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

State Farm Agent Katie Lamb Helping People Winterize their Homes

$
0
0
State Farm Agent Katie Lamb lists the top twelve tips for winterizing a home.

Cordova, TN (PRWEB) January 19, 2017

The winter months are upon us and that means it’s time to winterize one’s home. To help people, Lamb lists the following twelve tips:

No. 1: Change furnace filters for higher efficiency. “If it looks dirty, change it now,” stressed Lamb.

No. 2: Run fans in reverse to keep the warm air down. Running fans in the colder months can also save up to 10 percent on heating costs, according to Apartment Therapy.

No. 3: Turn down the water heater. “Your tolerance for temperatures changes from summer to winter,” said Lamb.

No. 4: Dodge the draft(s). “Block any drafts by placing rubber strips around doors,” said Lamb.

No. 5: Give the heating system a tune-up. “Regular tune-ups can expose issues that may be costing you money in the colder months,” noted Lamb.

No. 6: Mind that thermostat. “Programming your thermostat to be on and off only when needed can add up to great savings over the span of a season,” said Lamb.

No. 7: Use caulking and weatherstripping. “Doing this may also help you keep insects out in the summer,” added Lamb.

No. 8: Insulate pipes. This can prevent pipes from freezing and possibly bursting.

No. 9: Seal ducts. According to Energy Star, in a typical house about 20 to 30 percent of the air that moves through the duct system is lost due to leaks, holes and poorly connected ducts.

No. 10: Upgrade the furnace. “Options these days for energy-efficient furnaces can pay for themselves in a few short years,” said Lamb.

No. 11: Clear the gutters. “By doing so, water can freely exit and not freeze up and cause overflow or gutter damage,” noted Lamb.

No. 12: Install window insulation film. “It is a great and affordable alternative to installing double-glazed windows,” concluded Lamb, “and certainly pays off with your energy bill savings.”

About Katie Lamb, State Farm
Katie Lamb State Farm offers Auto, Home and Property and Life and Health Insurance. The office services Memphis, Shelby County-Cordova, Bartlett, Collierville, Germantown, and surrounding areas in Tipton and Fayette County, and can serve anyone in Tennessee. Agents speak English, Spanish and Vietnamese. For more information, please call (901) 567-8000, or visit http://www.callkatielamb.com.

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 20 hours ago.

GOP governors who turned down Medicaid money have hands out

$
0
0
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republican governors who turned down billions in federal dollars from an expansion of Medicaid under President Barack Obama’s health care law now have their hand out in hopes the GOP Congress comes up with a new formula to provide health insurance for lower-income Americans. The other GOP governors who agreed […] Reported by Seattle Times 20 hours ago.

How Large Employer Health Plans Could Be Affected By Obamacare Overhaul

$
0
0
With the future of the Affordable Care Act on the line, health insurance benefits for workers at large companies hang in the balance. Reported by NPR 18 hours ago.

Allegheny Health Network Sets New Standard for Timely Access to Healthcare Services in Western Pennsylvania

$
0
0
Healthcare provider becomes region’s first to offer patients same-day appointments for both primary and specialty care

Pittsburgh, PA (PRWEB) January 19, 2017

Allegheny Health Network (AHN) officials today announced a bold new step to greatly enhance the experience of patients who seek access to the Network’s programs and services in the greater Pittsburgh region. Starting January 23, patients who call AHN by 11 a.m. requesting primary or specialty care appointments will be offered one for that same afternoon.

AHN is the first healthcare provider in the region and among the first nationally to improve the timeliness of healthcare delivery by offering same-day appointments for both primary and specialty care.

“Our goal is to provide patients with an exceptional experience across every touchpoint within our Network. Offering same-day appointments is a significant milestone, and the first of many to come, in our efforts to exceed the expectations of those we care for and further improve the health of the communities we serve,” said Cynthia Hundorfean, AHN President and CEO.

According to survey results recently published by Merritt Hawkins, the average wait time to see a physician for five medical specialties in 15 metropolitan areas across the U.S. is 18.5 days.

Kenyokee Crowell, Senior Vice President of Clinical Access at AHN, said the Network’s same-day appointment pledge reflects its commitment to delivering the highest quality of care and service to patients every day.

“We understand how frustrating it can be having to wait days or even weeks for a medical appointment and the challenge that many people have fitting appointments into their hectic schedules,” said Crowell. “The availability of same-day appointments provides patients with a unique level of convenience and peace of mind in knowing that whenever they or someone in their family needs to see one of our caregivers, they have the opportunity to do so within hours of making the call.”

Patients can schedule a same-day appointment by calling 412.DOCTORS (412.362.8677) between 7 a.m. and 11 a.m., Monday through Friday. Based on the patient’s need, AHN will find the most appropriate healthcare provider and location based on the availability of services. The provider could include a primary care physician, specialty physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant.

Same-day appointments are scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis. When patients call after 11 a.m., they are offered either a same-day appointment pending availability, or the next available appointment. Certain clinical needs could result in an exception to the same-day commitment, Crowell said. In this instance, the call will be triaged by a member of the AHN Care Connect team.

Elie Aoun, MD, AHN Medical Director for Clinical Access, said offering same-day appointments is consistent with the Network’s patient-centered care philosophy.

“Expediting access to healthcare services positively impacts the entire patient experience,” said Dr. Aoun. “By eliminating long wait times for appointments and addressing a patients’ health concerns in a more timely and well-coordinated fashion, better clinical outcomes can ultimately be achieved.”

Dr. Aoun added that patients calling for appointments who have an acute illness or injury may still be referred to an urgent care center or emergency department if their symptoms require it. He also said patients should review their health insurance benefits to determine if pre-authorization is required for a same-day appointment.

###

About Allegheny Health Network
Allegheny Health Network (AHN.org), part of Highmark Health, is an integrated healthcare delivery system serving the greater Western Pennsylvania region. The Network is composed of eight hospitals, including Allegheny General Hospital, its flagship academic medical center in Pittsburgh, Allegheny Valley Hospital in Natrona Heights, Canonsburg Hospital in Canonsburg, Forbes Hospital in Monroeville, Jefferson Hospital in Jefferson Hills, Saint Vincent Hospital in Erie, West Penn Hospital in Pittsburgh and Westfield Memorial Hospital in Westfield, NY. The Network provides patients with access to a complete spectrum of medical services, including nationally recognized programs for primary and emergency care, cardiovascular disease, cancer care, orthopedic surgery, neurology and neurosurgery, women’s health, diabetes and more. It also is home to a comprehensive research institute; Health + Wellness Pavilions; an employed physician organization, home and community based health services and a group purchasing organization. The Network employs approximately 17,000 people, has more than 2,800 physicians on its medical staff and serves as a clinical campus for Drexel University College of Medicine, Temple University School of Medicine, and the Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine. Reported by PRWeb 16 hours ago.

Why Republicans Can’t Come Up with an Obamacare Replacement

$
0
0
(Photo: AP/Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Vice President-elect Mike Pence, Speaker Paul Ryan, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Majority Whip Steve Scalise speak during a news conference after a meeting of the House Republican Conference on January 4, 2017, to discuss a strategy to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

It took the United States three and two-thirds years to move from the standing start (to put it mildly) of Pearl Harbor to victory in World War II. Perhaps more germane, it took Franklin Roosevelt’s administration two years and three months from FDR’s first inauguration to conceive, refine, and enact its defining pieces of legislation, Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act—and just a few short weeks to enact federal insurance for depositors’ bank accounts.

Now, compare these endeavors—some arduous, some intellectually challenging—with the Republicans’ efforts to come up with a replacement for the Affordable Care Act (or, if you prefer, Obamacare), which the GOP has been proclaiming to be one of its primary goals, if not its existential purpose, for the past seven years. Seven long and apparently lean years later, however, Republicans still have come up empty. The GOP mountain hasn’t even brought forth a mouse.

Time was when Reagan-age Republicans proclaimed theirs to be the party of ideas. But even clearing the rather low idea bar of 1980s Republicanism, however (which chiefly produced the deregulation of finance and the smashing of unions), seems well beyond today’s conservatives. Having voted to repeal Obamacare dozens of times since its enactment (all such repeals vetoed by President Obama, of course), but having failed to come up with a plausible replacement, they now tremble at the prospective consequences of their own success.

When a party, or even more broadly, a political tendency, is so plainly befuddled by what it repeatedly has vowed to be its first policy priority, something very fundamental must be very wrong. And that “something” is fundamental indeed: It is the conservative belief that markets can fix any problem and address any need.

If ever there were evidence that markets can’t do that, it’s the Republicans’ inability to provide universal, or even substantial, health coverage through a more pure market system. So long as they advanced the idea that the market could handle Americans’ health-care needs at the purely abstract level, in the realm of faith, as a truth validated by incantation, conservatives convinced themselves that all would be well. Confronted now by the rude reality that any market-based replacement for Obamacare, stripped of the regulations and tax-provided funds that make it work, will lead to millions of Americans losing their coverage, a sudden weakening of Republican resolve is evident.

And what does this say of the vaunted conservative think tanks—of Cato, the American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage? They’ve had seven years to ponder a workable Obamacare replacement. Where is it?

In fact, back in 1989, the Heritage vice president for domestic and economic policy, Stuart Butler, did indeed come up with a plan of sorts. But it wasn’t really an alternative to the ideas that became Obamacare. If anything, it was their source—a mix of government and market that proposed to establish an individual mandate and impose some employer obligations that would increase coverage. In various forms, this model was passed down as the Republicans’ 1993 alternative proposal to Hillarycare, and then as the Massachusetts insurance program enacted under Republican Governor Mitt Romney, which served as a partial model for Obamacare itself.

This conservative model of yore was a mish-mash of regulated markets and governmental subsidies. As modified by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress in 2009, the ACA requires individuals to have insurance or pay a penalty, and insurance companies to do things they didn’t do before (covering young people up to age 26 under their parents’ policies; providing affordable coverage to people with pre-existing conditions; limiting administrative overhead; charging women no more than men) in return for enlarging their client base, while the government provided funding to expand Medicaid (in states that wanted to expand Medicaid) and provide subsidies to Obamacare exchange applicants who needed them. It’s a far cry from single-payer, but a far cry from unregulated markets, too.

Since 1989, however, the gap between American conservatism and observable economic reality has widened to an oceanic gulf. Whatever their efficacy in insuring the uninsured, the Butler plan, the 1993 GOP alternative, the Massachusetts model, and Obamacare all now fail to meet the pure-market test. Butler and Romney have been compelled to recant what are now regarded as their heresies lest they be driven from conservative ranks. And faced with adhering to a faith in unregulated markets or devising policies for people in the real world, the conservatives have opted to work within the confines of faith. (Of course, much of their funding for Republican elected officials and conservative think tanks is conditioned on their adhering to a facts-be-damned ideological purity.)

The Republican problem is that Obamacare is very much a fact, responsible for insuring 20 million Americans who would otherwise go without. And minus the regulations compelling insurance companies to provide affordable coverage they otherwise wouldn’t, and the tax- and fee-based subsidies enabling individuals to purchase that coverage, most of those 20 million would either lose their coverage, see it greatly reduced, or face financial ruin from greatly increased rates.

Now that Americans are confronted with those facts, the number of them who consider the ACA “a good idea,” despite the incessant propaganda campaign against it, exceeds those who don’t (by a 45 percent to 41 percent margin in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, also from this month, shows the number of Americans who favor “guaranteeing a certain level of health coverage and financial help for seniors and lower-income Americans, even if it means more federal health spending and a larger role for the federal government,” exceeds by a 62 percent to 31 percent (that is, a 2-to-1) margin those who favor “limiting federal health spending, decreasing the federal government’s role, and giving state governments and individuals more control over health insurance, even if this means some seniors and lower-income Americans would get less financial help than they do today.”

That second alternative—the one that, by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans don’t favor—is a pretty fair approximation of what the GOP would like to do, but for the pesky demands of reality. The problem is, devising a replacement plan that still insures everyone covered by Obamacare—as the GOP has repeatedly promised it would—yet adhering to the deregulatory, subsidy-withdrawing market models to which the party fervently clings simply cannot be done.

This week, the most senior Senate Republican, Utah’s Orrin Hatch, as much as acknowledged that. According to an account in the January 18 Washington Post, Hatch “told reporters that it is difficult to commit to providing universal health coverage in any upcoming GOP replacement. ‘It would be wonderful if we could do that,’ Hatch said Tuesday of universal coverage. ‘We’ve never been able to do that before.’”

The Post noted that in 2012, Hatch had “said it was a ‘disgrace’ that so many Americans were uninsured, ‘but we cannot succumb to the pressure to argue on the left’s terms.’”

In other words, universal coverage is out of reach because it requires “the left’s terms”—that is, regulation, taxation, and subsidies. It is out of reach because it goes against American conservative ideology.

Even the coverage provided by Obamacare—which falls short of universal, but which has moved the nation in that direction—is out of reach because it goes against conservative ideology. That’s why the Republicans have spent seven years without coming up with a replacement. That’s why they don’t have a plausible one yet. That’s why, so long as they remain market zealots, they never will. Reported by The American Prospect 15 hours ago.

Study: Repeal of ACA will mean 137K job losses in Pa.

$
0
0
A report released Thursday by the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, a nonprofit government research organization, found the repeal of Obamacare will result in more than 1.1 million Pennsylvania residents losing their health insurance and the loss of more than 137,000 jobs statewide. Congress has already taken the first steps toward repealing the Affordable Care Act, the health care reform signed into law by President Obama in 2010 that came to be known as Obamacare. It included prohibiting… Reported by bizjournals 12 hours ago.

How to Replace Repealed Obamacare: Use Medicare

$
0
0
From President-elect Trump on down, the Republicans taking charge of our country are determined to make good on their pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Congress has now taken the first step toward doing just that.

But the next steps are likely to prove far more complicated. The challenge is not simply more forceful opposition from congressional champions of Obamacare, as the ACA is known. It is that simple repeal without any replacement threatens to throw 20 million Americans off of their health insurance plans.

This will not only work hardship among innocent citizens, it will also sow chaos throughout our massive health care industry and, therefore, our broader economy as well.

Against such a backdrop, ACA defenders in Congress will have valuable tools to help them preserve Obamacare. Not least will be thousands, maybe even millions of livid phone calls from health insurers, medical professionals, and ordinary citizens worried about their insurance, careers and industries. At least this is so if the GOP's quick scrapping of plans to weaken House ethics rules is any indication.

Members of Congress from both parties in both houses are mindful of this conundrum. It is why advocates of ACA repeal are scrambling to develop plans by which to "phase in" repeal rather than doing it all in one fell swoop. But this is far easier said than done. There are multiple proposals that differ on many details, with no clear winner apt to gain widespread support. (Remember how long it took to secure agreement on the details of Obamacare itself?)

More important even than lack of agreement here is the underlying source of the disagreement. The fundamental problem is that it is simply impossible, financially speaking, to retain what lawmakers and the public wish to keep of Obamacare without also preserving what would-be repealers loathe most. You cannot, without bankrupting insurers, prohibit preexisting condition exclusions and annual or lifetime spending caps without also mandating insurance purchases by individuals and large employers as ACA does.

What, then, are would-be repealers to do? How are we to "replace" Obamacare quickly given the impossibility of keeping its popular features without also keeping its unpopular features? And how are we to "repeal" Obamacare quickly without also replacing it quickly?

I have a simple proposal that offers a means of "having things both ways." Why not include in any repeal legislation a provision that entitles anyone losing Obamacare coverage immediately to enroll either in Medicare, or in the same federal employee insurance plan that likely will once again cover lawmakers and their staffs once they lose the Obamacare coverage they required for themselves? Do for ordinary repeal victims, in other words, what we'll be doing for Congress itself.

This proposal wouldn't be logistically difficult. Such enrollment could be made either permanent or temporary - in essence, for the duration of however long it takes Congress to develop an acceptable long-term alternative to Obamacare. We could either charge according to the present Medicare pricing system, or, better, charge each beneficiary whatever he or she now pays under Obamacare. Congress should be able to decide on these simple options quickly, given its eagerness to repeal Obamacare as soon as possible.

I don't think this proposal is politically unrealistic, even though there will be opposition as there always is in connection with changes in health care. Would-be repealers in the Republican Party should sign on because it enables them to repeal Obamacare immediately, without causing harm and angering 20 million constituents suddenly deprived of health insurance. They can then take as long as they need to develop a long-term replacement for Obamacare.

More "progressive" members of Congress have wished for decades to move to a single-payer health insurance system like taxpayer supported Medicare under which the government pays private providers, or to the federal employee insurance plan that offers a menu of state and national policies from private insurers. Such plans have greater bargaining power with health providers and broader coverage potential. As it happens, President-elect Trump himself has been supportive of single-payer health insurance plans, and for the same reasons.

Of course my proposed "Medicare Stopgap," as I'll call it, would not go entirely unopposed. Private, for-profit health insurers might resent competition from the far more efficient Medicare system. And suppliers of expensive medical services and prescription drugs might resent Medicare's bargaining power. Some conservative members of Congress, for their part, seem to think any form of governmental involvement in marketplaces is illegitimate, even when it is more efficient than private counterparts.

So yes, there will be opposition here as there is to all healthcare-related proposals. But I'll wager the Medicare Stopgap plan ultimately draws far more support from the White House and Congress than any alternative. For it is the only way to repeal Obamacare quickly without bringing both chaos and calamity.Robert Hockett is Edward Cornell Professor of Law and Professor of Public Policy at Cornell University, Senior Counsel at Westwood Capital, and a Fellow of The Century Foundation.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 12 hours ago.

Soaring Need, Shrinking Budget: Big Changes Looming For Addiction Treatment Services In 2017

$
0
0
Addiction treatment providers agree, the opioid epidemic is in full swing. Although opioid prescriptions are decreasing for some groups including veterans, fatal overdoses related to prescription opioids still accounted for more than 20,000 deaths in the United States in 2016.

Reversing this trend will require an all-hands-on-deck mentality as the country increases investments in addiction treatment services and drug abuse preventions programs. Access to addiction treatment has been a crucial tool for millions of Americans who currently receive mental health or substance abuse services through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or under the Medicaid expansion program the ACA permitted.

Yet one of the Senate's first moves of 2017 was to approve a budget which would allow representatives to repeal the ACA without the risk of opposition-led filibusters. Despite assurances from the president-elect as recently as his press conference on January 11th that the ACA would be replaced immediately after its repeal, at this time Republicans have no comprehensive replacement plan or platform ready to offer the American public in lieu of the ACA.

Changes to funding for state Medicaid programs will also have a big impact on people seeking addiction treatment and mental health services. One aspect of the ACA up for repeal involves federally financed expansions to state Medicaid programs. Although some states, like Texas, chose not to expand Medicaid with matched funding from the federal government, many others including conservative Ohio took advantage of the expansion to extend healthcare coverage in their state. Congress is now considering significant changes to the federal government's investment in these state-expanded Medicaid programs, further jeopardizing coverage for more than a million people.

The research is clear when it comes to how important access to addiction treatment services really is. Participation in formal treatment programs including inpatient treatment and rehabilitation centers and outpatient groups is consistently shown to give the individual a real chance at an enduring recovery from addiction. Making sure people in need have access to quality addiction treatment services should be a top priority.

While there is no legislation on the horizon that could bring back health insurance for millions of Americans should the ACA be repealed, there are other promising bills that could impact the general public's access to addiction treatment services. The 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law by President Obama in December of 2016, approving block grant funds to be distributed to states and spent at their discretion. The question for the Congress is whether or not this act will be funded and if it is, how the funds will be distributed to the states.

The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) was also approved by Congress in their last session. CARA identifies standards of excellence in addiction treatment care and seeks to bolster key initiatives including public education and emergency responders' access to overdose reversal drugs in a comprehensive plan to end addiction. Even if the ACA is completely repealed without a replacement, a fully funded CARA would provide some assistance to those in need of addiction treatment services.

Ending the opioid epidemic is not a partisan issue. Congress' swift actions to repeal the ACA and Medicaid expansions without replacements does not reflect a commitment to ending our drug abuse crisis, just a refusal to prioritize the well-being of the American people.

-- 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.

In Minnesota, rainy-day fund may help cover insurance hikes

$
0
0
(AP) — Minnesota lawmakers are working to offset massive health insurance premium increases for more than 100,000 residents who buy their own coverage. Minnesota officials agree premium hikes of up to 67 percent merit using rainy day funds to buy down costs for 2017. Reported by SeattlePI.com 10 hours ago.

Life Before Obamacare: Pregnant Couple Could Get Insurance — If They Got An Abortion

$
0
0
In mid 2010, Colin Wambsgans needed to find new health insurance. The small software company he worked for was sold to a larger company, and because he was a part-time employee, he didn’t qualify for the new company’s insurance plan. Getting coverage was especially urgent because his wife was pregnant. 

But at that time, the newly passed Affordable Care Act hadn’t yet gone into effect. So Wambsgans, now 39, still had to navigate the old marketplace, where pregnancy ― or even planning to get pregnant ― was considered a pre-existing condition. 

The only way they could get insurance, they were told, was if they were no longer pregnant ― and that included if they decided to get an abortion. 

“I didn’t ask them [the insurance company] to cover an abortion, but they did say that if she wasn’t pregnant, then you would get covered,” said Wambsgans, who lives in Los Angeles. “I said, ‘Well, if she has an abortion, we can get coverage?’ And they said yes.”

Wambsgans and his wife had been trying to get pregnant, so they didn’t want to terminate the pregnancy. But they also hadn’t realized how hard it would be to get the important prenatal care that they needed.

“We even talked to friends who were health care professionals afterward who didn’t understand that pregnancy was a pre-existing condition,” he told The Huffington Post. “It was just this strange hidden thing. I don’t know how much it would’ve impacted our decision to have a child. But also, I didn’t know my company was going to be sold when it got sold. The timing of it wasn’t really under our control.”

Before President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, insurance companies were allowed to automatically turn down people for coverage if they were pregnant or even thinking about getting pregnant ― except in a handful of states that outlawed the practice. This restriction applied to men whose wives were pregnant or trying to be pregnant as well.

Insurance companies would even look at doctors’ records to determine if the applicants might soon be expectant parents. 

“If you were working on getting pregnant and talking to your doctor about it ― working on getting ready, stopping your birth control, all that other kind of stuff, and that was documented in your medical records ― that was it. You were out,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

As Republicans talk about repealing Obamacare as soon as Donald Trump becomes president, there’s increasing worry among beneficiaries about what they could lose if the law goes away.

Some Republican lawmakers have faced stronger-than-expected opposition from their constituents to getting rid of Obamacare. Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), who represents a swing district in the Denver suburbs, recently had more than 150 people show up to his town hall meeting ― with most of them pleading with him not to repeal the health care law without a suitable replacement ready.

Dozens of people showed up to Rep. Kevin Brady’s (R-Texas) little-advertised town hall meeting Tuesday also expressing their displeasure at a possible repeal. 

More and more Republicans are also getting skittish about quickly repealing the health care law without a replacement ready to go. But that remains complicated, since everyone seems to want to keep the popular provisions ― such as making sure pregnancy isn’t a pre-existing condition ― without figuring out how to pay for them. The reason provisions like the individual mandate were part of the Affordable Care Act was so that insurance companies would get a pool of healthy people to sign up to offset some of the costs of people with more expensive conditions.  

A 2013 report by Truven Health Analytics found that the average total charges for pregnancy and newborn care are $32,093 for vaginal births and $51,125 for cesarean births without insurance. Commercial insurers typically pay an average of $18,329 and $27,866 of those amounts, respectively.

The Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that 18 million people would lose their insurance and people’s premiums would skyrocket if Republicans go ahead with their repeal. The office looked at GOP legislation that would have eliminated the individual mandate and its tax penalties while still preserving the requirement for insurers to provide coverage without denying pre-existing medical conditions.

“Eliminating the mandate penalties and the subsidies while retaining the market reforms would destabilize the nongroup market, and the effect would worsen over time,” the CBO said.

Wambsgans and his wife were able to eventually get coverage in 2010. But it was incredibly complicated. They found someone who specialized in getting artists health care, and through a provision in California law, they were able to register as a small business and get coverage that way. 

“It felt pretty much like luck that we had got in touch with this guy who could help us out. That’s not an intuitive solution to the problem,” he said. 

“You should be able to have a child when you want to have a child,” he added. “The ACA covers contraception and that made it free and a lot easier. But also just, if you’re pregnant you can’t get health insurance, you can’t get prenatal care in an easy way. ... There are just so many important provisions that matter so much for women’s health, so that means they matter for everyone, for society. If it’s repealed, it’ll be pretty bad.” 

*Want more updates from Amanda Terkel? Sign up for her newsletter, Piping Hot Truth, **here**.*

-- 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 8 hours ago.

Republicans Welcome Donald Trump To Washington With Open Arms, Warts And All

$
0
0
WASHINGTON ― On the last day of Barack Obama’s presidency, hundreds of Republican National Committee members gathered at their annual winter meeting to elect a new leadership team and lay groundwork for the next campaign cycle.

As Donald Trump arrived in the nation’s capital, hours away from assuming the most powerful office in the world, the GOP couldn’t resist spiking the football. 

“I’m not bragging about it just to brag,” said RNC chair Reince Priebus, after summing up the party’s impressive victories in 2016. “I say this because the RNC’s infrastructure was one of the most important cogs in the machine of victory this year.”

“It is the Democratic Party,” added his deputy chief of staff, Katie Walsh, “that is second-guessing themselves, their data and their mechanics.”

Thursday’s event, which was held a few miles from the White House, was largely a celebratory affair. The GOP had achieved what many had thought impossible after its stinging loss in the 2012 presidential election ― unified control of Washington and in many statehouses across the country.  

Jubilant party officials gathered to bid goodbye to Priebus, who will be Trump’s White House chief of staff, and to elect his successor, Ronna Romney McDaniel. The niece of former GOP nominee Mitt Romney is only the second woman to hold the position. In her acceptance speech, she vowed to make the party more inclusive and promised to end Democrats’ claim to “being the party of women.”

In and around the halls of the Omni Shoreham Hotel, which hosted the meeting, nearly all RNC members who spoke with The Huffington Post expressed hope and optimism about Trump’s incoming administration. And they flatly dismissed concerns about his ties to Russia, his many conflicts of interest and the ethics problems plaguing several of his Cabinet nominees.

America ought to give Trump a fair shake, they argued.

“I just see it as a red herring, all these ethics conflicts and other problems that seem to be dragged up,” said Pennsylvania GOP chair Rob Gleason. “It’s just part of our country becoming so polarized. Give the man a chance.”

The country remains in the dark about Trump’s finances. He has not made public his tax returns, and insists that he cannot do so because they are under audit. (In reality, there is nothing stopping him from releasing his tax returns.) Moreover, voters do not know how much money the businessman owes around the world. Nor do they know the extent of his business entanglements or the potential conflicts of interest that could arise as a result.

The Office of Government Ethics earlier this month called Trump’s plan to address his business conflicts “meaningless.” OGE called on the president-elect to fully divest his assets before he assumes the presidency on Friday. 

Helen Van Etten, a GOP committeewoman from Kansas, said such concerns about Trump’s conflicts of interest ought to be viewed “in perspective.”

“In general,” an ethical government is “always a good thing,” she said. “But did that apply in the past eight years? No.”

Michigan GOP committeeman Rob Steele noted that the president is exempt from conflict-of-interest laws, as Trump himself has said. But the law does not mean it’s impossible for Trump, or anyone in his Cabinet, to have any conflicts of interest at all.

“I think they firmly need to be vetted, to see if there’s something there or not,” Steele said, referring to Trump’s nominees.

Few people at the event seemed worried about Trump’s uncontrollable nature or his tendency to break with Republicans on key issues. In recent weeks, for example, Trump has called for universal health insurance and dismissed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as “obsolete.”

“NATO is a policy thing, and he can have his opinion on NATO. I don’t think that’s necessarily divisive,” said Henry Barbour, a GOP committeeman from Louisiana.

Others continued to insist that it’s just a matter of time before Trump moderates his behavior.

“I think he’s got to get his sea legs. Like any other job, when you’re new to the job, I think it’s a learning experience,” said Dan Welch, a GOP committeeman from Nevada. “I think he’s doing a great job learning on the go right now. But it’s going to take a while.” 

-- 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.

Donald Trump the first President in decades to finally take aim at Big Pharma's monopolistic drug cartel

$
0
0
(NaturalNews) Tens of millions of Americans have been suffering under the crushing weight of rising healthcare costs—which, of course, were supposed to drop drastically, we were promised, when Obamacare was fully implemented. Out-of-pocket expenses have been rising for health insurance premiums, deductibles and prescription medications, with Big Pharma operating as a legalized drug cartel. Keeping... Reported by NaturalNews.com 58 minutes ago.

Look at Washington's '90s debacle before killing Obamacare, Kreidler and insurers tells Congress

$
0
0
Washington's insurance commissioner and 14 health insurers offered guidance to the state's congressional delegation this week as Congress gears up to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as Obamacare. Washington knows firsthand how repealing mandated health care harms the health insurance market and the people using it, the group explains in a letter. The state passed health care reform in the 1990s only to repeal the mandate two years later, which sent premiums soaring… Reported by bizjournals 7 hours ago.

'We Should Have Pushed Harder': Obama's Gitmo Czars Reflect On His Failure To Close The Prison

$
0
0
On his first day in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order directing that the Guantanamo Bay prison facility “be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order.”

The prison camp on the island of Cuba had come to symbolize the abuses of the war on terror. Shutting it down was supposed to be easy. The Bush administration had already begun the process.

But eight years of partisan battles, bureaucratic infighting and a last-ditch effort later, the facility that Obama once labeled a “blot on our national honor” remains open.

No one is more acutely aware of that failure than the men Obama chose to lead his effort to shutter the camp. They can point to some successes in their mission. About 780 men and boys were incarcerated at Gitmo at one point or another. Exactly 242 remained when Obama took office and today just 41 men are imprisoned there. Yet it’s likely those men will stay at Gitmo for the rest of their lives.

Looking back, the “Guantanamo czars” say the administration made key mistakes by badly misjudging the mood of Congress, agreeing to use military tribunals and not moving fast enough to close the prison from the very start.To members of the Obama administration, the Guantanamo prison camp, which President George W. Bush had opened in 2002 to house the so-called masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks, always felt like an inherited burden.

“In the Bush administration, there were a lot of decisions made in haste and in the emotion of the moment that turned out not to be wise, and Guantanamo was one of them,” said Daniel Fried, a career diplomat who served as a special assistant to Bush and became Obama’s first special envoy for Guantanamo closure.

By the end of the Bush administration, Fried said, hundreds of detainees had already being transferred elsewhere, and White House officials wanted to close the prison. Fried recalled a Bush official muttering that if all of the detainees were released, the damage they might do would be less than damage the existence of Guantanamo itself did to the U.S. effort to fight terrorists around the world.

When Obama took office in 2009, his goal was to send as many of the 242 remaining prisoners back to their own countries as possible. For those who couldn’t go home due to prolonged instability or fear of religious persecution, he would find other nations willing to take them. Those not yet cleared for release would be held in federal prisons. A smaller group accused of crimes against the U.S. would be housed in federal prisons and tried in federal courts.

Closing the camp had drawn support from prominent Republican voices on foreign policy, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who had just lost the presidential race to Obama.

“It did not seem to be highly contentious and I think it would be fair to say that in the early days of the transition we thought this would take place in the ordinary course of business,” said Greg Craig, Obama’s first White House counsel, who drafted the executive order to close Guantanamo.

Still, nobody in the administration was immediately assigned the job. It was a mistake. With no one officially focused on Gitmo closure, no one was watching for any red flags in Congress.

One day, Craig received a warning. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) called and told him that Congress was tacking language onto a funding bill that would ban the administration from moving any Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.

Craig felt unsure of what to do. The legislative fight wasn’t in his job description. “I said, ‘That’s something that the congressional liaison people are handling. I’ll make sure that they are on top of it,’” he recalled.

Now he sees that moment as a turning point. “The fact that suddenly the Republicans were seeking to put conditions on the closure of Guantanamo, and the fact that in the administration we weren’t fighting back or weren’t reacting to defend our freedom to close it, was a warning shot, in retrospect,” Craig said.


The more intense the controversy grew, the less willing we were to engage in that fight.
Greg Craig, President Obama's first White House counsel
As that bill was being readied, the Obama White House was working on its first detainee transfers — the last 17 Uighurs left at Gitmo. The Uighurs were Chinese Muslims who had traveled to Afghanistan in the 1990s to flee persecution at home. They would face further persecution if sent back to China. But keeping them at Guantanamo was also wrong: They had been handed over to the U.S. after the Afghanistan invasion in exchange for bounty, and they had no connection to 9/11 or the Iraq War.

“If we had problems with [releasing] the Uighurs,” Craig said, “we were going to have problems with everybody.”

Obama administration officials decided to resettle the Uighurs in the United States. The first few would be released in Northern Virginia, where there was an existing Uighur community. But in early May 2009, after the media reported the administration’s plans, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) gave an impassioned speech on the House floor saying he didn’t want “terrorists” in his district. Congress soon passed a measure effectively preventing U.S. resettlement of the detainees — the same measure Feinstein had warned Craig about. Half a year after taking office, the Obama administration had lost the first Gitmo battle.

The administration backed off. “I would say that the more intense the controversy grew, the less willing we were to engage in that fight,” Craig said.

Craig’s own tenure as White House counsel lasted less than a year. He left the administration in January 2010. News accounts claimed he was pushed out in part because he couldn’t get the ball rolling fast enough on Guantanamo.

“We were losing 700,000 jobs a month, we were trying to put together a bipartisan coalition to support a national health insurance program, and there were only so many fights that could be conducted at the same time,” said Craig, now of counsel at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

But Obama still hoped to close Guantanamo, Craig said. “On the day I left, I think he still believed that he could close it.”As the Uighurs’ fate was being debated, the White House finally picked someone to focus full-time on shutting down the prison camp: Fried.

The newly appointed Guantanamo czar had worked in the Foreign Service since the late 1970s, under Democratic and Republican presidents. He sees the political process as often unnecessarily partisan and warns people to “watch out for decisions taken in the heat of the moment,” paraphrasing one of his idols, Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke.

When then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked Fried to take on the Guantanamo job, she “was wry about it,” he recalled. “She said, ‘Hey, you were in the Bush administration for eight years right? Then you can help clean up one of their messes.’”

But Fried soon found himself constrained by Republican lawmakers determined to stop the administration from moving Guantanamo detainees anywhere for any purpose.

“The vast majority of Congress was not willing to do anything, because if just one person went back to the battlefield, then they would be blamed,” explained former Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), who helped lead the fight in Congress to close the prison. “It was easier to let people be indefinitely confined in some cases and tortured so that no one in power would risk being accused of being soft on terrorists.”

The administration had expected that transferring the detainees to third countries would be its most difficult task, Fried said. “We thought that the issues of trials would be far easier,” he said, “That turned out to be just wrong.”

By the time Fried was considering which detainees to try in federal court, Republican lawmakers were moving full speed to stop that, too. The congressional measure that prevented the Uighurs from being resettled in the U.S. also restricted the use of federal funds to transfer prisoners from Gitmo to U.S. soil for the purposes of prosecution.

To Fried, it was clearly politics at play. He had seen how earnestly Bush staffers sought to close the prison with no pushback from the Republicans — and no support from Democrats. Now he was witnessing a 180-degree reversal.

“It was very clear to me that the path [to closure] was getting narrower and narrower,” said Fried. “I think the Republicans and the Democrats both were inconsistent. Why didn’t the Democrats help both [administrations]? They didn’t want to help Bush at all. Why didn’t the Republicans take seriously the national security problems that Gitmo posed? Well, because they wanted to go after Obama.”

Blocked from using federal courts to try Gitmo detainees, Fried and the White House were left with one option for legal proceedings: military tribunals.Guantanamo’s military tribunal system had been established under a Bush executive order, struck down by the Supreme Court in 2006 and quickly re-established by Congress the same year. Several detainees had been charged during Bush’s tenure, but less than a handful had been judged and sentenced. The system had a history of delays.

Obama decided to meet Republicans in the middle. By reforming and using the tribunals, Craig said, the president aimed to show that he could pursue bipartisan solutions on national security issues.  

Today, that effort to play ball with Republicans at a time when many of them were actively attempting to tighten the reins on the executive branch seems idealistic at best. To several of the former Gitmo czars, Obama’s decision to go ahead with the military tribunals was the kiss of death for Guantanamo closure.

“As long as the military tribunal process was going, it would be very hard to close Guantanamo because that was the location of the military tribunal,” Craig said.

Fried had harsher words. “This mythology arose that federal courts are weak because they give rights to terrorists,” he said. “It’s a very snappy bumper sticker. So the Obama administration turned to military tribunals. It turned out to be just wrong, demonstrably false. Federal courts are not weak, they are strong, they get convictions. ... But we caved to the pressure. I’m sorry we did it. We should have pushed harder.”

Only 30 detainees would be formally charged under the military tribunals during the Obama presidency, and a mere eight would make it through trial to conviction. Part of the problem was that the tribunals were “untested institutions,” Fried said, without the well-established rules and procedures of the federal court system.

“Because they lacked a kind of public legitimacy,” Fried said, “the military bent over backwards to try to be fair, which meant more opportunities for delay.”

Craig called the system a complete “failure.”

“The president of the United States promised swift and certain justice when he became president in January 2009,”  he said, “and we’ve had anything but.”

Seeing his fellow lawmakers’ disdain for the prisoners, Moran, the Virginia congressman pushing to close the prison, began to lose hope that the Guantanamo situation could be fixed at all.

“I thought it was a state of deliberate people not wanting to know the facts,” he said. “For 200 years, our judicial system has stood the test of time, and here we violated it. … Here you create this suspension of justice, and you let them wallow in despair and in complete violation of the historical norms.”

Fried labored for over three years as the Gitmo czar, transferring 70 detainees in total. (The administration also moved out a handful before he came on board.) His efforts kept hitting roadblocks, including when Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in 2010. But it was the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011, which required that any country willing to accept a Guantanamo detainee must first guarantee that the released man would never again engage in terrorism activity, that ultimately “exhausted all of the political capital,” Fried said.

In January 2013, at the beginning of Obama’s second term, Fried was reassigned. For several months, the president chose not to appoint a new special envoy for Guantanamo closure.


We caved to the pressure. I’m sorry we did it. We should have pushed harder.
Former Guantanamo czar Daniel Fried, speaking of the decision not to try detainees in federal court
But Obama hadn’t given up yet. In May of that year, speaking at the National Defense University, he recommitted his administration to closing Guantanamo, then under renewed public scrutiny because multiple detainees had gone on hunger strikes.

The timing was important on another level as well: The president was thinking about his legacy.

“I sort of suspected that the White House might give it another try,” Fried said. “There is nothing like legacy time to get people to focus.”

In July 2013, Obama appointed lawyer Clifford Sloan as the new special envoy on the advice of Secretary of State John Kerry, who knew him personally. Sloan was a partner at the Skadden law firm (Craig knew and approved of him, too) who had once served in President Bill Clinton’s White House.

At the time Sloan took the helm, there were 166 prisoners left at Guantanamo and more than half of them had been approved for transfer.

“They were just languishing there, and I thought it was unconscionable,” Sloan said. Still, he knew that closing the prison would be an uphill battle. “I had people tell me, ‘You’re not going to be able to move a single person.’”

But Sloan hoped that the passage of time might have eased some fears in Congress. He even came close to persuading the Senate to pass a bill allowing the administration to transfer some detainees to the U.S. That language was ultimately stripped from the legislation.

“It was frustrating that you couldn’t get this limited authority and move them to the U.S.,” Sloan said. “It’s totally at odds with anything we’ve ever done with the law of war detention.”

Sloan did manage to get language passed that made it easier to send detainees to third countries that were willing to monitor them. He also set up a periodic review board to speed up the process of determining which prisoners could be released. And during his 16 months on the job, he transferred 39 prisoners to other countries and set the path for release of 11 more.

Sloan also faced some unexpected hurdles within the Obama administration. “There was a period where there were a number of transfers that were completely ready to go and there was a period of unnecessary delay,” he said.

According to media reports at the time, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was dragging his feet on releasing the detainees because he was concerned they would kill Americans once released. Although Hagel announced his resignation in November 2014, Sloan, frustrated by continued delays, departed a month later.Lee Wolosky led the Obama administration’s final push to empty the Gitmo detention facility. Another lawyer, he had worked at the National Security Council under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Since July 2015, Wolosky has moved 75 detainees from Guantanamo, getting the count down to 41. A final four were just transferred on the eve of Donald Trump’s inauguration, Foreign Policy reported Thursday.

Obama pushed to close the prison up until the bitter end. On Thursday, in his final hours as president, he sent one last letter to Congress urging lawmakers to “close a facility that never should have been opened in the first place” and warning them that “history will cast a harsh judgment on this aspect of our fight against terrorism and those of us who fail to bring it to a responsible end.”

The remaining prisoners will become President Trump’s problem, as will the decision whether to continue the effort to empty Guantanamo. So far, Trump has indicated he wants to keep the camp open and even increase the number of prisoners — to “load it up with some bad dudes,” he said, potentially by bringing in people with ties to the Islamic State. He has also said he would be “fine” with sending Americans accused of terrorism to Guantanamo.

The men Obama asked to shutter Guantanamo have mixed feelings about their legacies.

“Now what people will say is, ‘Aw, they failed.’ But you know, as failures go, that’s pretty damn good,” said Fried. “Lee Wolosky, I think in the end he moved more than I did. The administration deserves credit.” Even if Obama’s team didn’t ultimately close Guantanamo, Fried said, “that last year-and-a-half effort is impressive.”

Sloan is also pleased with the final number, or at least the work that went into releasing so many detainees. “It’s great progress,” he said, “and great progress is a very good thing.”

But Moran, the congressman who wanted to close the camp, refuses to express any glass-half-full optimism.

“It will be recorded in history as a stain on our nation’s soul, much in the way that other things we have done define us in ways we don’t want to accept, like slavery and the genocide of Native Americans,” he said. “I think they are just going to rot there for the rest of their lives.”

Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, longform writing and breaking news from The Huffington Post and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s all made. Click here to sign up!

-- 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.

U.S. governors want Congress to keep funding health benefits for poor

$
0
0
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Republican governors on Thursday urged Washington lawmakers to keep funding health benefits for millions of low-income Americans, even as Congress is working to repeal Obamacare, President Barack Obama's landmark health insurance law. Reported by Reuters 5 hours ago.

Ralph Nader: An Open Letter To Nancy Pelosi

$
0
0
Dear Representative Pelosi:

I see you were quoted in The Hill newspaper recently (“Pelosi Rips GOP for Cut and Run Strategy on Obamacare,” by Mike Lillis, January 12, 2017) saying that you are for single payer health insurance. You had this preference before Presidents Clinton and Obama, who ideally agree with you, dismissed single payer as “impractical” given the entrenched and powerful healthcare industry.

A couple of years ago, I wrote an article titled “21 Ways Canada’s Single Payer System Beats Obamacare”.

Within a week or so, your colleague, Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan), will re-introduce HR 676, the single payer bill in the House.

Will you actively support this much more efficient and comprehensive legislation, with its many advantages proven in other countries, and persuade other House Democrats to also co-sponsor?

Last year, only 63 Democrats co-sponsored.

Obamacare, without a public option, has been a complex patchwork in so many ways — including forcing individuals to purchase inadequate insurance from private health insurance companies — insurance that carries with it high premiums, deductibles, co-pays and forces narrow networks.

For many, Obamacare is quasi-catastrophic insurance with limited choice of doctor and hospital.

If the Republicans repeal Obamacare, Democrats need to be ready and offer to replace it with something that can attract left/right support — single payer, Medicare for All — everyone in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital, no medical bankruptcies, no coercive co-pays or deductibles, with all their accompanying fears and anxieties, and no more deaths due to lack of health insurance.

A December 2015 national Kaiser public opinion poll found that 58 percent of adults in the U. S. supported single payer (Medicare for All), including 81 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Independents, and 30 percent of Republicans. Imagine the poll numbers when Full Medicare for All starts to be explained, in its clear simplicity, and promoted by a major political party.

Let’s work together to present the American people something both more efficient and responsive that they want and need — Medicare for All and freedom to choose their doctor, clinic and hospital.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader Reported by Eurasia Review 2 hours ago.

Call For EU Law To Require Minimum Wage In Every Country

$
0
0
By Catherine Stupp and Cécile Barbière

(EurActiv) — MEPs want the European Commission to require member states to introduce national minimum wages, a move that would unnerve politicians across Europe, business lobby groups and even some trade unions.

Maria João Rodrigues, the Socialist MEP and former Portuguese employment minister who took the lead on the Parliament report, said she was surprised that most MEPs backed a controversial section in her resolution that calls for an EU law demanding a minimum wage in every member country.

Twenty-two EU countries already have minimum wage laws. Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Cyprus, Austria and Finland do not.

The Parliament report is not binding but its approval today (19 January) comes two months before the Commission will propose new social welfare rules, including measures on working conditions and wages. It was approved with 396 votes in favour, 180 opposed and 68 abstentions.

EU Social Affairs Commissioner Marianne Thyssen has repeatedly insisted that she won’t step on national governments’ toes by proposing an EU-wide minimum wage. Laws on wages are generally left to EU member countries, not the Commission.

But Thyssen has previously encouraged more countries to introduce a national minimum wage. Her proposal this March could coax national politicians further into introducing their own minimum wage laws, EurActiv.com understands.

“This is not necessarily preventing us from setting benchmarks. If we want to go to convergence between member states, it can be good to look all together at what is a minimum wage,” Thyssen told MEPs today at a plenary session in Strasbourg.

Rodrigues said national governments should be required to introduce minimum wage laws—but that those could be set at levels that differ between EU countries.

“We need to have a European frame saying that all member states should have a minimum wage and then the concrete level of minimum wage should be set in each member state,” she told EurActiv after today’s vote.

MEPs from the centre-right EPP group axed one measure in Rodrigues’ report that called for the national minimum wage to be at least 60% of the median income in each country. They also scrapped part of the report that asked the Commission to crunch the numbers and define a living wage in every EU country.

“This shows that we have conservative forces in Europe which want to keep Europe as a continent where citizens should survive on very low wages,” Rodrigues said about those defeats.

The EPP is the largest political group in the European Parliament. Relations between the S&D group and the EPP have chilled over the last few days since Antonio Tajani, an MEP and former EU Commissioner from the centre-right party, was elected president of the Parliament on Tuesday (17 January).

MEPs first floated the idea of a minimum wage pegged at 60% of the median income in a resolution on social dumping last year. But the Commission did not include the measure in its proposal on the posting of workers directive last March.

Some countries that already have a minimum wage law might support new EU-wide rules. Left-wing candidates for the French presidency have voiced their support for minimum wage rules around the EU in the lead-up to the election there this spring.

Vincent Peillon, an MEP and former education minister running in the Socialist Party primary, has recommended the EU adopt a law on decent working conditions.

Manuel Valls, the former French prime minister who is also running for the presidency, is calling for all EU countries to adopt a minimum wage equal to 60% of their median income.

But the Parliament’s call for mandatory minimum wage rules will ruffle feathers in those countries that have held out on introducing laws. Trade unions are also cautious about the demand to make the minimum wage mandatory.

“You need a minimum wage where trade unions and employers want it. We wouldn’t agree with the idea of simply imposing a minimum wage where trade unions don’t want it,” said Julian Scola, a spokesman for the European Trade Union Confederation.

Unions negotiate wages through collective bargaining in some countries where there is no minimum wage.

Industry lobby group BusinessEurope declined to comment on the MEPs’ demand for minimum wage rules. Markus J. Beyrer, the association’s director general, said in a statement that there needs to be better reform of national labour markets.

“Tightening of labour and social security laws would have the opposite effect,” Beyrer said of the Parliament report.

Rodrigues’ report also received a lot of attention because it struck at the heart of how technology and the mobile app economy have upended working conditions. The app economy has been at the centre of bitter fights in several member states, involving court cases and at times heated protests over Uber drivers, Airbnb hosts and Deliveroo couriers who peddle around fast food deliveries at the touch of a button.

MEPs called for the Commission’s upcoming proposal to guarantee “decent working conditions in all forms of employment” and make sure anyone who is employed or self-employed through an online platform has “analogous rights as in the rest of the economy and be protected through participation in social security and health insurance schemes”.

Scola called that measure in the report “a very significant breakthrough” because it could pressure the Commission to include rules affecting online app workers in its proposal.

Thyssen told MEPs today that there’s a “need to address new forms of employment.”

“I think everyone should have a written contract,” she said. Reported by Eurasia Review 1 hour ago.

Thank You, Mr. President

$
0
0
Dear Mr. President,

As you leave office, I must say this:

Thank you...

*For helping me believe progress is possible.*

*For helping our children understand their potential.*

*For asserting that health care is a right, not a privilege.*

*For relationship goals.*

*For your sense of humor.*

*For being the kind of father daughters need.*

*For being the kind of leader the world respects.*

For eight years of leading us with dignity, integrity, and intelligence to a point in history where a record number of Americans have jobs, health insurance, and a sense of inclusion in the promise of the American dream.

President Obama, I am one of countless Americans who feels blessed to have lived during your tenure. Thank you for keeping us safe and moving us forward.

*As you leave office, may you feel our gratitude for your service.*

God bless us all.
-- 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 51 minutes ago.

Pan-American Life Insurance Group Introduces New Critical Illness and Cancer Insurance Plans in the U.S.

$
0
0
Pan-American Life Insurance Group (PALIG), unveiled its new group critical illness and cancer insurance plans at a meeting of the Dallas Association of Health Underwriters.

New Orleans, LA (PRWEB) January 20, 2017

Pan-American Life Insurance Group (PALIG), a leading provider of insurance and financial services throughout the Americas, unveiled its new group critical illness and cancer insurance plans at a meeting of the Dallas Association of Health Underwriters. The plans provide employees of companies in the U.S. and their dependents a lump sum cash benefit upon first diagnosis of cancer or any of the ten covered critical illnesses.

“When faced with life changing illnesses, patients suffer physical, emotional and financial stress,” said John Foley, President of U.S. Group Business. “With the new critical illness and cancer plans, we hope to provide a helpful balance of protection and support for employees and their families.”

The lump sum cash benefit of both the critical illness and cancer plans can be used for expenses that are not typically covered by other health insurance plans, such as lost income while the employee is unable to work, household expenses, medical bills, alternative treatments and drugs, home health care, child care services and travel related to treatments.

Employees will receive 100 percent of the face amount for the following covered critical illnesses and 25 percent for partial cancer and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG):· Benign brain tumor
· Blindness
· Full cancer
· Heart attack
· Kidney failure
· Major organ failure
· Permanent paralysis
· Stroke

In addition to the full cancer benefit included in both policies, Pan-American Life also pays an additional benefit amount when a covered person is diagnosed with breast cancer.

“As out-of-pocket health costs continue to rise, we know how much of an impact illnesses can have on personal finances,” added Carlo Mulvenna, Vice-President, U.S. Group Business. “Both of these lump sum plans help employees complement their company’s medical insurance, thus enhancing their entire benefits package.”

To learn more about Pan-American Life Insurance Group’s health insurance plans call 1 800-694-9888. You can also visit http://www.palig.com or send an email to sales(at)palig(dot)com.

About Pan-American Life Insurance Group
Pan-American Life Insurance Group is a leading provider of insurance and financial services throughout the Americas that has been delivering trusted financial services since 1911. The New Orleans-based Group is comprised of more than twenty member companies, employs more than 1,650 worldwide and offers top-rated individual and/or group life, accident and health insurance, employee benefits and financial services in 49 states, the District of Columbia (DC), Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. The Group has branches and affiliates in Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and 13 Caribbean markets, including Barbados, Cayman Islands, Curacao and Trinidad and Tobago. For more information, visit the Pan-American Life Web site at palig.com, follow us on Twitter @PanAmericanLife, and connect with us on LinkedIn at Pan-American Life Insurance Group. Reported by PRWeb 21 hours ago.

Lice Troopers Reports Increase in Head Lice Cases Following Holiday Season

$
0
0
Miami-based lice treatment center reports spike in head lice cases following holiday season.

Miami, Florida (PRWEB) January 20, 2017

Lice Troopers, the lice removal company based in South Florida, has seen a spike in head lice cases in families with school-aged children since the holiday season.

“It happens every year around this time,” says owner, Arie Harel. “Many people spend the holidays with their families, sharing hugs and taking photos, which is the head-to-head gateway that lice need to spread.”

As children return to classrooms untreated, lice spread rapidly from child-to-child. Each of those children infested can possibly spread the pests to their families if not detected early and treated.

“Our most common clients are school-aged children but within the last two weeks, we’ve seen not only more children in our treatment centers, but also more parents, grandparents, and caretakers,” says Harel.

To combat the epidemics, Lice Troopers is working with local schools to schedule school-wide lice screenings to catch and stop the epidemics before they continue to spread. Lice Troopers is also offering free lice screenings at their treatment centers by appointment. For more information, visit http://www.licetroopers.com or call 800.403.5423.

Lice Troopers is the all-natural, guaranteed head lice removal service that manually treats and removes head lice safely and discreetly in child-friendly treatment centers, or other chosen location. Providing safe solutions for frantic families, the Lice Troopers team has successfully treated thousands of families with pediatrician-recommended services that may be reimbursed by many major health insurance carriers, flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts. Reported by PRWeb 21 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images