Youth Enrollment In Obamacare Lower Than Expected So Far

January 14, 2014, 11:53 am

≫ Next: MNsure problems frustrate health insurance agents

≪ Previous: Vt. Health Connect: New delay for small businesses

$

0

0

Youth Enrollment In Obamacare Lower Than Expected So Far
Headlines
Health
Nation
Politics
Obamacare Youth Enrollment

A new administration report shows youth enrollment in Obamacare has been lower than expected thus far.

Before the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) October 1 rollout, officials hoped that 38% of enrollees would be between ages 18-35. Young people comprise a critical component of the ACA if the reform is to be successful. Since health insurance companies are no longer allowed to gouge older, less healthy people with high premiums, the ACA depends on young and healthy people to balance out premium costs.

Data in the report shows that 24% -- or 2.2 million -- of early ACA enrollees are in the 18-35-year-old age range.

But even with early numbers lower than desired, officials aren’t panicking. They note that the enrollment period for the bill runs through March, and accordingly they expect a large wave of young Americans to come forward and purchase insurance policies closer to this deadline.

“We are confident, based on the results we have now, that we'll have an appropriate mix of individuals enrolled in coverage," said Mike Hash, health reform director at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

A report from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation reports that a sustainable marketplace could take hold even with only 25% youth enrollment.

The report says “that even if you only have 25 percent of your marketplace, of your composition being 18 to 34, that essentially takes death spiral off the table, that essentially you have a sustainable marketplace and that premiums would only be affected by a couple of percentages per person.”

Even with the dreaded marketplace “death spiral” avoided, officials obviously still hope to achieve their original goals. It should also be noted that young Americans under the age of 26 are eligible to be covered under their parents insurance policies.

The same report also shows that the majority of sign-ups are opting for the “silver” level plans. Silver plans cover an estimated 70% of a person’s health costs. As you may have guessed, silver plans are cheaper than gold and platinum plans and more expensive than bronze plans. Bronze plans offer a smaller network of doctors and include higher co-pays. Sources: Yahoo!, Politico, Healthcare.gov

1 Reported by Opposing Views 3 hours ago.

---

MNsure problems frustrate health insurance agents

January 14, 2014, 1:20 pm

≫ Next: Magic Johnson stumps for Obamacare (Video)

≪ Previous: Youth Enrollment In Obamacare Lower Than Expected So Far

$

0

0

Health insurance agents have been frustrated by technical problems at MNsure, and some are so pessimistic that they've stopped working with the health exchange. Reported by TwinCities.com 2 hours ago.

Magic Johnson stumps for Obamacare (Video)

January 15, 2014, 8:16 am

≫ Next: Obamacare Subsidies Lawsuit Rejected By Federal Judge

≪ Previous: MNsure problems frustrate health insurance agents

$

0

0

NBA Hall of Famer Magic Johnson is featured in a new Web video from the White House promoting the Affordable Care Act.

In the video, Johnson, who was diagnosed with HIV in the early 1990s, says he likely would be dead right now if he didn't have quality health insurance. He also urges young people, who haven't been signing up for Obamacare in as high a numbers as the law needs, to do so. Reported by Washington Post 7 hours ago.

Obamacare Subsidies Lawsuit Rejected By Federal Judge

January 15, 2014, 9:55 am

≫ Next: U.S. judge rejects challenge to 'Obamacare' insurance subsidies

≪ Previous: Magic Johnson stumps for Obamacare (Video)

$

0

0

WASHINGTON, Jan 15 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday upheld the health insurance subsidies that are available in the 34 U.S. states that declined to establish their own online marketplaces, rejecting a lawsuit that said the subsidies were unlawful.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C., wrote in the opinion that the subsidies were consistent with the healthcare law President Barack Obama signed in 2010. (Reporting by David Ingram; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn) Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

U.S. judge rejects challenge to 'Obamacare' insurance subsidies

January 15, 2014, 9:15 am

≫ Next: The Real Chris Christie Scandal

≪ Previous: Obamacare Subsidies Lawsuit Rejected By Federal Judge

$

0

0

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday upheld the health insurance subsidies that are available in the 34 U.S. states that declined to establish their own online marketplaces, rejecting a lawsuit that said the subsidies were unlawful. Reported by Reuters 6 hours ago.

The Real Chris Christie Scandal

January 15, 2014, 9:46 am

≫ Next: Judge Rejects Challenge to Obamacare Insurance Subsidies

≪ Previous: U.S. judge rejects challenge to 'Obamacare' insurance subsidies

$

0

0

During last fall's New Jersey gubernatorial contest, which Gov. Chris Christie used as a rehearsal for a 2016 presidential bid, the media were so mesmerized by his outsize personality that they paid little attention to his track record as governor. Contrary to his carefully-crafted image, Christie has not been a can-do pragmatist but a hard-line conservative. When he plays the no-nonsense tough guy, it is usually aimed at the most vulnerable people in society. But he gets all warm and fuzzy when it comes to the rich and powerful.

Given the media's proclivity to view politics through the lens of personality over policy, it should come as no surprise that Christie's current troubles, perhaps even his political downfall, is based not his record on issues, but instead on his personal characteristics as an arrogant bully whose administration closed lanes to the George Washington Bridge, the world's busiest, causing a massive four-day traffic jam, in order to exact revenge on his Democratic opponents in Fort Lee. Of course, we've seen this side of Christie before. When he's been seen on camera verbally abusing school teachers or humiliating ordinary citizens at public events, he revealed an unpleasant aspect of his character. Until now, however, these questionable personality traits haven't undermined his political credibility.

Even now, with Christie at the center of a major controversy, the national media have invested plenty of resources and space looking into "bridge-gate," but put little effort reporting on his administration's impact on New Jersey's economy, environment, and families. Late-night comics like the Daily Show's Jon Stewart ridicule Christie about his political arrogance, but ignore his performance as New Jersey's chief executive.

If Christie survives the current scandal -- by shifting blame to his staff and political cronies -- pundits and voters will have a chance to take a closer look at Christie's record in office. If so, they'll find that Christie has more in common with Tea Party Republicans than with his state's long tradition of GOP moderates, such as former Senator Clifford Case and former Governors Christine Todd Whitman and Tom Kean. Christie is a hard-line anti-government, social, and big-business conservative in the same mold as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. The major difference is that Christie had to contend with a Democratic state legislature, which has acted as a constraint on his right-wing initiatives. For example, New Jersey's Senate President Stephen Sweeney said that Christie "got lucky" because the hurricane Sandy distracted voters from the bad economy. Christie "prayed a lot and a storm came," Sweeney observed.

Indeed, Christie's public image got a make-over after Hurricane Sandy destroyed much of New Jersey's coast, and Christie was seen touring the area with President Obama and warmly praising the president for his help in providing federal funds for post-Sandy recovery. Conservatives within the GOP found his embrace of Obama distasteful, but many media pundits used that incident to cast Christie as a bipartisan pragmatist primarily interested in making life better for ordinary Jerseyans. This was exactly the image that Christie wanted and it served him well, helping him win a landslide victory in November and strengthening his claim as a contender for the GOP presidential nomination as a centrist Republican in a blue state.

But Christie's policies since taking office in 2010 have been a disaster for a majority of New Jersey's families.

*Wounding the economy:* New Jersey has the nation's tenth highest unemployment rate and the second highest percentage of mortgage loans in foreclosure. New Jersey's credit rating has dropped on Christie's watch. Even when compared with neighboring states, New Jersey is an economic basket case, with many families struggling to make ends meet.

*Hurting the poor and middle class:* Christie reduced the earned-income tax credit, a popular program that helps lift the working poor out of poverty - in other words, he raised taxes on the poor. Christie vetoed a minimum wage hike that the legislative had passed, calling it "stupid" and "truly ridiculous." So the legislature put the issue before the voters, who supported it in November by a 61 percent margin, larger than Christie's own victory. Meanwhile, Christie allowed property taxes to skyrocket by about 20 percent, falling hardest of the state's middle class homeowners.

*Enriching the rich and big business:* While stiffing New Jersey's poor and its middle class, Christie has handed big corporations more than $2 billion in tax breaks that has had little impact on job creation. For example, the state gave Prudential Insurance a quarter-billion simply to move its headquarters a few blocks in Newark. While New Jersey desperately needs to invest in infrastructure and education, Christie three times vetoed an income tax hike for New Jersey's millionaires. He warned that it would trigger a massive exodus of rich people even though research reveals that it would have no such impact.

*Wasting tax money to boost his political career:* Christie allegedly siphoned off millions in federal relief funds intended for Hurricane Sandy victims in order to pay for television ads that promoted himself, prompting a call for a federal investigation. After U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg died in June, Christie opted to hold a special election to fill the seat in October rather than in November, when Christie was up for re-election. This entirely political calculation - Christie wanted to avoid a large voter turnout by Democrats in November -- cost New Jersey taxpayers some $25 million.

*Opposing women's equality and rights:* By cutting $7.4 billion targeted for Planned Parenthood, Christie shut down six family planning clinics that provide cancer screenings, contraception, and other essential women's health services. He vetoed a bill to prevent gender wage discrimination in public contracts, calling it "senseless bureaucracy."

*Opposing same-sex marriage: *Christie vetoed a bill to give equal rights to gay couples; it took a court ruling to legalize same-sex marriage in New Jersey. *Damaging the environment:* Christie defeated a push by 180 environmental organizations to let New Jerseyans vote on a ballot measure to increase parks, and other open spaces. He also pulled the state out of a regional agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent by 2018. He plans to divert $40 million from a recent settlement with Passaic River polluters intended to restore the blighted waterway to balance the state budget.

*Opposing affordable health care: * New Jerseyans trying to enroll for Obamacare face difficulties not encountered by New York residents because unlike Governor Cuomo, Christie refused to create a state health insurance exchange. This left millions of federal dollars on the table aimed at educating families about how to sign up for the program.

*Attacking public education and public employees: *Like Wisconsin's Gov. Walker, he has used the state's public employee unions as a political punching bag. He cut health and pension benefits for public sector workers, including cops and teachers. Christie has called the state's teachers union "political thugs" and has attacked individual teachers when they question him at public events -- for example, challenging his support for private school vouchers and charter schools, which diverts funds away from public schools. In his first year as governor, Christie slashed $1.2 billion from the state's public schools -- cuts that the state Supreme Court said violated students' rights. He killed a DREAM Act bill that would provide in-state tuition at state colleges for the children of immigrants who graduate from New Jersey high schools. Meanwhile, he cut funding for higher education by15 percent.

*Opposing affordable housing: *And despite a severe shortage of low and moderate-income housing, Christie tried to divert funds earmarked for affordable housing until the courts blocked him from doing so.

*Compromising civil rights and criminal justice: *Christie declined to renominate Associate Justice John E. Wallace Jr, the only African-American on the New Jersey Supreme Court, and left vacant over 50 seats on New Jersey courts, effectively denying the right to a fair and speedy trial. Christie pushed out the State's Public Defender, the only high-ranking African-American policy official in his administration.

If, by shifting blame to his top staff, Christie can persuade voters that he had no direct involvement in the bridgegate scandal, he may still survive to run for president. If so, it won't be too late for the media do its job and scrutinize Christie's track record as governor. What they'll discover is that Christie is a reckless right-winger with a huge mean streak. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

Judge Rejects Challenge to Obamacare Insurance Subsidies

January 15, 2014, 11:19 am

≫ Next: Magic Assists ObamaCare

≪ Previous: The Real Chris Christie Scandal

$

0

0

A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a conservative challenge to health insurance subsidies available to people in the 34 U.S. states that declined to establish their own online marketplaces under President Barack Obama's healthcare law. Reported by Newsmax 4 hours ago.

Magic Assists ObamaCare

January 15, 2014, 9:58 am

≫ Next: Can I use my Medicaid money to buy a private health plan?

≪ Previous: Judge Rejects Challenge to Obamacare Insurance Subsidies

$

0

0

Magic Johnson sold millions of Converse sneakers and hundreds of cans of Slice to young people during the 1980s. Now, the fifty-four-year-old retired Los Angeles Laker sells ObamaCare to that healthy demographic. Was Bob Cousy unavailable?

In a video featured at WhiteHouse.gov, the HIV+ Johnson attests that quality health care “saved my life.” He urges young people to sign up for ObamaCare because one can never predict when disaster will strike.

“I remember when I took my physical and they told me I had HIV over 22 years ago,” Johnson explained. “If it wasn’t for that quality health care that I had, and the plan that I had, I probably would have been dead. So I’m glad that I had good health insurance, a good plan. Also, too, you never know when you’re going to need it. It’s very important. Young people think they’re Superman, like nothing’s ever going to happen to them. But, trust me: someday something’s going to happen. And you’re going to need a quality health plan. So, make sure you get ObamaCare.”

But young people don’t equate “a good quality health plan” with “ObamaCare.” When Breitbart.com’s Jerome Hudson queried college students on the president’s plan, they responded unenthusiastically. “I heard it doesn’t work,” one told Hudson. Another resented the fact that the Affordable Care Act treats him as a child. “Once you reach adult age you should have your own choice,” he explained, “you shouldn’t be forced to buy it.”

Just under a quarter of the 2.2. million enrollees in federal- and state-run exchanges are between 18 and 34 years of age, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The anemic numbers strongly indicate that rates within the exchanges will skyrocket unless the system experiences a massive infusion of young people.

So, naturally, the folks who gave the world healthcare.gov are enlisting a grandfather to enlist college students into ObamaCare. The Hall of Fame point guard declares, “Everybody deserves to have good quality health care.” Is that an argument to sign up or shut down ObamaCare?

 
 
 
  Reported by Breitbart 6 hours ago.

---

Can I use my Medicaid money to buy a private health plan?

January 15, 2014, 10:39 am

≫ Next: Michigan appeals court upholds teacher benefits law

≪ Previous: Magic Assists ObamaCare

$

0

0

*Can I use my Medicaid money to buy a private health plan?*

*Q*. I applied for insurance on my state’s marketplace and was told that because I’m eligible for Medicaid I can’t get financial help to buy private insurance. Is this allowed? I’d rather take the Medicaid money and use it to buy a private plan.

*A*. Sorry, you can’t unless you live in Arkansas or Iowa. Here’s why.

The new health care law gives states the option of expanding Medicaid, the venerable public health insurance program, for certain low-income groups (families with young kids, the disabled, people in long-term care facilities) to automatically cover anyone with an income of less than 133 percent of the federal poverty level. That’s $15,282 for a single person, $20,628 for a couple, and $31,321 for a family of four. Twenty-five states plus the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid in this way.But there’s a catch. In these states, if your household income puts you within Medicaid eligibility range, you’re disqualified from receiving a tax credit to lower the cost of purchasing private insurance through the Health Insurance Marketplace. If you don’t want Medicaid (and we think you should take it if you’re eligible), you’ll have to pay full price for a private plan.

Except in Iowa and Arkansas. They applied for and were granted special federal permission to use their Medicaid money (the federal government is footing 100 percent of the bill for the first three years, and 90 percent thereafter) to enroll beneficiaries in the same private health plans sold to higher-income people through the state marketplaces.

The only difference is that people in the Medicaid income range must enroll in a Silver plan and if they don’t, they’ll be automatically assigned to one. In Arkansas the plans are free. In Iowa beneficiaries can get premium-free coverage if they complete a “health risk assessment” and get a checkup. Out-of-pocket costs are minimal.

Got a question for our health insurance expert? Ask it here; be sure to include the state you live in. And if you can't get enough health insurance news here, follow me on Twitter @NancyMetcalf.

 

*We are blogging regularly about the new health care law, which took full effect on Jan. 1, 2014.  (Read the previous posts in the series.) To get health insurance advice tailored to your situation, use our Health Law Helper, below.*

*Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers or sponsors on this website. Copyright © 2007-2013 Consumers Union of U.S.*

*Subscribe now!*
Subscribe to *ConsumerReports.org* for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
--------------------
Update your feed preferences
   
   
   
   
    Reported by Consumer Reports 5 hours ago.

Michigan appeals court upholds teacher benefits law

January 15, 2014, 10:58 am

≫ Next: Judge Rejects Challenge to Health-Care Law Insurance Subsidies

≪ Previous: Can I use my Medicaid money to buy a private health plan?

$

0

0

The Michigan appeals court has upheld a 2012 law requiring public school employees to pay more for their pension and contribute some salary upfront if they want health insurance in retirement. Reported by Freep 5 hours ago.

Judge Rejects Challenge to Health-Care Law Insurance Subsidies

January 15, 2014, 10:43 am

≫ Next: Judge upholds health law subsidies

≪ Previous: Michigan appeals court upholds teacher benefits law

$

0

0

A federal judge on Wednesday upheld the legality of subsidies the federal government is making available to some consumers who buy health insurance through federally run online exchanges. Reported by Wall Street Journal 5 hours ago.

Judge upholds health law subsidies

January 15, 2014, 10:56 am

≫ Next: 3 Surprising Financial Benefits Of Losing Weight

≪ Previous: Judge Rejects Challenge to Health-Care Law Insurance Subsidies

$

0

0

A federal judge in the District dismissed a lawsuit Wednesday that would have gutted the president’s health-care law by preventing the government from giving out subsidies to people buying health insurance in dozens of states. Reported by Washington Post 5 hours ago.

3 Surprising Financial Benefits Of Losing Weight

January 15, 2014, 11:20 am

≫ Next: GOP Men Debate Anti-Abortion Bill As Female Colleagues Protest In The Hallway

≪ Previous: Judge upholds health law subsidies

$

0

0

If you've resolved to spend less and save more this year, you might consider investing in a good pair of running shoes.

Beyond the obvious health benefits of being in shape, losing weight can help you save as much as $5,000 per year in transportation, insurance, and health-related costs, not to mention the amount you could make by more frequent promotions at work.

According to a study by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, the overall annual cost of being overweight in America — in the form of higher bills, lower salary, and lost wages due to health-related absenteeism — is $524 for women and $432 for men. And being obese is even harder on your wallet, to the tune of $4,879 for women and $2,646 for men per year.

If you've been looking for extra motivation to shed some pounds, check out a few ways slimming down could also save you cash:

-1. Lower medical bills-

The most obvious place you can cut costs by getting to a healthy weight is your medical bill. According to the GWU study, overweight individuals (defined by the CDC as having a BMI between 25 and 29) spend an additional $346 per year on direct and indirect medical costs, while the extra burden for obese individuals (BMI over 30) rises to $807-$2,845 per year.

Where are these extra costs coming from? Mostly in the form of prescription drugs, and the GWU study didn't include over-the-counter drugs, so the amount is likely even higher. According to the study, overweight and obese individuals tend to be less healthy than their normal-weight peers. They have higher rates of heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and even certain types of cancer, all of which require more doctors' visits, pricier health insurance, and more drugs.

A person dealing with type 2 diabetes, for instance, spends an average of $85,000 to treat the disease and its complications over their lifetimes, according to a 2013 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Reversing type 2 diabetes — or at least treating it through a better diet and exercise — can put an immediate dent in your medical bills.

-2. Higher income-

Being overweight not only costs more, it can also limit the amount you earn, at least if you're a woman. A 2011 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth found that obese women earned an average of $5,826, or 15%, less per year than normal-weight women, a trend confirmed by the GWU research team. By contrast, the GWU study found that "results for the relationship between body weight and wages for male employees are mixed, but likely insignificant." 

What's the relationship between body type and salary? Studies have identified several factors at play. Conscious or unconscious biases against overweight employees can influence hiring and promotional decisions that prevent overweight workers from moving as far up the career ladder as normal-weight employees. Obese workers also tend to work fewer days than their normal-weight peers due to poorer health: The GWU study estimates obese and overweight women miss an average of one to five additional work days per year than normal-weight women, while obese men miss two more than normal-weight men. Absenteeism can have a direct impact on hourly salaries, and an accumulation of missed work days can negatively affect an individual's annual income.

-3. Lower fuel and transportation costs-

Perhaps surprisingly, additional body weight actually makes a difference in how much fuel your vehicle uses. Matthew de Paula at Forbes explains:

It might seem preposterous that portly passengers could negate the weight savings automakers are achieving [by making lighter vehicles]. But consider that fuel efficiency improves 2% for every 100 pounds shed from a vehicle, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. So if a heavyset adult couple — each 50 pounds overweight — loses the extra weight, their fuel economy will go up 2%.

Slimming down won't just save you money at the pump; it could also save you extra fees (and potential embarrassment) at the airport. While it's unlikely that charging passengers by weight will become an industry standard, several American airlines have started requiring passengers who cannot buckle their seat belts to buy an additional seat. It's not quite clear how that extra seat will keep you safer, but regardless, it's yet another reason to eat your veggies and hop on a treadmill.

*SEE ALSO: Study Reveals Juries Discriminate Against Overweight Women*

Join the conversation about this story »

 
 
 
  Reported by Business Insider 4 hours ago.

GOP Men Debate Anti-Abortion Bill As Female Colleagues Protest In The Hallway

January 15, 2014, 11:25 am

≫ Next: Kimmel’s New Obamacare Ad Shows How Young Invincibles End Up Paying for the Elderly’s Penis Pumps

≪ Previous: 3 Surprising Financial Benefits Of Losing Weight

$

0

0

Just before a panel of Republican men on the House Judiciary Committee debated a new anti-abortion bill on Wednesday, a group of their Democratic colleagues staged a rare protest in the hallway outside the committee room.

“It’s increasingly evident that the only women’s agenda that the Republicans have put forward is to take away your health care rights and then tell you to get lost,” Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), co-chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus, told the crowd of protesters. “Women are sick and tired of these constant attacks on our constitutionally-protected right to choose, while priorities like equal pay, fair wages and paid family leave go unaddressed."

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) and Rep. Diana Degette (D-Colo.) also spoke to the crowd, many of whom held signs that said "Where are the women?"

The "No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act," sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), denies certain tax benefits to women and small businesses who choose a health insurance plan that includes abortion coverage. It also makes permanent the Hyde Amendment, which has prevented federal funds from being used to pay for abortions for 35 years, and prohibits the District of Columbia from using its own locally-raised funds to help low-income women pay for abortion care.

The bill is the first piece of legislation to be marked up in the full Judiciary Committee this year, and Republicans appear to be rushing it through the legislative process. A markup of the bill was scheduled for less than one week after the first hearing on it.

"Now is the time for Congress to pass one piece of legislation that puts members on record supporting a prohibition on any federal funding of abortion, no matter where in the system that funding may occur," Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) told colleagues in his opening remarks.

The lack of women involved in the decision-making process on this bill has been notable. The House subcommittee that held an initial hearing on the bill last week is made up entirely of men, and the full, 40-member Judiciary Committee has only five women on it -- all Democrats. Holmes-Norton was denied the opportunity to testify at Thursday's hearing, even though the bill contains a provision that specifically targets her constituents.

At one point during the markup on Wednesday, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) submitted an amendment that would essentially strike the entire bill and replace it with the "Pregnant Workers Fairness Act," which would require employers to make certain accommodations to their pregnant employees in the workplace.

Republicans voted the amendment down after Franks said it was "outside of the subject matter of the bill at hand."

While Republicans were expected to vote unanimously to advance the bill out of committee on Wednesday, it has no chance of moving in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

Kimmel’s New Obamacare Ad Shows How Young Invincibles End Up Paying for the Elderly’s Penis Pumps

January 15, 2014, 11:45 am

≫ Next: Health industry plans temp hiring

≪ Previous: GOP Men Debate Anti-Abortion Bill As Female Colleagues Protest In The Hallway

$

0

0

One night after debuting his new commercial for the company that plans to get HealthCare.gov's "shit unfucked," *Jimmy Kimmel* was back with a pair of ads that take on another Obamacare problem: getting young people to sign up. Instead of going to Spring Breakers route like The Daily Show, Kimmel went the other direction, showing an older couple explaining to those "young invincibles" just what they're paying for with their health insurance premiums. Reported by Mediaite 4 hours ago.

---

Health industry plans temp hiring

January 15, 2014, 11:49 am

≫ Next: Wonkblog: ‘Over time, this will work out’: Wellpoint CEO Joe Swedish on Obamacare

≪ Previous: Kimmel’s New Obamacare Ad Shows How Young Invincibles End Up Paying for the Elderly’s Penis Pumps

$

0

0

Employers continue to be cautious with their hiring plans this year, according to CareerBuilder.com's annual forecast. That's because they are trying to get their arms around how the Affordable Care Act will affect their business. While most employers don't anticipate a change in hiring as a result of the law, some have said they will hire more part-time workers this year, probably to avoid incurring additional health insurance costs, according to the survey. Click the image at right for a look… Reported by bizjournals 4 hours ago.

Wonkblog: ‘Over time, this will work out’: Wellpoint CEO Joe Swedish on Obamacare

January 15, 2014, 1:04 pm

≫ Next: 'Spanglish' ObamaCare Site 'Insults Hispanics'

≪ Previous: Health industry plans temp hiring

$

0

0

Joe Swedish is the chief executive of Wellpoint, one of the country's largest health insurance plans. As an insurer selling on 14 state exchanges, he has had a first-row seat to HealthCare.gov's botched rollout -- and is also seeing the health-care law's expansion of Medicaid transform his business. And even with the rocky start, Swedish says his plan still sees the exchanges as a growth opportunity that, in time, will work well. Reported by Washington Post 3 hours ago.

'Spanglish' ObamaCare Site 'Insults Hispanics'

January 15, 2014, 1:23 pm

≫ Next: GOP Congressman: Limiting Abortion 'Promotes Job Creation'

≪ Previous: Wonkblog: ‘Over time, this will work out’: Wellpoint CEO Joe Swedish on Obamacare

$

0

0

Writing in USA Today, Daniel Garza, executive director of the conservative-leaning LIBRE Initiative, tore into the Obama Administration over the handling of ObamaCare, especially as it pertains to Hispanic outreach. Not only was the launch "two months late," Garza writes, "The The finished product turned out to be more punchline than health care portal."

The glitchy "Spanglish" site is not only a technical disaster; it's also an embarrassment to the Spanish-language and a sign of disrespect to the Hispanic-American community, for whom much is at stake in the health care debate. …

Beyond the broken and insulting website, the law encourages Hispanics to forgo health insurance in the same way that it alienates the youth: It's prohibitively expensive.

Hispanic Americans are much younger than the general population. Our median age is only 27, a full 10 years younger than the national average. We are thus disproportionately harmed by the skyrocketing premiums that the law afflicts on the young.

It wasn't just Garza. The Spanish-language ObamaCare site launch elicited a litany of complaints from all quarters the insulting Spanglish:

When you get into the details of the plans, it's not all written in Spanish. It's written in Spanglish, so we end up having to translate it for them," Adrian Madriz, a Miami-based health care navigator, told the Associated Press.

The site's name literally translates to the clunky "for the caution of health" and appears to have relied too much on computer-generated translation.

"There are problems with the verbs and word order that make sentences hard to understand," Spanish professor Veronica Plaza told the AP.

The site, for example, translates "premium" to "prima," even though the word in Spanish is more commonly used to describe a female cousin.

The site is also plagued by glitches and navigation problems. Until recently, a link to a comparison of health plans turned up only English-language documents.

The Administration's launch of a second ObamaCare website riddled with errors, especially one aimed at Hispanics that gets the language wrong, should have been another big embarrassing story for the White House. It is obvious now that the media is done doing anything other than downplaying ObamaCare's problems as they parrot dishonest government happy talk. The media is as desperate to see ObamaCare succeed as its namesake.

That the media would have crucified as racist a Republican administration responsible for mangling the Spanish language, goes without saying.

Follow  John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC              

 

 
 
 
  Reported by Breitbart 2 hours ago.

GOP Congressman: Limiting Abortion 'Promotes Job Creation'

January 15, 2014, 1:27 pm

≫ Next: War-On-Poverty Debate Largely Ignores Employer Role

≪ Previous: 'Spanglish' ObamaCare Site 'Insults Hispanics'

$

0

0

Democratic opponents of a new anti-abortion bill moving through the House of Representatives criticized Republicans on Wednesday for fast-tracking a socially divisive piece of legislation that "does not create a single job." But Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said that he believes legislating against abortion does, in fact, create jobs.

"I would suggest that it is very much the case that those of us in the majority support this legislation because it is the morally right thing to do, but it is also very very true that having a growing population and having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job creation," Goodlatte said at the committee mark-up of the bill. "It very much promotes job creation for all the care and services and so on that need to be provided by a lot of people to raise children."

Conventional wisdom does not support the idea that abortion restrictions boost the economy. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that an anti-abortion bill passed by the House last summer, a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, would cost the federal government $225 million in Medicaid spending over the next decade.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (N.J.) and marked up by the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, would impose tax penalties on women and small businesses who purchase a private health insurance plan that includes abortion coverage. It would also make permanent the Hyde Amendment, which has prevented federal funds from being used to pay for abortions for 35 years, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.

Republicans say the bill would prevent all forms of federal funding, including tax subsidies, from being used to subsidize abortion care. Opponents of the bill argue that it penalizes women and small businesses who purchase private insurance, as most policies for decades have included abortion coverage regularly without controversy. Further, the rape exception could set up a situation in which a rape victim would have to prove her case to the Internal Revenue Service in order to have her abortion covered by insurance.

The bill has the support of every Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, all of whom are men. Republican leadership on the committee chose the abortion bill as the first piece of legislation to mark up in 2014.

Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Diana DeGette (D-Co.), co-chairs of the Pro-Choice Caucus, responded:

“After years of stalling, Congressional Republicans have finally released their jobs plan: attacking women’s health,” they said. “To paraphrase our old friend, Rep. Barney Frank, Republicans in Washington believe that life begins at conception but ends at birth -- they want to eliminate contraception and abortion, but won’t support early childhood education like Head Start or universal Pre-K, pay equity for single mothers, affordable child care, or SNAP benefits. It’s time to stop attacking women’s health and start paying attention to the economic issues that Americans really care about.” Reported by Huffington Post 2 hours ago.

War-On-Poverty Debate Largely Ignores Employer Role

January 15, 2014, 1:50 pm

≫ Next: How to Sell Health Insurance to Millenials

≪ Previous: GOP Congressman: Limiting Abortion 'Promotes Job Creation'

$

0

0

January marks the 50th Anniversary of the War on Poverty and it is natural to take stock--how successful have we been in combatting poverty, where do we need to go, how will we get there and most importantly, what are the most effective engines of change?

When it comes to these engines for change, there is typically an either/or view--the government or the individual.

In a recent page one assessment of the war on poverty 50 years later, New York Times reporter, Annie Lowrey focused on the effectiveness of antipoverty program like Earned Income Tax Credits, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, Medicaid, Food Stamps, among other government initiatives, in reducing poverty or at least in keeping it at bay.

Taking the view of individual responsibility was Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution in a Yahoo! Finance opinion piece on the War on Poverty calling government help "minimally effective.""To mount an effective war against poverty," he adds, "we need changes in the personal decisions of more young Americans."

Where is the workplace in these either/or analyses?

When it is included, the private sector--the economy--is seen as locus of economic growth, providing jobs for low-income employee but the workplace itself is not depicted as an important player in reducing poverty. It is clear to me, from years of research on the low-income workforce that all four--governmental programs, the individual, the economy AND the workplace--have to be seen as change engines.

It is the coworkers and supervisors who create an atmosphere of trust and respect in the workplace where low-income employees can prosper. It is the supervisors who provide specific help for low-income employees in succeeding on their job and who offer job assignments and training that enable low-income employees to learn, stretch and advance. It is the workplace policies or programs that enable low-income employees the flexibility to continue in school as well as to care for their families. It is the adequacy of employer-provided benefits.

Families and Work Institute's National Study of the Changing Workforce investigated the aspects of the workplace that make a difference. They are:

• Adequate benefits
• Job autonomy
• Learning opportunities and challenges
• Supervisor support for job success
• Supervisor support for meeting personal and family needs
• Culture of respect and trust
• Workplace flexibility

These factors--what we call an Effective Workplace--may be largely absent from the broader discussions on the war of poverty but that's a big mistake. Most are no cost, except for benefits; most can be easily implemented; and most help employers and employees alike in powerful ways. For example, they reduce the likelihood of stress and poorer health and increase the likelihood of job satisfaction, engagement, and retention - key issues when it comes to the low-income workforce.

An unusual exception to the exclusion of the workplace is The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Pushes Back from the Brink. Just released in honor of Maria Shriver's late father, Sargent Shriver, and his critical role as the architect of President Johnson's War on Poverty, this report contains an entire section of the report entitled Private Solutions.

In a chapter my colleagues James T. Bond and Eve Tahmincioglu and I co-authored in the report, What if Employers Put Women at the Center of Their Workplace Policies, you meet Stacey Jones. She has a good, steady job now as a receptionist for an investment firm. But her life wasn't always like this. At 20, she was a single mother doing everything she could to stay in technical school.

Along the way, Stacey had many of the problems that low-income women face. While at this technical school, she was put on academic probation because she wasn't prepared to be a student and she lacked time management skills. When she managed to finish, she held a series of jobs where she did have health insurance, but her son wasn't covered so she couldn't get him immunized. She had to settle for upsettingly bad child care. She had to take six busses to and from work. She then ended up in a difficult marriage with high levels of stress, where she self medicated.

According to the Families and Work Institute's research, Stacey exemplifies the average low-income individual, who is:

• More likely to be younger--63 percent are under 34 years old versus 14 percent of the high-income workforce.

• More likely to be female--55 percent are female versus 46 percent of the high-income workforce.

• Less well educated--Only 36 percent have any postsecondary education, and only 9 percent have a college or higher degree, compared with 82 percent of the high-income workforce--though low-income employees are more likely to be currently enrolled in school or training (28 percent versus 19 percent).

• Less likely to be married or living with a partner--36 percent are married or living with a partner compared with 87 percent of the high-income workforce.

• More likely to have children--51 percent have children under 18 versus 33 percent of the high-income workforce, and 18 percent have children under 3 compared to 5 percent of the high-income workforce. Among the 62 percent of low-income employed women with families (that is, they have a spouse/partner and/or children who live with them), 85 percent contribute 50 percent or more of family income and 69 percent contribute 100 percent

• In poorer health: Despite their generally younger age, 27 percent of the low-income workforce report poor or fair health versus only 15 percent of the high-income workforce.

• Experiencing higher stress: More than three times as many low-income employees experience high levels of stress (38 percent) as high-income employees (12 percent). Only 14 percent of low-income employees have low levels.

• In poorer mental health overall: According to a general measure of mental health, 40 percent of low-income employees rank in the poor category, more than twice the percentage of high-income employees (17 percent).

What helped Stacey?

It was one supervisor who pushed her to further her education. It was another supervisor who understood the realities of her life as a low-income woman--who understood that she couldn't afford to get her car fixed, for example and saw that she had talent. It was flexibility her workplace offered so she could attend parent-teacher conferences and who helped her go to college.

In May 2013, Stacey graduated from college with a bachelor of science degree in mental health and counseling. It took her 20 years to reach this milestone. She said, "Just the exposure to educated people changes your life. My goal is applying to graduate school now. I will!"

Stacey is no longer on the brink:

"I know how to make healthy choices in regard to relationships with men and people in general. I do not self-medicate any longer, and I have tools and skills that I can use at any time," she said, adding that she now makes about $50,000 a year and is not receiving any public assistance.

She said: "I was a low-income employee--it was in the past!"

Rising above poverty take a lot--government programs, individual determination, available jobs and it takes Effective Workplaces!

Just as we ignore the role of the workplace as a player in reducing poverty, we also tend to focus on abusive workplaces for low-income workforce. To be sure those are important stories. But we should also focus and reward those that are good. Perhaps surprisingly, these Effective Workplace are everywhere! For a list, go to this link. Reported by Huffington Post 2 hours ago.