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

Amazon is hiring full-time house cleaners — possibly for its Prime membership program (AMZN)

0
0
Amazon is hiring full-time house cleaners — possibly for its Prime membership program (AMZN) Amazon may soon offer free house-keeping service to its Prime members.

That's what two new job postings, first spotted by The Seattle Times' Angel Gonzalez, seem to suggest.

The jobs, titled "Home Assistant," are intended to help the customers keep their homes clean, do laundry, and put groceries away. The positions seem full-time as Amazon is offering company stock, insurance, and overtime pay as part of the package.

Here's the full job description:

You will be an expert in helping Amazon customers keep up their home. You will be working with customers each day with tidying up around the home, laundry, and helping put groceries and essentials like toilet paper and paper towels away. You will assure that customers return to an errand-free home.

Amazon will provide on-site training along with benefits including Amazon stock, health insurance, a flexible work schedule with the potential for overtime pay. If you love making a house feel like a home then this role is for you. You will:

· Travel to customers’ homes to provide time-saving assistance
· Identify opportunities to delight customers
· Maintain a positive and professional demeanor
· Help provide high-quality cleanings and meet any special requests

The job posting originally said the goal is to provide “timesaving assistance to Amazon Prime members," according to The Seattle Times, suggesting housekeeping could be a new perk added to Amazon's Prime membership. 

But the part about Prime is now taken out, after Amazon updated the post about an hour ago. The Seattle Times story was published more than 6 hours ago.

Prime members pay $99 a year or $10.99 a month for free two-day shipping and access to a bunch of video, music, and e-books online. Amazon haven't disclosed the number of Prime members, but they are estimated to be over 60 million in the US. 

Amazon wants to grow its Prime membership-base as much as possible because Prime members tend to spend a lot more on Amazon.com than non-Prime members.

Amazon wasn't immediately available for comment.

*SEE ALSO: Internal Amazon documents reveal a vision of up to 2,000 grocery stores across the US*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A hacker reveals a simple way to come up with a strong password that's easy to remember Reported by Business Insider 12 hours ago.

One Frustrated Millennial Explains "How I Went From Voting For Obama In '08 To Trump In '16"

0
0
One Frustrated Millennial Explains How I Went From Voting For Obama In '08 To Trump In '16 Authored by Brian, 27, Freehold, NJ; via 710wor.iheart.com,

I truly believe this election is not about Republicans versus Democrats.* This is an election for change, for someone who wants to reduce taxes and the power of government, versus someone who wants to strengthen its strangle hold of debt on the American people.*

*A true career Washington insider versus the ultimate unscripted, unpolished outsider.* Someone who has enriched themselves with a career in business versus a politician who is now worth over 250 million and runs a foundation who took foreign donations from countries that violate human rights for favors while acting as Secretary of state.

I am not a journalist.

*I am an ordinary US citizen concerned with the direction of our country. I come from a hard-working middle class family, people who believe the American dream is possible.*

I was born in Staten Island, NY, but grew up in a small town with my father and sister in New Jersey. Being a single parent, my father struggled but always put his children first.

They say it takes a village to raise a child and it did. In addition to my father, family and friends played a huge role in instilling the values I hold true today. Hard work, honesty and always looking out for others have molded me into the man I am today.

*In 2008 I was a sophomore at Towson University. I had no health insurance because my father had lost his job.*

*I was swept away by Obama’s promises of health insurance, breaks for college students, and capitalizing on the mishaps leading to the Iraq war.* His ability to speak and bring about such enthusiasm lead to me casting my absentee ballot for him.

I can remember arguing with my family about voting for him. “Who is going to pay for all of this they would ask?” Obama stated that leaving $9 trillion in debt to our children and grandchildren is unpatriotic and I agreed with him.

*Eight years and $9 trillion-plus in debt later, I realize that I was fooled by yet another politician looking for my vote.* Now I am married and have a 6-month-old at home and although my values of honesty hard work and integrity have not changed, my political views are very different.

*I have seen out of touch Washington elitists and special interests send this country on a path to debt and ruins. I work at a job in sales where I work hard every day to earn my keep.*

*I have seen the lies that have been told to our citizens and feel like the Washington elitists are so far out of touch with the American people. This is the reason that on November 8, 2016, I will cast my vote for the republican nominee Donald J. Trump.*

*The state of our economy is in absolute shambles.* As a recent college graduate who graduated with student loans the economy is a huge driver of my vote. Cost of living is at all-time highs while wages have barely grown over the past 20 years.

Many people quote the unemployment rate as a pillar that Obama’s economy has worked. I invite all of those people to look into what the number entails. Many jobs added are hardworking Americans who now have to work two and three jobs to support a family because their higher paying job has been shipped overseas or lost as a whole.

In that number anyone who has “stopped looking for work” is excluded as unemployed. Our labor participation rate is at 62.9%.* If labor participation rate was the same as when Obama entered office our unemployment rate would be a staggering 10 percent.*

Our monthly change in manufacturing has been down the past three months (-15k last month). Manufacturing hasn’t produced more than 40k in jobs in one single month over the past five years.

*We cannot continue to survive as a service economy. *Our GDP is growing at a stagnant 1.2%. We have to bring back manufacturing and level the playing field on trade.

Trump will do that. Trump’s tax plan on lowering taxes on all Americans is one that should stand in the forefront for any voter.

Hillary Clinton has attacked Trump hard on reducing taxes on the rich, stating that’s all his tax plan does.* She is correct that he will lower taxes on the wealthy, but he is passing on a tax cut for all Americans.*

Most significantly, middle and lower income earners. Those who make under $50k as a married couple or under $25k as a single filer will pay ZERO in federal taxes. If lower income individuals want a jumpstart to their wallets, this should be a no brainer.

*Trump's tax plan as a whole will put the power and money back into the hands of US citizens. *He wants to enact child/eldercare policies that would provide tax breaks to families who are trying to raise a child but struggle to because of the state of our economy.

Regulations have killed our energy sector and main street. He wants to reduce regulations on energy companies so America can become energy independent. I believe small business is the heart of the American economy and their footprint has been reduced significantly.

Red tape and regulations make starting a business virtually impossible because most Americans can’t be out of work for the time it takes to comply with all of these rules.

*If policy isn’t enough for you and you are more of a character voter, I believe Trump is your clear choice.*

Hillary Clinton ignored 600-plus emails from Ambassador Chris Stevens requesting more security in Benghazi. Than after the attack blamed it on a YouTube video in an attempt to cover up a terrorist attack on Americans around the 2012 election.

Her illegal use of private server jeopardized the security of our nation. After receiving a congressional subpoena her and her cronies deleted 33,000 E-mails to cover up their missteps and corruption. We have now found out a high-ranking member of the FBI Andrew McCabe investigating the Clinton E-mail scandal was persuaded by a large donation of $675k-plus to his wife from a super PAC ran by Terry McAuliffe (a close friend of Clinton).

Andrew McCabe was later promoted to Deputy Director.

An article by Politico also stated that more than half of meetings Clinton had while acting as secretary of state were given to those donating to the Clinton Foundation.

*Hillary Clinton is a candidate surrounded by corruption at the highest levels and personal enrichment at the expense of US policy. Her insult-driven campaign against Donald Trump is proof that her policies do not resonate with the American people.*

Her only way is to discredit Trump by using the mainstream media to have his flaws overshadow his policy. In many cases, Trump has played right into her hands, extending scandals and insults for weeks by using rallies to defend himself instead of speaking about this issues that matter.

Such as his “Drain the swap” message of congressional term limits and installing laws that will keep big money and big business where they should be: Out of Government.

*Donald Trump is not the perfect candidate by any means.* His “locker room” comments behind closed doors about women are offensive and have turned many completely away.

I understand that after that Friday when the video came out many people completely shut the door on voting for him for which I can partially understand.

*In my belief the video pales in comparison to the actions of Bill and Hillary Clinton while in the Whitehouse.*

I truly believe Donald Trump loves our country and wants to clean out corruption and reset the path that we are on. He will stand for what the government should be involved in. Keeping us safe and ensuring we have the opportunity to prosper.

I have not outlined all of each candidate’s policies, so in the Words of Hillary Clinton, “check out the websites.”

*I encourage all Americans to look into policy and not just focus on the “Kardashian-esque” scandal-driven campaign that the mainstream media has pushed. Regardless of candidate get out and vote so your voice may be heard.* Reported by Zero Hedge 12 hours ago.

Northern Westchester Hospital Awarded Designation as a Patient-Centered Hospital with Distinction by Planetree Organization

0
0
Planetree Organization Recognizes NWH for Sustained Achievement and Innovation in Delivering Patient-Centered Care for the Fourth Time

Mt. Kisco, New York (PRWEB) November 07, 2016

Joel Seligman, President and CEO of Northern Westchester Hospital (NWH), is pleased to announce that NWH has again been formally designated by Planetree, Inc. as a “Planetree Designated® Patient-Centered Hospital with Distinction.” This designation recognizes Northern Westchester Hospital’s achievement and innovation in the delivery of patient-centered care, defined as an approach to healthcare in which providers partner with patients and families to identify and satisfy the full range of patient needs and preferences.

Nine years ago, NWH was among the first organizations nationwide to achieve the designation, which is awarded for a three year term. It has since, been re-designated three times with Distinction. Today, the hospital is one of only 80 organizations worldwide to receive the Patient-Centered Hospital Designation since the program’s launch in 2007, and one of only nine organizations to be “Designated with Distinction,” and that means NWH is not only a nationally recognized leader in patient-centered care, but that NWH is also a teaching hospital for this approach to care. NWH welcomes hospitals from around the world to share best practices and has assisted numerous hospitals in replicating patient-centered care programs in their facilities. “This recognition is a direct result of Northern Westchester Hospital’s sustained excellence in patient-centered care,” said Maria Hale, Vice President, Office of Patient Advocacy and Patient Centered Services, Northern Westchester Hospital.

“The Planetree Designation is the only award that recognizes excellence in person-centered care across the continuum of care,” said Susan Frampton, President of Planetree, Inc., a not-for-profit organization that has been at the forefront of the movement to transform healthcare from the perspective of the patient for almost 40 years. “The designation signals to healthcare consumers that Northern Westchester Hospital is a hospital where providers partner with patients and families, and where patient comfort, dignity, empowerment and well-being are prioritized with providing top-quality clinical care.”

The criteria that a hospital must satisfy to achieve designation reflect what patients, family members and healthcare professionals in hundreds of focus groups held across the country say matters most to them during a healthcare experience. This qualitative data aligns with the growing evidence-base for patient-centered care, and establishes the Planetree Designation as a concrete framework for defining and measuring excellence in patient-centeredness.

Northern Westchester Hospital is committed to creating innovative programs and services that are fundamentally attentive to the needs of patients and their families, and their feedback is used to design and implement these programs. “I am incredibly proud of our staff who strive to meet all of our patients’ needs – mind, body, and spirit – each day,” said Mr. Seligman. “High-quality patient-centered care is the cornerstone of the care we deliver at Northern Westchester Hospital, and we practice patient-centered care not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is inextricably tied to optimal clinical outcomes for our patients.”

More than 60 specific criteria address components of a patient-centered healthcare experience, including patient-provider interactions, access to information, family involvement, the physical environment, food and nutrition, spirituality, arts and entertainment, and integrative therapies. In addition, the criteria focus on how the hospital is supporting its staff, opportunities for staff, patients and families to have a voice in the way care is delivered, and the ways that the hospital is reaching beyond its walls to care for its community.

Guided by these core components of a patient-centered culture, over the past 14 years, NWH has implemented a substantial number of initiatives and practices designed to enhance both the patient and staff experience.

To become a Planetree Designated® Patient-Centered Hospital, Northern Westchester Hospital had to demonstrate that it has successfully implemented programs that meet the spirit and intent of the designation criteria. As part of the re-designation process — which included a site visit by representatives from Planetree — Northern Westchester Hospital was asked to demonstrate that specific patient-centered practices and policies have been sustained over time, including non-restrictive visiting hours and an open medical chart policy, widespread staff involvement in the implementation of patient-centered care, and incorporation of the patient and family perspective in hospital planning efforts. In addition, the site visit team validated that the hospital’s physical environment is a healing one engaging all of the human senses. The process also included a review of the hospital’s performance on publicly reported patient satisfaction and quality of care measures.

“A strength of the designation program has been the integration of qualitative and quantitative measures,” explained Frampton. “Hospitals in the U.S. awarded designation are held accountable for exceeding benchmarks for both quality and patient satisfaction.”

All designation determinations are made by an independent committee of international healthcare experts and CEOs from previously designated hospitals.

About Northern Westchester Hospital
Northern Westchester Hospital (NWH), a proud member of Northwell Health (formerly North Shore-LIJ Health System), provides quality, patient-centered care that is close to home through a unique combination of medical expertise, leading-edge technology, and a commitment to humanity. Over 650 highly-skilled physicians, state-of-the-art technology and professional staff of caregivers are all in place to ensure that you and your family receive treatment in a caring, respectful and nurturing environment.

NWH has established extensive internal quality measurements that surpass the standards defined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Hospital Quality Alliance (HQA) National Hospital Quality Measures. Our high quality standards help to ensure that the treatment you receive at NWH is among the best in the nation. For more information, please visit http://www.nwhc.net and connect with us on Facebook.

About Northwell Health
Northwell Health is New York State’s largest health care provider and private employer, with 21 hospitals and over 500 outpatient practices. We care for more than 1.8 million people annually in the metro New York area and beyond, thanks to philanthropic support from our communities. Our 61,000 employees – including 15,000+ nurses and 2,500+ doctors within Northwell Health Physician Partners – are working to change health care for the better. We’re making breakthroughs in medicine at the Feinstein Institute. We're training the next generation of medical professionals at the visionary Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine and the School of Graduate Nursing and Physician Assistant Studies. And we offer health insurance through CareConnect. For information on our more than 100 medical specialties, visit http://www.Northwell.edu.

About Planetree
Founded in 1978 by a patient in San Francisco, today Planetree is an internationally recognized leader in the growing movement to transform the health care experience by considering health care facilities, processes and protocols from the perspective of the patient. In diverse healthcare settings throughout the United States, Canada, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia and Europe, Planetree is demonstrating that patient-centered care is not only an empowering philosophy, but a viable, vital, and cost-effective model of care. Today, the Planetree membership network is a global community of more than 700 acute care hospitals, continuing care facilities, outpatient clinics, and consumer health libraries. The Planetree model is implemented in a variety of settings, ranging from 25-bed critical access hospitals to large urban medical centers with more than 2,000 beds.

Northern Westchester Hospital Contact:
Gretchen Mullin    
Director, Marketing & Public Affairs
gmullin(at)nwhc(dot)net
914-666-1266

### Reported by PRWeb 12 hours ago.

Here's how Oregon's Obamacare rates compare to the rest of the U.S.

0
0
The New York Times published three interesting maps on Friday that give some context to Oregon’s health insurance rate increases for next year. Premiums are rising anywhere from about 10 percent to 30 percent for a standard “silver” plan in Oregon, depending on the carrier. That’s in the range that insurance rates are rising nationwide — an average of 22 percent. The first of the three NYT maps shows a county-by-county breakdown of how much rates for the lowest-cost silver plan are rising.… Reported by bizjournals 12 hours ago.

ACA Rate Increases Pinch Those Without Subsidies

0
0
As consumers begin shopping for health insurance on Affordable Care Act exchanges, rate increases are hitting one group particularly hard: people who make too much money to qualify for the law’s subsidies. Reported by Wall Street Journal 7 hours ago.

On Election Day, a Stark Choice When It Comes to Policy

0
0
(Photo: AP/Mark Ralston)

Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton debate during the third presidential debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 19, 2016.

The appallingly substance-free media coverage of the 2016 elections, which has revolved around titillating tapes and email snipe hunts, has largely ignored the historically stark policy choices now facing the American public. The nation’s growing polarization has given us a Democrat running on the most progressive platform since 1972, if not ever, and a Republican whose policies would take the country back to the Gilded Age.

Admittedly, since Republicans will almost certainly maintain control of the House, the Democratic legislative agenda may be somewhat beside the point. But does this mean, as Kathleen Parker recently argued in The Washington Post, that the election’s outcome is no big deal either way? Not on your life. For progressives, the differences between the best- and worst-case plausible scenarios in the 2016 elections are, as Donald Trump would say, “yuge.” Let’s take the different possible scenarios one at a time.

If Hillary Clinton wins, but Republicans retain the Senate, this may well leave Clinton unable to confirm a replacement for Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, and she would also struggle to win confirmation for her nominees to some administrative agencies. But even in this event, having Clinton rather than Trump in the White House would be greatly consequential on several fronts, from environmental policy to immigration, consumer protection, civil liberties, and health care.

Arguably the most important of these is *environmental policy*. A Clinton administration would proceed with Obama’s Clean Power Plan, a regulatory framework that is on track to substantially reduce carbon emissions. The plan faces a court challenge, but is expected to be upheld in the D.C. Circuit. That means that if it comes before the now evenly divided Supreme Court, the worst-case scenario is a likely deadlock that would leave the lower court ruling in place. A Clinton administration could also be expected to implement and expand the wide variety of regulations that the Obama administration has proposed to combat climate change and protect the environment.

By contrast, an administration helmed by Donald Trump, who has said climate change is a hoax invented by Chinese interests, would end the Obama administration’s environmental regulatory agenda, substantially increase in the use of dirty energies like coal, and slash support for the development of renewable energy technologies. Even four years of Trump would do incalculable damage to the planet.

Another critical difference between a Clinton and Trump administration is *federal regulatory enforcement. *As Michael Tomasky once wrote for the Prospect, “In every agency of government, at every level, there are political appointees who are interpreting federal rules and regulations and deciding how much effort will really be put into pursuing federal discrimination cases, for instance, or illegal toxic dumping. These are the people who are, in fact, the federal government. The kinds of people who fill those slots in a Democratic administration are of a very different stripe than the kinds who fill them during a Republican term.”

A Clinton administration would aggressively enforce *voting rights* and other *anti-discrimination laws. *As reflected in her campaign, Clinton’s administration would place a priority on enforcing *the rights of the disabled*. It would more aggressively enforce *the rights of consumers*. Clinton would almost certainly proceed with Obama’s *more humane immigration policies*. On these and other issues, a Trump administration would move the nation in the opposite direction. Moreover, as Thomas Geoghegan recently observed, a Democratic administration provides a training ground for many young, progressive Democrats.

Clinton’s hand will be even stronger if Democrats manage to retake the Senate. A Senate Democratic majority would place another high-stakes matter on the front burner: *the Supreme Court*. A Clinton nominee confirmed to replace Scalia would create the first Supreme Court with a liberal median vote in nearly 50 years. Clinton may also be able to replace one or more additional justices, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, or Anthony Kennedy, further consolidating a liberal Court majority.

The Supreme Court’s makeup carries particular weight in the area of *reproductive freedom*. As Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick has explained, Roe v. Wade—and, hence, the fundamental constitutional right of women in many states to obtain safe and legal abortions—is definitely on the ballot on Tuesday. But the Supreme Court will also weigh in decisively on many other issues, including but not limited to* same-sex marriage*, *worker’s rights*, *civil liberties*, *campaign-finance reform*, *voting rights*, and the *legislative and regulatory powers of the federal government*. The policy stakes involved in who can pick the next Supreme Court justices can hardly be overstated. And despite some claims that Trump’s Supreme Court appointments would be unpredictable, all evidence suggests he’d nominated reactionary stalwarts in the mold of Samuel Alito.

As important as what Clinton can do is what she can stop. Her veto pen would be a critical check on a Congress led by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. Their far-right agenda is no secret, and Trump would almost certainly sign any major bill GOP leaders put on his desk. A Republican Congress would pass *massive upper-class tax cut*s. It would repeal *the Affordable Care Act and roll back its historic Medicaid expansion*, threatening the health insurance of more than 20 million people. It would *slash spending for the poor* while *increasing defense spending*. It would probably eliminate the *Consumer Financial Protection Bureau* and *substantially deregulate the financial sector*. It would also inevitably pass *new federal restrictions on abortion*. A Republican Congress and White House would orchestrate a massive upward distribution of wealth that would inflict incalculable suffering on the most vulnerable Americas. If you like what public policy in Kansas looks like right now, imagine taking Brownback’s disastrous policies national. That’s what Paul Ryan wants, and that’s what he will get if Trump wins the White House.

Trump’s candidacy has mobilized a wide coalition of progressive groups, including civil-rights, environmental, women's-health, labor, LBGT, and pro-immigrant organizations. These groups know what rides on the outcome of the elections. Such advocates would undoubtedly find fault at times with a Clinton administration, but they would enjoy a seat at the table. In a Trump administration, progressive activists’ only view would be from under a boot. This is a story the media have not effectively told in this election, but it’s one with enormous stakes for the progressive community.  Reported by The American Prospect 11 hours ago.

The Accomplishments and Failures of the Affordable Care Act and What's Next

0
0
What should the future of the Affordable Care Act be? originally appeared on Quora - the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights.

*Answer by Mario Schlosser, CEO and Co-Founder of Oscar Health, on Quora.*
The Affordable Care Act did some great things, but also needs to be overhauled in some material ways. It had a big impact in the short term, and it set in motion what I believe will be a fundamental redesign of healthcare in the US in the long term.First, there are now 21.3 million fewer uninsured people in the US than there were before 2014. Irrespective of your political beliefs, if you are a human being, you should think that this is a good thing. The leading cause of bankruptcies in this country is related to medical bills. If you followed the Oregon Experiment (an interesting natural experiment where the state of Oregon due to budget reasons was forced to give just a random subset of its population Medicaid coverage, so researchers could follow a de-facto A/B test as to what health insurance does), you know that having insurance doesn't immediately mean you'll live a healthier life, but it has huge impact on your mental well-being because it removes the worry of what might happen if you get seriously sick. So the fact that we have become a civilized country in which everyone can finally get health insurance to me is a big deal, and the ACA did that.

Second, it did that in ways that were actually very intelligently engineered. For example, the so-called risk adjustment program re-distributes premium income (what members pay insurers each month) between health insurers based on the risk of the member population that they attracted: the higher the risk among an insurer's members, the more other insurers will transfer premiums to that insurer. In theory, that is great because it incentivizes insurers not to attract certain members, but only to make sure that once a member is on board, we work to lower the member's healthcare costs and long-term healthcare risk.

Let's talk about the shortcomings starting with risk adjustment: the formula is broken and currently biases insurers against getting too many 30-year old members. But too few 30-year old members (who generally are healthy and are effectively, indirectly paying premiums to eventually utilize healthcare when they are older) means that the overall risk pool of ACA marketplaces is too risky, and premiums would have to rise in order to cover that extra cost. There are lots of these seemingly small "engineering" and mechanical issues in the current ACA regulations. ("Seemingly small": an issue that costs insurers just 1% in additional medical loss in the ACA market is an issue of a cool 2-3 billion dollars a year! By my rough math of using 3 trillion in annual healthcare costs and the ACA market representing about 5-10% of our population today.) In any other, normal time, those would simply have to be fixed over time. Look at today's most profitable health insurance market, the Medicare Advantage market: it started in 2000 or so, then enrollment fell and the market got clobbered until 2005 or so, then a bunch of regulations were fixed, and now the market is very profitable, it has real competition, and enrollment is 5x what it was back then. The problem is, we have to make sure that those regulatory changes happen and the discussion doesn't get stalled before it starts.

Another quick word on this: some of the great achievements of the ACA are "guaranteed issue" and "community rating". That means that nobody can be denied insurance, and everyone basically pays the same rate (except for some difference by age in some states). However, that also means that the "risk" (mix of medical conditions and the cost of treating those conditions) insurers are going to face is almost a complete guess. Not only that, but at Oscar, we had to set our 2016 prices (which we can't change for the entire year, and for which we will enroll every member who shows up) almost a year in advance, with almost no data on the prior year (because that had barely begun when we priced), and certainly with no data on the future year (because, well, that was in the future). In that situation, it is virtually impossible to set the right prices. Many insurers tried their best to price competitively (a great thing!) and to the best of their knowledge what the market would look like, and most were wrong. The government anticipated this and put in place something called "risk corridors", which were supposed to buffer the initial losses and gains in the first three years of the ACA. Alas, the political infighting dismantled that program, and therefore changed the game long after any losses had been locked in. That's not how you build stable and functioning insurance markets.

What will the future of the ACA be? Here is where the long-term comes in. What the ACA did is to finally create an individual insurance market. Isn't it ironic that it was the government, of all economic players, that really for the first time built a website that created real price transparency in health insurance (in the form of Get 2017 health coverage. Health Insurance Marketplace)? It shows how backwards this market was, and how we (as a society) allowed healthcare costs to rise to the point where they are almost bankrupting us. Now, in the individual market at least, people can vote with their feet, make their own choices, and insurers (and by extension, healthcare providers, such as hospitals), have to really compete on value for money. That is a much tougher market than what existed before, but it's the only way that the healthcare value chain will experience the pressure it needs to become more efficient and more competitive along the entire chain. The EpiPen's CEO's statement went something like, "we didn't think that anyone would actually pay the insanely high price that we put on the EpiPen, because insurers were just supposed to charge co-pays for it" -- there is something fundamentally, absurdly wrong with this statement. Of course we've all, collectively as a society, been paying for the incredible inefficiencies, fantasy prices and lack of competition in the healthcare value chain, through rising premiums or deductibles, because the dollars must come from somewhere. I think those things will be much less possible if individuals have clearer choices, see insurers and others more clearly compete for their business, and, yes, also have more direct financial participation through deductibles and premiums that hit their wallets directly.

So the ACA took us from a world in which we were paying almost a fifth of our GDP on healthcare and didn't really fully notice it, to a world where we're still paying a fifth of our GDP on healthcare but are now really painfully noticing it. And hopefully, through increased competition and innovation, the business that it catalyzed (consumer-oriented health insurance) will now take us to a world where some of the things that we and others are doing will start bending that curve and increasing value for money.This question originally appeared on Quora. - the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.
More questions:​

· Startup Advice and Strategy: What are the most difficult issues in building a company within a regulated market?· Medicine and Healthcare: What is the future of the American healthcare system?· Data Analysis: What are the most interesting use cases of using data in the healthcare industry?
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.

Trouble On The Exchanges: Does The U.S. Owe Billions To Health Insurers?

0
0
Nicholas Bagley, J.D.

From the University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor.
Yet another bruising fight has erupted over health care reform. On September 9, 2016, the Obama administration offered to open settlement negotiations with health insurers that have sued the United States to recover billions of dollars that they claim they are owed. Congressional Republicans are incensed, believing that any settlement would illegally squander taxpayer dollars in a last-gasp effort to save the Affordable Care Act (ACA).As with many disputes over health care reform, the partisan squabbling has elevated an obscure legal question to public attention. The unfortunate result, however, is that careful legal analysis can get lost in the din. Are insurers in fact entitled to the risk-corridor money that they believe they are owed? If so, does the administration have the legal authority to pay them? As it happens, the law offers reasonably clear answers to both questions.When Congress enacted the ACA, it feared that insurers might be reluctant to participate in the health insurance exchanges. The markets were new and untested; actuarial models that worked well in the prior era of medical underwriting would be useless.To coax insurers onto the exchanges, Congress created a temporary risk-corridor program. For 3 years -- from 2014 through 2016 -- the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would cover some of the losses for insurers whose plans performed worse than they expected. Insurers that were especially profitable, for their part, would have to return to HHS some of the money they earned on the exchanges.The risk-corridor program thus aimed to protect insurers from large losses. The concept was not novel; the program was modeled on a similar one in Medicare Part D, which also used risk corridors to encourage reluctant private insurers to participate in a newly formed insurance market. As with Part D, more participation would mean more competition, which would drive down premiums and make health insurance more affordable.When insurers signed up to sell health plans on the exchanges, they did so with the expectation that the risk-corridor program would limit their downside losses. But there was an unanticipated hitch: the ACA did not appropriate any money to make risk-corridor payments. For 2014, HHS could rely on existing authority to makethese payments out of the money it received from profitable health plans. But for 2015 and 2016, Congress tightened the screws. In omnibus appropriations bills covering both years, it refused to appropriate the money to fully fund the program. That meant that the risk-corridor program would have to be budget neutral: payments out could not exceed payments in.That requirement proved to be bad news for health insurers. In late 2015, HHS announced that insurers were owed $2.87 billion in risk-corridor money for 2014 -- about $400 per exchange enrollee. Payments into the program, however, amounted to just $362 million. As a result, HHS could pay insurers just 12.6% of what they were owed.The inability to make full risk-corridor payments devastated some insurers. Hit particularly hard were the new cooperative health plans, which were established with the support of generous ACA loans. By the end of summer 2016, just 7 of 23 co-ops were still in business. As the co-ops collapsed, almost a million people were forced to look elsewhere for coverage.The loss of the co-ops, together with the withdrawal of several large insurers from a number of states, has led to a sharp reduction in competition on the exchanges. The Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated that in 2017 only 62% of exchange customers will be able to choose from among three or more insurers, down from 85% the year before. [1] Nearly one in five customers will have just one choice. The lack of vibrant competition will compromise efforts to hold down costs: premium increases in 2017 are expected to be considerably larger than in previous years.Health insurers struck back. In February 2016, a failed Oregon co-op filed a class-action lawsuit to recover what it was owed under the risk-corridor program. At least seven other lawsuits seeking reimbursement have since been filed. The insurers' claims are straightforward. In enacting the ACA, Congress promised to make risk-corridor payments to health plans that performed poorly on the exchanges. That financial promise created a legal entitlement. And that entitlement is enforceable in court.For now, the Justice Department is fighting the lawsuits. But the insurers' legal arguments have considerable force. Indeed, HHS has openly acknowledged that risk-corridor payments are "obligation[s] of the United States for which full payment is required." [2] The administration may recognize that it is playing a losing hand -- which is why, in September, it announced that it was "open to discussing resolution" of the risk-corridor claims.House Republicans immediately cried foul. "The Administration's explicit offer to settle these lawsuits," wrote the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, "appears to be a direct circumvention of clear congressional intent to prohibit the expenditure of federal dollars on this program." [3]Congressional Republicans believe that settling these cases would be unlawful for two reasons. First, they insist that they changed the terms of the risk-corridor deal when they passed appropriations statutes that made the program budget neutral. Insurers' entitlement to full risk-corridor payments ends, they argue, when funding for the program is exhausted.On this question, the Republicans are mistaken. As the Government Accountability Office has explained, "the mere failure to appropriate sufficient funds is not enough" to change the scope of an entitlement. [4] And that's all the appropriations statutes are: "mere failure[s] to appropriate sufficient funds." They do not purport to change what health plans are entitled to. So the promise that the ACA made has not been undone.Second, congressional Republicans maintain that the administration cannot settle the cases because Congress hasn't appropriated the money to pay court judgments. Without an appropriation, they argue, the United States can't make a payment even if a court orders that the money be paid. In other words, Congress is always free to refuse to honor its debts -- and it has refused to honor these particular debts.The Republicans acknowledge that an existing, permanent appropriation known as the Judgment Fund normally allows the executive branch to settle lawsuits against the United States. By its terms, however, the Judgment Fund is available only when payment is "not otherwise provided for." Drawing support from a memo compiled by the Congressional Research Service, they believe that they "otherwise provided for" risk-corridor payments when they partially funded the program.But in fact the Judgment Fund is not unavailable whenever Congress chooses to partially fund a program. It is unavailable only when Congress has designated an alternative source of funds to pay money judgments arising from a failure to fulfill the United States' financial obligations. [5] Because Congress has made no such designation here, the Judgment Fund appears to be available to settle the risk-corridor lawsuits.Health insurers thus appear to have a strong claim to several billion dollars from U.S. coffers. Which is not to say that insurers are sure to be paid. Under the next president, for example, Congress could amend the Judgment Fund to prohibit payment. And lawyers continue to wrangle over the complexities of appropriations law, creating some uncertainty about the litigation.Eventually, however, Uncle Sam may have no choice but to pay up. With that upshot in mind, the Obama administration's willingness to open settlement negotiations appears neither feckless nor unlawful. On the contrary, it is the responsible thing to do.
See the article, and read the comments, on NEJM.org.

-- 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 7 hours ago.

There's A Case Against Donald Trump. But There's Also A Case For Hillary Clinton.

0
0
Just for a few minutes, let’s stop talking about everything that’s wrong with Hillary Clinton, and look at some of the things that are right. Maybe a good place to start is with her work to improve the lives of children, particularly those growing up in difficult circumstances. 

In her 20s, Clinton did undercover research to expose schools discriminating against African Americans in Alabama ― and investigated the plight of kids with disabilities who couldn’t attend school. Later, as wife of a governor and then a president, she crusaded for better education and health care for children.

Now, as a presidential candidate, Clinton is calling to make child care more affordable, to create preschool programs available to all kids, and to broaden a network of home visiting nurses for new mothers in low-income families. If enacted, these initiatives would represent the largest single government investment in early childhood programs ever.

This is the kind of history and vision that, in a normal election, might get some attention and even make people feel good about a candidate. But in this campaign, despite the Clinton campaign’s best efforts, most people probably have very little idea that Clinton has such a long, consistent record of child advocacy ― or that, as president, she’d be pushing to try something so bold.

This is not an isolated example. Clinton is one of the smartest, most experienced candidates to seek the presidency in the modern era. She’s got an ambitious platform that’s true to her party’s core commitments, from expanding security to protecting reproductive rights. And she’s got a long record of fighting to pursue these goals.

Yet ever since Clinton announced her candidacy last summer, but especially in the last two weeks or so, the political conversation about her has dwelled on her flaws ― how she’s too secretive and too calculating, too close to Wall Street, and too integrated into the political establishment.

It’s a big reason why there are a lot of people ready to vote for her, but not so many who seem excited about it. The polls suggest Clinton is likely to win on Tuesday, but her personal approval ratings are the second-worst ever recorded for a major party nominee. It’d be enough to sink her candidacy, if only her opponent didn’t happen to be Donald Trump ― the one person whose ratings are even lower.

Not that it takes a poll number to recognize the public’s lack of enthusiasm for Clinton’s candidacy. She has her devoted supporters, for sure, particularly among women, who appreciate what a huge, historic accomplishment her reaching the presidency would be. But anybody who has interviewed voters ― and, I suspect, anybody who has had a conversation at a family gathering ― has heard some version of, “Ugh, I just don’t like her.”

They might vote for her to stop Trump. But they’re not happy about it.

Of course, there are many reasons why a rational, informed voter might find a Clinton candidacy unappealing ― if not for ideological reasons, then for characterological ones. But in this campaign, discussion of Clinton’s flaws has frequently seemed all-encompassing ― as if she were nothing more than the candidate who gave speeches to Goldman Sachs, who used a private email server for State Department business, and who called half of Trump’s supporters “deplorable.”

Maybe these things matter a lot. Maybe they matter a little. But other parts of Clinton’s candidacy should matter as well. And all too often, they have not.

Consider all the time Clinton has spent living down her support of her husband’s policies, particularly new trade treaties and time limits on welfare, as well as her use of the racially loaded term “super-predator” to describe young criminals in the 1990s. These are all reasonable grounds for criticism.

But an accurate accounting of her history would also include the parts that look better in hindsight ― like her efforts to create national health insurance and to promote women’s rights, and her efforts to combat economic inequality through everything from a higher minimum wage to stronger unions.

Consider, too, the grief Clinton has taken over her ties to the financial industry ― whether it’s for supporting, as senator, a bankruptcy bill that hurt consumers, or for the infamous speeches she gave to Wall Street groups. These things matter.

Yet when summaries of parts of those Wall Street speeches came out, nobody seemed to notice that she’d made a point of reaffirming her support for closing tax breaks for hedge fund managers, reducing CEO pay, and regulating risky financial products. Or that all three proposals are part of the campaign platform she’d put forward this year. Or that she’s called for a bunch of other measures ― like jacking up taxes on the rich ― that would make her friends in finance squirm.

Particularly to Trump and his Republican allies, but even to some Democrats, the real trouble with Clinton is her lack of honesty. They just don’t trust her. And Clinton, like every political figure, has had plenty of moments when she’s been less than candid.

But by the standards of presidential campaigns, Clinton’s has been remarkably truthful. Staff from the fact-checking website Politifact determined 13 percent of Clinton statements were “false” or “pants on fire” ― the category for the most dishonest statements. Nearly half of Trump’s statements qualified.

About the only attributes for which Clinton seems to get widespread credit are her smarts and her fortitude. Even her adversaries admit that she is one of the sharpest, best-informed people in Washington. And at the final presidential debate, even Trump had to concede that Clinton was a “fighter” ― that “she doesn’t quit, she doesn’t give up.” 

These qualities have come through because they are simply too obvious to deny. Everybody has seen the abuse she’s taken ― and her ability to fight through it. Even this compliment, however, has its underside. Many people see Clinton’s relentlessness as a sign that she is too ambitious ― that she wants power for its own sake, and wants it maybe a little too badly.

Why does Clinton get so little credit for what she does right? Gender is surely a big part of the story, as men rarely take such grief for trying to advance professionally or acquire influence. Clinton’s mutually destructive relationship with the media has played a role, too. Networks spent more time covering the email controversy than all policy issues combined, according to a Media Matters study. Throw in the sustained partisan assault she’s faced, dating back to her days in Arkansas, and suddenly the one-sided nature of the political conversation starts to make sense.

But the conversation can still change. As voters ponder their choices on Tuesday ― not just the choice of whom to support, but the choice of whether to vote at all ― they should remember that Clinton is a complicated figure, like anyone in public life. She’s got flaws, yes, but she’s got virtues, too ― from her patience and intelligence, to her dedication to public service. If voters can look more closely at her ― at everything she’s done to date, and everything she’s promising to do in the future ― they might be surprised at how much they like.

-- 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 5 hours ago.

Chubb observes fourth annual Regional Day of Service in Asia Pacific

0
0
SINGAPORE, Nov. 8, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Chubb announced today its fourth annual Regional Day of Service in the Asia Pacific region, during which employees from its life and general insurance operations will dedicate a portion of their day during the week of 7-11 November to help the communities in which they live and work.

A tradition which began in 2012, the annual Regional Day of Service reflects Chubb's firm belief that positive contributions to communities return long-lasting benefits to society and the company's employees and business.

Over 1,000 employees in 12 territories will be taking part in a myriad of volunteer projects focused on increasing educational opportunities for underprivileged students, as well as improving the livelihood for individuals and communities. The participating markets include Australia, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.

This year's Day of Service activities for the underprivileged include: educational programs; skills coaching; restoration of premises; fund-raising, as well as donation of books and basic necessities.

Mr. Paul McNamee, Regional President of Chubb's general insurance operations in Asia Pacific, said, "Giving back to the community is an integral part of our corporate culture and this year's Regional Day of Service is especially momentous as it marks our first big company-wide event for employees as the new Chubb. As an organization with an established presence in Asia Pacific, we're committed to making positive impacts in the respective local communities in which we operate. Beyond just fund-raising, our volunteer projects include education and skills training for the most underprivileged throughout our region, which we hope will enhance the lives of many more in the years to come."

Mr. Kevin Goulding, Regional President of Chubb's life operations in Asia Pacific, added, "We have a strong culture and commitment to giving back to local communities. Through this and other philanthropic initiatives, we continue to serve in areas that align with our priorities and touch the lives of many. Together with our employees, we aim to support a more vibrant and prosperous future in the region."

*About Chubb*

Chubb is the world's largest publicly traded property and casualty insurance company. With operations in 54 countries, Chubb provides commercial and personal property and casualty insurance, personal accident and supplemental health insurance, reinsurance and life insurance to a diverse group of clients. As an underwriting company, we assess, assume and manage risk with insight and discipline. We service and pay our claims fairly and promptly. The company is also defined by its extensive product and service offerings, broad distribution capabilities, exceptional financial strength and local operations globally. Parent company Chubb Limited is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: CB) and is a component of the S&P 500 index. Chubb maintains executive offices in Zurich, New York, London and other locations, and employs approximately 31,000 people worldwide.

Additional information can be found at: new.chubb.com.

Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20160124/325256LOGO  Reported by PR Newswire Asia 4 hours ago.

Health insurance policies misinform consumers, tell them chronic conditions are treatable but 'not curable'

0
0
(NaturalNews) The easiest way to die young and suffer chronic, horrible health conditions along the way, is to eat all the wrong foods daily, consume the chemical toxins prescribed by medical doctors your whole shortened life, and believe what you see and hear on television about... Reported by NaturalNews.com 3 hours ago.

From the Horse’s Mouth – Veterinarians Key to Pet Insurance Uptake Says Aquarium

0
0
In response to a recent study from the North American Pet Health Insurance Association (NAPHIA) Anglo-American pet insurance technology specialist Aquarium Software says guidance from veterinarians to pet owners is crucial when it comes to ensuring animals are correctly insured.

(PRWEB) November 08, 2016

A recent study from the North American Pet Health insurance Association (NAPHIA) – of which Aquarium is a Member and supporter - found that many pet parents need only a short conversation with their veterinary surgeon to realise the benefits of pet insurance.

The study also found that people who did have their furry friends insured spent 29 per cent more time at the veterinary practice, ensuring their pet benefits from the best possible care. Mark Colonnese, Aquarium’s VP Sales and Marketing says this will save consumers both time and money in the long run, and with regular visits to the veterinarians allowing a smoother customer journey, it’s a no brainer when it comes to investing in pet insurance.

“By seeing your veterinary surgeon regularly and covering your pet adequately, you’re creating a virtuous circle,” said Mark Colonnese. “Firstly, regular contact with your veterinary practice will improve the chances of spotting pet health issues as quickly as possible, before they become a potentially serious problem. Having the correct insurance in place could make owners less likely to delay a visit to the vet, and this must be in the interests of the pet’s health and well-being. Vets are in a unique position to share useful pet data with insurers, ensuring that the combination of regular visits to the vet and proper pet insurance cover act as drivers for lower premiums in the future. Everyone wins.”

The NAPHIA study uncovered many interesting findings, but a key message was that veterinary surgeons hold the key in ensuring pet parents obtain appropriate insurance for their pets. “If you love your pet as most owners do – and if you do not have pet insurance – it could be time to get your pet to the vet as soon as possible. It’s surely a small price to pay for peace of mind on your pet’s health, and could be the early Christmas present that your pet will thank you for later,” Colonnese concluded.

Aquarium Software develops and hosts a cloud platform solution designed to integrate data, deliver robotic process automation and produce intelligent management information for the pet insurance, general insurance, claims, and other volume process businesses. Aquarium Software is currently being implemented by a number of key global insurers and affinity partners across the UK, Europe and North America. For further information contact Aquarium Software on +44 (0)161 927 5620 or visit
http://www.aquarium-software.com Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.

Jordan’s Female Taxi Drivers Crash Through Stereotypes

0
0
A group of women in Jordan are defying gender roles for a career on the road. While it’s not easy working in a male-dominated sector, the country’s female taxi drivers are willing to challenge the naysayers in order to do the job they love.

AMMAN, Jordan – The only difference between Hiba al-Sharu and her male counterparts is the color of the sign that sits atop her taxi – hers is pink, a symbol for a woman-friendly service in a country dominated by men. She is one of 10 women who earlier this year became some of the first female taxi drivers in Jordan. They are being hailed as pioneers in a conservative society where jobs are dictated by gender and women often feel uneasy taking taxis driven by men.

“It’s a beautiful job because of the relationships you form and the freedom that comes with it,” says al-Sharu as she swiftly changes lanes in the traffic. Also, she adds, “I have a passion for driving cars.”

Al-Sharu became a taxi driver in March after her friend told her about a new female-driven service being offered by Taxi al-Moumayaz, one of the leading companies of its kind in Jordan. CEO Eid Abu al-Haj says the reason for creating the initiative was twofold: to give women the chance to work in the male-centric transportation sector and to provide female riders with a more comfortable option.

“People think it’s odd,” says al-Haj. “But I try to prove that there’s nothing wrong with it. There’s no difference between a woman driving a normal car or a taxi.”

The opportunity came at the perfect time for al-Sharu. Despite holding a bachelor’s degree in business administration, the divorced mother of one had been struggling to find a decent job with a stable salary, health insurance and social security benefits. Driving for Taxi al-Moumayaz gives her all of that plus the ability to design her own schedule and to earn an additional income in the form of tips. More than six months have passed, and she’s happier than ever about her decision to work on the road.

But not everyone is supportive of al-Sharu’s new career path. “The Middle Eastern mentality doesn’t accept that I’m a taxi driver,” she says while fixing her hair in the rearview mirror.

In addition to working odd hours, taxi drivers must be alone in their cars with strangers – including men – for long periods of time. It’s an uncomfortable combination in a society where, traditionally, women are thought to bring shame to their family and culture if they do something that could be perceived as promiscuous. While Jordan is among the more progressive of the Arab nations – so-called honor killings are rare – harassment of women is commonplace, especially of those who are considered to be engaging in indecent or abnormal behavior.Al-Sharu recounts one disturbing incident in particular: A couple of months ago, two male passengers refused to pay after instructing her to drive aimlessly around the city. After she realized they were mocking her, a verbal argument ensued. Then the fight turned physical. “The window was open and one of them grabbed a long stick from outside the car, and then he began hitting the meter with it,” she recalls. “It’s because I’m a woman.”

But it’s not only strangers who take issue with her line of work. “My father is still not happy. He is ashamed,” she says. “But I don’t care. This is my life, not his life.”

While al-Sharu is able to defy the men in her family, not all women in Jordan have that option. The country’s patriarchal laws and cultural traditions deny women full equality. Women cannot pass citizenship on to their children, for example, or legally marry without permission from either a male blood relative or the court. The male guardianship system still dictates many aspects of everyday life.

Without full control over their own lives, women in Jordan have a difficult time breaking out of the traditional female role. Salma Nims, secretary general of the Jordanian National Commission for Women, says women in her country are first and foremost mothers, wives and guardians of the domestic sphere. Working outside the home is discouraged in some families, unless it’s a monetary necessity. And for women who do work, being a fully functioning member of the labor force is not easy since they are expected to also continue taking sole responsibility for the household.

Nims believes that one of the best ways to improve the work situation for women in Jordan is to stop the perpetuation of gender stereotypes in the media and school curriculum. “We are raising a generation that sees women with very limited options in terms of jobs,” she says. “These stereotypes and judgments affect how young men and women see themselves and how they perceive the other and the role they play in society.”

But al-Sharu favors a more direct approach: “My advice to women is to break the stereotype.” Her becoming a taxi driver may not seem like much of a revolution, but she thinks it could help inspire a new reality for women in Jordan who want to free themselves from the confines of their gender roles.

“We’re not stealing; we’re not doing anything bad. We’re helping people and providing a service,” she says of herself and her fellow female taxi drivers.

“Try us,” she adds with a smirk, “and then say what you want.”

This article originally appeared on Women & Girls Hub. For weekly updates, you can sign up to the Women & Girls Hub email list.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 18 hours ago.

Internal watchdog told Medicare, Medicaid centers EpiPen was misclassified in 2009

0
0
The internal watchdog at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warned the office tasked with administering federal health insurance programs that Mylan NV’s EpiPen was improperly classified as a generic drug in 2009, Senator Charles Grassley said Tuesday. In a press release, Grassle... Reported by Raw Story 14 hours ago.

The Great American Divide

0
0
Our country is more divided than it's been in a very long time, quite possibly since the Civil War. This great rift has been growing for many years. While significant political differences have always existed, a larger, more troubling gap began to develop when income inequality started accelerating in the late 1970s. According to the Economic Policy Institute, from 1978 to 2015 the average corporate CEO's salary grew 997 percent while the average salary of a private sector, non-supervisory worker increased just 10.9 percent.

Additionally, as I noted in Breaking Big Money's Grip on America, between 2009 and 2012, the first years of the economic recovery after the Great Recession, 95 percent of the total gain in income went to the families in the top one percent. Consequently, more and more Americans were feeling left behind as our nation dug itself out of the 2008 Recession.

While the Establishment in both political parties was addressing the needs and desires of the donor class, they were doing little for the rest of their constituents. During the last days of the George W. Bush administration, Congress passed TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Though TARP funds were primarily to be used to save the nation's biggest banks from collapsing, the government could have used some of it to prevent the foreclosure of average citizens' home mortgages. But President Obama refused to require foreclosure relief from these banks as a condition for their receiving a massive bailout of hundreds of billions of dollars2 paid for by American taxpayers.

Even Obama's singular achievement, the Affordable Care Act, was drafted more in line with the wishes of corporate America than those of the general public. As a result, the Act failed to include a 'public option,' which would have helped limit the cost of people's health insurance, while it contained the insurance companies' requirement that all citizens obtain health insurance.

Meanwhile, since the Great Recession, Congress has refused to pass a substantial jobs bill, mostly due to Republican obstruction, which would have assisted millions of Americans in getting back on their feet. And, if that weren't enough, Obama continues to lobby for the passage of the TPP, the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty, that would further hurt American workers while it boosts Big Business.

How many times can we expect working class Americans to take it on the chin before they start fighting back? Can we really blame them for being mad as hell and supporting Donald Trump? Yes, Trump is a charlatan. But, when people are drowning, they will grab onto any apparent lifesaver within reach. In fact, the rise of Trump's presidential campaign is in large part the result of our nation's failure to respond to the needs of his followers.

The truth is that the Establishment, Republican and Democratic alike, has been more focused on protecting and furthering its own self interest than it has been in building a nation where we all have an equal opportunity to enjoy healthy and prosperous lives. But, this is the way it has always been. The status quo does not change unless people organize and demand it. Just look at how it took millions of Americans coming together in the LGBT, Civil Rights and Environmental movements to overcome the opposition of the status quo and achieve their successes.

Now that this bitter presidential campaign is finally over, it's time we turned our attention to the causes that made it so acrimonious. In particular, we must examine an economic/political system that provides so much to so few and so little to so many. Then, we must organize a broad-based, non-partisan Democracy Movement to redevelop that system into a fairer, more equitable one for all Americans. For how we can do this together, visit *breakingbigmoneysgrip.com*.

1 See http://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-has-grown-90-times-faster-than-typical-worker-pay-since-1978/.

2 See http://www.salon.com/2015/03/31/barney_frank_drops_a_bombshell_how_a_shocking_anecdote_explains_the_financial_crisis/.

-- 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 14 hours ago.

US Watchdog Told Medicare, Medicaid That EpiPen Was Misclassified in 2009

0
0
The internal watchdog at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warned the office tasked with administering federal health insurance programs that Mylan NV's EpiPen was improperly classified as a generic drug in 2009, Senator Charles Grassley said Tuesday. Reported by Newsmax 11 hours ago.

U.S. watchdog told Medicare, Medicaid that EpiPen was misclassified in 2009: senator

0
0
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The internal watchdog at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warned the office tasked with administering federal health insurance programs that Mylan NV's EpiPen was improperly classified as a generic drug in 2009, Senator Charles Grassley said Tuesday. Reported by Reuters 14 hours ago.

Trump gains by accusing Hillary of his own crimes

0
0
In his run for the White House, Donald Trump has nearly perfected the art of flipping his own deficits back onto his opponent. In the past, Ronald Reagan -- who only pretended to be an athlete in Hollywood and spent the war making military training films, yet he successfully branded George Herbert Walker Bush -- a decorated Navy pilot and Yale's baseball captain -- as a "wimp". Later, Bush's son, effectively a no-show during his year with the Texas Air National Guard, benefited from attacks on the record of Vietnam combat hero John Kerry. Which brings us to Trump.

In his latest TV ad, Trump claims "Hillary Clinton only cares about power, money, and herself." This from a man who -- even amid his campaign for the Presidency -- continues to hawk his merchandise and resort projects, whose personal foundation lavishes other people's donations onto himself, whose public service record consists of once being one of the marshals in New York's Israel parade, who brags about not paying his taxes.

Trump decries "Crooked Hillary", who has never faced any trial, and promises that she will -- even as the FBI Director drops his investigation (for the second time). This from Trump, who has been successfully sued and declared bankruptcy again and again, who faces trial for fraud this month (and was also to have been tried for rape). New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who led the "lock her up!" chants at Trump's nominating convention, just had two key aides convicted of abusing his office and on his orders.

How better to deflect these obvious liabilities than by claiming the Clinton email scandal -- disposed with no indictments or other sanctions -- is "bigger than Watergate" and that Hillary is the "most corrupt person ever" to run for President of the United States... this from a man who still refuses to release his tax returns.

Trump persists in warning of a "rigged" election, while urging his own supporters to intimidate voters on Election Day. This Venal Man of the Year, who on an open mic -- not even a private phone call -- bragged of sexual assault, protests that Hillary Clinton shouldn't even be allowed to run for President.

That's the same Hillary Clinton who devoted years to fighting for children's rights and secured the Children's Health Insurance Program, who served our country as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State, who enjoys the support of most former national security officials from both parties and of every living President. One can oppose Hillary Clinton on any number of points, but the idea that she should be prohibited from running for national office -- while a vulgar, has-been show-biz real estate developer is a few points from the Presidency -- is simply absurd.

Of course, Trump's use of these tactics has largely succeeded in boosting his chances. That's because a sucker is born every minute, or people just believe what they want to believe. And it's because the decent people don't even want to dignify his perverse allegations with a response. On Tuesday, hopefully, enough people will buck that trend.

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

Public Health: Newly Insured by Obamacare, Yet Unlikely to Vote

0
0
Finally having health insurance probably will not turn longtime nonvoters into voters. Reported by NYTimes.com 9 hours ago.

Election 2016: ColoradoCare state health system loses big

0
0
Coloradans have soundly rejected the idea of creating a state-chartered, single-payer health-insurance system Tuesday, sending ColoradoCare to defeat. In early returns, Amendment 69 was trailing by a better than 3-1 margin. 9News called the measure defeated at 7:28 p.m. Amendment 69 would have imposed 10 percent payroll taxes on every worker in the state to create a system that would have replaced private health insurance and would have supplemented federal plans like Medicare and TriCare. Had… Reported by bizjournals 7 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images