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

President Trump's War On Children

$
0
0
Our nation’s budget should reflect our nation’s professed values, but President Trump’s 2018 Federal Budget, “A New Foundation for America’s Greatness,” radically does the opposite. This immoral budget declares war on America’s children, our most vulnerable group, and the foundation of our nation’s current and future economic, military and leadership security. It cruelly dismantles and shreds America’s safety net laboriously woven over the past half century to help and give hope to the 14.5 million children struggling today in a sea of poverty, hunger, sickness, miseducation, homelessness and disabilities. It slashes trillions of dollars from health care, nutrition and other critical programs that give poor babies and children a decent foundation in life to assure trillions of dollars in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and powerful corporations who do not deserve massive doses of government support.

The cruel Trump budget invests more in our military — already the most costly in the world — but denies vulnerable children and youths the income, health care, food, housing and education supports they need to become strong future soldiers to defend our country. Seventy-one percent of our 17- to 24-year-olds are now ineligible for military service because of health and education deficits. It seeks to build a wall to keep immigrants out by slashing supports for those inside who can be counted on to help staff our businesses and factories and other services. This budget creates more inequality and less opportunity for those struggling to make ends meet and is a grave injustice.

President Trump invests in fighting those he sees as outside enemies through weapons and walls and turns his back on the internal enemies that threaten the basic domestic needs of our people — health care, housing, education and jobs that pay living wages. The Congress and the people of the United States must reject President Trump’s 2018 budget and the mean spirited values it reflects. It declares war on children and working people struggling to support their families by ignoring even their most basic needs and gives trillions to those who do not need massive government support — especially at a time of record wealth and income inequality.

The president’s 2018 budget:
·
Slashes $610 billion over 10 years from Medicaid, which nearly 37 million children rely on for a healthy start in life and which pays for nearly half of all births and ensures coverage for 40 percent of our children with special health care needs. The budget also assumes passage of the more than $800 billion additional cuts in Medicaid included in the American Health Care Act for a total Medicaid massacre of more than $1.4 trillion over 10 years.·
Rips $5.7 billion from CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program), which covers nearly 9 million children in working families ineligible for Medicaid. The proposed cap on CHIP funding for families at 250 percent of the poverty level threatens coverage for millions of children in the 24 states and the District of Columbia that have chosen to extend coverage to children in families with slightly higher incomes.·
Snatches food out of the mouths and stomachs of hungry children by slicing $193 billion over 10 years from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which some still call food stamps. SNAP feeds nearly 46 million people including nearly 20 million children. This cut is an unprecedented 25 percent reduction in a core safety net program that in 2014 lifted 4.7 million people, including 2.1 million children, out of poverty. For the 4.9 million households, 1.3 million with children, with no cash income who rely only on SNAP to keep the wolves of hunger from their doors, these cuts would be a catastrophic assault.·
Chops $22 billion over 10 years from TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program) including $6 billion that eliminates the TANF Contingency Fund which helps support some of our neediest families.·
Slashes programs to assist families with housing and end homelessness by $7.4 billion, a 15 percent cut for 2018 including $2.3 billion from Housing Choice Vouchers, which would leave more than 250,000 low income households without them; $1.8 billion — nearly 29 percent — from public housing already in desperate need of repair and expansion; and $133 million — 5.6 percent — from homeless assistance grants.·
Whacks $72 billion over 10 years from the Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), which more than 8 million children and adults with the most severe disabilities depend on to keep going. Despite the President’s promise not to cut Social Security, his budget cuts $48 billion from Social Security Disability Insurance which assists, among others, grandparents and other relatives raising children because their parents cannot care for them.·
Cuts $40 billion over 10 years from the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) by barring tax-paying undocumented immigrant workers, many with American citizen children, from benefiting from the Child Tax Credit unless they have a Social Security number, and making it harder for them to benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit created to reward hard work and help parents support their children.·
Slashes job training programs by $1.1 billion, or 40 percent, over 10 years for youths, adults and dislocated workers. It denigrates the concept of public service jobs by eliminating the Corporation for National and Community Service, and with it AmeriCorps, Vista and Senior Corps.·
Cuts federal education funding $9.2 billion in 2018 alone at a time when a majority of children in all racial and economic groups cannot read or compute at grade level. It slashes $143 billion over 10 years from student loans by eliminating the loan program that encourages graduates to take public service jobs and restricts other programs that subsidize college education for first generation college students and others from low income families. And it proposes to add $1 billion in new funding for the Title I program for disadvantaged students, which has historically supplemented resources for students in schools in areas of concentrated poverty, but for the wrong reason. It proposes to fund a new school choice initiative to let children draw Title I funds away from schools in the neediest areas and take them to schools in higher income areas.·
Shears $54 billion in 2018 ($1.6 trillion over 10 years) in non-defense discretionary programs which include a broad range of health, early childhood, education, child welfare and juvenile justice programs as well as environmental protection, foreign assistance, medical and scientific research and other federal government programs. The Trump budget would reduce spending for these important programs 2 percent a year for the next 10 years.·
Zeroes out funding for the Legal Services Corporation to deny the poor their only option to defend themselves against injustice.·
Eliminates core programs that offer extra assistance to low income children, families and communities including the Social Service Block Grant ($1.4 billion in 2018 alone, $16.3 billion over 10 years); the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to ward off heat in the summer and cold in winter months ($3.4 billion); the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOME, Community Development Block Grant, Indian Community Development Block Grant, and Choice Neighborhood programs ($4.1 billion), and the National Housing Trust Fund which provides funds to states and local communities to develop affordable rental housing; the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) programs that include CSBG ($723.6 million), Community Economic Development program ($29. 8 million) and Rural Community Facilities ($6.5 million).·
Axes the 21st Century Community Learning Program that offers programs to curb summer learning loss and keep children safe and engaged through after school programs for 1.6 million children; the Preschool Development Grants which went to 18 states to improve and expand access to high-quality preschool for children in high-needs communities; and the Child Care Access Means Parents in School program for parents enrolled in college to assist in child care costs.
At the same time, President Trump’s 2018 Budget includes an estimated $5 trillion tax package for the wealthiest individuals and corporations who neither need nor deserve massive government support and dramatically increases spending on defense and border security. The Trump budget:
·
Increases base defense spending $54 billion in 2018 alone (and $489 billion over 10 years). That’s $147,945,205 a day, $6,164,384 an hour and $102,739 a minute. The U.S. military budget is already the largest military budget in the world. We spend more on the military than the next eight countries combined (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany).·
Spends $2.6 billion new dollars on border security including $1.6 billion for a down payment on the President’s proposed obscene wall at the Mexican border estimated to cost $10 to $20 billion before completion and after false campaign promises that the Mexican government would pay.
This draconian budget slashes over $3 trillion dollars in the next decade and tramples America’s values and is anti-child, anti-poor, and anti-low-income working people. It erodes the security of our nation’s future.

President Dwight Eisenhower, a five star general and World War II hero, understood that throwing money at the military could not be an excuse for assaulting the poor and stealing from our children, saying, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies … a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hope of its children.”

The Trump budget would not pass the test of any great faith or standard of fairness. It must be rejected resoundingly by the Congress and 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 9 hours ago.

Friday Talking Points -- A Week Of Bad Numbers For Trump

$
0
0
 

President Donald Trump went on a tour of foreign countries this week, and World War III did not erupt. So things could have been worse.

Trump bumbled his way across the Middle East and Europe, providing the media with plenty of amusing stories to write. Much of this centered on physicality, for unknown reasons. Consider some of the Trump news over the course of the week:
·
Trump bowed to Saudi king after criticizing Barack Obama for doing the same thing.·
His wife and daughter bared their heads in Saudi Arabia after Trump criticized Michelle Obama for doing the same thing.·
Trump awkwardly participated in a sword dance.·
Melania Trump not only refused to hold her husband’s hand, she actually swatted it away when it was offered ― on more than one occasion.·
Trump shoved his way to the front of a photo-op in Europe.·
And someone finally defeated the “Trumpshake” ― the propensity Trump has to try to yank the arm off whomever he’s shaking hands with. The new French president was warned in advance about this, and beat Trump at his own frat-boy game, though. By the end of the handshake, Trump was desperately trying to free his own hand. Turnabout is fair play, n’est-ce pas?
Then there were the inevitable gaffes.
·
Arriving in Israel, Trump stated he had just flown in “from the Middle East.” (Isn’t Trump supposed to like maps? Maybe someone should show him one.)·
The White House put out a press statement for the Israel leg of the trip stating the goal was to “promote the possibility of lasting peach.” Lasting peach?
There were plenty of other gaffes during the first part of Trump’s trip, but we have to highlight two very recent ones.
·
Trump, while meeting with European leaders, said: “The Germans are bad, very bad. See the millions of cars they are selling in the U.S.? Terrible. We will stop this.” Way to build those personal relationships, Mister President!·
Trump also tweeted: “Just arrived in Italy for the G7. Trip has been very successful. We made and saved the USA many billions of dollars and millions of jobs.” Except for the fact that millions of jobs weren’t even on the table, of course.
Earlier, Trump had bragged about his deals with the Saudis, claiming they would “create many thousands of jobs in America and Saudi Arabia.” The Washington Post gave Trump’s claim of “millions” four Pinocchios, pointing out:

As for the number of jobs, thousands appears to have morphed into millions. But an analysis published by The Washington Post reported that the U.S. companies involved would not confirm any specific number of jobs saved or supported, suggesting that Trump’s original estimate of “thousands” was more guesswork than reality. Our colleague Steven Mufson reported that the deals would create jobs ― in Saudi Arabia.

But the biggest gaffe of the trip belonged to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, who cheerfully noted after visiting Saudi Arabia: “There was not a single hint of a protester anywhere there during the whole time we were there. Not one guy with a bad placard.”

Um, there’s a reason for that, Wilbur. The reason is that they cut off people’s heads in Saudi Arabia when they dare to protest the government.

Trump got caught in another one of those “revealing national security secrets to foreign leaders” moments, as it was revealed this week that when Trump talked to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte about America’s response to North Korea, he flat-out admitted: “We have two submarines [in the waters off North Korea] ― the best in the world. We have two nuclear submarines, not that we want to use them at all.” America used to have a blanket policy of not ever talking about where nuclear submarines are, but apparently Trump hasn’t read that particular memo.

Back at home, Team Trump released their first detailed budget proposal. It shocked even right-wingers in Congress, it was so Draconian. Republican Mark Sanford had some choice words in response, including: “It’s not only a myth, it’s frankly a lie.” He was talking about the assumption that America would see 3 percent growth for the next decade, which he addressed at length:

“I have looked every which way at how you might get there, and you can’t get there ... This budget presumes a Goldilocks economy, and I think that’s a very difficult thing on which to base a budget, Can you guess the last time we had an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent, growth at 3 percent, and inflation held at 2 percent? It’s never happened.”

He also added:

“For us to have a real debate, we have to base it on real numbers. I would also say it’s important because I’m a deficit hawk, as you well know, and if you’re wrong on these numbers, it means all of a sudden we’ve created a $2-plus-trillion hole for our kids and grandkids here going forward.”

And that’s from a Republican, mind you.

Lindsey Graham also had some choice words for the idea of cutting the State Department’s diplomatic security budget:

“If we implemented this budget, we’d have to retreat from the world and put a lot of people at risk. A lot of Benghazis in the making if we actually implemented the State Department cuts.”

Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt called Trump out on one broken promise in his budget ― to build a 350-ship Navy with 12 aircraft carriers:

The president’s budget has forgotten these benefits. Breaking Defense’s Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. summed up the details: “Despite his campaign pledge of a 350-ship fleet, President Trump’s first budget cuts Navy shipbuilding and aircraft procurement below what was enacted in 2017, documents released [Monday] reveal. Despite Trump’s criticism of President Obama’s defense plans, this budget sticks with Obama’s shipbuilding plan for 2018: eight ships. And it actually buys eight fewer aircraft than Obama planned.”

Others have been pointing out how the Trump budget relies upon a whopping $2.1 trillion in fantasy money (from all that wonderful 3 percent growth) ― which it actually counts twice, just for good measure.

But the best commentary on Trump’s budget came from an unexpected source. The Washington Post nailed the story:

So it has come to this: A Russian government-funded propaganda outfit schooling the Trump administration on the cruelty of its proposed federal budget. Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s budget director, unveiled Trump’s ghastly 2018 budget proposal Monday afternoon in the White House briefing room, and one point of pride was that it proposed that the child-care tax credit and the earned-income tax credit ― benefits for working families ― be denied to illegal immigrants. “It’s not right when you look at it from the perspective of people who pay the taxes,” Mulvaney declared. But Andrew Feinberg, a reporter with Russia’s Sputnik news outfit, pointed out that many of the children who would be cut off under Trump’s proposal are U.S. citizens. “Whether they’re here illegally or not,” Feinberg noted, “those families have American-citizen children.” Mulvaney, who probably didn’t know he was being interrogated by Sputnik, argued back, saying that Feinberg wasn’t duly considering taxpayers and that “we have all kinds of other programs” for poor kids. At this, another reporter in the room interjected: “You’re cutting that, too.”

On Wednesday, the parade of bad numbers continued, when the Congressional Budget Office released its new score of the Republican plan to destroy the health insurance market. The new numbers were just as grim as the first CBO score ― 23 million lose insurance, premiums go up for older people by a whopping 850 percent, a brutal $834 billion cut to Medicaid, and the guarantee for people with pre-existing conditions disappears ― all to hand out a $600 billion tax cut to the wealthiest Americans. Republican Senator Susan Collins released a statement decrying these facts:

The goal of any A.C.A. replacement should be to improve access to quality health care while providing consumers with more choices and restraining costs. Unfortunately, the C.B.O. estimates that 23 million Americans would lose insurance coverage over the next decade, and the impact would disproportionately affect older, low-income Americans. In addition, for a 64-year old with an income of $26,500, the out-of-pocket premium cost could soar from $1,700 to as high as $16,100, an 850 percent increase.

There’s one person amused by all of this, though. John Boehner (remember him?) summed up President Trump’s time in office thusly: “Everything else he’s done has been a complete disaster. He’s still learning how to be president.” Does Boehner miss Washington? Not exactly: “I wake up every day, drink my morning coffee and say, ‘Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah.’”

Michael Gerson chimed in as well, with an article aptly titled: “The Conservative Mind Has Become Diseased.” Jennifer Rubin, a conservative blogger, added:

“[N]o week has matched this one in revealing the moral and intellectual rot at the center of the GOP. Pandemic intellectual dishonesty and celebration of uncivilized conduct now permeate the party and its support in the conservative ecosystem.... This is the state of the GOP ― a refuge for intellectual frauds and bullies, for mean-spirited hypocrites who preach personal responsibility yet excuse the inexcusable.”

In scandal news, Michael Flynn “took the Fifth” this week, something that both he and Donald Trump used to consider an indicator of guilty behavior. Here’s Trump, from the campaign trail: “The mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

Might want to ask Flynn that, eh?

Flynn, who is asking for immunity for his testimony, earlier said: “When you are given immunity, that means that you have probably committed a crime.” By week’s end, the Senate was issuing subpoenas for Flynn’s business records, because as Senator Mark Warner pointed out: “A business does not have the right to take the Fifth.”

More scandal news: Jared Kushner now seems to be a main focus of the FBI. investigation, including possible financial irregularities.

Also this week, it was revealed:

President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an F.B.I. investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials. Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election. Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate. . . . Current and former officials said either Trump lacks an understanding of the FBI’s role as an independent law enforcement agency or does not care about maintaining such boundaries. . . . Trump’s effort to use the D.N.I. and the N.S.A. director to refute Comey’s statement and to say there is no evidence of collusion echoes former president Richard Nixon’s “unsuccessful efforts to use the C.I.A. to shut down the F.B.I.’s investigation of the Watergate break-in on national security grounds,” said Jeffrey H. Smith, a former general counsel at the C.I.A. Smith called Trump’s actions “an appalling abuse of power.”

Speaking of Nixon, there was this tidbit in another article comparing Trump to him:

On Aug. 2, 1974, a week before President Richard Nixon resigned, syndicated columnist Jack Anderson took a skeptical look at the president’s generosity. He found that the Richard Nixon Foundation had made “only one charitable grant in its four-year existence: $7,500 to buy a painting of Richard Nixon.”

By week’s end, Trump had hired a personal lawyer to defend him in the growing tidal wave of scandal washing over his administration.

Trump’s Muslim Ban 2.0 lost again in yet another federal court, this time in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the 10-3 decision, the majority found that the travel ban “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.” The Ninth Circuit is also going to chime in within weeks, as well.

Let’s see, what else? Remember those Carrier jobs Trump bragged about saving? Here’s a reminder:

Trump told Indiana residents at a rally last year that, if he got elected, there was a “100 percent chance” he would save these jobs at the heating and air-conditioning manufacturer. “It’s not like we have an 80 percent chance of keeping them or a 95 percent chance,” he said. “100 percent!!” After the election, Trump claimed credit for rescuing the factory. He tweeted on Thanksgiving that he called the company’s leadership to cut a deal. Trump then flew to Indy in December to announce that, thanks to his brilliant negotiating, the jobs would stay.

The reality: Carrier just announced 632 of those jobs are moving to Mexico anyway. Looks like Trump lied yet again (no surprise, really) to his strongest supporters.

Things have gotten so bad for Trump, he’s attempting to brag about his poll numbers again. Not that he has much to brag about, since the Rasmussen job approval rating was only 48 percent ― meaning less than half the country approves of Trump’s job, even in the most Trump-leaning poll around. Trump’s job approval average at Real Clear Politics is actually currently below 40 percent ― which is our final very bad number this week from the Trump administration.

Before we get to the main award, we have two *Honorable Mentions* to hand out. The first goes to last week’s winner of the *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week*, for following up in admirable fashion to last week’s light display on the Trump Hotel. This week, projection artist Robin Bell projected images onto the Department of Justice and the FBI, depicting Attorney General Jeff Sessions dressed as a Klansman, with a direct quote from Sessions from years ago: “I thought the KKK was OK until I learned they smoked pot.”

Well done, and keep up the good work!

Our second *Honorable Mention* goes to Bernie Sanders, for continuing his fight against gigantic tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. While grilling the White House budget director, Sanders repeatedly tried to get him to explain why a multi-million-dollar tax cut was appropriate for the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune. The video is worth watching, just to see Mulvaney squirm.

But the *MIDOTW* award this week goes to New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu. He won the same award two weeks ago, for writing an opinion piece explaining why he was proud to be removing Confederate monuments in his city, and he followed this up with an amazing speech where he explained his thoughts at greater length in an incredibly inspiring way.

We’re going to save the speech itself for the talking points, though, so for now we’d like to once again honor Mayor Landrieu with his second *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* award in three weeks. Well done, and well said!

[Congratulate New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu on his official contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

We considered giving the *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* to Vermont’s governor, when we saw the headline: “Vermont Governor Vetoes Marijuana Legalization Bill,” but then we actually read the article and calmed down a bit.

This would have been historic, since it is the first time a legislature has passed a bill to legalize recreational marijuana. But Governor Phil Scott isn’t totally against the idea, he just had minor problems with the bill he was presented with. He’s reportedly going to work with the state legislature to revise the bill to address his concerns over penalties for sales to minors and other safety issues.

From the article, one voice we have come to respect:

Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, said the veto “likely just amounts to a short delay” and that he’s “very hopeful” the state will become the first in history to end marijuana prohibition by an act of the legislature. “The fact that a bill even ended up on the governor’s desk signals a new phase of the marijuana legalization movement,” Angell said.

We feel that taking a little time to get it right isn’t the same thing as trying to kill the bill outright, and so Phil Scott gets no negative awards this week. Hopefully, a bill can be signed into law before the end of this year, and legislative legalization history can be made.

But there’s been one big political story this week that we have not addressed yet. Every so often we hand out the *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* not for disappointing behavior or words, but for disappointing such a sheer number of Democrats in the country by losing an election. Which is why this week we must award the *MDDOTW* to Rob Quist, who just got beat in the special election for Montana’s single House seat.

What makes the loss hard, of course, is the fact that his opponent was caught bodyslamming and punching a reporter the day before the election. This extraordinary event didn’t change the outcome of the race, however, as Quist lost by precisely the six percent that the polling predicted.

There were two reactions to the incident worth quoting, one from the left and one from the right. Nancy Pelosi responded: “How do you explain that to children? You ask a question and I’ll strangle you? I mean, really.” But the most scathing response was from Republican messaging guru Frank Luntz: “If you check the party affiliation of someone who commits assaults before deciding how you feel about it, you’re what’s wrong with America.” Couldn’t have said that better ourselves.

Two things are worth remembering about this election, though. The first is that something like 70 percent of the ballots had already been cast, and could not be changed (Montana, like many Western states, has expanded mail-in and early voting to the point where it is the preferred method). Second, any bombshell event usually takes a few days to really sink in with the public, and the news broke only a day before the polls closed.

Quist’s loss was not due to any fault of his own, but it certainly disappointed many Democrats who are still salivating over the prospects of picking up a seat in one of the four special elections caused by Trump naming sitting House members to his administration. Next month’s race in Georgia is their best chance, though, so there is still hope. But for this week, Rob Quist was the *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week*.

[Since the race is now over, Rob Quist is now a private citizen not involved in politics, and our standing policy is to not provide contact information for such persons.]

*Volume 438* (5/26/17)

Some Republicans often complain that they are wrongly portrayed as a party of racists. But sometimes it’s pretty hard not to come to this conclusion. Case in point, a state representative from Mississippi, reacting to New Orleans removing Confederate monuments. Karl Oliver took the time to post the following on Facebook:

The destruction of these monuments, erected in the loving memory of our family and fellow Southern Americans, is both heinous and horrific. If the, and I use this term extremely loosely, “leadership” of Louisiana wishes to, in a Nazi-ish fashion, burn books or destroy historical monuments of OUR HISTORY, they should be LYNCHED! Let it be known, I will do all in my power to prevent this from happening in our State.

That seems pretty crystal clear to us. If you try to remove our monuments to racist traitors to their country, we will string you up from the nearest tree. Nothing like celebrating the “loving memory” of “OUR HISTORY,” eh? Looked at in a certain way, Oliver seems downright nostalgic.

For a campaign of terrorism and murder, that is.

Historical footnote: Karl Oliver represents the same district that 14-year-old Emmett Till was lynched in, back in 1955.

Oliver was later forced to apologize, but we all know what’s really in his heart: pure, unadulterated racism. By week’s end, Mississippi had passed an actual law making it illegal not only to remove Confederate monuments, but even to rename Mississippi streets or buildings that celebrate the Confederacy. So Oliver’s not the only one, it can safely be assumed. Also in the news this week was the Supreme Court overturning yet another racially gerrymandered district, this time in North Carolina. So it’s not like racism is a completely foreign concept within the Republican Party, even today.

Which is one reason why we’re turning the talking points this week over to New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who makes exactly the opposite case in high style. What follows are excerpts from his recent speech, where he strongly defends the removal of four Confederate monuments from his city. This is an extraordinary speech, and we urge everyone to read the full transcript of it or find a video of it to watch.

New Orleans is truly a city of many nations, a melting pot, a bubbling cauldron of many cultures. There is no other place quite like it in the world that so eloquently exemplifies the uniquely American motto: e pluribus unum ― out of many we are one. But there are also other truths about our city that we must confront. New Orleans was America’s largest slave market: a port where hundreds of thousands of souls were brought, sold and shipped up the Mississippi River to lives of forced labor of misery of rape, of torture. America was the place where nearly 4,000 of our fellow citizens were lynched, 540 alone in Louisiana; where the courts enshrined “separate but equal”; where Freedom riders coming to New Orleans were beaten to a bloody pulp. So when people say to me that the monuments in question are history, well what I just described is real history as well, and it is the searing truth. And it immediately begs the questions: why there are no slave ship monuments, no prominent markers on public land to remember the lynchings or the slave blocks; nothing to remember this long chapter of our lives; the pain, the sacrifice, the shame... all of it happening on the soil of New Orleans. So for those self-appointed defenders of history and the monuments, they are eerily silent on what amounts to this historical malfeasance, a lie by omission. There is a difference between remembrance of history and reverence of it. For America and New Orleans, it has been a long, winding road, marked by great tragedy and great triumph. But we cannot be afraid of our truth.

Landrieu then quotes George W. Bush (”A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them.”) and proceeds to lay out some historical facts:

The historic record is clear: the Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected just to honor these men, but as part of the movement which became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause. This “cult” had one goal ― through monuments and through other means ― to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity. First erected over 166 years after the founding of our city and 19 years after the end of the Civil War, the monuments that we took down were meant to rebrand the history of our city and the ideals of a defeated Confederacy. It is self-evident that these men did not fight for the United States of America. They fought against it. They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots. These statues are not just stone and metal. They are not just innocent remembrances of a benign history. These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for. After the Civil War, these statues were a part of that terrorism as much as a burning cross on someone’s lawn; they were erected purposefully to send a strong message to all who walked in their shadows about who was still in charge in this city. Should you have further doubt about the true goals of the Confederacy, in the very weeks before the war broke out, the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it clear that the Confederate cause was about maintaining slavery and white supremacy. He said in his now famous “Cornerstone speech” that the Confederacy’s “cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery ― subordination to the superior race ― is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” Now, with these shocking words still ringing in your ears, I want to try to gently peel from your hands the grip on a false narrative of our history that I think weakens us and make straight a wrong turn we made many years ago so we can more closely connect with integrity to the founding principles of our nation and forge a clearer and straighter path toward a better city and more perfect union.

Landrieu then shares some personal stories, about growing up in New Orleans and barely noticing the statues ― an experience he contrasts with an African-American family’s different take on them. How can such mothers and fathers explain these statues to their children? After calling removal of the statues “the right thing, not the easy thing,” he continues:

History cannot be changed. It cannot be moved like a statue. What is done is done. The Civil War is over, and the Confederacy lost and we are better for it. Surely we are far enough removed from this dark time to acknowledge that the cause of the Confederacy was wrong. And in the second decade of the 21st century, asking African-Americans ― or anyone else ― to drive by property that they own; occupied by reverential statues of men who fought to destroy the country and deny that person’s humanity seems perverse and absurd. Centuries-old wounds are still raw because they never healed right in the first place.

Landrieu finishes with two obligatory quotes. The first:

We forget, we deny how much we really depend on each other, how much we need each other. We justify our silence and inaction by manufacturing noble causes that marinate in historical denial. We still find a way to say “wait, not so fast.” But like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “’wait’ has almost always meant ‘never’.” We can’t wait any longer. We need to change. And we need to change now. No more waiting. This is not just about statues, this is about our attitudes and behavior as well. If we take these statues down and don’t change to become a more open and inclusive society this would have all been in vain.

Landrieu then wraps up with the immortal words of President Lincoln:

The Confederacy was on the wrong side of history and humanity. It sought to tear apart our nation and subjugate our fellow Americans to slavery. This is the history we should never forget and one that we should never again put on a pedestal to be revered. As a community, we must recognize the significance of removing New Orleans’ Confederate monuments. It is our acknowledgment that now is the time to take stock of, and then move past, a painful part of our history. Anything less would render generations of courageous struggle and soul-searching a truly lost cause. Anything less would fall short of the immortal words of our greatest President Abraham Lincoln, who with an open heart and clarity of purpose calls on us today to unite as one people when he said: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to do all which may achieve and cherish: a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

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

Robert Reich: Senate Republicans Screwed On Trumpcare – OpEd

$
0
0
Very soon Senate Republicans will have to decide what to do about Trumpcare. Their choice is severely limited.

The Congressional Budget Office has made it crystal clear that the House version of Trumpcare will cause 23 million Americans to lose their health coverage.

Which means that unless Senate Republicans repudiate their own Congressional Budget Office (whose director they appointed), they’ll have to either vote to take away healthcare for 23 million people, or come up with their own plan.

But if they try to come up with their own plan, they’ll soon discover there’s no way to insure those 23 million without (1) mandating that healthy people buy insurance, so that sick people with pre-existing conditions can afford it; and (2) keeping the existing taxes on rich people so that poor people can afford to buy health insurance.

In other words, they’ll be back to the Affordable Care Act.

Some Senate Republicans will no doubt claim that the Affordable Care Act can’t be sustained in its present form because private insurers are beginning to bail out of it.

That’s an awkward argument for Republicans to make because Republicans themselves have been responsible for this problem.

In 2010 Congress established “risk corridors” to protect insurers against uncertainties in setting the level of insurance premiums when they didn’t know who would sign up. Since then, Republicans have reduced or eliminated this backup. And the Trump Administration has done everything possible to generate even more uncertainty among insurers.

The obvious solution is to restore this backup and reduce uncertainty, in order to attract insurers back in.

This is surely better than repealing the Affordable Care Act and taking away health insurance coverage for 23 million people.

The only alternative is a single-payer plan – Medicare for all – that would provide universal coverage more cheaply than our present system, as embraced by most other advanced nations.

But Senate Republicans won’t get near a single payer.

Which means, as a practical matter, they have no choice. They may wrap it up in different garb and call it by a different name, but in the end the logic is unavoidable: They’ll have to strengthen the Affordable Care Act. Reported by Eurasia Review 22 hours ago.

GOP focus on lowering health premiums may undermine benefits

$
0
0
WASHINGTON (AP) " Republicans trying to dismantle former President Barack Obama's health care law have run into the same problem that bedeviled him: Quality health insurance doesn't come cheap, especially if it protects people in... Reported by New Zealand Herald 18 hours ago.

Trump Returns From Foreign Trip To High-Stakes Drama In Washington

$
0
0
If I were a movie critic writing reviews of audience reactions to U.S. President Donald Trump’s performances abroad, they would look something like this:

“... a big hit in Riyadh...”

“... a smash sensation across the Holy Land...”

“... subdued, but a success in Vatican City...”

“... a disaster, a flop in Brussels...”

Those were the reactions abroad.

The White House must be feeling quite good about the trip, since the president played to script and appeared to accomplish multiple objectives. He reset frayed relations and restored confidence with Gulf Arab allies—to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in arms sales and investment in infrastructure. He kept the Israelis swooning and the Palestinian Authority smiling—despite dodging questions about Jerusalem, settlements, and Palestinian Statehood. And he appeared respectful in the presence of Pope Francis, promising to keep in mind Francis’ words, which most certainly dealt with the environment, immigration, and poverty.

After telling those audiences most of what they wanted to hear, the president appeared to take a U-turn in Europe, blasting America’s closest allies over their failure to “burden share” and omitting any U.S. commitment to the defense of fellow NATO members. Looking at the dour reactions of the assembled European heads of state, one might have thought Trump had simply tired of telling audiences what they wanted to hear, except for the fact that the audiences for whom he was performing in Brussels were not in those in the room. He was, instead, playing to his base back home and, maybe even to the Russians with whom Trump is also seeking to reset relations.

There were, to be sure, a few minor flubs that provided grist for the media mill, but on the whole the trip went as planned. Now, back in Washington, the hard work begins and is compounded by the fact that the president returns home facing even more crises than those he left behind.

 

The Russia affair remains front and center with new questions being raised about the firing of FBI Director James Comey and the extent to which this firing was an effort by the president to obstruct the FBI’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and Russian efforts to seek influence in the White House. Of special concern to the president, of course, will be the news that his son-in-law has now been ensnared in the net of this investigation.

If that weren’t problematic enough, Trump’s domestic agenda is also in tatters. His budget hit Congress with a dull thud and was pronounced “dead on arrival” by leading Republicans. The GOP-led Congressional Budget Office released its evaluation of the recently House-passed and White House-celebrated health care reform bill determining that under its provisions 23 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage. And, more recently, another Appeals Court overturned the president’s executive order banning travel to the US from six Muslim majority countries.

Reflecting this bad news, Trump’s favorable ratings continue their downward slide—with most reputable polls showing only a little more than a third of voters now approve of his job performance. Increasingly, Republicans in Congress, who are looking to their own reelections in 2018, are beginning to see Trump, if not quite toxic, at least someone from whom they need some distance. And it is this that must be of the greatest concern to the White House since it will complicate efforts to advance not only their domestic agenda, but foreign policy initiatives, as well.

In just the past week, for example, there were signs of revolt. Senators watered down an administration-supported tougher sanctions bill directed at Iran and proposed legislation placing some limits on arms sales to Saudi Arabia. In this environment, it will be problematic for Trump to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace by taking any steps that would challenge Israel’s occupation policies—something Congress would be loathe to support.

So while the president had the stage to himself and was able to write his own script last week, he returns to a rather crowded stage in Washington and a high-stakes drama, the script for which is being written by others—Congress, the courts, the FBI and a special prosecutor, and the media. It remains to be seen how he well he will perform in this setting.

Follow @jjz1600 for more.type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=5921c985e4b07617ae4cbd27,591f1f39e4b0b28a33f62b93,59253604e4b0ec129d308ccd

-- 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.

Trump Staff Shakeup

$
0
0
The crisis surrounding the Trump White House and its possible ties to Russia deepened with the disclosure of unreported meetings between the Russian ambassador and Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser. The disclosure raises questions about whether Kushner was intentionally concealing the meetings and, if so, why? Meanwhile, President Trump is reportedly retaining private legal counsel and considering a major staff shakeup.

The Washington Post reported Friday that Kushner proposed setting up a back-door channel to the Russians using their facilities during the transition.  He did so in a meeting last December with Russian Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak and Michael Flynn, who served as national security adviser to the president briefly before he was fired. The Washington Post reported that Kushner’s proposal took Kislyak by surprise. A former U.S. intelligence official quoted in the paper called Kushner’s idea, “extremely naive or absolutely crazy.”

Meanwhile, the Senate Intelligence Committee has stepped up its inquiry into Russian interference into the 2016 presidential race by requesting all Russian related documents, emails and phone records beginning June 2015 from the Trump organization, according to the Post.  Investigations are being conducted by committees in the Senate and House, as well as by the FBI.

The number of leaks pertaining to these investigations is extraordinary, and some appear to come from within the White House.   Below the surface members of Trump’s team have been deeply divided, which is not surprising given Trump’s management style.  Moreover, the sheer weight of these daily revelations is taking attention away from other issues, and they have disrupted any progress with Trump’s agenda.

The Russians want economic sanctions imposed on it by the U.S. eased, including those imposed by President Obama for its meddling in the U.S. elections.   In a meeting during the transition last December, Mike Flynn gave the Russian ambassador the impression that sanctions could be revisited after Trump took office.  U.S. intelligence has concluded that the Russians interfered in the November election to tip the scales in favor of Trump over Hillary Clinton.  Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused Clinton of being behind anti-government protests in his country and tough on sanctions.

Kushner also held a previously undisclosed meeting with Russian banker Sergey Gorkov, who is chairman of VneshEconomBank, a Russian government institution that is under U.S. sanctions.  Putin used that bank to finance the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, which cost a record $50 billion, and he and Gorkov are close.

In March, Reuters reported that, “at least 63 individuals with Russian passports or addresses have bought at least $98.4 million worth of property in seven Trump-branded towers in southern Florida.”   Both Kushner and Trump have had to raise money to fund their extensive real estate businesses.  Last week, The Washington Post revealed, “The investigative work now being done by the FBI also includes determining whether any financial crimes were committed by people close to the president.”   In a written statement, Kushner’s attorney said, “Mr. Kushner previously volunteered to share with Congress what he knows about these meetings. He will do the same if he is contacted in connection with any other inquiry.”

President Trump held no news conferences during his just completed trip overseas, leaving his aides to fend with reporter questions about Russia. Conservative Bill Kristol tweeted Saturday, “It’s not only that the Trump administration wanted a back channel to Russia, it’s that the Trump family did.”

Next week President Trump will have many tough issues to deal with.  They include his unrealistic and callous budget proposal, his ineptness in dealing with health insurance, and whether the U.S. should withdraw from the Paris Accord on climate change.  But no issues will be more difficult than the intensifying investigations into Russian interference in the U.S. election, questions about Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, and Russia’s relationships with the Trump administration and family.

Not even a staff shakeup will bring the president any relief.

-- 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 6 hours ago.

GOP focus on lowering health premiums may undermine benefits

$
0
0
[...] the GOP's laser focus on lowering premiums could undermine comprehensive coverage that consumers also value, such as the current guarantees that people with medical problems can get health insurance, or that plans will cover costly conditions such as substance abuse. With "Obamacare," Democrats set out to get more people insured, but they also wanted to bolster the underlying coverage by making it illegal for insurers to turn away those with medical problems, requiring a broad range of standard benefits, and establishing a baseline of financial protection. Republicans trying to roll back the 2010 health care law are making their case all about premiums, trying to find ways to give states and insurers flexibility to design plans that cost less. About half the people who buy individual health insurance policies are subsidized under Obama's health law, but the rest are not, and many have faced stiff premium increases. The Congressional Budget Office said that in states that take full advantage of the House plan's waivers to insurance requirements, healthy people might flock to skinnier, lower-premium plans. The administration report found that premiums more than doubled since "Obamacare" took effect, but independent experts say it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, because prior to the Obama law, insurers were able to turn away people in poor health and offer plans that limited or left out benefits like maternity care and prescription drugs. Reported by SeattlePI.com 3 days ago.

'Everyone I know is worried.' Terrified patients await fate of their healthcare

$
0
0
Dr. Juan Z. Montes recalls the surge of people who came calling, beginning about two years ago.

“We couldn’t handle them all,” he said, referring to the new patients who visited his four Southern California clinics after they got health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Montes, 67, who’s... Reported by L.A. Times 15 hours ago.

Nigeria: Adeniyi - Out of Pocket Health Expenses Too Costly

$
0
0
[Guardian] Mr. Tope Adeniyi, Managing Director, Axa Mansard Health Limited. In this interview with GREGORY AUSTIN NWAKUNOR, he said health insurance is less costly and takes care of emergencies. Reported by allAfrica.com 13 hours ago.

Newly insured fret over gains made under US health care law

$
0
0
Dawn Erin went nearly 20 years without health insurance before the Affordable Care Act, bouncing between free clinics for frequent and painful bladder infections. The liver-destroying disease hepatitis C made her ineligible for coverage until President Barack Obama’s law barred insurers from denying people with a medical condition. She has since seen a specialist who […] Reported by Seattle Times 12 hours ago.

Immunotherapy Trial Started in Patients with Inoperable Pancreatic Cancer

$
0
0
Immunitor Inc., is announcing the launch of Phase II, open-label, immunotherapy trial in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Vancouver, British Columbia (PRWEB) May 29, 2017

At least 30 patients with inoperable and chemotherapy-failed pancreatic cancer are expected to be recruited for a 3-month trial (NCT03165591). The main inclusion criteria are higher than normal baseline levels of CA 19.9 tumor antigen. Based on preliminary evidence the immunotherapy-induced decrease of this surrogate marker is correlated with tumor shrinkage and prolonged survival.

Pancreatic cancer is the deadliest form of cancer. It is estimated that in 2017, 53,670 Americans will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and 43,090 will die from the disease. Globally, up to 418,000 new cases will be diagnosed annually by 2020. While surgery offers the best chance for survival, fewer than 20 percent of pancreatic cancer cases are diagnosed early enough for surgical intervention. Even with surgery, the disease recurs in approximately 80 percent of these patients. Chemotherapy offers very limited benefit. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs such as gemcitabine (Gemzar®), erlotinib (Tarceva®), paclitaxel (Abraxane®), irinotecan (Onivyde™), and FOLFIRINOX can improve survival, but produces no cure - the vast majority of patients die within first year. According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a six-month course of gemcitabine, the chemotherapy drug typically prescribed for advanced pancreatic cancer, costs about $23,500. Adding erlotinib, which might increase survival time slightly, adds another $16,500, for a total of more than $40,000. For patients without health insurance, pancreatic cancer treatment typically costs about $50,000-$200,000 or more, depending on the type and length of treatment. Despite all these efforts only about 1 in 4 patients survive more than one year and less than 5% survive after five years.

The main endpoint in the planned immunotherapy study are changes in tumor marker CA 19.9 and correlation with tumor burden by CT scans. Additional endpoints will include measuring blood glucose and bilirubin levels that are usually higher than norm in pancreatic cancer. Trial is designed for those who have inoperable form of cancer and are free of concomitant chemotherapy.

“We are glad to have opportunity to offer the most advanced immunotherapy available today for patients with pancreatic cancer. Having successfully developed similar immunotherapies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, now in Phase III trial, and cholangiocarcinoma, now in Phase II stage, we are confident that our latest vaccine will be as cost-effective and safe intervention”, said Dr. Allen Bain – director of Vancouver-based Immunitor Inc. Dr. Aldar Bourinbaiar, CEO of Mongolia-based Immunitor LLC, commented: “We are deeply satisfied by our progress in developing portfolio of products designed to address the unmet need in patients with hepato-pancreato-biliary- or HPB diseases that affect the liver, pancreas, gallbladder, and the bile ducts. Our V3-P is yet another proof-of-concept for our oral vaccines platform designed to target tumor and counteract cancer-associated inflammation through induction of immune tolerance. Such an approach has been shown by us to cure cancer, but without any evidence of toxicity”. “Now, we have filled the need for each of HPB diseases, our next frontier is gastrointestinal and colorectal space”, concluded Mr. Vichai Jirathitikal – pharmacist and co-founder of Immunitor.

About Immunitor
Immunitor Inc. is a privately held, commercial stage biopharmaceutical company with headquarters in Vancouver, Canada (http://www.immunitor.com) and offices in Beijing, Hong Kong, Johannesburg, Moscow and Ulaanbaatar. Immunitor’s strength resides in its proprietary oral vaccine platform validated by numerous clinical trials conducted over the past 15 years. Immunitor makes several immunotherapy products addressing major health problems, i.e., in infectious diseases area: HIV, HBV, HCV, influenza, malaria, fungal and microbial infections including tuberculosis; in the area of autoimmune and metabolic diseases: i.e., renal failure, thyroiditis, Alzheimer disease, hypertension, atherosclerosis, obesity and diabetes; and recently in oncology space, with several candidates currently being investigated. The immediate goal of Immunitor is to address the unmet need in a wide range of liver-related diseases. Hepko-V5 designed to treat hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) the most common form of liver cancer is now in Phase III trial stage. Based on encouraging preliminary data, hepcortespenlisimut-L has received orphan drug designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which clears the path toward approval in US market. A Phase II trial in patients with cholangiocarcinoma – second most common form of liver cancer affecting bile ducts - has been initiated recently. This month another immunotherapy is deployed with intent to treat pancreatic cancer, which has the worst prognosis out of all forms of cancer. Reported by PRWeb 20 hours ago.

A-LIGN Introduces Privacy Service Offerings to Respond to the Growing Concern for Data Privacy

$
0
0
As the data privacy landscape evolves, A-LIGN is committed to providing solutions that assist organizations in safeguarding their client’s data. A-LIGN offers privacy assessment and compliance services to adhere to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

Tampa, FL (PRWEB) May 29, 2017

As the data privacy landscape evolves, A-LIGN is committed to providing solutions that assist organizations in safeguarding their client’s data. A-LIGN offers privacy assessment and compliance services that assist organizations in adhering to the following standards:·     EU-U.S. Privacy Shield
·     General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
·     HIPAA Privacy Rule

“Privacy is a consideration in several of the security and audit assessments that A-LIGN conducts, but offering an entire suite of privacy services helps solidify our ability to be on the forefront of the movement to improve privacy controls at our clients,” said A-LIGN Partner, Gene Geiger.

“We have assisted numerous organizations in meeting their privacy compliance requirements by offering both readiness assessments and validation services. Meeting these privacy requirements can help organizations set themselves apart by providing end-users with peace of mind that their information will be managed appropriately by organizations.”

EU-U.S. Privacy Shield

Effective August 1, 2016, the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework was designed to provide companies in the United States (U.S.) and the European Union (EU) a mechanism to transfer personal data while adhering to the data protection requirements set within the EU.

A-LIGN can help businesses meet the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield certification requirements by providing both gap assessment and validation services. You can find out more about the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield by clicking here: http://www.a-lign.com/services/eu-us-privacy-shield/

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) enacts strong consumer protection laws, with noncompliance resulting in steep fines. This law affects any organization that processes or handles the information of EU citizens. The deadline for organizations to comply with GDPR is May 25, 2018.

A-LIGN offers both gap assessment and validation services to assist organizations looking to comply with the GDPR requirements. Learn more about GDPR here: http://www.a-lign.com/services/general-data-protection-regulation/

HIPAA Privacy Rule

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) defines the policies, procedures, and processes that are required for companies that store, process or handle protected health information (PHI) in any medium, including electronically managed information, paper records, or oral communication. The goal of the HIPAA Privacy Rule is to ensure that PHI is safeguarded through the policies and procedures in place at affected organizations.

A-LIGN provides both gap assessment and validation services to assist organizations in adhering to the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Find out more about HIPAA Privacy Rule here: http://www.a-lign.com/services/hipaa-privacy-rule/

A-LIGN Can Help

“Data privacy is becoming a growing concern for end-users, and thus a push has been made for organizations to implement stronger policies and procedures and technical controls to ensure that data privacy is being protected,” said Petar Besalev, Director of Security Services at A-LIGN. “A-LIGN can help organizations learn more about the importance of privacy, secure information appropriately, and implement the appropriate policies and procedures to ensure that end-users are confident that their data is secured. At the end of the day, our goal is to help organizations build stronger relationships with their clients by offering them a sense of data privacy."

If you would like to learn more about data privacy services that A-LIGN can offer your organization, please visit http://www.a-lign.com or contact them at 1-888-702-5446. Reported by PRWeb 20 hours ago.

Senators' demands underscore McConnell's health care problem

$
0
0
Facing solid Democratic opposition to demolishing former President Barack Obama's 2010 overhaul, Republicans will lose if just three of their 52 senators defect. In a report that complicated McConnell's task, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a damaging critique last week of the GOP-written bill the House approved May 4. Booting that many people off health care coverage is a nonstarter for many Republican senators. The number can be reduced by spending more on Medicaid, fattening tax credits for people buying insurance and boosting government payments to insurers to help them lower consumers' costs. The House bill would halt extra federal funds in 2020 that 31 states get for Obama's expansion of the federal-state health care program for poorer and disabled Americans. The legislation would also give states fixed federal sums annually, ending the open-ended payments Washington has always made to reflect growing medical expenses and caseloads. The House bill does that and bars the use of federal health insurance tax credits for policies covering abortion. With its remoteness, high living costs and small pool of residents, Alaska has had the highest premiums in the U.S. since Obama's law took effect, says Cynthia Cox, an associate director at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Reported by SeattlePI.com 12 hours ago.

Obamacare hasn't collapsed, but Trump and the GOP might just let it

$
0
0
Obamacare hasn't collapsed, but Trump and the GOP might just let it A month into his presidency, Donald Trump was surprised.

"Nobody knew healthcare could be this complicated," Trump mused during a White House event on February 27.

Three months, two votes, and one hugely unpopular bill later, the Republican Party is still struggling with just how complicated healthcare can be.

Despite advancing the American Health Care Act (AHCA) out of the House, the GOP's attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act is still, at best, from completion. A series of snags have complicated the top item on the party's agenda.

Between crumbling insurance markets, policy divisions in the party, and public dissatisfaction with their proposals, the GOP's healthcare overhaul is on shaky ground.

*What's the score?*

The AHCA took another hit this week when the Congressional Budget Office released its updated projections on the legislation's effects on premiums and coverage.

The CBO found that the bill would bring down premiums in the aggregate and reduce the deficit, but also result in 23 million fewer people having health insurance in 2026 than under the current baseline.

Perhaps most strikingly, the CBO found that a new provision in the AHCA, imposed by the so-called MacArthur amendment, would undermine protections for people with preexisting conditions and leave them subject to sky-high premiums.

*(Read a full breakdown of the new CBO score»)*

Even before the score, the bill was not popular with Americans.

A poll released by Quinnipiac University on Thursday showed just 20% of Americans support the AHCA, and other polls consistently show that the bill is deeply unpopular.

At the same time, Obamacare has seen a surge in popularity. A recent Gallup poll showed 55% of Americans support the law, its highest level of approval since its passage more than seven years ago.

*'It's a very awkward process'*

Republicans in Washington have heard the pushback — at least in the Senate.

Even as House GOP leaders were celebrating the passage of the AHCA in a white House Rose Garden ceremony with Trump earlier this month, Senate GOP members were saying they were prepared to scrap the legislation and write their own version of the bill.

Senate Republicans have worked over the last few weeks in an attempt to come up with their own version of a healthcare bill. 

It doesn't appear to be going smoothly.

On Tuesday, GOP Sen. Bob Corker expressed frustration with the Senate process, questioning the working group of roughly 13 lawmakers that are crafting the bill.

"It’s a very awkward process, at best," Corker said, according to the HuffPost. "There are no experts. There’s no actuarial. ... Typically, in a hearing, you’d have people coming in and you’d also have the media opining about if a hearing took place, and X came in and made comments."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell even told Reuters on Thursday that he doesn't "know how we get to 50 [votes] at the moment."

While there are plenty of issues to iron out, there are two major disagreements, said Cynthia Cox, associate director at nonpartisan health policy think tank The Kaiser Family Foundation:

1. *Medicaid funding:* The House version of the AHCA would cut $880 billion in funding from the 2026 baseline, something that did not please some Republican senators. The ACA expanded Medicaid to people making up to 138% of the federal poverty line, resulting in roughly 11 million more people on the program's rolls. "There are red states that have expended Medicaid and they may want to keep this additional Medicaid funding," Cox told Business Insider. Additionally, changes to how the federal government funds Medicaid and how quickly funding would grow could cause cracks in the GOP.
2. *Funding for tax credits:* The AHCA proposes flat tax credits based on age instead of adjusted for income under Obamacare. This means that poorer and older people could see their premiums skyrocket, an alarming proposition to many GOP senators. "There is some acknowledgement that the AHCA are lower for older people and people in rural areas," Cox said. "So there are questions over whether to just increase the total on the AHCA flat tax credits or start to adjust for income and location, which is closer to the ACA."

Both of these issues, Cox said, do have a common theme: money.

"To make any of those changes, they need one relative to the AHCA," Cox said. "So it would also come down to which taxes they cut, or don't."

*'They really need clarity'*

As all of the concerns swirl around Washington, insurers and state insurance markets across the country face an uncertain future for a critical piece of Obamacare — and a hard deadline.

So-called cost sharing reduction (CSR) payments help to offset costs to insurers for providing low-income Americans with affordable plans that reduce out-of-pocket costs. Their future is uncertain.

*(Read more about how CSR payments work »)*

As Obamacare was signed into law, the Obama administration stipulated that CSR payments would be funded via the executive branch. That authority was contested by the Republican-led House in a lawsuit that has been ongoing for several years. The House argues that only Congress has the authority to appropriate the funds.

A court ruled in 2016 against the Obama administration, endangering the future of the CSR payments. The Obama administration appealed the ruling. Now, the Trump administration must ultimately decide whether to continue with the lawsuit. Trump himself has cast serious doubt as to whether it will.

On Monday, the Trump administration and the House agreed to delay the next step in the case, punting another 90 days to try and come up with a solution outside of the courts.

But the uncertainty over the critical CSR payments have left insurers in limbo as they decide their plans for the exchanges' 2018 plan year. The deadline to submit plans for the exchanges next year is late June, giving insurers little time and clarity on how to price their plans — or whether it's worth participating at all.

Cox said the uncertainty over the payments could end up driving insurers away, or cause the companies to increase their premiums.

"They really need clarity on this now," Cox said. "Without this clarity, they're either going to have to decide to leave the market or raise their premiums substantially, and in most cases I would expect insurers to do one of those two things."

Matthew Fiedler, a fellow with the Brookings Institution's Center for Health Policy, agreed that the uncertainty could have a negative effect on consumer choices.

"The fact that the administration is a big question mark that needs to be resolved at some point later in the summer can't make them feel particularly good about where the market is," Fiedler told Business Insider. "I think it continues to make them place significant weight on the idea that the payments might ultimately not be there next year and when there's any possibility that they won't be paid it just makes it very hard to plan."

*Market wobbles*

Already, states where insurers have submitted their 2018 exchange plans have seen significant premium increases. 

Republicans have argued that the rates are another sign that Obamacare as it stands is failing and that the need to pass a repeal and replacement is even more urgent.

House Speaker Paul Ryan's website labeled a New York Times editorial attributing some of the insurer exits from insurance exchanges to the AHCA as "disingenuous nonsense."

"The writing was already on the wall that Obamacare was failing," said the post. "Unfortunately, the Left is only now calling it out — with a pathetic attempt to point the finger at Republicans."

Fielder pushed back against that argument.

"We know how large insurers losses were in 2015 and 2016 and we know how much they raised rates in 2017," Fiedler said. "That allows us to reach a pretty good guess as to what their margins are for 2017 and that all suggests that they should've been breakeven for 2017 without market disruption or even a little better. So it's just not plausible given what we know about insurers financials in previous years that they would need to impose another round of very large increases for next year."

In terms of exits, insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City, which announced Wednesday it was leaving exchanges in Missouri and Kansas, have cited not only losses, but also "the uncertain direction of this market."

One insurer took this a step further and clearly pinned the blame on the AHCA for serious instability in the individual insurance market.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina said the company decided to more than double their requested premium increase due to the CSR uncertainty.

The company has requested a 22.9% increase for the average premium in 2018, but said that if the CSR payments were guaranteed, that would only by 8.8%.

"The latest news came earlier this week as the Trump Administration delayed a decision on whether to fight the House lawsuit," Brian Tajlili, the director of actuarial and pricing services for Blue Cross NC, wrote in a blog post on Thursday explaining the decision. "As a result, insurance companies can’t count on being paid for reducing cost-sharing for eligible ACA customers."

Tajlili went on to tie the increase directly to the uncertainty surrounding the CSR payments, saying more clarity on the ACA's future from lawmakers could have driven the premium increases even lower.

"In other words, with the right actions coming out of Washington to stabilize the market, the rate increase from Blue Cross NC would have been between 5% and 6%," Tajlili wrote. "That looks a lot different from the 22.9% we filed."

Blue Cross NC CEO Brad Wilson was even more direct in his criticism of Washington.

"The failure of the administration and the House to bring certainty and clarity by funding CSRs has caused our company to file a 22.9% premium increase, rather than one that is materially lower," Wilson told The Washington Post. "That will impact hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians."

*SEE ALSO: BOEHNER: Paul Ryan is fighting Trump over a tax idea that's 'deader than a doornail'*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch as Democrats break out in song as the AHCA passes the House Reported by Business Insider 9 hours ago.

Clearly, President Trump hates his voters

$
0
0
Can someone who ran as a populist, who promised not to cut Social Security or Medicaid, who assured voters that everyone would have health insurance keep his working-class support while pursuing an agenda so anti-populist it takes your breath away? Reported by Seattle Times 58 minutes ago.

White House Acts to Roll Back Birth-Control Mandate for Religious Employers

$
0
0
The effort follows through on the president’s pledge to roll back a requirement that many religious employers include contraception coverage in health insurance. Reported by NYTimes.com 2 hours ago.

Are young adults safe under Trumpcare? Don't count on it, says Boston Childrens' study

$
0
0
The Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act would keep the popular provision that allows young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26. But a study by Boston Children’s Hospital finds that other changes proposed would reduce the number of people in that age group who get health insurance regardless. The study, set to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Health Services Research, outlined a number of reasons young adults will be more likely to fall off health… Reported by bizjournals 23 hours ago.

McConnell faces a challenge passing health care in Senate

$
0
0
Facing solid Democratic opposition to demolishing former President Barack Obama's 2010 overhaul, Republicans will lose if just three of their 52 senators defect. In a report that complicated McConnell's task, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office delivered a damaging critique last week of the GOP-written bill the House approved May 4. Booting that many people off health care coverage is a nonstarter for many Republican senators. The number can be reduced by spending more on Medicaid, fattening tax credits for people buying insurance and boosting government payments to insurers to help them lower consumers' costs. The House bill would halt extra federal funds in 2020 that 31 states get for Obama's expansion of Medicaid — the federal-state health care program for poorer and disabled Americans. The legislation would also give states fixed federal sums annually, ending the open-ended payments Washington has always made to reflect growing medical expenses and caseloads. The House bill does that and bars the use of federal health insurance tax credits for policies covering abortion. With its remoteness, high living costs and small pool of residents, Alaska has had the highest premiums in the U.S. since Obama's law took effect, says Cynthia Cox, an associate director at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. Reported by SeattlePI.com 18 hours ago.

Loma Linda residents live a really, really long time. It's not because of their health insurance

$
0
0
While Washington freaked out over the Congressional Budget Office’s verdict on the American Healthcare Act (a.k.a. Trumpcare) and how cutting back health insurance would cost countless lives, the more interesting accounting came out of California. The dream of implementing single-payer healthcare... Reported by L.A. Times 16 hours ago.

5 Things You Need To Know Before Quitting Your Job

$
0
0
Kristen Field was clocking in 12-hour days at a nonprofit when her father died and she realized she needed a change, fast. “Losing my dad woke me up to the value of the time we have,” she says. With six months of expenses saved, she quit her job and explored eight countries, mainly staying at inexpensive hotels and with friends; all told, she took about a year off before returning to full-time work.

It may be hard to fathom, especially at this tumultuous cultural moment, but many women are ditching their 9-to-5 to find something more fulfilling: Nearly three in ten highly qualified women report that they’ve quit their job to take a short break at some point in their career. True, it’s a risk. (These days, it takes the unemployed roughly six to seven months to land a new job.) Yet sometimes the rewards are worth it. Intrigued? Consider the following:*Can I Afford It?*

You can’t predict your financial future, but you can minimize your economic burdens. “Focus on what’s in your control—your spending and your safety net,” says Manisha Thakor, director of wealth strategies for women at the BAM Alliance, a community of wealth management advisers. Analyze your monthly expenses to see where you can cut back. Living frugally while saving up for your leap is great practice for the more modest lifestyle you’ll likely have when you’re not working. Ideally, you should be able to afford the basics without relying on credit cards or falling behind on bills.

*Before you quit, make sure you’re nodding yes to these statements:*
·
I have enough to cover at least six months of living expenses.·
I’m willing to give up extras for a while: cable, green juices, massages.·
I can make some money in a pinch, either through side jobs or online (pet sitting, Airbnb-ing a second bedroom, etc.).·
My debt is under control.

*What About Health Insurance?*

It's imperative. "Even if you're in great health, an unexpected illness can saddle you with hefty medical bills," says Thakor. If applicable, COBRA lets you pay to stay on the plan your previous employer provided for up to 18 months. (Remember: It'll likely be pricier than what you've been paying since your company won't be covering a percentage of the premium). Alternatively, shop for a plan via your state's Marketplace or HealthCare.gov (while you still can), or visit eHealth.com and HealthInsurance.com to explore plans from private insurance brokers.*How Do I Explain the Gap in My Résumé?*

Pursuing long-postponed goals can be great for your psyche; in some cases, it can also be helpful during job interviews. "Employers want to hear that you engaged in experiences that expanded your skill set," says career coach Kathy Caprino. "When I was an executive recruiter," says Erica Keswin, who's worked with J.P. Morgan, Starbucks and the NFL, "I was always interested in bold people who took risks. Taking time to find your purpose can pay off."*There’s Always a Sabbatical!*

If you need a break but quitting isn’t feasible, consider something less final. Twenty-eight percent of companies offer at least some employees paid or unpaid time off, with a guaranteed return to the same or a comparable position.*My Exit Strategy*

“I stockpiled savings and earn side income from freelance work so my husband and I can sail for a year on our boat.”
—Melody DiCroce, 41, St. Petersburg, Florida

“I sold almost all my possessions and lived for free in a dorm at the University of Mississippi, where I wrote most of my first book.”
—Suzanne Kingsbury, 47, Guilford, Connecticut

“After not taking a vacation for five years, I cashed out my vacation and comp days and never went back. Now I run my own PR agency.”
—Amy Prenner, 44, Los Angeles

Farnoosh Torabi is a personal finance expert, the author of When She Makes More, and the host of CNBC’s Follow the Leader and the award-winning podcast So Money.

-- 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.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images