clinton will prevail.[1] While on its face this is positive news for Sec. Clinton, this also raises the risk of underperforming expectations. More generally, the effect of previous debates on voter perceptions is somewhat ambiguous. While there are several examples of debates that shifted the polls considerably, there are just as many that failed to have an impact. Overall, the median effect on public opinion is negligible following the first and last debates (Exhibit 3). *That said, debates have had a larger effect on public assessments of the eventual election outcome. Following the first debate, the median probability assigned to the eventual winner of the election rose by about 5pp after two weeks, and by 7pp around two weeks after the second debate.*

*Exhibit 3: Debates can affect polls…and election expectations*

*
*

Source: Iowa Electronic Markets, Real Clear Politics, Wlezien and Erickson (2002), Commission on Presidential Debates, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

*The large third-party vote in this election, along with a significant undecided vote, also raises uncertainty regarding the outcome. *Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who is running as a Libertarian, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein have been winning collectively about 15% of the vote in public opinion polling over the last few months. This represents the largest non-major party share since 1992, when Texas businessman Ross Perot ran as an independent and won 19% of the popular vote. As shown in the left panel of Exhibit 4, the third-party vote typically fades by Election Day as the two-party contest tightens. However, it is not clear at this point that either candidate would gain disproportionately from a shift away from the third-party candidates. One way to consider this is to compare Sec. Clinton’s average lead in two-way polls and four-way polls, which include the two minor-party candidates; her lead has been about 1pp smaller in four-way polls, on average, though the statistical relationship is weak. The upshot is that, while the large third-party vote share creates additional uncertainty about the election outcome, it is not obviously coming at the expense of one candidate in particular.

*Exhibit 4: The third party vote pulls from both candidates and may shrink before election day*

*
*

Source: Real Clear Politics, Polling Report, Various polls, Federal Election Commission, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

*Despite the potential for surprises over the coming weeks, we note that it is very unusual for the winner in public opinion polls at this point in the race to lose the popular vote in November (Exhibit 5).* We measure this from the date of the last convention, since the convention can significantly but temporarily affect public opinion polling. In every election since 1952, the candidate leading in public opinion polls seven weeks following the convention (usually but not always around mid-September) has won the popular vote. One near-exception was 1980, when President Carter and then-former California Governor Ronald Reagan traded leads back and forth several times over this period.

*Exhibit 5: The leader in September usually wins in November*

*
*

Source: Real Clear Politics, Wlezien and Erickson (2002), Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

 

-3. What about Congress?-

*We expect a closely divided Congress in nearly any scenario, though the base case appears to be a slim Democratic majority in the Senate and a slim Republican majority in the House. *The Senate majority appears likely to be determined by the outcome in a few competitive seats, nearly all of which are in presidential swing states. Republican incumbents in Illinois and Wisconsin—both are Democratic-leaning states, as shown in Exhibit 6—trail their challengers by a considerable margin, and most analysts and prediction markets expect Democratic candidates to win these seats. In addition, the Republican-held open seat in Indiana—the incumbent is retiring—has consistently polled in favor of the Democratic candidate, former Sen. Evan Bayh, since he announced he was entering the race. Losing these three contests would take Republicans from 54 seats currently down to 51 seats. Beyond these, Republican incumbents also face serious challenges in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, both of which appear to be leaning Democratic in the presidential election. Potentially offsetting this is a Democratic-held open seat in Nevada, where the race is essentially tied. Since the Vice President breaks ties in the Senate, a 50-50 split would result in procedural control by the party that wins the White House. In light of the higher implied probability that Sec. Clinton will win the presidency and the Democratic leaning states that look likely to determine the majority, a Democratic majority looks more likely than a Republican majority in the Senate next year, though we think it would be surprising for either party to hold more than 51 or 52 seats.

*Exhibit 6: Several Republican seats in Democratic states*

Source: Federal Election Commission, Real Clear Politics, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

*In the House, the outlook is a bit clearer.* We would make three observations. First, the “generic ballot” poll, which asks which party a voter prefers hold the majority in Congress, has reverted back to roughly neutral after having been in Democratic-friendly territory over the last couple of months (left panel of Exhibit 7). Second, the presidential vote and the House popular vote have been closely correlated (middle panel of Exhibit 7. Since Republicans have a structural advantage related to the allocation of voters across districts that is worth roughly 4% of the popular vote (right panel of Exhibit 7), this suggests that, unless Sec. Clinton wins by a wider margin than polls currently suggest, the probability of Democrats winning the House majority is fairly low, and lower than it appeared previously.

*Exhibit 7: Generic congressional polling has returned closer to neutral*

*
*

Source: Real Clear Politics, Federal Election Commission, Clerk of the US House, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

This suggests that the most likely election outcome is a continuation of divided government, with a Democratic White House and divided Congress. *There is also a clear possibility of single-party control under Republicans if Mr. Trump wins*. While we do not rule out the possibility that Democrats could win a narrow majority in the House, this looks less likely than the other two scenarios. Likewise, while it is possible that Mr. Trump could win the White House while Democrats win the Senate majority, this also looks unlikely since most competitive Senate seats are in swing states likely to determine the presidential outcome, and where Republican candidates have generally been outperforming Mr. Trump in the polls.

 

*4. What could policymaking look like in 2017?*

*Under the base case of divided government described above, Congress and the White House are likely to struggle to enact significant legislation*. The main obstacle would be a divided Congress. When the two chambers are controlled by opposite parties, legislation that passes one body often fails to even come up for a vote in the other body. Moreover, given what is likely to be a slimmer House Republican majority in 2017, Republicans will have fewer votes in excess that can be used to offset frequent defections from within the party. Such defections were a critical part of the last-minute nature of legislating during 2011-2014, the last period of divided Congress, as party leaders hesitated to reach across the aisle for votes from the other party unless or until absolutely necessary. In such a scenario, we would expect a return to more deadline-oriented legislation—a new spending agreement will need to be reached by September 30, 2017, and the debt limit is likely to need to be raised by October—and that legislation aimed at structural reforms would generally face greater obstacles.

*By contrast, under single-party control, there would be two important differences. *First, one party—probably the Republicans but a small chance of Democrats—would set the legislative agenda and focus public attention on certain issues. Second, certain decisions could be made with a simple majority. This means that the majority party could approve most nominations (except for the Supreme Court) and most fiscal legislation without support from the minority party, as described in more detail below.

 

*5. What would this mean for fiscal policy?*

*Overall, we expect a slightly more expansionary fiscal policy stance over the next couple of years, but in the base case election outcome the difference is likely to be modest.* As we have detailed elsewhere, the main focus at the outset of a potential Clinton Administration is likely to be an economic package that combines new infrastructure spending with international corporate tax reform, including a plan to tax previously untaxed foreign profits of US multinationals to generate revenue. Sec. Clinton proposes to increase infrastructure spending by $250bn over five years, or $50 billion per year.

If enacted, it would likely result in a significant flow of repatriated earnings from foreign subsidiaries to US parent companies, though the details would likely differ from the last low-tax profit repatriation enacted in 2004. Specifically, the tax would apply to all untaxed foreign profits, even if they are no longer held in cash available to be repatriated. The provision would only be enacted, in our view, if it were used as a transition mechanism to a reformed system for taxing US multinationals’ foreign profits. Therefore, in order for Congress to approve a profit repatriation plan, it would also probably need to reach agreement on some type of corporate tax reform, which would not be an easy task.

*Nevertheless, if the proposal did pass, the amounts would be large. *As of Q2, total profits permanently reinvested overseas totaled $2.9 trillion across all US businesses. Some of this amount likely consists of untaxed profits that have been reinvested for other purposes, so the foreign cash balance is likely to be smaller. As a ballpark figure, cash balances among S&P 500 companies excluding financials are currently $1.5 trillion, and we would expect the vast majority of this to be held overseas for tax reasons, suggesting that a bit more than $1 trillion in cash could be available for repatriation, though firms’ foreign funding needs are likely to determine how much would ultimately be repatriated.

*We expect that, if Mr. Trump wins, fiscal policy would be looser than under the base case, for two reasons. *First, we expect that a Republican Congress would be more likely to enact tax reform that results in net tax reduction, at least in the short term, than under divided government. This is partly related to the “reconciliation” process, which allows the party in power to pass tax, spending, or debt-limit related legislation with a simple majority in the House and Senate. Second, although he has not highlighted the issue the way that Sec. Clinton has, we expect that Mr. Trump would support and potentially push for significant infrastructure spending once in office. In fact, we would argue that, since congressional Republicans have generally been less supportive of additional infrastructure spending than Democrats have been, a Republican president might be more likely to succeed in persuading hesitant Republican lawmakers in a politically polarized Congress to support a spending boost.

*That said, even under single-party control, there are limitations to how much the party in power could accomplish regarding fiscal policy.* Beyond the challenging longer-term outlook for federal finances, the “reconciliation” process does not provide unlimited power. Specifically, as a result of changes enacted in 2007, the process might not be available to pass legislation that increases the deficit over the following ten years. Lawmakers often find ways around these sorts of rules—the possibility of greater use of “dynamic scoring”, which credits the economic effects of legislation against the estimated budgetary costs, might be one way—but these rules would probably constrain Republican plans, by limiting the scope of tax legislation or by requiring offsetting spending cuts to be passed as well. The upshot is that while the probability of a fiscal boost under Mr. Trump appears to us to be higher than under Sec. Clinton, there would be limits in both cases.

 

*6. Would the election affect monetary policy?*

*It might, in two potential ways.* First, as we recently noted,* monetary policy would likely tighten in response to a fiscal boost*. While this could have benefits related to reducing the risk of returning to the zero lower bound, it suggests that the near-term growth effects of fiscal policy changes would be smaller than would be the case had they been made several years ago when slack in the labor market was much greater and rates were pegged at zero.

Second,* Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s term expires February 2018, and the next President is likely to name the next Chair in mid-2017*. If Sec. Clinton wins, the most likely option in our view would be for her to nominate Chair Yellen for another term. By contrast, if Mr. Trump wins, his public comments regarding the Fed suggest he would look elsewhere for a new Fed chair, but his choice is hard to predict, as a number of well-known Republican economists have publicly supported Sec. Clinton’s campaign, potentially—but not necessarily—narrowing the list of potential nominees. In addition, Republican Fed critics in Congress—particularly in the House—have been arguing for a more rules-based approach to policy, and Mr. Trump could come under pressure to nominate someone associated with that approach. *That said, if Mr. Trump wins the White House, his views on the Fed could also shift away from his current more hawkish tone, particularly if he intended to enact a looser fiscal policy as discussed above.*

 

*7. Would trade policy really change as much as current rhetoric implies?*

*We doubt it, though some changes are likely.* Both candidates have opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in its current form, and both have suggested renegotiating NAFTA. Mr. Trump has gone farther, also proposing significant tariffs on imports from China and Mexico, and even raising the possibility of withdrawing from the WTO. Overall, we expect that TPP will be sidelined for the foreseeable future under either scenario, though we do expect that eventually—probably not for another few years—the next President will try to resurrect the agreement.

*The more immediate issue is whether Mr. Trump would follow through on his statements regarding foreign trade.* While his suggestion to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has drawn considerable attention, and even appears to be resulting in volatility in the Mexican Peso (Exhibit 8), our expectation is that NAFTA, and US-Mexico trade relations more generally, would be a less important issue under a Trump Administration than relations with trading partners in Asia, particularly China. We draw this conclusion for two reasons. First, over the last several years, the political debate over trade has focused mostly on China, not Mexico. Second, withdrawal from NAFTA is essentially a binary decision. It is likely that Mr. Trump could withdraw from the agreement without congressional approval, but he would not be able to renegotiate terms unilaterally. By contrast, the president has several options to address US-China trade issues, some of which could be WTO-compliant, like the increased use of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to target specific imported products, and some of which probably would not be, like the obscure authority the President has under the Trade Act of 1974 to impose temporary 15% tariffs on certain imports to address a balance-of-payments deficit. *Overall, while we expect that Mr. Trump would take a more cautious approach to trade if elected than his current rhetoric might imply, this issue is likely to be a key source of uncertainty.*

 

*8. How would regulation be affected?*

*We would expect that in most areas, Sec. Clinton and Mr. Trump would follow more traditional party lines regarding regulatory questions.* With a divided Congress, Sec. Clinton would have a difficult time passing significant regulatory-focused legislation, in our view. In theory, this makes major legislative changes regarding issues like drug pricing less likely, for example. That said, to the extent that developments force action on certain issues—returning to the healthcare example, there is a possibility that Congress will need to intervene in the Affordable Care Act health insurance exchanges next year, in light of weak enrollment, rising premiums, and the withdrawal of several large insurance companies—some of these issues could nevertheless become a focus.

*Under Mr. Trump, we would expect the differences to be mostly limited to non-legislative issues, such as incremental differences in regulatory actions related to healthcare, domestic energy production, or financial institutions. *From a legislative standpoint, bipartisan support would still be necessary to pass the Senate, where Republicans are likely to have no more than 52 or 53 seats in their best-case scenario, but would need 60 Senate votes to pass most (non-fiscal) legislation.

 

*9. How might the election affect financial markets?*

*The effect on markets should be a combination of the change in policy uncertainty resulting from the election outcome, and the expected effects of the policy changes anticipated under the new president and Congress.* It seems likely to us that uncertainty would rise following a Trump victory, since his positions on certain issues have fluctuated and are in some cases genuinely uncertain, and because the potential range of outcomes under single-party control is wider than under divided government. In particular, we would expect his position on trade-related issues to be a focus for financial markets if he were elected, given the president’s greater unilateral authority in that area. Heightened uncertainty could be a short-term negative for risk assets like equities. Sec. Clinton and a divided Congress would represent something close to a status quo outcome, with limited uncertainty and a narrower range of outcomes if control of Congress is split between the parties.

From a policy perspective, the effects look mixed. *Fiscal policy is likely to be looser under Mr. Trump and a Republican Congress than under Sec. Clinton and a divided Congress*. In isolation, this *should support equities,* but expectations of tighter monetary policy, in response to looser fiscal policy or perhaps in anticipation of a change in Fed leadership, could offset this.

 

**10. Is the election already affecting financial markets?**

*There is only weak evidence that the election is having a significant effect on broader markets at this stage.* To explore this, we regress daily changes in the S&P 500 on changes in the probability of a Clinton victory implied in prediction markets, as well as the implied probability of a divided government, single-party control under Republicans and single-party control under Democrats. To control for the effect of growth, policy, and inflation surprises, we include proxies for these influences that have been estimated by applying principal components analysis to 18 market variables since January 2000.

The results are mixed. *We do not find a meaningful relationship between the implied probability of Sec. Clinton winning the election and equity prices measured from the end of the primary campaign.* While there is a statistically significant negative relationship between changes in equity prices and changes in the probability of a Clinton victory over the last several weeks, this effect disappears when we include the odds of single-party control under Democrats (Exhibit 8).* The upshot is that in recent weeks equities appear to react negatively to the prospect of Democratic single-party control but show no clear reaction to the other potential scenarios.* In all cases the coefficients are small, suggesting a modest overall effect.

*Exhibit 8: The election might be affecting equities*

*
*

Source: Bloomberg, Iowa Electronic Markets, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

*The effects of the election appear clearer in a few specific segments of the market, however. *One notable example is the Mexican Peso, where the term structure of implied volatility suggests market participants are expecting increased movement around the time of the US presidential election (Exhibit 9). To the extent this is related to rhetoric concerning NAFTA, it seems likely that, in the event Mr. Trump wins, markets would nevertheless eventually focus their attention elsewhere if we are correct that renegotiating trade agreements, particularly NAFTA, might be less of a focus under a potential Trump Administration than it has been in the campaign.

*Exhibit 9: …And the Mexican Peso*

*
*

Source: Bloomberg, Iowa Electronic Markets

*Our portfolio strategists have noted that certain subsectors of the equity market appear to be correlated with election odds*: healthcare providers—which stand to lose if the Affordable Care Act is repealed—and apparel stocks—which could face increased costs if tariffs are placed on imports—rise with increased expectation of a Clinton victory, while software firms—which are among the sectors with significant unrepatriated cash—benefit from increased expectations of a Trump win. While there is no clear statistical relationship with pharmaceuticals, we would expect this to be another area where the market is likely to view a Republican administration to be more industry-friendly. *Over the next several weeks, our expectation is that the effects of shifting election expectations are more likely to become apparent through these sectoral channels than in markets more broadly.*

  Reported by Zero Hedge 21 hours ago.

*
A Party Lobotomized
*

Once the venerable party of Lincoln, the Republicans split off from the Whigs in 1854 to oppose slavery, and for a century stood for fiscal restraint, free enterprise and principled conservatism. Their demise probably began with Richard Nixon's "southern strategy" of 1968 -- the deliberate pandering to white racist Democrats of the southern states -- but Barry Goldwater's nomination four years earlier had also been a harbinger of doom. Now, as Tom Friedman has pointed out, the party is an empty shell of its former self, the rusting hulk of a Rube Goldberg contraption slapped together to garner the support of Christian fundamentalists, the gun lobby, the Tea Party, global warming deniers, birthers and other right-wing conspiracy theory nuts. In hindsight, the nomination of Donald Trump seems the inevitable climax of this recent and sad history.

Whether Trump wins or loses in November, the political party he hijacked is dead. Most of its traditional constituency -- thoughtful conservatives who care about solving real problems through compromise -- have been purged. They need a new political home, as do other disaffected citizens, but what form might that take? What should it be called? What big ideas should it advocate? What principles should guide it?
*
Science as a Way of Solving Problems*

Buzz Aldrin on the moon. Image credit: NASA/Neil Armstrong

I have no law degree or experience in government. I'm not a historian. My background is in science and biology, which may seem irrelevant to these questions. But science is by far the most successful method humans have devised for finding truth and solving problems. It opened our eyes to the vast size and age of our universe, doubled our lifespans and took us to the moon. Could the principles at the core of the scientific method -- honesty, humility and a ruthless insistence on discarding ideas that conflict with empirical evidence -- guide a political party? And could we make better use of scientific insights from nature in the way we manage human affairs? I think so, and a party that championed this approach could win support from thinking people across the political spectrum.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating the resurrection of the Technocracy Movement of the 1930s. I'm not even suggesting that political leaders should have degrees in science or engineering, though that might help. Instead I'm suggesting that our way of choosing social policies should, as much as possible, follow the scientific method. Science is not merely a body of knowledge about how nature works. Above all it is a method for finding truth and solving problems, one that mimics biological evolution in the way it explores the vast space of possible solutions.

A lovely solution found by evolution. Image credit: Wikimedia: Elaine R. Wilson

We see similar dynamics in free-market economic systems. We have not, however, seen much of it in politics, where slavish adherence to intuitively appealing ideologies generates an impoverished menu of options: cutting entitlement spending versus higher taxes on the rich; a single-payer healthcare system versus private health insurance; private school vouchers versus greater pay for teachers in public schools. In these and other problem domains, ideology has blinded us to that vast space of possible solutions.

Mathematician, poet and philosopher Jacob Bronowski made essentially the same point sixty-five years ago in The Common Sense of Science. At a time when the threat of global nuclear war darkened our collective mood, he wrote:
[S]cience is the acceptance of what works and the rejection of what does not. That needs more courage than we might think.

It needs more courage than we have ever found when we have faced our worldly problems. This is how society has lost touch with science: because it has hesitated to judge itself by the same impersonal code of what works and what does not. We have clung to Adam Smith and Burke, or we have agitated for Plato and Aquinas, through wars and famine, through rising and falling birth-rates, and through libraries of learned argument. And in the end, our eyes have always wandered from the birth-rate to the argument: from the birth-rate to what we have wanted to believe... Here is our ultimate hope of saving ourselves from extinction. We must learn to understand that the content of all knowledge is empirical; that its test is whether it works; and we must learn to act on that understanding in the world as well as in the laboratory.

[p. 152, Harvard University Press 1967 edition]
*
What Would Scientific Politics Look Like?*

If this fantasy could be realized in a new political party, it would be a striking break from the past. Like an electron in its quantum mechanical realm, this new party could not be localized with certainty to any one place on the political spectrum. That fact alone might increase its appeal in a time of unprecedented political gridlock, obstruction and frustration. Its big unifying principle would be its method of solving problems. Of course good old-fashioned political haggling, deal-making and voting would still be needed in Congress to decide which problems to tackle and, more importantly, to choose criteria by which we will judge the success or failure of alternative solutions. But having made those decisions, open-minded experimentation with multiple solutions in parallel would be the immediate goal, rather than a single solution dictated by ideology.

For many problems, especially economic ones, it might be best not to specify any tentative solutions, but instead to shape economic incentives and let the free market explore the solution space. This is what Germany did to increase its use of renewable energy and decrease its contribution to global warming. Anyone could make real money -- enough to make the effort worthwhile -- by installing solar panels and selling their excess electricity to the grid. This required a subsidy paid by residential customers of the electrical utility, so the cost of electricity increased for those who didn't put up solar panels. But even those people responded to the price incentive: they found ways to use less electricity.

Timber framed house with an array of photovoltaic panels in Buschhoven near Bonn, Germany. Image credit: Wikimedia: Túrelio

A similar approach could help with the coming crisis in Medicare solvency. Medicare might survive if wasteful and unnecessary procedures could be reduced, and this might happen naturally if patients and healthcare providers had the right incentives. Suppose, for example, that there were some formula for limiting the total Medicare benefits that each person could receive over his or her life. Both patients and doctors would have an incentive to use that limited resource wisely, but only if the system had complete price transparency. The cost of every medical procedure, device and drug would need to be known up front by all concerned, and patients would need to have the freedom to do comparative shopping. In such a system, real costs could be weighed along with medical risks and benefits -- something that is impossible in our current healthcare system.

But what formula should be used for limiting benefits? Should exceptions be allowed for certain medical conditions? Should the limit be age-dependent, such that people above a specified age lose coverage for heroic and expensive life-saving procedures? How should the formula be related to the balance in the Medicare trust fund? These are difficult questions, but experimentation is the way to answer them, and it would help to have a political party that embraces this empirical and exploratory approach.
*
Lessons From Nature*

And when that party sets its political priorities, it should also embrace our scientific understanding of reality. The acknowledgement of and response to global warming is an obvious example, but there are less obvious and more important lessons we can take from nature. One is the observation that organisms normally live in dynamic equilibrium with their environment. "Equilibrium, not Growth" may not be a catchy slogan for a bumper sticker, but it is the hallmark of an enduring species, and we ignore it at our peril. We have increased Earth's carrying capacity for humans by decreasing it for other species, a shortsighted strategy that leads to mass extinction. We are currently on track for a global population of about 11 billion humans on Earth by the end of this century, a number that is unsustainable if these billions are to have even a modestly comfortable standard of living. Stabilizing our numbers and preserving biodiversity should be high priorities for a party that takes its lessons from nature.

What should this party be called? Tom Friedman suggested "New Republican Party," but that suggests too small a departure from the party of Trump, or even of Lincoln. Of course "Scientific Party" comes to mind, but this sounds too much like familiar and dubious attempts to imbue wholly undeserving movements with the credibility of science, merely by tacking on the label -- Mary Baker Eddie's "Christian Science," for example, or L. Ron Hubbard's "Scientology." But since this is my fantasy, I'll offer my current favorite choice for a name: the "Pragmatic Party." It has a nice ring to it and seems to express the essence of the idea.
*
Prospects for a Pragmatic Party*

Whether this fantasy will ever be realized remains to be seen. I admit it seems far-fetched in a country where about 40 percent of the public believe in young-earth creationism. Yet there is hope in our younger generation, who are far more accepting of scientific reality. Ironically the Trump phenomenon offers some hope, too. Only a broken primary system could allow someone like Donald Trump to get this close to the presidency. Many people, conservatives among them, feel a strong and urgent need to fix this. A good Pragmatist would respond with a list of possible fixes. If the primary electorate is unrepresentative of the general electorate, then we need to make primaries look more like the general election. There are many possibilities. One of my favorites would be to eliminate primaries altogether by using ranked-choice voting. You may have even better ideas. Let's experiment!

Image credit: Wikimedia: Amitchell125

John C. Wathey is a computational biologist whose research interests include protein folding, evolutionary algorithms, and the biological forces behind religion. Learn more at www.watheyresearch.com.

This fascinating interview with Jacob Bronowski was recorded shortly before his death in 1974:
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 12 hours ago.

Two short weeks ago, we exposed the gaping difference between Amazon reader reviews of Hillary Clinton's "Stronger Together" book (14% 5-Stars) and Donald Trump's "Great Again" book (74% 5-Stars)...

 

 

As The New York Times reported at the time, *the book was a disaster.* Both Mrs. Clinton and her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine, have promoted the book on the campaign trail, but the sales figure, which tallies about 80 percent of booksellers nationwide and does not include e-books*, firmly makes the book what the publishing industry would consider a flop.*



“Stronger Together,” whose cover shows Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kaine waving, arrived closer to Election Day than most of these types of books.

 

*Named after the campaign’s slogan, “Stronger Together” *offers readers, according to the book jacket, “specific and practical solutions, while also articulating a bold and expansive vision of change and renewal.”

 

*Its roughly 250 pages intersperse bullet-point policy ideas, like “launch a national initiative for suicide prevention” and “humanely address the Central American migrant crisis,” *with photographs of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Kaine on the campaign trail, charts in the campaign’s signature chunky font and highlights from Mrs. Clinton’s speeches.



*So, as with everything else in this 'new normal rigged' world, something had to be done and WaPo-owner Jeff Bezos' Amazon reviews appear to have been 'tweaked' - more than doubling Hillary's top reviews.* But, as WND.com explains, Amazon's steps to 'fix' Hillary's book rviews has resulted in 5-star ratings with scathingly negative comments...

*If you can’t even win when the rules are changed in your favor, things must be REALLY bad.*

That’s how it looks for Hillary Clinton’s new 2016 campaign book, “Stronger Together,” co-authored with running mate Tim Kaine.

WND reported just days ago when the book was being savaged on Amazon.com with negative reviews, *with 81 percent one-star ratings and an average of only 1.7.*

Clinton supporters lashed out at “trolls” they said were criticizing the book only because they oppose the Democrat’s presidential candidacy.

*WND previously reported there were more than 1,200 reviews, and the number grew to than 2,000.*

*But Thursday afternoon, there were only 255, with many of the most critical reviews removed by Amazon, *whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post, which created an army of 20 reporters and researchers to investigate the life of Donald Trump.

Victory for the Clinton book, however, remains out of grasp, with the negative, one-star responses, outnumbering positive, *five-star responses nearly 2-1.*

*The one-star ratings Thursday were 62 percent, to 35 percent for five-star ratings.*

And reviewers many times simply punched the five-star button then made harshly critical condemnations of the book and Hillary Clinton.

From suz702, who posted a five-star ranking: “I didn’t buy this book or read this book, but I have read the reviews, and enjoyed hours of entertaining, fun filled reading, expressing the TRUTH, about a crooked, lying, corrupt, terminally ill Presidential candidate, who stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders, and who is about the steal the Presidency with the use of election fraud. 10 Stars to the authors of these reviews. Proof that not only are Amazon.com shoppers of superior intelligence, but thye call it like they see it…. Amazon shows this as a verified purchase, when I didn’t buy the book … how fun!”

Another five-star reviewer, ian alexander, said “the book confirms the hrc is a racist. every matter in her mind is about racies (sic). but reality is she does not care about the black people. just look at the ever increasing trend of black population that are relying on welfare since the obama rule. the fundermental (sic) cause of this result is the fact that lefties of the country favor the riches by allowing outsourcing jobs to other countries. black people should wake up, stop supporting dnc and hrc, who is effectively a puppet of the elite class. the book is simply a propaganda.”

*Amazon said there were 91 positive reviews Thursday, to 166 critical.*

*Just two days earlier, out of 1,244 reviews, 81 percent were one-star and 16 percent five-star. *The book plunged from No. 840 earlier this week to No. 1,538 on Thursday. It was No. 5 in the subcategory “Books-Politics & Social Sciences-Politics & Government-Elections & Political Process-Leadership.”

The new review chart:

The previous review chart:

WND reported earlier the five-star ratings came from those like Paul Zhu, who called it “a very inspirational and fair minded book,” and “Amazon customer,” who ranted, “You all suck and are trolls.”

The book’s promotion states: “For more than a year, Hillary Clinton has laid out an ambitious agenda to improve the lives of the American people and make our country stronger and safe. ‘Stronger Together’ presents that agenda in full, relating stories from the American people and outlining the Clinton-Kaine campaign’s plans on everything from apprencticeships to the Zika virus.”

*The reviews dripped sarcasm,* both before the Amazon edits to the reviews and after.

*“I bought this thinking it would be a how-to book. I wanted ‘How to set up your own Foundation for fun and profit.’ Also, would like to have seen a chapter on ‘Ten easy steps to setting up your own secure server in a bathroom,'” *wrote Elaine.

“Not only no but hell no. I’d rather read Mein Kampf,” said Anthony Messina.

Another anonymous Amazon Customer wrote, *“not worth it.”*

Yeliya said,* “Don’t waste your time and money on this book full of lies.”*

Cross Locket said, “I am now on Hillary’s watch list for rating this disgusting book ‘1 star.'”

Alei said,* “Trash, farce, fairytale.”*

Chjhores said: “Pre-ordered an autographed copy but had to return it after this week’s announcement as I was worried it was contaminated with pneumonia bacteria. I didn’t want to end up exposed to the illness like her grandkids in Chelsea’s apartment she was playing with on 9/11 after she collapsed, or the little girl she was hugging in the street afterwards. Thought about ordering the Kindle version but I thought it might open my device up to being hacked by communist countries. I wasn’t too surprised to see Tim Kaine on the front cover giving the traditional National Socialist salute, I felt it fitting. Strongly recommended for those who believe the USA isn’t anything special and should be more like the peaceful utopias of North Korea, Iran, or Cuba.”

And kpm said, “Imagine my dismay when key parts of her life were omitted, would have made for far better reading if she had included all of the below starting with flunking the D.C. Bar Exam to:

· Was removed from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying.
· The Whitewater scandal.
· Married a serial liar and cheater, who occasionally had sexual encounters with nonconsenting partners.
· Lied about “sniper fire” in an attempt to simulate exposure to danger in a war zone.
The subject of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” that led to the impeachment and disbarment of her husband
· Took crockery, furniture, artwork and other items from the White House — had to return and/or pay for them.
· Said “what difference, at this point, does it make” about four brave people killed in Libya as a direct result of her failure to protect them on the anniversary of 9/11.
· Totally ignored the structure and rules for the handling of sensitive national security information.
· Amassed a personal fortune with “speaking fees” and payments from private sector political donors and foreign governments into transparent “foundations” in obvious exchange for future political favor.

*Nearly 1,500 people found that review “helpful.”*

But more than 3,400 found helpful the comments from Daniel B.:



“I was going to read this book … I really was. But just as I got started, I found myself under sniper fire, passed out, and fell and hit my head. After that I got double vision and had to wear glasses that were so damn thick I couldn’t even see to read. As if that wasn’t enough, I then had an allergic reaction to something and started coughing so hard I spit out what looked like a couple of lizard’s eyeballs, my limbs locked up, and I passed out and fell down again, waking up only to find out I had been diagnosed with pneumonia 2 days earlier. Somehow I managed to power through it all, but it’s a good thing I was able to make a small fortune on this random small trade in the commodities market (cattle futures or some such thing) and then, miracle of all miracles, a few banks offered me a few million to just talk to their employees for a few minutes – and all that really helped out because I swear I was dead broke and couldn’t figure out how I was gonna come up with the 6 bucks to pay for this book, let alone pay the $1,500 for my health insurance this month. I still want to read it, but, honestly, what difference at this point does it make? I hear it sucks anyway.”



Clinton’s 2015 book, “Hard Choices,” received an average of only three stars despite garnering 2,460 customer reviews.

*Some screen captures of the “Stronger Together” reviews:*

 

 

*WND also has documented Bezos’ interest in the election outcome, with the Post’s army of investigators looking into Trump’s life.*

As WND reported this summer, Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward told the National Association of Realtors Convention in Washington Wednesday: “There’s a lot we don’t know. We have 20 people working on Trump. We’re going to do a book. We’re doing articles about every phase of his life.”

Woodward said he has been investigating Trump’s real-estate deals in New York.

“The New York real-estate world is more complex than the CIA,” he said.

He also claimed the Washington Post is seeking to get the “essence” of Hillary Clinton. But, despite an active FBI probe into the issue, Woodward dismissed concern about Hillary’s use of a private email server to send classified information, according to the Washington Examiner.

At the time, WND asked the Washington Post:* “Exactly how large is the team your paper has tasked with thoroughly investigating Hillary Clinton’s background and associations? Are there at least 20 people tasked specifically with digging through her past and finding details in ‘every phase’ of her life?”*

Washington Post Vice President of Communications and Events Kristine Coratti told WND that Woodward was referring to a large team of two-dozen reporters and researchers working on “a special book project” examining Trump’s life.

*Why a book on Trump and not Hillary and her 22 biggest scandals?*

“[W]e have years and years of reporting on Hillary Clinton to draw from, including her last presidential campaign, her time as secretary of state, and her position as U.S. senator,” Coratti explained. “Because Trump’s involvement in political life is far more limited, the Post newsroom decided to embark on a book as a special project. In order to complete the book in a timely fashion, reporters from throughout the newsroom have been assigned to work for a brief period on particular aspects of his life and career.”

The one-star reviews for the Clinton book also continued. Just Thursday afternoon, Jimsdun wrote: *“Well I’m disappointed. This doesn’t tell me how to create a faux charitable foundation and then use it for money laundering.”*

  Reported by Zero Hedge 2 hours ago.

If you’ve ever received a paycheck, you know there are plenty of deductions that come out of your overall pay: income taxes, Social Security, health insurance premiums, retirement savings and any other amounts you might’ve authorized like automatic savings or union dues. Reported by ajc.com 12 hours ago.

Regal Medical Group (RMG), Lakeside Community Healthcare (LCH) and ADOC Medical Group are hosting several “Celebrating Your Health” events in neighborhoods across Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

Northridge, Calif. (PRWEB) September 26, 2016

Regal Medical Group (RMG), Lakeside Community Healthcare (LCH) and ADOC Medical Group are hosting several “Celebrating Your Health” events in neighborhoods across Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Each event is a celebration of good health and reiterates the importance of preventive medicine. These events provide an opportunity for family and friends to celebrate their health and wellness and learn about the RMG, LCH and ADOC member advantages while having fun.

“Celebrating Your Health” aims to bring greater healthcare and medical awareness to communities by addressing the importance of having health insurance. Attendees will learn how to select the appropriate doctors that fit their individual family needs and what preventive measures to take to remain healthy. Guests can receive a free flu shot (while supplies last) and health screenings. They can also enjoy light refreshments and participate in different raffle contests for a chance to win a $100 gift card, Fitbit Flex activity tracker or tablet.

“We understand the importance of educating the community about healthcare,” said Daniel Frank, Chief Operating Officer of Regal Medical Group. “We want to provide a safe, fun environment where people feel relaxed to engage in discussions and ask questions about their healthcare needs and services. Our “Celebrating Your Health” events offer a comfortable atmosphere to do just that.”

Licensed insurance agents will available at each event to assist with Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), Medicare Advantage Plans insurance and coverage questions. The first celebration will be held on Thursday, September 29, 2016 and the final event will be on Saturday, November 5, 2016.

To find a “Celebrating Your Health” celebration near you or for more information, please call 877-304-1834 or visit http://www.regalmed.com.

About Regal Medical Group, Lakeside Community Healthcare and ADOC Medical Group
Regal Medical Group (RMG) and Lakeside Community Healthcare (LCH) and ADOC Medical Group are Independent Physician Associations (IPAs) that have a 35-year history of providing quality healthcare to Southern California. With a large network of thousands of healthcare providers and part of one of Southern California's largest managed healthcare networks, Heritage Provider Network (HPN), RMG, LCH and ADOC are dedicated to quality, affordable healthcare. For more information, visit http://www.regalmed.com.

### Reported by PRWeb 10 hours ago.

The Cook County Board approved an ordinance Wednesday to start a program to help those without health insurance get regular care so they don't wind up in the emergency room.

The program will allow uninsured Cook County residents earning up to twice the federal poverty level — in other words, $48,600... Reported by ChicagoTribune 8 hours ago.

A panel of former high-ranking government officials will discuss the impact of the presidential and congressional elections on the health care industry in a two-part webinar series sponsored by Atlantic Information Services.

Washington, DC (PRWEB) September 26, 2016

Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is pleased to announce the speakers for “The Impact of the Presidential Election on U.S. Health Care — A Two-Part Webinar Series,” a duo of early October webinars designed to address the major issues that will arise when a new presidential administration and Congress take office. On Oct. 5 and 6, former high-ranking government officials and other consultants will discuss the changes that might occur when the new presidential administration and Congress take office.

The speakers are:· Joel Ario, former head of HHS’s Office of Health Insurance Exchanges
· Chiquita Brooks-Lasure, former deputy director at the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight
· Christopher Condeluci, former tax and benefits counsel to the Senate Finance Committee as the Affordable Care Act was being drafted
· Bruce Merlin Fried, former head of the managed care office at CMS predecessor Health Care Financing Administration
· Bob Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates
· Tom Miller, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
· Tom Scully, a former CMS administrator

For more information, including speaker biographies and how to register, visit http://aishealth.com/marketplace/c6m22-23.

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 8 hours ago.

With new studies showing prescription opioids cost the U.S. economy nearly $80 billion and increase employers’ medical expenses, Novus Medical Detox Center calls for Drug-Free Workplace policies to address the prescription painkiller epidemic.

NEW PORT RICHEY, Fla. (PRWEB) September 26, 2016

According to new government-sponsored research, the national economic burden of prescription opioid overdoses, abuse and dependence has risen to $78.5 billion per year.(1) Another study determined that opioid abusers cost employers nearly twice as much in medical expenses as non-abusers.(2) Novus Medical Detox Center, a leading Florida-based drug treatment facility, advises employers to take a more proactive role in combating the prescription opioid crisis by ensuring their workplace drug policies and testing address prescription medication abuse.

Of the nearly $80 billion in economic costs related to prescription opioid misuse and abuse, $21.5 billion is linked to overdose fatalities, $26.1 billion to healthcare costs, $20.4 billion to lost productivity, $7.7 billion to criminal justice and $2.8 billion to substance abuse treatment. Employers absorb a significant proportion of these costs, including $21.4 billion in lost productivity due to fatal overdoses and $16.3 billion due to reduced productive time/increased disability, as well as the employer-subsidized share of over $14 billion in private health insurance costs.(1)

A recent Castlight Health study found that nearly 1 in 3 U.S. opioid prescriptions is being abused. While only 4.5% of patients who received a prescription for narcotic painkillers are abusing them, those individuals account for 32% of total opioid prescriptions and 40% of opioid prescription spending. In addition, employers pay an average of $19,450 per year in medical costs for opioid users, compared to $10,853 for non-users.(2)

“Most workplace drug policies focus on deterring illicit drug use, but fewer address misuse of prescription drugs,” noted Will Wesch, Director of Admissions for Novus Medical Detox Center. “Many employers avoid the topic out of concern for employees’ privacy or the mistaken belief that legitimately prescribed medications don’t pose a threat to workplace safety or productivity. However, the statistics tell another story.”

A National Safety Council poll found that nearly half of prescription opioid users participated in potentially unsafe activities with opioids in their system: 39% went to work, 35% drove a vehicle and 14% operated heavy machinery.(3) Opioid use was linked to workplace accidents in a 2010 report by Quest Diagnostics, which revealed hydrocodone was found in post-accident drug tests nearly five times as often as in pre-employment tests.(4) Furthermore, a Southern Pacific Railroad study showed that incidents resulting in injuries fell 71%—from 2,234 to 322—from the year before drug testing to the year after its introduction.(5)

“Employers need to recognize the costs and risks associated with opioid abuse, and take steps to address the prescription painkiller epidemic,” asserted Wesch. He advises employers to:· Request a free Prescription Drug Employer Kit from the National Safety Council.
· Update workplace drug policies to include prescription medications.
· Assess and expand (as appropriate) the scope of drug testing.
· Collaborate with healthcare benefits providers and workers’ compensation carriers to monitor and manage opioid prescribing and use.
· Educate supervisors and employees about opioid-related health and safety hazards.
· Offer confidential support via an employee assistance program (EAP).

Wesch also advocates for employer-sponsored treatment—including detox and drug rehab programs—for workers diagnosed with opioid use disorders.

“Investing in employees’ health and safety can improve morale, productivity and, ultimately, the bottom line,” he concluded.

Novus provides medically supervised drug detox programs that help patients safely manage opiate and opioid withdrawal with minimal discomfort. The Florida drug detox facility offers individually customized treatment plans based on proven medical protocols, including 24-hour access to nursing care and withdrawal specialists. Novus is renowned for its expertise in treating high-dose methadone cases, and is proficient in detoxing patients from other high-dose opioids just as safely, comfortably and effectively.

For more information on Novus Medical Detox Center and its opioid detox and treatment programs, visit http://www.novusdetox.com.

About Novus Medical Detox Center:
Novus Medical Detox Center has earned The Joint Commission’s Gold Seal of Approval for Behavioral Health Care Accreditation as an inpatient medical detox facility. Licensed by the Florida Department of Children and Families, Novus provides safe, effective alcohol and drug treatment programs that are based on proven medical protocols and designed to minimize the discomfort of withdrawal. The facility is located on 3.25 acres in New Port Richey, Florida, in a tranquil, spa-like setting bordering protected conservation land. Intent on proving that detox doesn’t have to be painful or degrading, Novus set out to transform the industry by bringing humanity into medical detox with individually customized treatment programs and 24/7 access to nursing care and withdrawal specialists. Today, Novus is renowned as a champion of industry standardization and a staunch advocate of patients fighting to overcome substance use disorders. Frequently recognized for its contributions to the industry and local community, Novus has become a regular source to media publications such as The Wall Street Journal and USA Today, and has ranked in the Tampa Bay Business Journal’s Fast 50, the Florida Business Journal’s Top 500 and the Inc. 5000 list of America’s fastest-growing companies. For more information on Novus’ medically supervised detox programs, visit http://novusdetox.com.

1. Florence, Curtis S.; Chao Zhou; et al. “The Economic Burden of Prescription Opioid Overdose, Abuse, and Dependence in the United States, 2013”; Medical Care; October 2016. journals.lww.com/lww-medicalcare/Fulltext/2016/10000/The_Economic_Burden_of_Prescription_Opioid.2.aspx

2. Castlight Health. “New Study Reveals 32 Percent of Total Opioid Prescriptions Are Being Abused”; press release issued April 20, 2016. castlighthealth.com/press-releases/new-study-reveals-32-percent-of-total-opioid-prescriptions-are-being-abused

3. Trotto, Sarah. “Prescription Painkillers and the Workforce”; Safety and Health; September 27, 2015. safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/print/12932-prescription-drugs-workers

4. Quest Diagnostics. “U.S. Worker Use of Prescription Opiates Climbing, Shows Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index”; press release issued September 16, 2010. ir.questdiagnostics.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=82068&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1472189

5. National Safety Council. The Proactive Role Employers Can Take: Opioids in the Workplace; July 22, 2014. nsc.org/RxDrugOverdoseDocuments/proactive-role-employers-can-take-opioids-in-the-workplace.pdf Reported by PRWeb 7 hours ago.

Harmony Healthcare once again received recognition for their success with a number 5 ranking on the 2016 Florida Fast 100, a list compiled by Florida business journals each year. The top five ranking reflects an impressive two-year revenue growth of 421%.

Tampa Bay, Florida (PRWEB) September 26, 2016

Harmony Healthcare once again received recognition for their success with a number 5 ranking on the 2016 Florida Fast 100, a list compiled by Florida business journals each year. The top five ranking reflects an impressive two-year revenue growth of 421%. Last year, Harmony Healthcare ranked number 8 on the list.

The list is a collaboration among the Jacksonville, Orlando, South Florida and Tampa Bay business journals and ranks privately held, for-profit organizations headquartered in Florida with at least $5 million in revenue. The list recognizes companies who have demonstrated revenue growth for three years and is considered a great accomplishment for any company.

Founder and CEO Christopher H.G. Brown is proud of his company’s success and a spot on the list for consecutive years.

“It is an honor to have made this list for consecutive years and to be recognized alongside Florida’s best businesses,” he said. “Florida has such a thriving business community and we are proud to be recognized with such a prominent spot in this year’s list.”

Harmony Healthcare provides interim, outsourcing, project management and reviews, as well as direct-to-hire services for clients. The company specializes in hiring revenue cycle and health information management professionals for client facilities. The company’s experts are highly trained, can spot problems and lead a client facility through the best processes, procedures and solutions.

With a career marked by a sharp entrepreneurial eye and the love of a good challenge, Brown founded Harmony Healthcare in 2010 after recognizing just how revolutionary the change from paper to digital medical records would be for healthcare facilities. His company helps clients solve problems associated with digital medical records and health information management that have coincided with the change in the way healthcare facilities collect patient information, code it, communicate with insurance companies and collect revenue in a timely manner.        

With a large breadth of expertise, the company is able to provide support in areas ranging from clinical documentation improvement and coding to auditing and GSA government compliance at Veterans Administration hospitals and U.S. military bases.

Harmony employs more than 500 people and has staff at client sites across the United States. The company maintains low turnover by providing 100 percent covered health insurance, paid time off, paid travel expenses and keeping the back-office operation inexpensive.

Harmony Healthcare also boasts a 418 ranking, with a three-year sales growth of 922 percent, on the 2016 Inc. 5000 list. This list of the fastest-growing companies in America represents a unique look at the most successful companies within the American economy’s most dynamic segment— its independent businesses. Companies such as Microsoft, Dell, Domino’s Pizza, Pandora, Timberland, LinkedIn, Yelp, Zillow, and many other well-known names gained their first national exposure as honorees of the Inc. 5000.

Brown founded and led an accounting, finance, IT and human resources contract and placement services company known as Burlington Wells, Inc., until 2000 when it was sold to Monster.com/TMP Worldwide. He began and led a Health Information Management contract and placement company called Insights Search, until its acquisition by On Assignment (ASGN) in 2006.

As a member of the Spartan Staffing board of directors from 1999-2004, Brown was recruited to help develop the internal structures and culture in preparation for the sale of the company. Further, Brown is an accomplished writer on the subject of recruiting and staffing. His 2001 book, “Insights, A guide to Successful Recruitment Strategies and Training” is a comprehensive guide to recruitment, staffing and human resources training.

Brown’s career record boasts an abundance of successes with founding and growing businesses, all while helping his employees excel in their own careers and dreams.

“This recognition is a testament to all the hard work of our dedicated, savvy employees,” he said. “I am thrilled that Harmony made the list again and am proud of the successes that we’ve had in the past year.”

Brown learned some of his best leadership lessons from the well-known, much-loved, and highly successful UCLA Basketball Coach John Wooden. Many of Wooden’s words of wisdom apply both on and off the basketball court.

“It’s not what you do, but how you do it,” is one of Brown’s favorite quotes from Wooden.

“This is our belief system and culture,” points out Brown. “Harmony Healthcare was founded on the principals of integrity, character, hard work and discipline.” Reported by PRWeb 6 hours ago.

Employer-sponsored group health plans and health insurance issuers (or carriers) are subject to information reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Reported by Mondaq 5 hours ago.

With Gennifer Flowers seemingly off Trump's list, The Clinton campaign has unveiled its *all-female guest list *(on top of the already announced front-row seats for *token male Mark Cuban*).

As The Hill reports, the list includes a 9/11 survivor, a domestic violence survivor, a woman with cerebral palsy who has long worked with Clinton, as well as a pen pal of Clinton's during her time as first lady.



*Lauren Manning, who was injured in the 9/11 attacks* and spoke at this year's Democratic National Convention will be among Clinton's guests, a Clinton official said. Clinton worked with Manning to get benefits for survivors and first responders after the terrorist attacks.

 

*Maxine Outerbridge, a single mom who survived domestic violence,* provides a face for Clinton's work on behalf of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

 

*Anastasia Somoza, the woman with cerebral palsy* who said at the convention that she pitied Trump, will also be in attendance, along with Aleatha Williams, who *become pen pals* with Clinton when she was 8 and Clinton was first lady, the campaign official said.

 



*  *  *

It appears the Clinton narrative for tonight is that she is a fighter for women and children (and billionaire bankers and internet mavens?) Reported by Zero Hedge 4 hours ago.

The post-hearing dead cat bounce in Mylan stock is over. The "blood in the streets" buyers are in trouble as the stock is tumbling following WSJ reports that *Mylan is admitting its pre-tax profits for EpiPen are actually 60% higher than they told Congress.*



When Mylan NV’s chief executive testified before a congressional committee last week about steep price increases on its lifesaving EpiPen drug, House members badgered her to provide more evidence for the company’s claim that its profits were just $100 for a two-pack of the injectors, despite a $608 list price.

 

The committee members left unsatisfied. Now it appears they were right to seek clarity.

 

*In response to questions from The Wall Street Journal, Mylan now says the $100 figure presented by CEO Heather Bresch included something the company didn’t clearly convey to Congress—taxes. The company substantially reduced its calculation of EpiPen profits by applying the statutory U.S. tax rate of 37.5%.*

 

Without the tax-related reduction, Mylan’s profits on the EpiPen two-pack would be closer to $160, or *60% higher than the figure the company gave Congress. *The company sells about 4.1 million EpiPen two-packs in the U.S., analysts said.



And the stock is slipping...

 

It seems congress had a hunch that something was up... (as Reuters reported 2 weeks ago)



The chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee probing Mylan NV's EpiPen price hike on Friday said its response to his query was "incomplete," and called on the drugmaker to give more details over how much government health insurance programs pay for the allergy treatment.

 

*"It's an incomplete response and wouldn't satisfy my constituents who are upset about the EpiPen price increases. It doesn't provide the full picture that I requested, and it doesn't answer all of my questions," *U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley said in a statement. He added that it is still unclear how many patients will benefit from Mylan's expanded assistance programme.



But then again in this consequence-less world, what difference does it make? Reported by Zero Hedge 3 hours ago.

Pet insurance provider marks decennial with launch of first fully customizable plan.

Newtown Square, PA (PRWEB) September 26, 2016

It’s been a dog’s age since Petplan sold its first insurance policy in 2006. On the event of its 70th anniversary — or 10th, in human years — the company has re-launched its pet insurance products in the United States and Canada with market-leading innovations made possible by a new underwriting partner, XL Specialty Insurance Company, an XL Catlin insurance company.

Innovation is nothing new for Petplan, which led the pack by becoming the first provider to insure pets of any age, with no policy exclusions for hereditary and chronic conditions (1), or premium increases based on an individual pet’s claims. These features have since largely become industry standards in today’s rapidly-growing pet insurance marketplace.

Petplan’s new product represents the industry’s first fully customizable pet insurance plan – meaning pet parents can create a plan that works for their budget, and gets their pet the coverage they need, during a time when veterinary costs are at a record high.

“More than ever, pet parents want to ensure that their pets can receive the medical care they deserve,” says Petplan co-CEO and co-founder Chris Ashton. “Our goal was to put those treatment options within reach for everyone.”

New plan features include:·     A broader range of annual limits from $5,000 all the way up to UNLIMITED
·     Greater choice of deductibles, with the option of an ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLE
·     24/7 access to expert veterinary advice through a partnership with PetCoach

All this in addition to the features pet parents have relied on over the years including:·     Protection for any injury or illness (2), including non-routine dental care and cancer, with no riders
·     Coverage for exam fees for unexpected veterinary care visits (3)
·     Paperless claims submissions through the Petplan mobile app
·     24/7 service through the in-house, customer experience center
·     Expert pet health content in fetch! magazine

The amount of dollars spent on veterinary care has risen sharply over the last decade. The American Pet Products Association (APPA) estimates that Americans will spend $15.92 billion on veterinary care this year — a 69 percent increase over the $9.4 billion spent in 2006.

Rising costs are due, in part, to the availability of more sophisticated treatment options. Modalities such as MRI, surgery and chemotherapy have become widely available. With today’s cutting-edge treatment options such as cold laser, gamma knife and stem cell therapy, veterinarians can treat and cure more conditions, less invasively, than ever before.

The American pet insurance market has grown in direct response. According to figures from the North American Pet Health Insurance Association (NAPHIA), over 1.4 million pets were insured in the U.S. at the end of 2015, and that number is growing at 12 percent annually. In 2006, there were just six pet insurance providers; today, they count 12.

“We’re delighted to partner with Petplan,” says XL Specialty Insurance Company’s Chris Bressette, Senior Vice President and Head of North America Programs at XL Catlin. “We look forward to working with them to significantly grow the market by providing pet owners with innovative coverage and dedicated and attentive claims service."

To learn more about Petplan’s pet insurance products, visit Petplan.com.

###

ABOUT PETPLAN

Petplan was founded by Chris & Natasha Ashton, pet parents and Wharton MBAs, after their own cat Bodey became sick, resulting in a veterinary bill for over $5,000. Petplan is more than a pet insurance provider. We’re dedicated to giving pet parents the support, resources and tools they need to keep their pets not just surviving—but thriving—into old age. Simply put, we aim to be the kind of company that will make our pets proud. For the third consecutive year, Petplan was listed among the top 50 of Forbes' annual ranking of America’s Most Promising Companies – a list of 100 privately held, high-growth companies with bright futures. Petplan is the only pet insurance provider to have been included on Inc. Magazine’s list of 500 fastest-growing, privately held companies in America.

Petplan’s fully customizable cat and dog insurance policies provide comprehensive coverage for all hereditary and chronic conditions for the life of the pet as standard for as long as you maintain insurance with Petplan. Policy restrictions may apply.

Petplan policies are underwritten in the US by XL Specialty Insurance Company and in Canada, by XL Specialty Insurance Company-Canadian Branch. The company is rated A+ by S &P. Coverages may not be available in all jurisdictions. For more information about Petplan pet insurance, visit http://www.petplan.com or call 1-866-467-3875.

1. Policy restrictions apply. Pre-existing conditions not covered.
2. Policy restrictions apply. Pre-existing conditions not covered.
3. Routine or preventive treatment not covered. Reported by PRWeb 2 minutes ago.