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

eHealth, Inc. to Announce Third Quarter 2016 Earnings Results and Strategic Review Findings on October 27 at 5 p.m. Eastern Time

0
0
eHealth, Inc. to Announce Third Quarter 2016 Earnings Results and Strategic Review Findings on October 27 at 5 p.m. Eastern Time MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--eHealth, Inc., the nation's first and largest private online health insurance exchange, announced today that the company plans to release third quarter 2016 financial results on October 27, 2016. Reported by Business Wire 12 minutes ago.

State Farm Agent Meridth Lamas Helping Victims of Hurricane Matthew

0
0
Meridth Lamas, State Farm agent, spearheads food donation drive to assist families affected by Hurricane Matthew.

Savannah, GA (PRWEB) October 14, 2016

Meridth Lamas, of State Farm, is proud to announce she is hosting a food donation drive throughout October to help victims of Hurricane Matthew. Non-perishable food items and/or gift certificates for grocery stores can be dropped off at Meridth Lamas State Farm, located at 329 Eisenhower Dr., Suite C, Savannah, GA. Food donations only can also be dropped off at donation boxes in Savannah at Village Walk Pharmacy on Skidaway Island, LoCost Pharmacy, 612 69th St., Publix on Skidaway Island, and Publix on Wilmington Island. Food will be distributed to those communities hit hardest in the area.

“In the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew, I am seeing many families incurring numerous expenses for recovery, and they are faced with additional burdens,” said Lamas. “When you lose a car or incur other losses, you sometimes have to scrimp somewhere else. To aid in the recovery efforts, our office is setting up these food donation boxes throughout Savannah.”

For other businesses that want to participate in the Hurricane Matthew food drive by becoming a drop-off center, please contact Meridth Lamas at (912) 354-2390. Participating businesses will be added to Lamas’ Facebook page.

About Meridth Lamas, State Farm
Meridth Lamas has been with State Farm for over 20 years. She offers home, auto, life and health insurance, focusing on new purchases and relocations to Savannah. For more information, please call (912) 354-2390, or visit http://www.savannahinsurancelady.com. The office is located at 329 Eisenhower Dr., Suite C, Savannah, GA 31406.

About the NALA™
The NALA offers small and medium-sized businesses effective ways to reach customers through new media. As a single-agency source, the NALA helps businesses flourish in their local community. The NALA’s mission is to promote a business’ relevant and newsworthy events and achievements, both online and through traditional media. For media inquiries, please call 805.650.6121, ext. 361. Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.

Koch Brothers’ Latest Target: Pope Francis

0
0
On a spring night in downtown Washington earlier this year, hedge fund managers and CEOs mingled with religious scholars and priests at a cigar reception on the 11th floor of the Renaissance Hotel. The occasion was a $1,700-a-person conference, hosted by The Catholic University of America, focused on integrating Catholic social teaching and business.

Among the well-heeled guests was a lobbyist from Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, a $130 million trade group aligned with the powerful industrialists Charles and David Koch. As the cocktail chatter turned to complaints about government regulations and the power of markets to help the poor, the scene felt more fitting to a conservative political fundraiser than a conference at the nation’s only Vatican-chartered university.

But free market orthodoxy is becoming a familiar staple at Catholic University’s business school, which has accepted nearly $13 million from the Charles Koch Foundation over the last three years. The money has gone to the Busch School of Business & Economics and has been a source of consternation and controversy among some Catholic scholars. The billionaire brothers aren’t known for making public statements about faith, but rather for their defining creed of “economic liberty,” which they promote with missionary zeal by spending millions to lower corporate taxes, chip away at environmental safeguards, and erode worker’s rights.

It’s a libertarian agenda that stands in stark contrast with the communitarian tradition of Catholicism, and that is also hard to square with the priorities of Pope Francis. The first Jesuit pope and the first from Latin America, Francis has used his pulpit to challenge the moral failings of contemporary global capitalism. He has described inequality as the “root of social evil,” and has called climate change “one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day.”

By contrast, the Kochs champion a far-right ideology that scoffs at climate change and workers’ rights. After the business school at Catholic University announced its first $1 million donation from the Koch Foundation three years ago, 50 Catholic theologians and scholars raised alarms. The Kochs help “advance public policies that directly contradict Catholic teaching on a range of moral issues from economic justice to environmental stewardship,” the scholars stated in an open letter to the university. Another letter from Catholic Scholars for Worker Justice criticized the university’s “potentially misleading message” regarding the church’s commitment to unions and workers’ rights.

(Photo: Flickr/Republic of Korea)

Pope Francis during a visit to Korea in 2014

University officials fired back that critics had set out to “manufacture controversy and score political points.” (Full disclosure: I work for Faith in Public Life, which helped promote the Catholic scholars’ letter.) In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the university’s president, John Garvey, and the business school’s founding dean, Andrew Abela, declared that they would not “cave to demands made by the liberal social justice movement,” and wrote that it would be a “mistake to stifle debate by pretending that genuinely controversial positions are official church teaching.”

Catholic is not the only university to take money from the Koch Foundation, which is efficiently building a free-market “talent pipeline” in the nation’s colleges and universities. According to an investigation last year by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, the foundation gave $19.3 million to 210 colleges in 2013 alone. More than two dozen Catholic universities receive funding from the Koch Foundation. Compared with the nearly $13 million Catholic University has hauled in over the past three years, most are relatively small grants. Creighton University, a Catholic, Jesuit institution in Nebraska, has brought in more than $4 million from the Koch Foundation and from the family of an Omaha entrepreneur named C.L. Werner. The money funds the university’s Institute for Economic Inquiry, which cranks out research that advocates for the privatization of state services and touts an economic philosophy more in line with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce than traditional Catholic teaching.

But the influence of the Kochs merits special scrutiny at Catholic University, founded by the U.S. bishops in 1887 with the support of Pope Leo XIII to be the national university of the Catholic Church in America. As one of the wealthiest men in the world, Charles Koch is promoting an agenda that is on a collision course with Pope Francis’s teachings about Catholic stewardship. Francis has sharply challenged what he describes as the “dictatorship of an impersonal economy” and calls for “a legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state.”

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories, which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” the pope wrote in his first major teaching document, The Joy of the Gospel, released in 2013. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.”

Francis directly links what he calls “an economy of exclusion” to the global climate crisis, saying that the “cry of the earth and the cry of the poor” are inseparable. In an encyclical last June—the first-ever devoted entirely to ecology—Francis assailed climate deniers and called for a transition away from oil dependency. Koch Industries, meanwhile, is notorious for its abysmal record of covering up toxic spills, and for underwriting well-funded lobbying and disinformation campaigns to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus about the severe risks of human-induced climate change. The Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which has received Koch funding over the years, spearheaded a press conference before the pope’s first visit to the U.S. last fall to disseminate the message that “Pope Francis’ views on global warming are scientifically in error, and his views on capitalism are outdated and wrong.”

 

*IN “LITTLE ROME,” THE* Brookland neighborhood of northeast Washington that houses the university’s campus, a theological college for Dominican friars and headquarters of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Kochs have some influential fans. The university’s business school is named for Tim Busch, a Catholic CEO and Orange County, California, attorney who specializes in estate planning for wealthy clients. Busch, a philanthropist who owns several luxury hotels and founded the Napa-based winery Trinitas Cellars, sits on the university’s board of trustees, and recently gave the university $15 million, its largest-ever donation.

(Photo: Flickr/Jerry)

The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

“I’ve learned a lot from the Koch family,” Busch acknowledged in an interview with The Catholic World Report. “Koch shouldn’t be attacked, but applauded.”

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Busch explained why the university accepted the Koch funding and gushed about the “compatibility of capitalism and Catholicism.” His own economic views—like those of the Kochs— are often in tension with Catholic tradition. One bedrock principle of Catholic social teaching is that workers should receive a living wage. It’s a position that the Catholic Church has officially supported since at least 1891, when Pope Leo XIII affirmed that right and also the right of workers to organize. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops explicitly supports raising the federal minimum wage. Busch, in contrast, has called the minimum wage “an anti-market regulation that leads to unemployment” and claims it does “great harm” to workers.

He’s not the only prominent Catholic in the university’s circles philosophically allied with the Kochs. Abela, the founding dean of the business school, struck a less than Francis-like note when he told a Catholic news outlet that while Catholic teaching requires respect for the environment, “it doesn't say if you question global warming or climate change that’s a sin.” In fact, just last month, the pope’s message for the “World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation” specifically noted that 2015 was the warmest year on record. He quoted Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the leader of the Eastern Orthodox Church, saying that environmental degradation and the impact of climate change are “a sin against ourselves and a sin against God.”  

The glaring contrast between the Kochs’ ideology and both Pope Francis’s priorities and traditional Catholic social teaching is apparently lost on some wealthy conservative Catholics. A year after controversy first erupted around the Koch donations at Catholic University in 2013, two financial contributors to the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce wrote a Washington Post op-ed that unconvincingly attempted to link the Kochs with the pope. “For us, promoting limited government alongside the Kochs is an important part of heeding Pope Francis’ call to love and serve the poor,” they wrote in a column that went on to parrot a litany of Republican talking points about the “insatiable growth” of government.

(Photo: AP/Phelan M. Ebenhack)

David Koch, left, laughs as Amway founder Rich DeVos addresses the Defending the American Dream Summit in Orlando on August 30, 2013.

If some conservatives have tried to identify themselves with a popular pope even as they undermine his message, others have directly attacked Francis. Among the speakers to address Creighton University’s Koch-backed Institute for Economic Inquiry is Stephen Moore, an economist at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., and a campaign adviser to Donald Trump. Moore, a Catholic, last year blasted Pope Francis in Forbes magazine as “a complete disaster when it comes to his policy pronouncements.” The pope, Moore wrote, “has allied himself with the far left and has embraced an ideology that would make people poorer and less free.” On environmental issues, he accuses the pope of aligning himself with a “radical green movement that at its core is anti-Christian, anti-people and anti-progress.” Creighton’s institute invited Moore last fall to give an address about economic issues in the 2016 election.

Some scholars say the Kochs’ ideology can’t be justified in Catholic terms. Stephen Schneck, a professor at Catholic University who organized a conference two years ago at the campus, which highlighted the incompatibility of Catholic teachings and economic libertarianism, says efforts to demonize government and sanctify markets are antithetical to the Catholic moral tradition.

“Radical market ideologies really are heretical,” Schneck, the director of the university’s Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, told the Prospect. “To yoke human freedom to the same market competition that has given rise to consumerism, materialism, value relativism, and the commodification of labor can’t be squared with the Catholic ideal of human dignity.”

 

*THE KOCHS ARE ONLY TWO* of the players in a broader movement spreading a free-market gospel at Catholic institutions. A well-financed network of conservative clergy and Catholic intellectuals on the right churns out research and books, and hosts conferences that often send a decidedly different message than Pope Francis does when it comes to the economy and climate change. One influential figure in this effort is the Reverend Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest who founded the Koch-linked Acton Institute. Based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the institute has a Rome office near the Vatican, and also has ties to Catholic University’s business and economics school.

Abela is one of several faculty members who have won Acton’s $10,000 top award for studying the “relationship between religion and economic liberty.” The author of Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for A Free Economy, Sirico is a Brooklyn native with a sharp wit who is as comfortable dishing commentary on Fox News as he is waxing philosophical about Saint Augustine. A onetime activist on the left in the 1960s, Sirico has built a formidable base of operations with the help of the Koch Foundation and the Christian conservative DeVos family, the billionaire heirs to the Amway fortune who are well known for bankrolling Republican candidates, and anti-tax and anti-union campaigns.

(Photo: Flickr/Susan Melkisethian)

People on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., watch as Pope Francis addresses Congress on September 24, 2015.

When adjunct professors at a Catholic university in Pittsburgh, who make near-poverty wages and often lack health insurance, launched an organizing drive, Sirico argued in The New York Times that the church’s historic support for unions was conditional. “In the industrial revolution, the church was concerned about communism and not just capitalism but savage capitalism,” he wrote. “People were being brutalized. That’s just not the case in Pittsburgh today.”

At a four-day Acton conference in Grand Rapids in June—an annual gathering dubbed “Acton University” that attracts more than a thousand participants from 50 countries—one of the featured lecturers was Jay Richards, a research professor in Catholic University’s business school.

Richards, who goes by “Free Market Jay” on Twitter and is the executive editor of the right-wing news outlet The Stream, delivered an environmental message that went over well with the business leaders, libertarian-leaning college students and aspiring entrepreneurs in the room. “Because God told us to be good stewards, that doesn’t mean we have to drive a Prius or support the Paris climate accords,” Richards quipped. He went on to argue that carbon dioxide has “very positive effects” on the atmosphere, and that many scientists and research organizations are misguided alarmists on climate change.

“The nature of Big Science leads to groupthink,” Richards told the group. “There are no global policies to date that make any sense at all.” He warned of the “expensive public policies” promoted by organizations that have been “co-opted” by radical leftists. Richards finished his lecture by touting the Cornwall Alliance, a Christian evangelical coalition that makes a “moral case” for fossil fuels. As people left, Cornwall pamphlets bearing the message “Forget ‘Climate Change’—Energy Empowers the Poor” were handed out at the door.

It’s striking that over the course of several days Pope Francis rarely came up. Asked directly about the pope’s persistent challenges to the “new tyranny” of unfettered capitalism during one lecture, Acton research director Samuel Gregg, author of the book Tea Party Catholic, offered a dismissive retort. “It’s one thing to critique, but you need to know something about what you’re critiquing,” Gregg said. In National Review, Gregg has described the pope’s arguments about inequality as “less than convincing.” In another conference seminar, Todd Flanders, the headmaster of a pre-K–12 Catholic school in Minnesota, criticized efforts to raise the minimum wage, complained about the “regulatory state” and breezily said of Francis, “Catholics are not required to agree with popes on particular policy questions.”

While officials at Catholic university’s business school and the Acton Institute have tried to dismiss those who raise concerns about the influx of Koch funding at Catholic institutions, some educators warn that big money from right-wing billionaires comes with a cost.

“The Kochs are influential and have money to throw around,” says Thomas Kelly, a Creighton University theology professor. “They put libertarian thought in front of young people, which is very attractive because it’s based on self-interest and individualism. Their dispersion of money into universities is part of a unified, effective political strategy. They want to form a generation that thinks they are only responsible for themselves. At a foundational level, this is the exact opposite of what Catholic teaching says about the common good.” Reported by The American Prospect 15 hours ago.

Public hospital charge ‘driving up health insurance costs’

0
0
Public hospitals can charge those with private medical cover a higher rate for services Reported by Irish Times 14 hours ago.

E-filing Market Leader SPAN Enterprises Launches ACAwise

0
0
New, One-of-a-Kind Compliance Software Sets the Stage for ACA Management and Reporting

Rock Hill, SC (PRWEB) October 14, 2016

SPAN Enterprises has always had a passion for solving problems with progressive software solutions designed to maximize efficiency. ACAwise, SPAN’s newest cloud-based program, aims to be that solution for the Affordable Care Act compliance management and e-filing requirements for applicable large employers, insurance providers, and tax professionals.

With its passing, the Affordable Care Act enacted new IRS Internal Revenue Code Sections 6055 and 6056, which require Applicable Large Employers (ALEs) and other providers of health insurance to meet certain coverage conditions and report them to the IRS each year. In order to successfully comply with these new requirements, employers and insurance providers will need to track information of coverage offered throughout the year and submit their results on Forms 1094 and 1095.

ACAwise is the first IRS-authorized e-filing software to also offer in-depth compliance tracking for users throughout the year; it really is a one-stop-shop for ACA compliance.

Created specifically for high-volume filers, ACAwise is a customizable software designed to be personalized for each account holder and even offers API Integration. ALEs and other business owners can use ACAwise to track and manage coverage offered to employees. With the real-time dashboard, users can enter employee and coverage data throughout the year. At the beginning of each filing season, ACAwise will create reporting Forms 1094 and 1095 based on the information the user provided. Upon approval, these forms are securely e-filed directly with the IRS and recipient copies are mailed from ACAwise’s headquarters in South Carolina.

Employers aren’t the only ones who stand to benefit from ACAwise. Accountants, insurance providers, and other compliance and consulting companies, known as third-party administrators, can create an account with ACAwise to manage their clients’ ACA reporting needs. They also have the option to sign up for a White Label account which, in addition to the real-time compliance tracking and e-filing offer with each account, includes a custom portal site with a personalized URL, branding, and color scheme. Through this portal site, accounting and compliance firms can provide information about the services they offer, promote their own company as the ACA provider, and answer any questions for their clients.

At the heart of every SPAN product, including ACAwise, is the support team of e-filing experts trained to provide world-class customer support. ACAwise will offer 24/7 US-based support in English and Spanish from the company’s headquarters in Rock Hill, South Carolina.

Joining the established ExpressTaxZone, which includes products like ExpressTruckTax and ExpressIRSForms, ACAwise is sure to make a place for itself within SPAN’s growing line of e-filing products while standing out among competing ACA e-filing services.

SPAN Enterprises launched ACAwise this week and will offer free e-filing for ALEs based in York County, South Carolina for the 2016 tax year. SPAN’s vision is to help other businesses succeed and the decision to offer free ACA compliance and e-filing to ALE’s in their community reflects that vision.

For other interested businesses, a monthly subscription charge for ACAwise is still being determined, but potential users can call ACAwise account managers for a quote based on their filing size.

ACAwise is on the forefront of the ACA compliance and filing industry. SPAN Enterprises anticipates a lucrative launch and subsequent success for ACAwise as the need for simple and reliable ACA compliance retention and management continues to rise.

For media requests, please contact Crystal O’Gorman, Communications Manager at SPAN Enterprises at (704) 234-7120 ext. 105 or email her at crystal(at)spanenterprises(dot)com.

Reserve your spot for a live demo of ACAwise with Jarissel Morillo, ACAwise Product Manager, by calling (704) 684-4758 or emailing her at jarissel(at)acawise(dot)com.

Also, visit our website for more information, http://www.acawise.com/. Reported by PRWeb 12 hours ago.

More Than 1 Million in Obamacare to Lose Plans as Insurers Quit

0
0
A growing number of people in Obamacare are finding out their health insurance plans will disappear from the program next year, forcing them to find new coverage even as options shrink and prices rise. Reported by Newsmax 11 hours ago.

Medicare unveils far-reaching overhaul of doctors' pay

0
0
Compensation for medical professionals will start taking into account the quality of service — not just quantity. The majority of medical professionals billing Medicare — some 600,000 doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and therapists — are affected. The government's premier health insurance program is in the midst of an overhaul in how it pays service providers, trying to shift to a new emphasis on rewarding quality. Reported by SeattlePI.com 11 hours ago.

Massachusetts Charter School Debate Could Turn on Funding

0
0
AP Photo/The Christian Science Monitor, Ann Hermes

Boston Collegiate Charter High School algebra teacher, Arielle Zern, reviews for a test with freshmen on June 16, 2014 in Dorchester, Massachusetts. 

In a few weeks, Massachusetts voters will weigh on whether to open more charter schools. Debate on the measure is fierce, as one might expect in a state known for its superior public education system. The pros and cons of charters have been thoroughly hashed and rehashed, but the discussion about how to pay for these new schools, should the question pass, can’t be heard above the siren song of school choice. But fiscal reality bites: The Bay State strains to finance the schools it has, much less batches of new ones. Many local leaders continue to fret about what might happen to their municipal bottom lines if the “Question 2” ballot initiative passes. And they should.

The initiative proposes to allow state education officials to approve up to 12 new charters or the expansion of existing charters annually, not to exceed 1 percent of statewide public school enrollment. If the board received more than 12 applications, new charters would go to those districts whose academic performance places them in the bottom 25 percent of schools statewide in the previous two years and where there is significant parent demand for additional options. Massachusetts now has 81 charter schools. The maximum that state law currently allows is 120.

Charter school advocates argue they want to let a thousand flowers bloom in the educational marketplace. If more money goes to charters, traditional schools left behind will just have to get leaner and meaner. As The American Prospect found earlier this year, some parents, teachers, and school superintendents have expressed concerns about the fiscal strain that the new schools will place on school districts and city and town governments left to plug budget gaps. Some enterprising local residents have pulled together detailed analyses of how new charter schools would negatively affect the fiscal health of their school districts.

The ballot question does not address how to pay for new charters: It simply asks voters to allow the state to approve more of them. That means that cities and towns may have to place even greater reliance on the property tax to fund schools than they already do, which, in turn, would force city leaders in places where charters are in high demand to make the dreaded ask to increase taxes. Massachusetts Municipal Association legislative director John Robertson says that cities and towns can’t really separate education funding from the rest of the budget. “When cities and towns are … losing revenues that are used to pay tuition to charter schools, it means they’ve got to fill the gap,” Robertson told the Prospect. “It’s going to come out of something else.”

A large measure of the responsibility (or blame) rests with Bay State lawmakers who have failed to tackle the financial side of the education ledger. The funding mechanism for public schools has not been updated in years. Cities and towns face rising costs, not only for schools, but also for city services and municipal employees’ health insurance and pension plans. State aid has not kept pace. To add insult to budgetary injury, state-allocated reimbursement funds to temporarily ease the sting of seeing state education dollars walk out the door have dwindled.

Charlie Baker, the Bay State’s popular Republican Governor, has been the most vocal advocate for charter school expansion, but the fate of expansion has always rested with the legislature where the Democrats have an overwhelming majority. With a view to avoiding a bitter ballot battle, state Senate leaders proposed a slate of charter reforms that included   an increase in the number of charters. The proposal went nowhere when Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo made his opposition clear. In August, DeLeo said that a statewide vote should have been avoided, but lamented that the Senate’s plan was “unworkable.”

That’s cold comfort to people like Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, who was once a member of a Boston charter school board and now opposes the ballot initiative, When the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a conservative public policy group, published a late September report that contended that charter school funding did not have a negative impact on traditional public school spending, Walsh invited the group to “come talk to my [chief financial officer.]”

An earlier report by the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, a organization backed by businesses and nonprofits, also noted that Boston crafts its school district budget to minimize impacts to traditional schools despite the dollars flowing to charters schools. But to make that policy work, other city departments (with the exception of public safety) receive smaller annual budget increases. The bureau concluded that Boston needs to “right-size” the district by closing schools and laying off teachers and other staff to avoid a drastic reworking of the rest of city expenditures.

Charter school opponents have their work cut out for them. With dark money being shoveled into the state at an alarming rate, the charter school expansion ballot campaign may end up being the most expensive one in Massachusetts history. Great Schools Massachusetts, one of the key conduits for the dark money-fueled Yes forces, receives funds from Families for Excellent Schools, a New York nonprofit creation of well-heeled hedge-fund managers.

Individual out-of-state contributors include former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Walmart heirs Jim and Alice Walton who have donated substantial sums. The Massachusetts Teachers Association headed by Barbara Madeloni, is one of the top leaders of the opposition. Yes groups have so far raised twice as much: $15 million to the No contingent’s $7 million.

A mid-September poll of 700 likely voters showed that 49 percent intended to vote yes, while 39 percent planned to vote no. Another 12 percent remained undecided. But an early October survey from different pollsters found that 47 percent of 403 likely voters opposed the question; 34 percent supported it with 18 percent undecided.

Some observers like Yawu Miller, senior editor of the Bay State Banner, a Boston metropolitan area African American newspaper, once expressed skepticism about the opponents’ chances. How could underfunded traditional public school advocates relying on a door-to-door effort make inroads against dark money giants willing to spend tens of millions of dollars? If opinion has indeed shifted against the measure, he chalked up the change to the power of grassroots mobilization. “I didn’t think you could win a state-wide ballot campaign with a ground game,” Miller told freelance journalist and public education advocate Jennifer Berkshire. “They seem to have been able to get into some pretty far-flung communities and get their message out that way.” Reported by The American Prospect 9 hours ago.

Clinton or Trump -- Who Is Best For Your Financial Future?

0
0
*Voting with Your Wallet

Is Your Money on Clinton or Trump?*
*Which candidate is better for your budget's bottom line? A lot about this election is about money . . . who's got it, who needs it, how to raise it and how each candidate plans to help the American household. *

*By David Rae, Certified Financial Planner™, Accredited Investment Fiduciary™*

Last week's first Clinton-Trump debate was one of the most watched events in the history of broadcasting and for good reason. My husband and I were parked right there in front of the television like everyone else. As a financial planner I can tell you that no matter which candidates box you check, one of the major issues you'll be voting is about money and the debates showed how true this is.

Money is fascinating because its abstract, mega-narrative - as in the economy, Wall Street and markets worldwide - is so powerful. At the same time it's also got a very concrete, personal one as well; how you're going to pay your bills, put food on the table, take care of your kids, stash some away for a rainy day and perhaps even enjoy yourself now and then. Untold quantities of ink have been spilled on how the former impacts the latter. Some feel that wealth trickles down (Trump), others feel that it simply evaporates at the top (Clinton.)

But on a personal level, economic statistics might not mean much. In Michigan for example, we know that when Barack Obama assumed the presidency in January 2009, he inherited a staggering unemployment rate of 13.7%. As of August of this year, this was down to an encouraging 4.5%. But, if you're one of those jobless 4.5% who still can't catch a break or is burdened by an outdated skillset, a sunny economic climate means absolutely nothing. It's scary and it hurts.

*Money talks*
I was just in NYC appearing in two segments for Fox and Friends on the basic topic, "Who is better for the average American, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?" You really can't get much depth in a two-minute interview, so I wanted to share a few thoughts from a personal finance perspective.

Come January, whether you voted for the president-elect or their opponent, or didn't vote at all, we will have a new president and will be subject to the policies they want to implement. As a financial planner I want to make sure both my clients and my readers are proactive and prepared for any changes that may be coming your way. Let's look at whose policies of our candidates to see who will put more money in your pocket . . . or not.

Full disclosure: I was the nerdy kid who read a $3 used copy Donald Trump's book, The Art of the Deal cover to cover when I was in junior high. I've also had the pleasure of meeting President Obama at the White House, chatted with Michelle and had a 2-second pic snapped aside Hillary Clinton alongside her first lady portrait at another White House reception.

*TOWING THE LINE ON TAXES *
There may be some points that candidates are making that are technically true, but may really be irrelevant to your situation. Trump has stated that he will be lowering taxes for all Americans. For many, these tax saving may be very small and despite them, you may end up behind when taking into consideration what will end up getting cut like healthcare, Social Security benefits and childcare.

*Trump on taxes*
• The Trump tax plan will drop tax rates to three brackets of 10%, 25% and 33%, a 20 to 40% tax increase from his original proposed rates of 10%, 15% and 25%. Many Americans already pay very little if any federal income taxes. For the lower income earner making around $23,000 a year, Trump's plan is estimated to save about $100 per year. But as you move up the income scale the potential tax savings under Trump will be larger. By some calculations, the average one per center could see their taxes drop by nearly $180,000.

• While Trump proposes lowering the rate, he is also planning to eliminate many itemized deductions. So some people may end up with a lower tax bracket but a higher taxable income, which may negate the net benefits of that lower tax bracket.

• Trump's original tax plan would cost the federal government over $9 trillion over the next decade. This means either the national debt would explode, or unfathomable cuts would have to be made to spending on Medicare, Social Security and education. (More of an issue the further you are from being a 1 percenter) Since Trump has vowed to expand the military, don't expect to see cuts there.

* Clinton on taxes*
• According to her campaign, Clinton's tax plan should have minimal changes for 95% of Americans.

• Clinton's plan does impose some pretty hefty tax increases on those make more than $1 million and $5 million respectively.

• Unless you make more than $250,000 a year, even if your tax bill increases slightly over the long term, you should come out ahead when taking other things presently covered - childcare, Social Security, infrastructure investing and jobs - into consideration.
*LOOKING AFTER CHILDCARE*"The average annual cost of day care now surpasses the price of in-state college tuition in 31 states"
- The Washington Post
"In half the country, the cost of childcare exceeds the cost of house"
- Ivanka Trump

Both candidates say they want to help parents but they go about it in a slightly different manner.

*Trump on childcare *
• Trump wants to offer tax deductions for childcare. The higher your income the more tax deductions will save you making Trump's plan is better for higher earners. On the other hand if you pay for childcare but don't have much in the way of taxable income you really don't get much benefit if any from tax deductions.

*Clinton on childcare*
• In contrast, Clinton wants to offer childcare tax credits and cap the out-of-pocket families spend on it at 10% of their income. Generally tax credits are more valuable than deductions because you don't need to have taxable income to benefit from the credit. Clinton's plan helps all families, but stands out for families at the bottom 75% of the income scale.

*SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY *
Many people are concerned about Social Security's future as they will be depending on this benefit as a major part of their secure retirement. Big differences between the two here.

*Trump on Social Security*
• Trump is vague on specifics but has vowed to leave Social Security as is or potentially expand it. Social Security is in dire need of an update, and just leaving it as is won't improve the chances of it being there when future retirees go to collect.

*Clinton on Social Security *
• Clinton has a plan to make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years. This is great news for younger Americans and anyone who will be depending on this money as part of their retirement plans. Clinton's outline also seeks to expand the benefits for the most at-risk Americans, many of whom are veterans. She plans to pay for this Social Security expansion with a tax increase for those making more than $250,000 per year.

*HEALTHCARE*
Having appropriate healthcare is a major part of any financial plan. If you have insurance through work or the ACA you probably don't think that much about it. On the other hand if you run into a health issue even while insured your finances may still be thrown into chaos, which may be why healthcare is such an important issue with so many voters. The candidates differ dramatically on this.

*Trump on healthcare*
• Trump has vowed on day one to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka Obamacare). Health insurance is onerous and complicated; I have my doubts about how easy it will find an alternative to the ACA. Repealing the ACA would be devastating to the 20 million American currently using the plans, and similarly would affect anyone who may need coverage in the future when they start their own businesses, or find themselves in a job that doesn't offer it.

*Clinton on healthcare*
• No surprise that Clinton supports Obamacare. You should expect her to continue improving the program. Whether you like the ACA or not, having the ability to get health insurance regardless of prior health issues can be a lifesaver for you families finances, and means you are stuck at your current employer if nothing else but to keep your health insurance.

The topics above are a bit easier to assess based on your particular, individual situation. The items below are take a bit more conjecture to analyze, so I want to give you few things to think about rather than just cold hard numbers.

*THE STOCK MARKET*
If you don't own any investments (come on now, get to it!) this part probably won't affect you much. For the rest of us, stock market investors don't like uncertainty. Yet everything Donald Trump does seems to scream uncertainty. Let's not forget that since the Great Depression stock markets in the U.S. have performed better under Democratic presidents that Republican ones (the siren's call of Reaganomics notwithstanding). To be sure, two huge financial crises under George W Bush's watch helped usher liberal Democrat Obama into the White House. No surprise the Stock Market jumped the day after the first Presidential where Secretary Clinton had a crushing victory over the sniffling Donald J Trump.*JOBS*
As I noted earlier, tax brackets really don't mean much if you don't have a job, or just as bad, if you work full time and still can't afford food or housing.

*Trump on jobs*
• Trump claims he wants to bring more good paying jobs here, and prevent employers from going overseas, yet at the same time he says the minimum wage is too high. You can't have it both ways.

• Trump is big on business but unfortunately this does not automatically result in millions of high paying jobs as he says it will. Ethical businesses create good jobs; unscrupulous ones exploit their workforces and do not. Historically, American workers have not fared well under the trickle down economy of the past 40 years or so.

*Clinton on jobs*
• Clinton is in favor of increasing the minimum wage, which directly impacts around 25% of the workforce, and many more if you count their dependents and those whose pay is tied to the minimum wage.

• Clinton wants jump-start job growth by supporting a variety of policies that benefit small businesses. Let's remember that today's small potatoes entrepreneur working out of a garage (hello Steve Jobs, how ya doin' Bill Gates) is tomorrow's CEO of a multi-national corporate superpower.

*Summing up*
• Donald Trump insists his tax plan reduces the income tax for all Americans. While true (as it stands now) you save few bucks now on taxes, you could lose out on thousands later in reduced Social Security benefits, or increased costs for things like healthcare and Social Security payments. Trump is wrapping a 'huge' gift for the rich here but touting it as benefit for the middle class.

• On the other hand, Hillary Clinton appears to be taking opposite approach. Her plans benefit a wide swath of lower and middle class Americans while increasing the burden on the highest earners in the country.

I find it baffling that the so many impoverished and uneducated citizens are voting against their best interests with Trump. At the same time, I am gratified and encouraged by the list of millionaires and billionaires who in Clinton are voting against their own financial interests (but let's face it, they're not going to be lining up for government cheese any time soon) for the good of the country and their fellow citizens.

I've already booked my hotel for the inauguration but I can only see myself standing outside for hours in 20 degree weather for one of these candidates. To be sure, I'll be wrapped up nice and toasty to greet her . . . the 46th president of these United States.Until next time, be fiscally fabulous, and remember your money matters.

Trump versus Clinton For the Average American Who Is Your Money On? Originally published on the Financial Planner LA Blog.

DAVID RAE, CFP®, AIF® is a Los Angeles-based retirement planner with Trilogy Financial Services. He has been helping friends of the LGBT community reach their financial goals for over a decade. He is a regular contributor to the Advocate Magazine and Investopedia as well as the author of the Financial Planner Los Angeles Blog. Follow him on Facebook, or via his website www.davidraefp.com[FORM: //davidraefp.us11.list-manage.com/subscribe/post?u=032c1316cc95d66390d7c624b&id=e8ed7fff61]Join the Be Fiscally Fabulous Community
[INPUT][INPUT][INPUT]

Securities and advisory services offered through National Planning Corporation (NPC), Member FINRA, SIPC, a Registered Investment Advisor. Trilogy Capital Trilogy Financial and NPC are separate and unrelated entities. The opinions voices in this article are for general information only. They are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual and do not constitute and endorsement by NPC. To determine which investments may be appropriate for you, consult with your financial professional. Please remember that investment decisions should be based on an individual's goals, time horizon, and tolerance for risk.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.

New health-share group offers care with Catholic values

0
0
Phoenix, Ariz., Oct 14, 2016 / 02:36 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- When the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, it immediately prompted concerns about freedom of conscience.

From this seemingly adverse situation sprouted a new cost-sharing organization, Solidarity HealthShare, which aims to place Catholic values, the common good, and affordable healthcare at the center of its mission.

“The inspiration of it was when the Affordable Care Act was passed. Some Catholic leaders in Phoenix realized that our religious liberty and our consciences were going to be violated if Catholics had to follow these mandates,” the company’s CEO Bradley Hahn told CNA.

“So that kind of led the journey to find an ethical and affordable way to pay for medical costs,” Hahn continued.

The Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010. It includes a mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services requiring insurance plans to fund contraception, sterilizations and early abortion pills. The mandate has prompted lawsuits from more than 300 plaintiffs, including companies, non-profits, U.S. states, and individuals who say that it violates their religious beliefs. Many of these lawsuits are still in the process of litigation.

In response to religious freedom concerns – as well as concerns about rising insurance costs – some Americans began turning to health care-share organizations, which have grown in popularity over the past few years.

Solidarity HealthShare, based in Phoenix, Arizona, was founded in 2012 in conjunction with a pre-existing healthshare group called Melita Christian Fellowship Hospital Aid Plan. Solidarity HealthShare facilitates health-sharing among individuals and families across the country, who are looking to opt out of traditional healthcare for a more ethical and faith-centered option.

Solidarity HealthShare is not health insurance. Rather, it is a ministry intended to share the financial burden of those who pay for their own healthcare through voluntary, financial sharing of eligible medical costs between its members.

Rather than paying premiums to an insurance company, every member pays a monthly “share,” which is directly matched to another member’s medical bills.

Solidarity HealthShare is a non-profit organization and exempt from federal regulations, protecting it from the contraception mandate.

Its members are also exempt from a separate mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance.

Since their official launch last week, Solidarity HealthShare has gained about 50 members in total, but Hahn expressed that they are looking to “add about a thousand members in the next couple of months.” Although they began taking members in July, Solidarity HealthShare didn’t formally launch until Oct. 4.

Within a week, there was an incredible outpouring of support for Solidarity HealthShare. Hahn said “the response from Catholics across the country has been very incredibly positive and grateful that Catholics now have an option that's available to them.”

Solidarity HealthShare welcomes any members who agree with the “moral, ethical teachings of the Catholic Church,” Hahn noted, saying that the whole backbone of the organization is founded upon the Catholic Church’s teachings.

The namesake of the organization points to the Catholic Church’s teachings on solidarity, Hahn explained, saying “we aren’t just committed to ourselves, we are committed to the common good and to help others.”

Hahn also said that the idea behind solidarity encompasses problem-solving at the lowest level possible. In this case, Solidarity HealthShare is aiming to “restore that relationship where the doctor and the patient decide what is best for medical care.”

Following their launch, Solidarity HealthShare is looking forward to gaining more members and spreading the word about alternative health care sharing through evangelization.

“We want to use Solidarity as an evangelization tool. We want to reach out to other groups and ministries to help basically catechize and explain why certain medical procedures are objectionable morally,” Hahn stated.

“We want to use Solidarity more as an outreach so we can educate everyone, because the healthcare system touches everybody.” Reported by CNA 3 hours ago.

Madame President: It Makes My Heart Soar

0
0
Madame President or Mrs. President, which should it be? We are on the cusp of developing a whole new vocabulary for describing the first woman to be the leader of the free world yet, there has been strangely little focus on just how historic this is. I know I share the sentiment of so many women, and men, in saying my heart leaps for joy thinking about uttering the words Madame President for the first time. I see three reasons why electing Hillary is so momentous.

*Competence prevails*

Women are regularly held to a higher standard than their male counterparts in proving they are qualified for a job. Studies document that while men are promoted and compensated for future potential, women are promoted and compensated for previously demonstrated competency. This election may be the ultimate example of this phenomenon in action. Hillary Clinton is among the most, if not the most, qualified person to ever be elected to the presidency. But Clinton is not just qualified, she is uniquely qualified to be both the next president and the first woman president.

Hillary is qualified in the way the principal of my sons' high school is qualified. Our principal grew up in my town, sent her children to the high school, taught at the school, was a dean at the school (four deans coordinate 2000+ students), served as assistant principal at the high school, and ultimately became principal. She is so fantastic at her job because her experience emanates from so many perspectives. She can appreciate the concerns of parents, the challenges of teachers, and the demands of administrators all from lived experience.

Similarly Clinton will bring a kaleidoscope of experience to the presidency: as a working mother balancing the complexities of care and career, as a First Lady trying to change the rules of engagement, as a wife deeply hurt and publicly shamed, as an elected official wholly committed to supporting women and families, as a foreign policy leader with a front row seat to the most difficult decisions a president must make, and as a grandmother reveling in the potential of her grandchildren and wanting to ensure all children have that same chance. Most importantly, Clinton has walked the extraordinarily challenging road of redefining who women can be in the world over more than four decades. Her life story is the story of middle class America leading to great things with an enormous twist, like Ginger Rogers she's done it walking backwards and in high heels.

Clinton has been a leader her whole life registering many firsts across the decades. At Wellesley College, she was elected class president and was the first student to address the class at commencement. She entered corporate law practice in her late 20's and at 32 became the first woman partner at her firm. Her political work on the national stage began in her mid-40's when Hillary became the First Lady of the United States and felt the sting of a country not ready for a president's wife to play a policy role. Despite huge opposition to her efforts to reform health care, Clinton triumphed with bi-partisan support for a children's health insurance program that continues today.

As First Lady she captivated the world at the UN Women's Conference in 1996 first uttering the words, "Women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights." She began her race for the U.S. Senate, the first First Lady to run for elected office, by crisscrossing the state of New York to listen and learn. As a brand new senator when tragedy struck, she became an advocate for 9/11 victims and handily went on to win a second senatorial term. Next up Clinton confronted another first, running for president. Her loss in the primaries was followed by an unexpected invitation and acceptance to join the President's cabinet as Secretary of State. In the current election, Clinton channeled all she had learned in her 2008 presidential run to capture the 2016 Democratic nomination, the first woman ever to do so.

Now let's consider Trump's background. Supported by family money, Trump started rich and has always been rich not only with the first $1 million dollar loan from his father but with multiple infusions over several decades. Lauded as a successful business man, his main purported credential, his track record hardly paints a picture of success. He has driven several businesses into bankruptcy, he's touted endless businesses that closed (Trump steaks, Trump magazine, Trump airlines, you get the pattern), he regularly abused contractors paying them only a fraction of their bill, if any at all, and when the going got tough, he made sure he collected his share while leaving his partners, suppliers, and employees out in the cold. How can this possibly be construed as a profile of business leadership? That wasn't the definition of leader I learned about in business school.

How about political experience? Trump has never even been the county recorder and seemingly has no clue how laws get made or how they work. Remember those checks and balances you learned about in social studies? Apparently Trump missed that class. He is going to make America great again single handedly, just ask him. And he lacks even a basic understanding of sexual assault and the notion of consent. Trump has no demonstrated ability to work across difference, responds to criticism like a cornered animal, and shows little ability to learn new skills, like listening for a start. If ever there was a contest between competence and inaptitude, this presidential election would be it. Throw in Trump's volatility, vindictiveness, arrogance and destructive nature, all currently on full display as he follows his torch-the-earth strategy.

The contrast between how extraordinarily unqualified and unsuitable Trump is in comparison to how extraordinarily qualified and suited Clinton is to be president makes one's head spin. Does that mean Clinton is a perfect candidate, or that she hasn't made mistakes through time, some egregious? Of course not. Who in 40 years of public service could claim that completely unrealistic standard? Yet Clinton's record of possible transgressions pales in comparison to Trump's. Turning over arguably the most important job in the world to a man lacking the baseline skills and qualities ahead of a woman with an astoundingly full set is sexism gone mad.

Based on a 25 year analysis, Clinton's favorability rating crashed each time she reached for power, something women are not supposed to do, while once she was in power being her competent self, her ratings shot up. Just ask yourself, would a woman with Trump's profile and personality have even been elected to the local city council? Clinton's victory will validate the experience of so many women by demonstrating that competence can overcome bias.

*The power of role modeling*

Clinton has been labeled as the establishment candidate in this race, yet this description is dead wrong. Yes she has been involved with politics for many years, and in several different roles, but that is where the comparison ends. A few days after the first presidential debate I read yet another article characterizing Clinton as a steady hand who can keep the country on its current course while Trump is a radical agent of change.

As someone who has spent more than 20 years researching and consulting on gender diversity, I am certain that Clinton's election WILL constitute radical change. Clinton's victory will be a game changer for women and the world.

Clinton's presidency will constitute radical change because for the first time every little girl in the U.S. can say I want to be president, just like Hillary Clinton. They will see her on television, they will hear people talk about her, and they will know girls can be president too. It will be a radical change because for the first time in American history a woman will be the one setting the vision for our country, a vision that reflects her lived experience as a female. While women have made great gains over the last 50 years, they continue to remain sparsely represented as the top leader in all public domains: business, academia and government. Based on a recent McKinsey/ LeanIn research report, at the current rate of progress women in corporate America will not see parity for more than 100 years.

Clinton's election will be radical because for the first time ever we will have a First Gentleman in the White House which will redefine the vision of that important role. It will be radical because in 20 years or 50 years or 100 years, girls will be able to read about our first woman president in their history books. Role models are incredibly powerful. In a visceral way, they make the impossible seem possible and symbolize that someone like me could aspire to that future.

An intense irony of the election is that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have been characterized as change agents but let's consider that assertion. Bernie is a self-declared socialist and has spent the better part of his life as an Independent. He ignited a movement, particularly among young people, to shift the country considerably further to the left with key platforms like a universal health care system and the elimination of tuition at state colleges. But the reality is, Sanders has spent the better part of 40 years in politics. How can a white male career politician suddenly become an outsider? Yes Bernie has been a very liberal, powerful left leaning voice but, he's been an insider none the less.

Clinton has been criticized by liberals for being too moderate in her positions yet her moderation has enabled her to work across the aisle, be effective, and craft legislation that actually became law. I have no doubt that without being politically moderate, Clinton would have been marginalized and expelled from the system long ago. Instead she stands a whisper from the presidency. Interestingly, Hillary too looked down on compromise as a young woman, imagining a world where the impossible could be possible.

Part of the problem with just empathy, with professed goals, is that empathy doesn't do us anything. We've had lots of empathy; we've had lots of sympathy, but we feel that for too long our leaders have viewed politics as the art of the possible. And the challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible possible.From Clinton's 1969 Wellesley graduation speech

The dominant narrative has been of Trump as the business man who will show those politicians how to run the country like he's run his business (shudder at the thought). Trump certainly likes to sell himself as the outsider, the voice of the every-person, but in Trump's case the every-man. Yet what does Trump know of the every-man? He's mistreated endless every-man workers just trying to make a living and he failed to pay millions of dollars taxes over two decades to fund the vast array of supports that the every-man depends on: health insurance, education, veterans' benefits and more.

Trump minimizes the crucial role that his father's connections, and his access to readily-available cash over several decades, played in enabling his business success. Are these supports even a pipe dream for the every-man? And now Trump' policies - the few he has articulated - reflect HIS priorities with few benefits for the every-man and nearly none for the every-woman. Trump may be a political outsider but he is the epitome of an enormously privileged white man whose success has been fueled by so many advantages he can't even see. Trump in his words and deeds is anathema to empowering women. He is the ultimate gender status quo!

*The beacon of feminine power
*
Perhaps the most exciting part of Hillary Clinton becoming the next President of the United States is that she will bring her feminine world view to the job which powerfully connects to so many of the issues and priorities that women value. Women, especially millennial women, hew strongly Democratic because they see in the policies what matters to them in their lives. I am acutely aware that women are hardly one big monolithic group all wanting the same thing and sharing the same priorities. That said, what I do know as someone connected to women's leadership for decades is that Clinton's lifelong priorities speak to the challenges that women face and enable women to live most fully. Clinton's influence will help create a world that so many women want to inhabit. A world where:
· Women can no longer be economically short-changed, relative to their male counterparts, and can count on equal pay for equal work. As a result, they will have greater resources to care for themselves and their families.· Care work is supported by providing paid time off for critical life events such as personal illness or caring for a child or family member.· Care work is no longer marginalized and compensated at poverty level wages (held overwhelmingly by women.) Instead it is seen as, and funded as, an important element of infrastructure enabling our citizenry to work.· Women can count on access to safe, accessible reproductive care and no one has the right to legislate a woman's reproductive decisions. (How is it that the GOP stridently opposes the government's right to control guns yet simultaneously espouses the right to control women's bodies? Do guns not threaten human life?)· It is broadly understood that a woman's control over her reproductive decisions is among the most critical determinants of her economic well-being. (How is it that the GOP argues for the sanctity of life but has no trouble abandoning that life post-utero by devaluing and persistently cutting funding for support services?)· Health care is no longer seen as a privilege to be earned but as a basic requirement of one of the wealthiest nations on earth. Reliable, affordable health care enables women to care for their children and supports far greater flexibility in their careers.· Adequate resourcing is funneled toward education and healthcare rather than the endless need for bigger and better weapons.· We never forget that America and immigration are synonymous and we realize that diversity is the lifeblood of who we are as a nation.· Military policy is thoughtful, measured, collaborative and slow to violence.· We evolve our mindset to see ourselves as nurturers of our planet rather than as malevolent masters extracting resources at our whim.

Trump reflects all the worst stereotypes of male power. It is power over characterized by aggression, hierarchy, entitlement, unrecognized privilege, and fear. It is about winning and losing and ego. Let me be absolutely clear that many men do not see or use power in this way but those that do, like Trump, are a disaster (his favorite word). Perhaps most importantly, Clinton's victory will demonstrate feminine power - power with - that is far more oriented toward collaboration, compassion, shared purpose, caretaking and hope. My heart sings with the vision of Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office where feminine power can burn bright.

-- 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 2 hours ago.

Only one insurer will offer PPO plan on state Obamacare exchange

0
0
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois will be the only insurer offering PPO health insurance plans on the state's Obamacare exchange next year, according to information released Friday by the state Department of Insurance.

That's down from five insurers that offered individual PPO plans on the... Reported by ChicagoTribune 53 minutes ago.

Drug coupons help the few at the expense of everyone

0
0
People who need the EpiPens to protect themselves from life-threatening allergic reactions can use the coupon to get up to $300 off at the pharmacy counter if their insurance plan has a deductible or a co-payment. New research suggests that co-payment coupons can actually increase total health care spending by encouraging patients to choose more expensive drugs when lower-priced substitutes are available. When drug companies offered a coupon for the brand-name version, more patients stuck with the more expensive brand-name drug, and the company raised the prices on such drugs faster than it did for drugs for which no coupon was available. Altogether, the researchers estimate that coupons for 23 such drugs with a generic alternative resulted in an extra $700 million to $2.7 billion in spending on drugs over five years. Because generic drugs are required to be biologically identical to their brand-name cousins, the more expensive brand-name version doesn’t make patients any healthier. When it comes to drugs like the ones in the study, your insurance company tries to steer you toward generics by giving the generics very low co-payments and charging higher fees for the brand-name version. Steve Miller, the chief medical officer at Express Scripts, which negotiates drug benefits for health plans around the country, said coupons sometimes force his company to refuse to cover expensive drugs at all, since the coupons work only when the insurance company picks up part of the tab. The federal government bans the use of coupons when buying drugs through Medicare health insurance. To make sure the differences didn’t reflect some other difference between the states, they also looked at Medicare recipients in both states, and found similar drug-buying habits among people in both places. “When conflicts get difficult in health care between the different entities, we too often let the consequences of that conflict spill over onto sick people,” said Dr. Peter Bach, a physician and director of the center for health policy and outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Hospital. Reported by SFGate 1 hour ago.

Why I Support Hillary Clinton

0
0
This past week, I traveled to Dearborn, Michigan where I addressed a Hillary for America campaign event. Held at the Arab American National Museum, the gathering provided me with the opportunity to explain why I was endorsing Hillary Clinton for President. I offered four key reasons.

In the first instance, my endorsement was about her. She is, without a doubt, one of the smartest, toughest, and most experienced candidates to ever run for president. As important as these qualities are, I am also in awe of her self-control.

As I watched the last Presidential debate, I marveled at Hillary Clinton's ability to remain composed in the face of her opponent's hostility and vile provocation. Given what we know of Donald Trump's disgusting behavior and his demeaning attitude toward women, I would have found it difficult to even appear on stage with him. And yet she did so with great poise and dignity.

While these personal traits served her well in a debate settling--they are also essential for a president who will be tested by major challenges every minute of every day. When the 90 minute debate ended, I came away more convinced than ever that Hillary Clinton has, to borrow Richard Ben Cramer's phrase, the "right stuff" to lead our nation.

Another reason behind my wanting Hillary Clinton to win has to do with us--my community and our partners in the coalitions of concern with whom we work most closely. As some might know, I was deeply involved with the Bernie Sanders' campaign. I agreed with Bernie on most issues and as a Democratic Party super-delegate I voted for him at the convention. I also proudly served as one of his representatives to the party's platform drafting committee where we fought with the Clinton team to shape the party's political agenda.

Bernie has correctly noted that the resultant document was the "most progressive in the party's history". We forged consensus on a range of issues like: abolishing the death penalty; raising the minimum wage; expanding Social Security; creating a public option health insurance; eliminating Super PACs; closing the loopholes in racial profiling and expanding the definition of "racial" to include religion and national origin; increasing support for Lebanon and Jordan; the need to work more closely with Arab allies; and increasing the number of refugees admitted to the US without discrimination based on religion or ethnicity.

We did not get the platform language we fought for on Israel-Palestine, but for the first time in history the party calls for providing "Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity" noting that they "should be free to govern themselves in their own viable state in peace and dignity". Having scars to show from three decades of party platform battles, I can testify that this was an important step forward.

We won these battles working with allies--liberals and progressives; African Americans Latinos, and Native Americans; labor and environmental activists. We supported them and they supported us. That is the essence of working in coalition. We cannot abandon our allies because we didn't get everything we wanted. If we hope we can count on them to be with us, then they need to know that they can count on us to remain with them.

When Hillary Clinton wins, we will all be better positioned to continue our combined effort to insist that the platform we endorsed becomes policy and to continue working together to press for even greater changes in policy.

Finally, my endorsement of Hillary Clinton is about him. I not only oppose Donald Trump, I find him to be the most frightening figure to emerge on the political scene in my lifetime. On October 14, 2016, the Washington Post summed up the case against Trump in one sentence describing him as "bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy, and enamored of America's enemies". They concluded by noting that "as president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world".

What Donald Trump has done in this campaign is prey off of the fear and anger of some Americans who feel adrift in today's changing economy. Instead of providing them with real solutions, he has given them enemies to blame--Mexicans, Muslims, Blacks, etc. He has made hate-speech acceptable and unleashed a torrent of anger that, I fear, will be difficult to rein in after this election is over. I, therefore, not only believe that it is imperative that he lose this election, he must lose by a margin so large that it serves as both as a repudiation of his hate and a mandate for Hillary Clinton to govern.

That said, I reject the notion that this election can be reduced to choosing "the lesser of two evils". It is, in fact, about supporting the best candidate--the one who, despite whatever differences one might have with some of her positions, has demonstrated that she is tough, smart, experienced, and relentless in fighting to make America better. That's why I am proud to endorse Hillary Clinton.

And, by the way, the fact that in electing Hillary we will have our first woman president is a matter of consequence. As a son, a brother, a husband, a father of three daughters, and a grandfather of five more, I will be so proud when Hillary takes the oath of office because at that moment they will know that there are no limits to which they can aspire.

These are the reasons I will be working to ensure a Hillary Clinton victory in November.

Follow @jjz1600 for more. 

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 13 hours ago.

Rising Obamacare premiums anger those paying full price

0
0
Shela Bryan, 63, has been comparing prices for individual health insurance plans since May, and she can't believe what she sees. Reported by CNNMoney 10 hours ago.

5 Best Health Insurance Stocks to Buy Right Now

0
0
With consolidation and Obamacare uncertainty in the air, here are the top health insurance stocks on the market. Reported by Motley Fool 8 hours ago.

Rising Obamacare premiums stir anger

0
0
As premiums climb, nearly 10 million Americans who buy individual insurance coverage either on or off the Obamacare exchanges and do not receive federal subsidies, are paying a lot more for health insurance. Reported by CNNMoney 6 hours ago.

Restuarant Industry In Gloom As Number Of Americans Eating Out Tumbles

0
0
Restuarant Industry In Gloom As Number Of Americans Eating Out Tumbles While the latest government retail spending data shows that while it is slowing down, consumer spending on "eating out" or retail and food service sales, hasn't posted a sharp deterioration, secondary tracking sources beg to differ. A far more accurate tracker of real-time US Restaurant sales, that of the National Restaurant Association's Restaurant performance index, paints a far more disturbing picture.

As the Natl Restaurant Association reports for its latest data, August restaurant sales tumbled in August, sliding to the lowest level since the financial crisis. As the restaurant association reports, due in large part to declines in both same-store sales and customer traffic, the National Restaurant Association’s Restaurant Performance Index (RPI) fell below 100 in August. The RPI – a monthly composite index that tracks the health of and outlook for the U.S. restaurant industry – stood at 99.6 in August, down 1.0 percent from a level of 100.6 in July.

Restaurant operators reported *net declines in both same-store sales and customer traffic in August*, along with corresponding dips in the labor indicators. The RPI is constructed so that the health of the restaurant industry is measured in relation to a steady-state level of 100. Index values above 100 indicate that key industry indicators are in a period of expansion, while index values below 100 represent a period of contraction for key industry indicators.

The Current Situation Index, which measures current trends in four industry indicators (same-store sales, traffic, labor and capital expenditures), stood at 98.6 in August – down 1.9 percent from a level of 100.4 in July. The August reading below 100 signifies contraction in the current situation indicators, and represented the the lowest

The details were just as troubling:

After three consecutive months of mixed results, restaurant operators’ reporting of same-store sales took a downward turn in August. *Only 30 percent of restaurant operators reported a same-store sales increase between August 2015 and August 2016, while 53 percent reported a sales decline*. During the previous three months, similar proportions of restaurant operators reported higher and lower same-store sales. *Similarly, restaurant operators reported a net decline in customer traffic in August*. Only 21 percent of restaurant operators reported an increase in customer traffic between August 2015 and August 2016, *while 59 percent reported a traffic decline*. *August represented the fourth consecutive month in which restaurant operators reported a net decline in customer traffic*.

Along with softer sales results, restaurant operators’ outlook for future business also dampened somewhat in recent months. *Thirty-three percent of restaurant operators expect to have higher sales in six months (compared to the same period in the previous year), up slightly from 30 percent who reported similarly last month*. Eighteen percent of restaurant operators expect their sales volume in six months to be lower than it was during the same period in the previous year, down from 21 percent last month.

Meanwhile, restaurant operators are not as optimistic about the overall economy. *Only 17 percent of restaurant operators said they expect economic conditions to improve in six months, while 29 percent said they expect conditions to worsen*. This represented the *10th consecutive month in which restaurant operators had a net negative outlook for the economy*.

However, the pain did not end in August. According to the Knapp-Track index, casual dining same store sales *were down 1.9% in September with guest counts down 4.2% showing sequential deterioration from July and August with the second worse monthly performance of 2016 with only June results softer. *

As Bank of America reports, Knapp attributes the industry’s sales weakness mostly to pent-up spending on high ticket items siphoning off consumers’ cash away from every day purchases such as dining out but also to anxiety and distraction related to the raucous Presidential election.

One reason for the slowdown may be food inflation. Check average for Knapp-Track casual dining was up 2.3% in Sept. driven by in part by pricing *but also likely by low income customers dining out less which can skew checks higher as demographics move to higher spending customers*. This confirms that any food inflation trends are unlikely to persist as a result of the broader decling in sales forcing operators to once again cut prices to regain market share.

Knapp expects the allocation of spending to high ticket items to continue through the 1Q of next year. While Knapp expects business spending to pick up after the election, consumer anxiety may persist because of a polarization of political views with neither candidate popular with most Americans.

*Regionally, Knapp noted that Texas same store sales remain especially soft as the weakest of 11 Knapp Track regions with the gap versus the national average widening in August *(latest available regional data) to 270 bps which means Texas comps were down 3.7% versus overall Knapp-Track down 1%. In July, the gap was 150 bps with Texas down 2% versus Knapp-Track down 0.5%. Sales in the Dallas market are better than Houston and energy dominated market sales are weaker yet. Separately, Denver is also soft with August comps down 2.5%. California remains the strongest Knapp-Track region.

Whatever is the cause behind the adverse pressure in restaurant food trends, it does not appear to be going away, and in fact is deteriorating with every month. We expect this trend to deteriorate substantially in the near future, as a result of the November 1 Obamacare "price shock" which is expected to send the cost of health insurance across the nation by double digits, eliminating even more discretionary income from Americans' pockets. Reported by Zero Hedge 2 hours ago.

Obamacare Gives Middle Class A Choice: Buy A House Or Get Health Insurance

0
0
Obamacare Gives Middle Class A Choice: Buy A House Or Get Health Insurance The following tweet from Great Stockpix captures not only the reason why the US economy continues to slow down as consumer spending across virtually every category deteriorates, as shown recently courtesy of Bank of America...

... but also distills the "choice" president Obama has given to the middle class: buy a house or get health insurance.



What I love about Obama is the choices he's given me. I can buy a $400,000 house, OR I can have healthcare! Hope and Change baby!! pic.twitter.com/zdUY4sl7yl

— Great Stockpix (@Greatstockpix) October 12, 2016



* * *

Oh, and as a reminder, the next Obamacare "price shock" is due in just 15 days, at the worst possible time for Hillary Clinton: one week before the elections. Reported by Zero Hedge 1 day ago.

Soon, Employees State Insurance not compulsory for workers, can chose other insurance options

0
0
Over 2 crore formal sector workers will soon have an option to choose health insurance products available in the market in lieu of the mandatory scheme run by the Employees State Insurance Corp (ESIC). Reported by Zee News 13 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images