To the editor: Jonah Goldberg left out a very important piece of information in his column exploring why the residents of Loma Linda live on average 10 years longer than other Americans. (“Loma Linda residents live a really, really long time. It's not because of their health insurance,” Opinion,... Reported by L.A. Times 12 hours ago.

Why Aetna, Anthem, and UnitedHealth Group are the most attractive dividend plays in their space. Reported by Motley Fool 12 hours ago.

There are 472 local full-time employees and 1,197 local agents at life/health insurance agencies ranked by MBJ's 2017 list. Today, we're providing a peek into one of our weekly edition lists, as we reveal the top five Memphis-area life/health insurance agencies, ranked by number of local full-time employees. For the full list of the agencies, take a look at MBJ's May 26 weekly edition. The full list — including address, number of local full-time employees, number of local agents, products/services,… Reported by bizjournals 9 hours ago.

Employers who don’t want their health insurance plans to cover contraceptives for women are kidding themselves about who’s actually paying for the policies. Short version: It’s not them; it’s their workers.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration is readying a proposal to let employers opt out of... Reported by L.A. Times 7 hours ago.

Like Casares, who works at a Victoria’s Secret store in Ocala, Fla., more and more employees across a growing range of industries find the number of hours they work is swinging giddily from week to week — bringing chaos not only to family scheduling, but also to household finances. [...] a new wave of research shows that the main culprit is not the gig economy, but shifting pay within the same job. “Since the 1970s, steady work that pays a predictable and living wage has become increasingly difficult to find,” said Jonathan Morduch, a director of the U.S. Financial Diaries project, an in-depth study of 235 low- and moderate-income households. Ever-changing schedules at Victoria’s Secret, for example, make it difficult for Casares, 27, to find care for her 2-year-old and 6-year-old, and to cover the bills. On average, employees are willing to give up a fifth of their weekly wage to avoid a schedule set by an employer on a week’s notice, according to a field experiment where workers were offered a range of alternative hours at different pay levels. An analysis of 250,000 bank accounts by the JPMorgan Chase Institute, a nonprofit research arm of the bank, found that roughly 80 percent of households had an insufficient cash buffer to manage the mismatch between income and expenses in a given month. Middle-income households, for example, saw their monthly expenses deviate by nearly $1,300, the equivalent of a month’s rent or mortgage payment. The next month, it is the telephone company that goes unpaid as the family struggles to make up the missed utility bill plus late fees and interest — and so on. Doctor’s visits and medical payments are frequently scheduled to coincide with tax refunds, according to the JPMorgan Chase Institute. [...] while bonuses, extra commissions and overtime bump up a worker’s average income, unwelcome reductions in hours, particularly at the lower end of the income ladder, more often shrink an expected paycheck. “Stable, predictable work schedules are essential to economic security,” said Susan Lambert, a professor at the University of Chicago who is studying new data supplied by the General Social Survey, a respected national survey that began asking in-depth questions about work schedules only last year. The ubiquity of the phenomenon has frequently been masked by annual measures of income and spending or one-time snapshots of savings and debt that fail to capture fluctuations week to week or month to month. To Morduch and his co-author, Rachel Schneider, the rise in income volatility is an indication of how businesses in an era of advancing technology and global competition have shifted risk onto employees. When health insurance premiums for employers soared between 2003 and 2013 (before the Affordable Care Act went into effect), workers picked up 93 percent of the extra cost. Reported by SFGate 6 hours ago.

Puerto Rico’s economic decline and, now bankruptcy, has triggered an astonishing exodus as thousands flee the commonwealth in *search of economic opportunity in the Continental US, Bloomberg reported.*

The population has been declining rapidly. The island has lost 2 percent of its people in each of the past three years, a comparable departure in the 50 states would mean 18 million people moving out since 2013. About 400,000 fewer Puerto Ricans live on an island of 3.4 million today compared with a decade ago, when its economy began contracting, Bloomberg reports.

“I had to choose for my family,’’ said Aledie Amariah Navas Nazario, 39, a pediatric pulmonologist, told Bloomberg. She left behind young asthma patients when she, her husband and two small daughters moved to Orlando, Florida.
Reasons for leaving were compelling enough for Navas Nazario, who treated asthma on an island where it’s more prevalent than anywhere else in the U.S.

Puerto Rico’s economy had taken yet another leg down, and she was worried about her future income because of uncertainty about health insurance.



“I’m sad about not being able to take care of those kids anymore,’’ said Navas Nazario, who keeps in touch with former patients on Facebook. *“You have to make a hard decision to leave relationships with friends and family just to get out, just because you need a better life.’’*



Departures like Navas Nazario’s have trapped the commonwealth’s economy in a downward spiral, Bloomberg reports.

*Joblessness at 11.5 percent, and a $74 billion mountain of debt* that pushed the island to insolvency have made collecting taxes key to an economic rebound, Bloomberg said. At the same time, more Puerto Ricans from all walks of life are moving away to better their lives, meaning government revenue is dwindling.

*The island’s debt has grown 87% since 2006,* and one easy way to avoid paying any of the debt is for Puerto Ricans to leave the island. But one telling sign for anyone who owns Puerto Rican debt: *The government’s official turnaround plan – a path to sustainability approved by a US oversight board – assumes the population will shrink by just 0.2% each year for the next decade.*The government is using this number as the basis for its projections of tax receipts and economic growth. Expect it to fall far short on both measures.

“Most people believe that those forecasts in the fiscal plan are really, really optimistic and probably would have to be revised at some point,’’ said Sergio Marxuach, public policy director at the Center for the New Economy in San Juan, told Bloomberg.

And professionals aren’t the only ones leaving: The exodus includes blue-collar construction workers and taxi drivers. *Research by the New York Fed found that college graduates make up roughly the same proportion of emigres as they do the broader population,* suggesting, as Bloomberg reports, that the departures have touched “every corner” of the commonwealth.

The reason for leaving is obvious: The earnings disparity between PR and the mainland can be wide. John Starkey, a principal of the Lafayette International Community High School in upstate Buffalo, New York, told Bloomberg he traveled to the island to recruit teachers after it started shutting down schools to save money. On the mainland, Starkey said, educators find they can double or triple their earnings, even if it means trading a balmy Caribbean island for the frigid shores of Lake Erie.



“Many of the candidates wanted to stay on the island to help their community,’’ Starkey said. “Our pitch was: come up to Buffalo and you’ll be able to better provide for your family, but you’ll also be able to help your community here.’’



The commonwealth applied for Title III protection from its creditors last month in what will be the largest-ever US municipal debt restructuring, further complicating the territory’s efforts to pull itself out of a financial crisis.

The Puerto Rico restructuring would be far larger than Detroit’s record-setting bankruptcy, with little to no details how long a court proceeding would last or what cuts would are imposed on bondholders. The island’s financial recovery plan covers less than a quarter of the debt payments due over the next decade.

The island has been a U.S. possession since American troops invaded in the Spanish-American War, and Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917. That means there’s little to prevent them from seeking better prospects on the mainland, something they’ve always done, just not to this extent.

Migration to the US mainland is by far the biggest driver of the island’s declining population, but a declining fertility rate isn’t helping either. The natural population increase -- excess births over deaths -- fell to 3,000 last year from 20,000 a decade ago, as families facing poorer economic prospects and the threat of the Zika virus put off having kids, Bloomberg reported. At the same time, younger generations of child-bearing age are more likely to take off for the mainland.
  Reported by Zero Hedge 3 hours ago.

Health-insurance policies can vary widely in how well they'll serve you and how much they'll cost you. Here are some critical things to know -- such as, for starters, not just to look at the premiums charged. Reported by Motley Fool 1 day ago.

Following Friday's disappointing payrolls report, yesterday we showed another even more troubling fact about the state of the US labor market: since 2008, over 93% of the total 6.7 million net jobs "created" in the past decade, have been statistical, existing simply inside an excel model somewhere in the US Department of Labor, as a result of the BLS' favorite fudge factor, the Birth/Death adjustment. 

Unfortunately, that's just the tip of the iceberg for why the US labor market "recovery" is perhaps the biggest 'fake news' of the US economic narrative, and as a comprehensive recent analysis issued by Morningside Hill reveals, the state of the US jobs market is far worse than the official data suggest.

*Here is the real story.*

The US jobs market has been described as the backbone of the recovery – 82 months of continuous jobs growth with unemployment hitting 4.5% – the lowest since 2007. However the perceived strength in jobs creation is at odds with other economic indicators. President Trump ran on a campaign that repeatedly touted “jobs, jobs, jobs.” His emphasis on jobs creation and bringing employment back to America struck a chord with voters. Trump’s election in itself contradicts the popular narrative that the US jobs market is tight and robust. Wages, disposable income and real earnings growth along with low productivity and overall slow economic growth all challenge the BLS’s jobs numbers and thus Wall Street’s perception that the jobs market is tight.

Since the monthly jobs report is eagerly awaited as the most important piece of economic data for financial markets, it warrants a deep dive in order to understand what is going on under the hood. Before we delve into the data, here are some highlights of our findings.

· The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been systemically overstating the number of jobs created, especially in the current economic cycle.
· The BLS has failed to account for the rise in part-time and contractual work arrangements, while all evidence points to a significant and rapid increase in the so-called contingent workforce.
· Full-time jobs are being replaced by part-time positions, resulting in double and triple counting of jobs via the Establishment Survey.
· A full 93% of the new jobs reported since 2008 and 40% of the jobs in 2016 alone were added through the business birth and death model – a highly controversial model which is not supported by the data. On the contrary, all data on establishment births and deaths point to an ongoing decrease in entrepreneurship.

· Jobless claims have recently reached their lowest level in 43 years which purportedly signals job market strength. Since hiring patterns have changed significantly and increasingly more people are joining the contingent workforce, jobless claims are no longer a good leading economic indicator. Part-time and contract-based workers are most often ineligible for unemployment insurance. In the next downturn corporations will be able to cut through their contingent workforce before jobless claims show any meaningful uptick.

Overall, we have found the headline jobs number, unemployment rate and jobless claims to be poor macroeconomic indicators, since they have failed to account for significant shifts in labor market dynamics.

*Who computes the jobs report and how*

The “nonfarm payroll employment situation” report (NFP) or the “jobs report” as it is widely known, is calculated monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and is released every first Friday of the month. The two most important statistics in the report are the number of jobs added each month and the unemployment rate. The data for these statistics are collected through two separate surveys.

*Number of jobs added*

The number of jobs added to the economy comes from the Establishment Survey. Basically the BLS sends out the following survey to a sample of about 146,000 businesses.

As per the form, the government gathers the following information: how many employees worked at the firm in that month along with the total employee compensation and hours worked.

By surveying just a small fraction of US businesses, the measurement errors around this survey are significant. The 90% confidence interval is +-120,000 jobs. Thus in the March 2017 report which had +79,000 jobs, 90 out of 100 samples fall within the interval of -41,000 jobs to +199,000 jobs. In other words, statistically it is impossible to say with any confidence that the economy added any jobs that month, since the number crosses the zero bound and could therefore be negative.

Here is the official BLS data for the jobs added over the past 11 years, and a monthly breakdown for 2016.

The main problems with this survey are the double and triple counting of jobs because of a structural shift in labor dynamics and the business birth and death adjustment. We will proceed to tackle both in the following pages.

*Double and triple counting of jobs in the Establishment Survey due to the transition to a “gig” economy*

The shift to part-time and contract-based work has been a disconcerting development over the past years. This unprecedented growth in part-time work relationships has been dubbed the new “gig” economy, capturing the ad-hoc nature of these work arrangements. Increasingly employers prefer to add temporary part-time workers instead of full-time employees. The rationale is to save costs by paying less for full-time employment perks like healthcare and paid vacation leave among others, while increasing the flexibility for the employer to downsize the workforce if needed. This shift started a few decades ago and accelerated after the financial crisis of 2008.

This new “gig” economy is taking many forms – from Uber and Lyft drivers to multinationals like Amazon and HP – new employees are hired as contractors. A few decades ago part-time and contractual work was mostly utilized in seasonal industries like retail, food services and construction. It has recently spread to manufacturing, technology, airlines, telecoms, financials – it is a structural shift in almost every sector.

As more people are losing their full time jobs they often have to compensate by working multiple part-time jobs to make up for the lost income. For example a laid-off manufacturing employee might need to work 2 or 3 part-time jobs as a waiter at a restaurant and as an office clerk at a healthcare facility. When the BLS does their jobs count in the Establishment Survey they get 1 lost manufacturing job and 2 new jobs in services. Thus, the same employee is double-counted as if 2 new jobs were created for the single job that was lost.

Here is how the BLS treats multiple job holders according to their own definition:



“Establishments report the number of persons on payroll during the pay period that includes the 12th of the month. A person working multiple jobs at different establishments is counted once at each establishment. A person working different jobs at the same business establishment is counted once.”



This creates a perverse environment – as people lose well-paid full-time jobs with benefits, multiple new part-time jobs are created in the economy. However these new jobs are low paid and insecure positions. While the average worker in the economy is worse-off, this dynamic gives a false sense of economic strength.

Needless to say, part-time jobs are far inferior to full-time positions. Contingent workers are facing many challenges compared to full-time employees:

· *Low pay*: contingent workers have a median hourly pay around $13 compared to $18 for full-time workers amounting to 38% lower remuneration.
· *Job instability*: 28.5% of part-timers were laid off in the previous year compared to 8.2% for full-time employees.
· *Low access to health insurance*: only 18% of contingent workers had employer-provided health benefits compared to 56% of regular workers.
· *High poverty rates*: 33.1% of core contingent workers earn $20,000 or less per annum while only 10.8% of full-time workers fall within that category.
· *High reliance on public assistance *– part-time employees rely on programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for example.

We would now like to consider the data behind these dynamics of a growing contingent workforce.

*US Government Accountability Office Survey*

A 2010 report by the US Government Accountability Office (US GAO) states that the actual number of contingent workers in the US economy is a full 37.1% of all employees.  More importantly, this number has  been rapidly growing. In 2006 the contingent workforce was only 32.4%, which means that in 4 years the number has grown by 4.7%. As the table below shows, most of the increase came from the standard part-time workers category.

The 4.7% increase translates to 9 million workers shifting to part-time employment in just 4 years. Unfortunately, 2010 was the last year in which the US GAO conducted a survey on the contingent workforce, so there is no current data available. We believe it is safe to assume that the percentage of contingent workers in the US economy has further expanded.

*Harvard-Princeton study on employment*

A new research paper by economists from Princeton and Harvard found that 94% of the jobs created in the current economic cycle were temporary positions. Lawrence Katz, a Harvard University professor and former chief economist at the US Department of Labor and Alan Krueger, a Princeton University professor and a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, found that most of the jobs created under the Obama administration were temporary positions.

The study demonstrates that the percentage of workers engaged in alternative work arrangements (defined as temporary help agency workers, on-call workers, contract workers, and independent contractors or freelancers), rose from 10.1% in 2005 to 15.8% in 2015. Unfortunately, those newly created part-time positions account for the vast majority of all new jobs created over the past decade. To convert percentages into actual numbers – *more than 9 million out of the 10 million jobs created in that time frame were in fact part-time*. The charts below highlight some of the key findings of this study.

*CEO Sub-Index*

The Business Roundtable, a lobbying group composed of CEOs of the largest companies in Corporate America, release a quarterly CEO Economic Outlook Survey. The group includes companies with combined revenues of $7 trillion. They provide their hiring outlook in the CEO employment sub-index. As we can see from the chart below their outlook has been consistently far less optimistic than the numbers we have seen in the official payrolls reports. The blue line tracks the official BLS data, while the black line represents the CEO Employment Sub-Index.

*The BLS’ own measure of part-time employment*

The Establishment Survey does not include an estimate for part-time versus full-time employment, but the Household Survey does include one and here is the data:

As you can see in the chart above, according to the BLS there has been no significant increase in the contingent workforce. We did not have to look far to understand why the BLS has failed to gauge the rise of the “gig” economy.

The way the BLS measures part-time employment is based purely on the number of hours worked:



*“Full time is 35 hours or more per week; part time is 1 to 34 hours per week.”*



Therefore, as long as one can tally 35 hours of weekly work regardless of the number of jobs they hold, they are counted as full-time employees. Needless to say, many of the part-time employees need to maintain anywhere from 1 to 4 part-time jobs to survive financially, easily reaching the 35 hours per week threshold. They are all counted as full-timers by the BLS.

*The controversial birth death adjustments*

In order to account for jobs created or lost by new business formations or bankruptcies each month, the BLS introduced the birth/death adjustment. It started during the Reagan administration as Reagan was complaining that the bureau was undercounting the jobs he created. The birth-death model used to have a terrible name – the “bias adjustment factor.” This adjustment is computed using a model based on probability-based sampling methodology.

The table below shows the number of jobs that were added through birth/death adjustments over the past 17 years and the percentage of jobs added through the birth/death model

Let’s analyze the data.

· Before 2003 few jobs were added through the adjustment, despite the fact that net business formations were much stronger back then (see data below).
· Then, what strikes us as odd, is that according to the BLS in the depths of the 2007-2009 recession, the birth/death adjustment continued to add a lot of jobs – 904,000 jobs were added in 2009 alone. One would assume that in the nadir of the Great Recession when business defaults skyrocketed, the birth and death adjustment would be a net negative and subtract from the overall jobs number instead of adding to it.
· Lastly, it turns out that a full 30% of jobs created since 2010 or 4.5 million out of 15 million jobs were added via the birth/death adjustment. It is also interesting to note that 40% of the jobs added in 2016 came through the adjustment.

The reason the BLS wanted to include this adjustment was a perception that they were undercounting jobs created through new start-up business formations (that were too young and too small to show up in the Establishment Survey). Those start-ups would eventually appear in their data, but with a few months’ lag. Therefore, if there was a steady supply of new start-up businesses and no sudden shifts in the trend, no adjustment would be necessary. Logically, it would only make sense to apply the adjustment if there is a significant increase in the rate of start-up formations, which has not materialized. On the contrary, multiple studies track a consistent decline in new business creation. Literally every study we have found documents the consistently deteriorating entrepreneurial environment in the US.

The following charts trace a clear downward trend in both employment gained from private sector births and the number of business births per year. Notice the suppressed level of births after 2008.

Furthermore, self-employed persons as a percentage of the working age population and the number of jobs created by establishments less than one year old are also declining.

A study by Harvard Business School entitled “Problems unsolved and a nation divided” summarizes the findings of its multi-year long project called “The US competitiveness project.” The study is a “fact-based effort to understand the disappointing performance of the American economy.” We found this project to be well worth the read and have selected the following chart (below to the left) depicting the multi-decade slowdown in new business formation. Further supporting the Harvard study findings, a Brookings Institution paper called “Declining business dynamism in the United States: a look at states and metros” shows that business formations slowed down and business deaths accelerated after the crisis of 2008 (below to the right).

Below to the left we have a chart from the Economic Innovation Group showing the net annual change in the number of US firms. Notice the significant slowdown after 2008, including 3 negative years. This is clearly not captured by the data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Below to the right we have a few charts from the Wall Street Journal summarizing some data points that confirm these trends.

With the data on new business formations and deaths in mind let us now go back to the BLS’s official birth / death adjustments. We have charted the net jobs added through the BLS model and ran a linear trend line to see if it captures the deteriorating entrepreneurial environment. In the chart below, the upward-trending line representing net jobs added through the adjustment *is in complete dissonance with all the other data.*

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) seems to be alone in its belief that the entrepreneurial environment in the US is improving. We believe that the BLS has been artificially inflating the monthly payroll numbers via the birth and death adjustment. This overstatement is not trivial in nature – the adjustment added 30% of all jobs reported since 2010.

*Employment by companies in the S&P 500 index as a proxy*

Instead of looking at employment surveys, Deutsche Bank compiled employment statistics from the S&P 500 index. The downside to using the S&P 500 as a proxy is that the index is clearly skewed towards very large businesses and it excludes small and medium enterprises. On the flipside, we are looking at actual data instead of relying on surveys. Since the index employs almost a fifth of the country’s workers (about 17%) it can offer a glimpse into the large business employment situation. As public companies report the total number of employees every quarter, Deutsche simply collected their employment numbers. According to their research, employment growth in S&P 500 companies just turned negative for the first time since 2009.

*Unemployment rate*

The unemployment rate is calculated from a separate measure called the Household Survey. The BLS calls about 60,000 households and asks if any members have worked for at least 1 hour during the month or if they have been actively searching for a job. If any household members have worked for at least 1 hour they are classified as employed, if they have been actively searching for a job, they are classified as unemployed.

It is interesting to note that in order to be counted in the labor force, a household member should have either been actively looking for a job or have worked for an hour in the past month. If neither of these conditions is satisfied, the member is not counted towards the labor force and they are not considered unemployed. To be classified as actively seeking employment one must meet the following criteria:

· Contact employers or employment agencies directly and have job interviews within the last 4 weeks;
· Submit resumes or fill out job applications within the last 4 weeks;
· Place or answer job ads within the last 4 weeks.

With such strict criteria for being classified as unemployed many individuals who are looking for a job are not counted in the labor force, thus making the headline unemployment number look artificially low. People who have been unemployed know that there can be long stretches of time when they don’t place or answer job ads. But after 4 weeks have elapsed they simply get removed from the labor force despite the fact that they are still looking for a job.

On the other hand, the criteria to be categorized as employed are as relaxed as possible – just 1 hour of paid work is sufficient. No signed work contract or any formal arrangement is required. This means that if my daughter mowed the neighbor’s lawn or walked their dog for a few bucks she would be counted as an employed person. However, if I am looking for a job, but did not place or answer any job advertisements in the past 4 weeks, I will not be counted as unemployed.

We would like to focus on two measures of unemployment. The first one is the headline unemployment rate, which the BLS calls U3 and is the official rate you read about in newspapers. The second one is the broader unemployment rate (U6) which adds marginally attached and discouraged workers to the U3 rate. The chart below portrays the large difference between the measures with the U6 rate being close to 10% while the official rate is at 4.5%.

The major difference between these two rates can be explained by the labor force participation rate. As we explained, unemployed persons are easily excluded from the labor force given the strict criteria set by the BLS. These individuals are therefore excluded from the labor force participation rate. As depicted in the chart below, currently about 63% of the working-age population is counted toward the labor force, down from 67% a few years ago. Over the past decade this number has been steadily decreasing. It has recently reverted back to its level from the 1970s when women were underrepresented in the labor force.

The current very low unemployment rate of 4.5% is at least partly explained by the low labor force participation rate.

*Slow wage and disposable income growth*

A strong labor market is usually characterized by robust growth in wages and disposable income. This is simply not the case in the current cycle. Nine years into the recovery, both wage and disposable income growth in the US are still trailing previous cycle levels.

In addition, data from the Economic Policy Institute breaks down wage growth by educational level. While the employees with advanced degrees were able to preserve their levels of compensation, all other categories have seen their wages decline in the current cycle.

The chart above to the right represents the total wages and accrued salaries for US workers as a percentage of GDP. After peaking in the 1950s and 1960s, the trend has been downward sloping

*The transition to a “gig” economy is a global phenomenon*

The rise of part-time work arrangements has not been limited to the US. According to a study by McKinsey Global Institute between 20% and 30% of employees in Europe are contingency workers.

The following charts represent the worsening employment-to-population ratios for a few advanced economies, including the US. This is especially interesting for economists who blame the declining labor force participation rate on deteriorating demographics. Demographically challenged Japan has seen an improving employment-to-population ratio, unlike the US. The second chart dispels another popular myth – having a higher education does not lead to secure employment.

Part-time work arrangements are set to expand further. A new report by the Economist Intelligence Unit entitled “Global firms in 2020: the next decade of change for organizations and workers” has conducted a survey of 479 senior executives on how they see their businesses developing by 2020. They expect more positions to be automated or outsourced, they foresee an increasingly contingent workforce with more mobile or flexible work hours. 62% expect a growing proportion of workers to be contract-based while only 12% expect a higher share of permanent staff. A flexible workforce will make it easier to scale up or down as business needs dictate - “just in time” resourcing. As Robert Orth, HR director for IBM, explains, it is not easy to forecast HR needs, especially in high-tech fields where skills have a short lifespan. The goal is to build a business model “that is flexible enough that even if you don’t get the forecasting exact, you can find and move skills and capability at shorter notice.

*Why is the US Government still using surveys to assess employment?*

We find it interesting that in this day and age of infinite computational power, the internet, “big data” and electronic services and payments, the US government is still using phone surveys to assess the jobs market.

Despite being a non-US fund based in Europe with non-US investors, Morningside Hill still has to file FATCA documents with the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS). While the IRS has up-to-date information on a European fund and its non-US investors, another branch of the government, the BLS, has to call random households to extrapolate employment numbers in the States.

This issue was raised directly with the head of the BLS by RealClear Radio host Bill Frezza:



“In today’s computerized world why do sampling surveys at all, why not log on to the social security metrics and computers and ask them how many people they collected the FICA taxes from that month?”

 

Erica Groshen, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics [answers with a chuckle]: 

 

“Actually, that information takes a long time to get from these administrative data sources.”



We are not quite sure if we can take this answer seriously but we will leave it at that.

Usually government agencies are under constant political pressure to report better-looking statistics. The rationale is fairly obvious – it makes politicians look better. The BLS is no exception. Over the years it has been subject to many changes in practice and methodology that have always resulted in better-looking numbers. Keep in mind that the chief of the Bureau is directly appointed by the president.

Reagan’s administration insisted on including some sort of an adjustment for newly created businesses which resulted in the birth and death adjustment. Then under pressure by the Clinton administration, the BLS redefined the workforce to exclude all but a small percentage of discouraged workers. This resulted in the statistical disappearance of about 4 million unemployed persons, now classified as long-term discouraged. Clinton also reduced the sample size of the household survey, thus excluding a disproportionate share of inner-city households who were less likely to hold jobs. Furthermore, George W. Bush’s administration introduced the probability-based sampling methodology which, as we have seen, increased the birth and death adjustment figures.

Alterations like these have driven economics-data skeptic John Williams to describe them as “Pollyanna creep” – the inclination of statistics agencies to make adjustments that over long periods of time make the data look better than the economic reality.

*Jobless Claims*

Initial jobless claims is another widely followed economic indicator which represents the number of people who are filing to receive unemployment insurance benefits, as reported weekly every Thursday by the US Department of Labor. It is important to note that this number includes only new filings i.e. individuals who have just lost their employment. Therefore, the number has been an important early-warning indicator – when it increases it portends trouble in the economy as layoffs surge.

In the past few years, the jobless claims indicator has been stellar. As visible in the chart below, the claims recently fell to 234,000 per week – the lowest number since 1973, even though the US population has increased by 50% since then.

Is it possible that while the US population increased by 50% in 43 years, the jobless claims remain at the exact same level? Above to the right we have posted a typical explanation by the FT, which mirrors most other media – the low number is a sign of a tightening labor market.

It is hard to believe that today’s sluggish economy (growing at less than 2%) is the strongest we have seen in 43 years. As our research reveals, there are structural reasons for this indicator’s subdued levels. As employees move to the “gig” economy with contingent work arrangements, fewer people are eligible for unemployment insurance.
Here is a list of factors that suppress initial jobless claims:

· The economy has added mostly part-time jobs and fewer workers are eligible for unemployment benefits.
· Employees in contingent work arrangements tend to hold multiple jobs to maintain financial solvency. Even if they lose one of their part-time positions, they often do not qualify for unemployment insurance.
· After the last crisis, due to budget constraints many states have cut unemployment benefits, thus lessening the incentives to apply for them.

Consequently, the low number of initial jobless claims is a misleading indicator. In the next downturn corporations will be able to cut through their increased contingent workforce, before they need to lay off any full-time workers. Therefore, when economic conditions deteriorate, initial jobless claims can remain low for a protracted period of time.

*Conclusion*

There has been an ongoing macroeconomic debate on the BLS’s job numbers and why they are at odds with so many economic indicators. After presenting the evidence on new business formation dynamics, we believe this table merits another look.

We won’t call the jobs added through the birth and death model fictional, but they can be described as hypothetical, unaudited data, with no support from actual business birth / death statistics.

Beyond the birth and death model, no one knows how many of the BLS jobs were double and triple counted part-time positions. According to some studies (Harvard-Princeton, etc.) most of the jobs added after 2005 were indeed part-time jobs. Therefore if, according to official numbers, we added a net 6.7 million jobs over the past 9 years and most were part-time jobs, while the birth and death model added 6.3 million of these jobs, this means that the actual number of full-time jobs has declined significantly. By this measure the jobs market has never recovered from the 2008 recession. In this case, US workers have every right to be discontented. This may explain why so many of them voted for Trump and his ‘bring back the jobs’ platform.

The NFP jobs and the initial jobless claims reports are flawed indicators. If tomorrow General Motors lays off 1,000 full-time workers and they end up working two part-time jobs each, the BLS will report a net gain of 1,000 jobs. If, further down the line, those same workers lose their part-time jobs, they will not be eligible for unemployment insurance and will not show up in the initial jobless claims report.

Fretting over whether the next jobs number will be 160,000 or 211,000 adds little value to any fundamental analysis. Reported by Zero Hedge 1 day ago.

Medicaid is one of two government programs that provides health insurance for people who can't afford it.

For Hampton resident Natasha Baker, it's a lifeline that keeps her at work and her children in school.

"I'm not just sitting around — I work as a home care aid. If I could afford health insurance,... Reported by dailypress.com 1 day ago.

Issues over Medicaid and the flight of health-insurance companies show the stakes for Iowa and other states—and their senators—as the GOP works on an overhaul of health care. Reported by Wall Street Journal 1 day ago.

Insurer Harken Health is closing its doors in Illinois and Georgia, ending an experiment to combine health insurance and care.

The insurer, which operates five health clinics in Chicago, Skokie and Des Plaines, began selling plans in Illinois and Georgia in 2015. A subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare,... Reported by ChicagoTribune 1 day ago.

“I turned 50 and seemed to have been thrown out of the public relations profession, my industry of 20 years,” says Lisa Wells, who recalls having traveled repeatedly from New York to Philadelphia and Boston for job interviews–all without having any luck. Desperate, Wells sought some professional help. But “after going to a head hunter’s office in Midtown to meet a young woman who seemed to be in her pajamas,” she recalls, “I went home and decided to open my own consulting business.”

Her experience isn’t unique. An AARP Public Policy Institute analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data found that the average duration of unemployment for job seekers ages 55 and older was 54.3 weeks in December 2014–more than five months longer than the 28.2 weeks younger workers typically remain unemployed.

Tom Smith, a 58-year-old marketing executive, says he’s applied to over 2,000 jobs since turning 50. After a grueling 27-month job search, Smith finally accepted an offer for 64% of his previous salary, just in order to secure a job with benefits. Soon afterward, his role was redefined and his salary cut 43%.

**OBSTACLES LARGE, SMALL, AND INVISIBLE**

According to AARP research, 64% of workers report experiencing age discrimination, which can take many forms–ranging from the overt and individual to the implicit and institutional. (In the tech industry, just to take one example, self-advertised “young, nimble startups” all but tell older candidates to look elsewhere right in their job postings.)

All these forms of age discrimination persist thanks to few core assumptions about older workers in a modern, ever-changing job force. They include:
· Young people invest more in developing new skills.· Young people feel more excited by their jobs.· Older people neglect their health.· Older people get exhausted by their work.· Older workers are looking to slow down and coast toward retirement.· Older workers have less interest in exploring new ideas and opportunities.
Yet each of these assumptions–about younger and older workers alike–were shown to be statistically untrue in a study by London Business School researchers Lynda Gratton and Andrew Scott.

Groundless biases aside, many organizations may simply not to want invest in people they believe to be close to retirement, preferring someone with more “growth potential.” This is often a fallacy, too. By one measure, some 58% of millennials expect to leave their jobs in three years or less. That figure is high, but it isn’t especially remarkable. For context, a separate study estimated that nearly half of workers worldwide expect to leave their jobs just within the next year. The retention problem is so acute that companies are constantly dreaming up new ways to keep their best and brightest around for longer.

At all events, there’s really no evidence that investing in a younger worker is a “safer” bet or offers a higher ROI potential than investing in an older one. As AARP’s CEO Jo Ann Jenkins puts it, “Ultimately, I don’t think employers need to see older employees as being much different than younger ones.” If anything, she says, “older employees often tend to be especially loyal, focused, and bring unique experience that others simply don’t have.”

So how can older workers improve their chances of landing rewarding, fairly compensated work in an environment like this? There are a few practical steps to take.

*1. WORK YOUR NETWORK*Todd Williams was a business owner before adopting his two young granddaughters. But “the demands of starting a family over are not necessarily consistent with running a business,” he’s found. “Family time is critical,” and being an entrepreneur cuts into it too much. So Williams, 59, has started looking for W2-based work. “I am looking for a good salary, life and health insurance, vacation, 50% or less travel,” he says.

The first place he’s begun to look for those opportunities is inside the network he’s built up as a business owner. In fact, Williams says networking “has landed more contracts that meet my needs. It also has me in the running for two W2 jobs that have not been posted–and may never be posted–as they are creating positions for me.”

He points out that older people may actually have an advantage here; their networks are likely much bigger than those of younger professionals. Rebecca Janzon, 54, agrees. Savvy networking, she’s found, can help you get past the front-line HR reps and recruiters. “Most companies still think that hiring young, inexperienced people at low pay is the answer . . . Their HR teams look for that,” Janzon believes.” Getting a referral, though, can help your resume (and its hints about your age) leapfrog over a company’s initial screening process.

*2. OFFER YOUR SERVICES AND SHARE YOUR IDEAS*Williams also points out that one way to get in the door of an organization you’re interested in is by offering services like consulting, mentoring, or coaching on a project basis first. This can let you show in real time what an asset you could be to the organization.

Professional organizations can be useful as well, says Williams, especially if you can land a speaking gig (here are a few ways to use LinkedIn to do that). Presenting to an industry group allows you to show the value of your experience to a room full of people in your field. There’s just one caveat, Williams jokes: Only do this “if you have a huge amount of energy to overcome the old-fart appearance.”

*3. MAINTAIN A POLISHED IMAGE*Older workers are acutely aware of the need to stay current, keep their skills up to date, and constantly push themselves to learn new things. But–like it or not–your outward personal brand needs to match your expertise. That means making sure the image you present to the professional world is as polished as it can be.

Some of the older professionals I spoke with even mentioned wardrobe considerations. Some recommended finding a younger friend you can trust to be honest and offer pointers to update your look, if needed. Others suggested hiring a photographer to get an updated LinkedIn photo. This can be frustrating advice to hear, particularly for women–who already confront a complex of gender-based biases, including about their appearances. But the key is simply to project the same level of polish as your younger competitors in the job market, while staying authentic to you.

*4. USE THE “9999” STRATEGY*Technology has changed the recruiting process immeasurably in recent years. Sue DiMartino, executive administrative professional in her fifties, whose position with a large corporation was eliminated due to restructuring, turned to a transition company when she reentered the job market. There she learned how to tailor her resume so it can get past digital scanners designed to weed out resumes without enough keywords.

DiMartino also offers a technology trick to hold in your back pocket. In some situations, she points out, it may be illegal for companies to require candidates list the dates they earned degrees; others may simply avoid it for fear of falling afoul of state and federal anti-discrimination laws. But many employers aren’t so prudent. “If a company hasn’t updated its computerized forms,” DiMartino suggests, “answer with ‘9999,’ which populates the field and allows you to submit the application.”

*5. STOP LOOKING FOR A JOB AND CREATE YOUR OWN*Depending on their skill sets, income needs, and lifestyles, some older workers can benefit from moving in the opposite direction of people like Williams–by starting their own businesses, consulting, or picking up freelance work.

“I retired from a very lucrative career because my age was holding me back from finding a new job,” says first-time entrepreneur Dick Kuiper. “I tried unsuccessfully to find a new position that would pay me a living wage in a traditional job in that career field. Then I thought, ‘Why not create my own job?’ I did. It worked and I’m off and running with a successful business of my own that’s partially linked to my previous career.”

Just because you’re an older worker doesn’t guarantee that you’ll experience age discrimination, of course. But that likelihood may rise when you find yourself searching for a new job later in your career. If that happens, just remember that you aren’t doomed simply to suffer the consequences. You may have more resources at your disposal than many younger workers–and you yourself–even suspect. You just need to know how to tap them.

* Originally published on Fast Company

Anne Loehr is a sought after international keynote speaker, writer, consultant, and trainer. She helps leaders in large organizations connect their everyday decisions today to the future workplace. Her end goal is to help organizations retain their top talent and not only survive, but thrive. To learn more about Anne, check out www.anneloehr.com or follow her on Twitter.

-- 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.

A new report from the editors at InternationalLiving.com reveals five countries where retirees can get full insurance coverage for as little as $80 a month, see a specialist for $30, and have surgery performed by a well-trained professional for half or less than what it would cost in the U.S.

Baltimore, MD (PRWEB) June 05, 2017

Healthcare costs in the U.S. continue to rise. According to PwC’s Health Research Institute, medical costs look set to grow by 6.5% this year alone. Out-of-pocket medical expenses are one of the main reasons U.S. citizens go into debt, according to the Association of Healthcare Journalists. And with the average health insurance premium for a family topping $18,000 as of last year (up 58% since 2006), it’s small wonder that more than 11% of U.S. adults are still uninsured.

“U.S. retirees do, however, have good options overseas,” says Jennifer Stevens, InternationalLiving.com’s Executive Editor. “Other countries offer better, lower-cost choices for healthcare, and it comes hand-in-hand with attractive climates, interesting cultures, and a lower cost of living. You needn’t sacrifice on quality to slash the cost of your health insurance, care, and medications to half or even less than you’d typically pay in the United States.”

The five countries below rank among the top retirement destinations in the world, and healthcare in all of them can cost less than half of that in the U.S. with no compromising on quality.

In these countries, retirees can get fully insured for as little as $80 a month, see a specialist whose rates start at just $30, and have surgery performed by a well-trained professional for half or less (often much less) than the typical U.S. price.

“Healthcare is one of the biggest expenses retirees in the United States face. If you slash that expense in half...you have that much more to spend on more pleasant pursuits. And, of course, it’s not just healthcare that costs less in the right places overseas—nearly everything does,” Stevens says.

Costa Rica
When Rob Evans’s retirement severance package ran out, decent healthcare for him and his wife Jeni was going to cost $18,000 a year in the U.S. “We simply couldn’t afford it. If we chose to stay there, I would have had to get another job just to pay for healthcare,” said Evans.

Then they discovered the healthcare on offer in Costa Rica. Here, expats can get low-cost coverage and take advantage of much lower out-of-pocket costs for medicines and treatment of minor ailments, directly from a pharmacy. “We can satisfy all our healthcare needs for about $4,000 per year,” Evans reports.

Retirees who become legal residents of Costa Rica join the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, the government-run healthcare system. For a low monthly fee based on income (typically under $100 per couple), they receive complete coverage and care.

But many expats also use private doctors and hospitals in addition. Costs are low, with doctors’ visits typically running $50, so some expats choose to pay cash. However, although surgeries and hospital stays are half to a third of U.S. prices, a lengthy hospital stay or major procedure can still be costly.

Private insurance is available, with local providers like Instituto Nacional de Seguros, as well as companies like Blue Cross/Blue Shield Costa Rica. Depending on the policy, even travel to the U.S. or internationally for treatment may be covered. But there are exclusions based on age (the cut-off is usually 70 to 75) and for pre-existing conditions.

Colombia
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Colombia ranks 22nd in the world for quality of healthcare. That’s higher than Canada (30th) and the U.S. (37th).

“As a retired healthcare executive, I know what I’m talking about when I say that the quality of care for expats in Colombia is excellent,” says InternationalLiving.com’s Colombia Correspondent, Nancy Kiernan. “I have had laboratory tests, a mammogram, tests for cervical cancer, and a biopsy. In each case, the process was quick, the facilities were state-of-the-art, and most of the results were available online within a day or two.”

Foreigners who become residents of Colombia have the same access to health insurance as its citizens. Those not older than 60 at time of enrollment can sign up for the public health insurance plan, EPS (Entidades Promotoras de Salud).

This basic plan is offered through a variety of administrative companies and covers doctors’ visits, hospitalization, lab tests, diagnostic tests, prescriptions, and even eye exams and dental cleaning. It is similar to a PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) in the U.S., meaning that the user needs to see the doctors and visit the hospitals within the approved network.

Mexico
“When I moved to Mexico, one piece of emotional baggage I left behind in the U.S. was worry over the cost of healthcare,” says InternationalLiving.com’s Mexico Editor Glynna Prentice.

Though private healthcare in Mexico is a fraction of the U.S. cost, expats depending on it generally get private insurance to cover emergencies and costly procedures. GNP Seguros is Mexico’s largest private health insurer. Several other companies operate in Mexico, as well, including Bupa Mexico, a subsidiary of the U.K. giant Bupa Global.

Premiums vary depending on age, type of coverage, and deductible. But expats can expect to pay on average anywhere from about $1,000 to $3,000 a year for a policy. It’s possible to get international coverage for emergencies as part of a policy or rider.

It’s necessary to be a resident of Mexico to get an insurance policy there. Insurers will want proof of residence such as a utility bill. They may even ask to see a residence visa.

“In Mexico, I have access to two affordable healthcare systems: public and private,” Prentice says. “While folks in the U.S. can legitimately worry that an unexpected, costly illness can deplete their nest egg, I don’t. Like other expats in Mexico, I can budget for healthcare: It’s a manageable expense.”

Panama
Panama is known throughout Central America for its top-notch private hospitals. Hospitals and large clinics in Panama tend to have affiliations with their U.S. counterparts, from the Cleveland Clinic and Miami Children’s Hospital to Johns Hopkins International. Accreditations offered by the likes of the Joint Commission International (JCI) help highlight Panama’s high standards.

Though some expats in Panama choose to pay their medical expenses out of pocket, it’s best to have private medical insurance. Local plans, such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield Panama, can cost as little as $80 a month. The cut-off age to apply for these plans is typically between 62 and 65.

Internationally underwritten plans are also available in Panama. These can cost anywhere from $120 to $250 a month and may offer coverage in other locations, not just Panama. It’s best to apply before age 70.

For anyone over 70 or with pre-existing conditions, a hospital membership may be the best option. These can cost $90 to $175 a month. They offer hefty discounts on consultations and treatment. And unlike insurance plans, they may offer limited coverage for pre-existing conditions after a waiting period of a year or two.

Malaysia
General medical insurance in Malaysia can cost very little. “We pay $270 per person per year, and it covers us for a variety of ailments,” says InternationalLiving.com’s Malaysia Correspondent Keith Hockton, who lives with his wife Lisa in the city of George Town on the island of Penang.

“Malaysia is the best country in the world to get ill or injured,” says expat Justin Strong. “In the U.S., medical bills were sending us broke. But we go to the doctor here and don’t have to worry about how to pay him.”

These sentiments are shared by many expats who’ve enjoyed world-class care in Southeast Asia’s premier retirement spot.

George Town and Kuala Lumpur (the country’s capital), are the medical centers of excellence with some of the best doctors, nurses, surgeons, and dentists in Southeast Asia. Most of them have been trained in the U.S or the U.K., or at the very least have completed their post-graduate studies there.

Due to its British colonial heritage, Malaysia is also English-speaking.

The complete International Living story on low cost healthcare in the world’s best retirement havens can be found here: Health Insurance Coverage From as Little as 80 Dollars a Month Overseas.

Editor's Note: Members of the media have permission to reproduce the article linked above once credit is given to InternationalLiving.com.

Further information, as well as interviews with expert authors for radio, TV or print, is available on request. To learn more please contact InternationalLiving.com Associate Editor, Carol Barron, tel. (772) 678 – 0287, e-mail: CBarron(at)internationalliving.com

For 37 years, InternationalLiving.com has been the leading authority for anyone looking for global retirement or relocation opportunities. Through its monthly magazine and related e-letters, extensive website, podcasts, online bookstore, and events held around the world, InternationalLiving.com provides information and services to help its readers live better, travel farther, have more fun, save more money, and find better business opportunities when they expand their world beyond their own shores. InternationalLiving.com has more than 200 correspondents traveling the globe, investigating the best opportunities for travel, retirement, real estate, and investment. Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.

Reported by DallasNews 16 hours ago.

Mr. Al-Khalidi will be joining a panel of cybersecurity experts to discuss the latest innovations in using secure credentials for authentication and access management at STA's Securing Federal Identity 2017. Specifically, Mr. Al-Khalidi will take the audience behind the scenes of two recent use cases: 1) a global government systems integrator; and 2) a major health insurance company.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (PRWEB) June 05, 2017

Axiad IDS, a leading provider of trusted identities for enterprise, healthcare, government and financial organizations, today announced Bassam Al-Khalidi, Axiad IDS’ co-CEO and principal consultant, will be taking the stage at the Secure Technology Alliance’s Securing Federal Identity 2017 Government Event on June 6 in Washington, D.C. Mr. Al-Khalidi will be joining a panel of cybersecurity experts to discuss the latest innovations in using secure credentials for authentication and access management.

“We work with organizations in both the public and private sectors, and increasingly we are seeing federal mandates drive best practices when it comes to achieving the highest level of security in credentialing across both sectors. With this increased security comes added complexity,” said Yves Audebert, Axiad IDS Chairman, President and co-CEO. “The challenge: providing a higher level of security while keeping the deployment simple, fast, and cost effective. Axiad ID Cloud addresses this challenge. The Cloud is the future.”

The dramatic increase in cybersecurity threats have made this clear: Organizations require strong identities they can trust to conduct business, while customers, employees, and citizens need a less frustrating method to authenticate their identity. This is where Axiad IDS helps. Core to Axiad IDS’ mission and offering is the Axiad ID Cloud which allows organizations to quickly, easily and cost-effectively implement strong, high assurance MFA solutions.

Mr. Al-Khalidi’s panel is on June 6 at 3:30 p.m. EDT. His portion of the panel discussion is titled: The Cloud: A Better Way to Implement Strong Multi-Factor Authentication with FIPS-Compliant Credentials. Specifically, Mr. Al-Khalidi will share best practices and lessons learned using the cloud for high-security, usability, and cost-effectiveness in two different, yet recent Axiad ID Cloud implementations including: 1) a global government systems integrator; and 2) a major health insurance company.

About Securing Federal Identity 2017
Securing Federal Identity 2017 is a highly focused and high-energy event featuring the significant policy issues and technology developments for today’s federal identity and security industry. The select group of speakers chosen for the agenda will highlight the present and future direction of the government’s efforts to manage identities and control access across all federal agencies. This one day event, sponsored by the Secure Technology Alliance (STA), builds on 15 years of successful government conferences. Securing Federal Identity 2017 has a new, updated format, bringing together the most important developments, innovations and experts in federal identity credentialing and access security.

To learn more about Axiad IDS and its solutions, visit: http://www.axiadids.com

About Axiad IDS
Axiad IDS is a Trusted Identity solutions provider for enterprise, government and financial organizations. Axiad IDS was founded by industry experts with extensive backgrounds in developing, deploying, and managing identity and access management solutions. These experts have experienced first-hand the challenges associated with implementing and managing mission-critical identity systems, and are experienced in overcoming those challenges, enabling their success. Axiad IDS is driven by its customers’ business needs, addressing business objectives with innovative and cost-effective solutions. Axiad IDS was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, CA. Reported by PRWeb 15 hours ago.

Authored by Gary Galles via The Mises Institute,

*Americans have been fighting over health insurance reform for ages. *For example, 25 years ago, in 1992, over 200 congressional health care bills were introduced.

Unfortunately, while the rhetoric has focused on insurance, *such as how many would supposedly gain or lose insurance if some change was implemented*, that has not been the real issue. *Income redistribution has.* As Henry Aaron estimated that year, implementing a comprehensive national health insurance system would redistribute more income than any single national policy then in existence.

What Is Insurance? 

How do we know insurance is not the real issue? *Because claimed “reforms” violate so many principles of insurance.*

*Insurance is about reducing risk in the face of uncertain events.* But insuring things that would happen for certain, say annual checkups, offers no risk reduction — it offers no benefits to weigh against the added costs of insurance administration that must be borne — yet such coverage is frequently mandated.

Similarly, small health care risks are cheaper to provide for from modest levels of savings, rather than bearing insurance administration costs*. If one’s own resources were involved, absent government interventions, they would not be insured at all. *Only when others are forced to bear much of the cost would people want insurance to cover such things.

Administrative costs are not the only issue, either. The benefits from risk-reduction through insurance would also have to outweigh the cost of the health care. This is made especially difficult by the fact that the insurance itself induces over-consumption of health care services.

*However, when most health care costs are borne by third parties rather than individuals themselves*, there are many margins at which those individuals will want better care (e.g., better and more specialized doctors and hospitals, more costly newer drugs, tests and treatment utilizing the latest technology, etc.), as well as more care. Since that added care need only be worth what an individual pays, net of insurance coverage, much of it is worth far less than its cost to society, further limiting what people would voluntarily cover based on the principles of insurance.

*Those considerations explain why lunch insurance does not exist. *You will almost certainly eat lunch, which also involves relatively small expenses, so there would be little risk reduction. And if someone else would pay most of your bill, you would order far more expensive lunches than otherwise, raising the premiums that you must be charged to pay for it. The benefits don’t justify the costs, again unless others are forced to pick up a substantial part of the tab.

Also,* insurance is about risk reduction that people value more than the premium they must pay for it. *Thus, voluntary market insurance would not mandate coverage of things people had virtually no risk of experiencing. Teetotalers would not willingly insure for alcoholism treatment. Those sure they would never use drugs would not insist on addiction treatment. Yet government “reforms” are full of such mandates. And a quarter-century ago, before many current mandates were in place, it was already estimated that up to one-quarter of the uninsured population traced back to such cost-increasing government-imposed coverage regulations.

*The price controls reform proposals incorporate are also about income redistribution, rather than health insurance.* Say that my age makes my actuarial risk six times that of my students. If, as Obamacare required, I could not be charged more than three times what they were, that does not reflect actual risks. Obamacare regulations simply force the young to subsidize the old. That rip-off of the young also explains why Obamacare threatened them with a penalty to force them to accept that bad "insurance" deal.

*The mandate that insurance cover pre-existing conditions shows even more clearly that “reforms” were not really about insurance. *Rather than pooling those with similar circumstances and risks, allowing the law of large numbers to reduce people’s exposure, it forces others to subsidize those who are already sick, while misdirecting their blame from government requirements to insurance companies who must charge others more to pay for them. Those sorts of after-the-fact possibilities are not offered in fire, automobile or life insurance. Similarly, casinos don’t let you bet once the roulette ball has stopped or the dice are still. Only government mandates can create such windfalls through health insurance. 

In addition, if health insurance reform truly aimed to benefit all Americans — rather than benefiting some by the intentional pick-pocketing of others — it would not have been “marketed” with so many lies, damned lies and statistics (See my article “Comparing Obamacare scams.”). Honesty would have sufficed if reform did what was being promised.

*The health insurance debate has been so contentious in part because it has allowed massive income redistribution to be misrepresented as about overcoming market failures in health insurance.* It helped sell Obamacare dishonestly and now portrays reducing massive theft from government targets as imposing heartless harm on others. *Such misrepresentation may be able to produce misinformed political support, but it cannot generate policies that advance Americans’ general welfare.* Reported by Zero Hedge 12 hours ago.

Kim Weaver, a Democrat who sought to unseat Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), announced Saturday that she is dropping her bid after being subjected to “alarming acts of intimidation, including death threats.”

“While some may say enduring threats are just a part of running for office, my personal safety has increasingly become a concern,” she wrote.
King, who regularly stokes controversy with offensive rhetoric, responded by claiming that the threats were probably “a fabrication.”


I wanted #KimWeaver IN the race-not out. Democrats drove her out of the race-not R's. Death threats likely didn't happen but a fabrication.

— Steve King (@SteveKingIA) June 4, 2017

King’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Weaver, who also ran against King last year in an overwhelmingly GOP district, verified Saturday’s Facebook post to the Sioux City Journal. She told the Des Moines Register that she had received threats via phone and email, and that someone had placed a “for sale” sign in her yard.

“To me, that sent a message that ‘we want you out of here,’” she said.

Neither Weaver nor her campaign immediately returned a request for comment from HuffPost. 

Weaver, who had made health care a major issue in her campaign, also referenced the House GOP bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act and cited her own access to health insurance as a concern. She is an official at Iowa’s Department of Aging, and wrote that leaving her post to focus on campaigning would be a risk. 

“With recent legislation on health insurance, I must admit that the possibility of seeking a new job after the election exposes too much of a risk for me in not being able to secure health insurance,” she wrote.

Weaver also claimed to the Des Moines Register that state legislators had cut her department’s budget as “punishment” for her campaign against King and said she would consider taking a “voluntary layoff” if necessary.

Weaver, who had been the only Democratic candidate in the race thus far, said in her post that she would donate her campaign money to support other efforts against King.

“We’ve started a significant movement in this district, and it’s important to see that progress continue,” she wrote. “I’ve said from the beginning that this isn’t about me — it’s about unseating Steve King and gaining real representation for the 4th District of Iowa.”

-- 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.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued emergency regulations aimed at deterring insurers from leaving the state’s Affordable Care Act exchange market, as U.S. Congress weighs repealing former President Barack Obama’s signature health-insurance law. Reported by Wall Street Journal 6 hours ago.

The CEO of Unified Partners, with 30 years of experience in the tax and healthcare sectors, offers his opinion on the current issues facing our healthcare system

TAMPA, Fla. (PRWEB) June 05, 2017

As politicians in D.C. are regrettably distracted from the spiraling direction of national health care legislation, one industry expert is weighing in on the lesser known issues plaguing the system.

After spending nearly three decades in the health insurance and tax industries, Steve Doletzky sees the need for a major shake-up of the nation’s health care landscape that could easily be funded with minor tax law changes effecting tax welfare.

“For nearly my entire career, the industry has failed so many. It’s failed the sickest among us, insurers and the tax-paying public,” said Doletzky, founder of Unified Partners and former partner of John Hewitt CEO of Liberty Tax Service. “Price fixing, the medical establishment and our tax welfare system are at the very crux of a solution to this entire fiasco of this mess we call our health care system.”

Doletzky strongly believes the solution to the national health care system can be attained by addressing to two main causes, price fixing and tax fraud.

“Price fixing and a lack of transparency in pricing through participating provider organizations (PPO) networks do, in effect, permit the medical establishment to operate on a purely monopolistic basis because all competitive forces have been eliminated. This has ultimately led to the creation of the most unaffordable healthcare system in the world,” said Doletzky. “The culprit of this massive degree of price inflation is not insurers, small independent medical service providers or insurance agents, but rather the medical industrial complex spearheaded by the American Medical Association.”

Doletzky’s stance on the issue points to actions by the AMA, the medical education system, privately owned mega-hospital conglomerates and major pharmaceutical companies, as a driving force in high medical and insurance costs. According to Doletzky, these entities have diligently worked to assume control and the monopolization of their respective markets, through the use of lobbying efforts and the creation of PPOs.

According to Doletzky, PPO arrangements do not treat insurers equally, either. Certain insurers are often given advantages over other insurers in medical care pricing, making it difficult for smaller insurers to compete successfully in their market. Namely, Blue Cross Blue Shield, which controls a massive percentage of the U.S. market share, receives rates typically much lower than other competing insurance companies, Doletzky said.

The mega-hospital conglomerates dictate the terms of PPO agreements. Lack of price transparency and the ability to analyze the same makes it nearly impossible for newly formed health insurance carriers to compete. The public though, rarely gets a glimpse into these arrangements as insurers are, as part of their agreement with the PPO network, generally prohibited from disclosing their arrangements.

PPO rates are controlled directly through current procedural terminology codes (CPT). In short, every medical treatment is assigned a code and a corresponding reimbursement rate, which the insurance company pays each time one of their insureds receives services. With these rates primarily controlled directly by mega-hospital conglomerates, they are often subject to manipulation.

“Often times these large hospitals will approach insurance companies and impose a raise in prices across every CPT code. The insurance company is then faced with passing on the cost to their policy holders, risking significant loss in business,” said Doletzky. “As part of the negotiation process, hospitals will usually agree to only raise rates on certain CPT codes.”

Certain CPT code costs are selectively regulated by PPOs to make medical procedures performed by ‘hospitalists’ more affordable compared to those performed by resident doctors. This allows major-hospital conglomerates to decrease overhead costs and aggressively compete with independent physicians.

“With many new doctors graduating with massive debt and unable to go into private practice, major-hospital conglomerates have discovered a more cost-effective way of treating their patients by creating a new position for these new graduates called a hospitalist,” said Doletzky. “The salaried position on average pays $200,000 per year, well below the salary of a typical physician. This allows large hospitals to employ less resident physicians, reduce overhead like salaries and medical malpractice premiums and squeeze out smaller competition.”

While the cost of procedures performed by hospitalists is significantly less, health care consumers increasingly find themselves compelled to seek treatment from either a hospitalist or a physician assistant.

“In seeing a hospitalist, patients are even subjected to new charges they didn't expect. One of the most onerous charges they face when seeing a hospitalist is that of a facility fee. This fee has traditionally been charged whenever one visits a hospital emergency room. Now, whenever one receives treatment from a hospitalist, even if the office of the hospitalist is not located on the hospital campus, one is often billed a facility fee for use of a hospital facility. The facility fee charges I’ve encountered typically range from $500 to $750,” said Doletzky.

“As planned by the medical industrial complex, this lack of transparency has lead the public to believe that the insurers, which are charging higher and higher premiums, whilst simultaneously seeming to pay less and less for their non-catastrophic needs, are to blame,” said Doletzky.

“Unless there is a medical care pricing system implemented, which is consistent, orderly, and based upon the free market enterprise system principles of competition, the system will continue to deteriorate,” said Doletzky. “A single payer system will simply not work in the U.S. because it relies solely on monopolies and does not address the deep hole of losses insurance carriers have gotten into.”

The solution? Doletzky proposes a minor tweak to the U.S. tax system and directly addressing the issues plaguing the health care system. Doletzky’s plan encompasses seven key steps:

1)    Eliminating the Earned Income Tax Credit for all small business owners. EITC helps millions and is a vital part of helping people fight their way out of poverty. That needs to stay in place, however, the fraud on schedule C filers needs to be eliminated. Every year hundreds of thousands of fraudulent “small business” returns are filed in order to “create” the income needed to qualify for EITC. Each year this means millions of dollars are distributed to fraudulent filers all across the country. We need to redirect the money saved to get us over the pre-existing bump insurance carriers have dealt with and then we will be on our way to solid providers in every state.

2)    All Americans should be allowed a one-time preexisting condition enrollment in their lifetime. If they fail to pay they would be removed. Taking steps to deal with a long waiting period for all coverages to be allowed, at minimum a year, would stop the practice of jump on jump off coverage.

3)    Medical debt, like education debt, should never be allowed to be removed from one’s personal record, even after a bankruptcy filing. Those who fail to maintain coverage or allow a coverage to lapse should still be responsible for these debts.

4)    Remove the employer mandate that is crushing small business and only causes ridiculously designed “compliant” plans where the coverage is next to useless and only results in pushing the employee to enroll direct with the Affordable Care Act.

5)    Institute transparency in pricing for all health insurance pricing. The closed bid process does not serve anyone other than organizations like Blue Cross Blue Shield and the medical establishment. Allow free competition to exist and demand price transparency. Implement a medical care pricing system, which is consistent, orderly, and based upon the free market enterprise system principles of competition.

6)    Expand education opportunities for medical schools to meet the demand. Academia is expanding in nearly every other field when a demand presents itself. No longer allow the AMA to manipulate medical schools to ensure that the number of doctor trainees continues to be limited. Short supply and high demand ensure that higher medical charges can be imposed. Of the number of accepted medical school applicants, the fields of entry too, are limited. In other words, a doctor trainee cannot simply decide they want to enter a particular field and pursue it.

7)    Some years ago, the medical industrial complex lobbied for laws to be passed, which now prohibit doctors, dentists, and other medical service providers from participating in any sort of collective bargaining arrangement. Indeed, they are prohibited from even discussing their fees with one another for fear they will have their license revoked. This is not the American way and must end, as well.

“Once enacted, it will allow for the sick among us to have coverage. It will allow the insurance industry that has served this country well to deal with the risk and the backlog of uninsured needing care. It will provide funding from the government to address this vital need instead of being sent to fraudulent filers and those preparing their tax returns,” said Doletzky. “It will allow doctors and hospitals to get back to caring for patients and provide them with the earnings they deserve. It will open the doors for more intelligent, hard-working Americans to get an education and be a part of this solution moving forward.”

“The math works, the solution is before us. Keeping what does work inside the Affordable Care Act and implementing these steps along with better plan design and choice is the only thing that has any chance of solving this huge challenge for our people and our economy. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water,” said Doletzky. Reported by PRWeb 5 hours ago.

 

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

Ever since the election, the regressive left, in conjunction with shills inside of the deep state, have been committing acts of treason -- purposely trying to unseat the President of the United States via false allegations of Russian collusion. Nearly a year into 'investigations', none of the claims that they've made have borne any fruit.

The wastrels on Twitter have been used as tools in this operation to disseminate information for CIA and NSA traitors. Just today, AG Sessions brought charges against an NSA contractor, who will, most likely, DIE IN JAIL for committing heinous acts of sedition against her country. To be fair, it isn't entirely her fault. The media is mostly to blame for brainwashing and coercing people on the left to 'resist' some imaginary boogeyman, by committing crimes to weaken a sitting President.

Bear in mind, none of these people have any real power. Both the democrats and the leftist media have been marginalized, either through the voting booth or income statement, because their message hasn't resonated with most Americans over the past 8 years. Truth be told, most Americans simply want cheaper health insurance, higher paying jobs, peace and serenity; but we get none of that either.

Here are two of the more vocal anti-Trumpers on Twitter, @20committee (former intelligence community asshole) and @LouiseMensch (homewrecker, former MP in Britain, mentally un-fucking-stable) saying, in no uncertain terms, that the President of the United States would "die in jail."

Any cerements of decency by these people was unmoored with the election results on November 8th of 2016. The hysterical animality, coupled with insipidly languid thinking, have led these people, heralding down and interminable path of ghastly destruction. The Whore's of Babylon shall meet a mechanized ending of forlorn supplication for their garrulous acts of treason. God willing, all of them will, inexorably, and ironically, DIE IN JAIL.

Here's Rep. Chaffetz, chair of the House Oversight Committee, saying he'd like to see the leakers in handcuffs and behind bars, in an interview earlier tonight.

*NOTE:* Like CNN's Reza Aslan, the NSA traitor arrested today also called the President a 'piece of shit' on social media. It's fine for normies to say these sort of stupid things. But it's idiotic for someone with top level clearance to permit her emotions to cause her to make statements like this, which ultimately led to her comitting treason.



NSA Leaker Reality Winner was a member of #TheResistance with a top security clearance. Let that sink in pic.twitter.com/LsguAIZLfM

— Jack Posobiec ?? (@JackPosobiec) June 5, 2017



Here are the details of her arrest.
 



on June I, 2017, the FBI was notified by the U.S. Government Agency that the U.S. Government Agency had been contacted by the News Outlet [Intercept] on May 30, 2017, regarding an upcoming story. The News Outlet informed the U.S. Government Agency that it was in possession of what it believed to be a classified document authored by the U.S. Government Agency. The News Outlet provided the U.S. Government Agency with a copy of this document. Subsequent analysis by the U.S. Government Agency confirmed that the document in the News Outlet's possession is the intelligence reporting. The intelligence reporting is classified at the Top Secret level, indicating that its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security, and is marked as such.
 
The U.S. Government Agency examined the document shared by the News Outlet and determined the pages of the intelligence reporting appeared to be folded and/or creased, suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space.
 
The U.S. Government Agency conducted an internal audit to determine who accessed the intelligence reporting since its publication. The U.S. Government Agency determined that six individuals printed this reporting. WINNER was one of these six individuals. A further audit of the six individuals' desk computers revealed that WINNER had e-mail contact with the News Outlet. The audit did not reveal that any of the other individuals had e-mail contact with the News Outlet.



 
The moment of her arrest:
 



On June 3, 2017, [Garrick] spoke to WINNER at her home in Augusta, Georgia. During that conversation, WINNER admitted intentionally identifying and printing the classified intelligence reporting at issue despite not having a "need to know," and with knowledge that the intelligence reporting was classified. WINNER further admitted removing the classified intelligence reporting from her office space, retaining it, and mailing it from Augusta, Georgia, to the News Outlet, which she knew was not authorized to receive or possess the documents. WINNER further acknowledged that she was aware of the contents of the intelligence reporting and that she knew the contents of the reporting could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation.

Reported by Zero Hedge 3 hours ago.