Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:13:56 PM
Strategy on Rival’s Career Holds Pitfalls for President
May 23, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/us/politics/bain-strategy-against-romney-may-have-pitfalls-for-obama.html [with comments]
*
Debunking the theory that Obama’s attacks on Bain are ill-advised and ineffective
May 25, 2012
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2012/05/25/debunking-the-theory-that-obamas-attacks-on-bain-are-ill-advised-and-ineffective/ [with comments]
*
The Lesson of Bain Capital
Editorial
Published: May 25, 2012
Mitt Romney’s campaign claims to be outraged that President Obama would dare criticize its candidate’s experience of running Bain Capital [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/us/politics/perceptions-of-bain-years-help-and-hinder-romney.html ], a private-equity firm. Some Democratic politicians have also said the president went too far in tarring an important driver of economic growth. The financial price has been high: Mr. Romney’s campaign is reaping unusually generous Wall Street contributions, while Mr. Obama’s campaign is raising far less from the financial sector than it did four years ago.
The Obama campaign, however, is right to make an issue of Mr. Romney’s tenure at Bain. Mr. Romney argues that his experience in the private sector makes him the best choice to revive the economy, and voters need to understand the precise nature of that experience.
Two weeks ago, the Obama campaign released an ad showing a few of the 750 Kansas City steelworkers who were laid off after Bain Capital bought their company and later sent it into bankruptcy proceedings. “We view Mitt Romney as a job destroyer,” one of them said [ http://www.romneyeconomics.com/gst/gst-intro/video ]. The president explained later [ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/21/remarks-president-nato-press-conference ] that Mr. Romney’s principal goals in the private-equity field — maximizing profits, making money for investors — are not what the presidency is about. “My job is to take into account everybody, not just some,” he said. “My job is to make sure that the country is growing not just now, but 10 years from now.”
At Bain Capital, Mr. Romney made businesses more efficient, but often at a high human cost. (More than a fifth [ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694.html ] of Bain’s acquisitions went bankrupt, while Bain usually made money.) His embrace of Republican budgets that would benefit the wealthy while hurting the poor and the middle class shows his priorities haven’t changed.
Private equity, rarely by design, has created many jobs. But the practice of leveraged buyouts, in which Bain was a big player, has also contributed significantly to the growth of the income gap, moving wealth from the middle class to the top end. The president is helping to remind voters of the direct line between Mr. Romney’s previous priorities and the ones he intends to pursue in office.
© 2012 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/opinion/the-lesson-of-bain-capital.html
===
UPDATE 2-Obama campaign targeting Romney's record as governor
May 25, 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/25/usa-campaign-obama-idUSL1E8GP1QA20120525 [with comments]
===
In Defense of Voting Rights
Editorial
Published: May 19, 2012
Racial discrimination in voting is “one of the gravest evils that Congress can seek to redress,” Judge David Tatel wrote in a crucial ruling [ http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D79C82694E572B4D85257A02004EC903/$file/11-5256-1374370.pdf ] on Friday upholding the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/v/voting_rights_act_1965/index.html ].
In extending the law in 2006, Congress did just that, after reviewing racial bias in the nine states and parts of several others that have deep histories of discrimination. These “covered jurisdictions” had long been required by Section 5 of the law to get permission from the Justice Department or a federal court before making any changes to their voting rules. Congress found that discriminatory practices were still persistent and pervasive in those jurisdictions, and that the preclearance requirement remained necessary.
In his 2-to-1 majority opinion for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Judge Tatel explained that Congress’s judgment, supported by a legislative record of more than 15,000 pages and 22 hearings, “deserves judicial deference” because of the weight of the evidence. The ruling upheld a forceful decision [ http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/shelbycounty-dct.pdf ] by a federal district judge that reached the same conclusion in 2011.
The case, Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, has great significance because in 2009, by a vote of 8 to 1, the Supreme Court said there were “serious constitutional questions” about whether Section 5 met a current need. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, left some legal experts with the impression that the court had come close to striking down Section 5, which, fortunately, it did not do.
A dissent in the Alabama ruling argues that Section 5 is no longer constitutional because it is not “congruent and proportional” to the problem it aims to solve. But the thoroughness of Judge Tatel’s opinion dispels that idea. The majority found that voting rights discrimination is heavily concentrated in covered jurisdictions, and that overt discrimination persists in those places despite decades of Section 5 preclearance.
Since 2009, there has been a wave of regressive voting measures across the country. No one seriously argues that “the blight of racial discrimination in voting [ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0383_0301_ZO.html ],” as the Supreme Court once called it, has been halted.
With a 98-to-0 vote in the Senate and a vote of 390 to 33 in the House, Congress concluded that the work of Section 5 is not yet done. The appellate court has powerfully and persuasively affirmed that conclusion.
© 2012 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/in-defense-of-voting-rights.html
*
Voter Purge, Minority Voting Rights Flashpoints Of New Showdown In Florida
05/27/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/27/voter-purge-florida-showdown-minority-voting_n_1547541.html [with comments]
*
EXCLUSIVE: Florida Telling Hundreds Of Eligible Citizens That They Are Ineligible To Vote
May 27, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/27/491012/exclusive-florida-ineligible-to-vote/ [with comments]
*
Ohio GOP tries to suppress the vote
May 25, 2012
Republicans in Ohio are trying their very best to make it difficult to vote. Ed Schultz talks to Judith Brown Dianis about the latest efforts to block the vote.
© 2012 msnbc.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/47572689#47572689 [the above YouTube of the segment at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmJ1VIjRZGs ]
*
Ohio GOP tries to suppress the vote
May 24, 2012
Republicans in Ohio are trying their very best to make it difficult to vote. Ed Schultz talks to Judith Brown Dianis about the latest efforts to block the vote.
© 2012 msnbc.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/47572689#47572689 [the above YouTube of the segment at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2_MpLxMlwA ]
===
The Politics of Religion
Editorial
Published: May 27, 2012
Thirteen Roman Catholic dioceses and some Catholic-related groups scattered lawsuits across a dozen federal courts last week claiming that President Obama was violating their religious freedom [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/us/catholic-groups-file-suits-on-contraceptive-coverage.html ] by including contraceptives in basic health care coverage for female employees. It was a dramatic stunt, full of indignation but built on air.
Mr. Obama’s contraception-coverage mandate specifically exempts houses of worship. If he had ordered all other organizations affiliated with a religion to pay for their employees’ contraception coverage, that policy could probably be justified under Supreme Court precedent, including a 1990 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia.
But that argument does not have to be made in court, because Mr. Obama very publicly backed down from his original position and gave those groups a way around the contraception-coverage requirement.
Under the Constitution, churches and other religious organizations have total freedom to preach that contraception is sinful and rail against Mr. Obama for making it more readily available. But the First Amendment is not a license for religious entities to impose their dogma on society through the law. The vast majority of Americans do not agree with the Roman Catholic Church’s anti-contraception stance, including most American Catholic women.
The First Amendment also does not exempt religious entities or individuals claiming a sincere religious objection from neutral laws of general applicability, a category the new contraception rule plainly fits. In 1990, Justice Scalia reminded us that making “the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land” would mean allowing “every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
In 1993, Congress required government actions that “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion [ http://www.churchstatelaw.com/federalstatutes/7_2.asp ]” to advance a compelling interest by the least restrictive means. The new contraceptive policy does that by promoting women’s health and autonomy.
And there was no violation of religious exercise to begin with. After religious groups protested, the administration put the burden on insurance companies to provide free contraceptive coverage to women who work for religiously affiliated employers like hospitals or universities — with no employer involvement.
This is a clear partisan play. The real threat to religious liberty comes from the effort to impose one church’s doctrine on everyone.
© 2012 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/opinion/the-politics-of-religion.html
*
Mitt Romney and the Women Who Don't Love Him
Pete Marovich/ZUMA Press
Why the presumptive GOP nominee has zero game with female voters, explained.
By Stephanie Mencimer
Fri May. 25, 2012 3:00 AM PDT
Mitt Romney has a particular effect on voters of the opposite sex—and it's not a good one. During the heated final days of the GOP primary, female Republicans in many states favored Rick Santorum. Romney's dismal luck with the ladies was more apparent in April, when, according to a Washington Post poll, he was trailing President Barack Obama among women voters by 19 percentage points. Romney's female appeal hasn't improved much in the past month. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released this week [ http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/22/11816298-nbcwsj-poll-obama-romney-locked-in-tight-contest ] still puts him 15 points behind Obama.
His numbers are particularly dismal among single gals. While Romney leads Obama among married women [ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57416083-504564/poll-reveals-gap-between-married-and-single-women/ ] by about 9 points, Obama blows him away among single women by 36 points. This matters: There are 55 million single women in the United States. If they got motivated, they are a big enough block to swing the election.
The Romney campaign has responded to the candidate's female voter problem by deploying Ann Romney and putting the candidate on the stump with high-profile Republican women including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. It has also been prominently touting his recent endorsement by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who proclaimed Romney "the better choice for women." He's been peppering his stump speeches with stories of women he's met on the campaign trail (people like "Woman Whose Husband Took an Upholstery Class," as the AP dubbed her [ http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Gender-gap-is-Romney-target-3578187.php ], because the Romney campaign has failed to actually identify any of these women). And recently the Romney campaign tried to take Barack Obama down a peg with women by insisting (falsely) that the majority of jobs lost during the recession were lost by women.
Republicans writ large have had problems with female voters for two decades: George H.W. Bush won the female vote in 1988 and lost it (and the election) in 1992. Bob Dole lost women voters by 16 points in 1996. And George W. Bush lost by 11 points in 2000 and 3 points in 2004. But Romney's problem with women seems to go deeper than that of the average Republican candidate. Consider this: Romney has never netted a majority of women voters during any of his political races, even when he won.
In 2002, Romney won the governorship in Massachusetts largely by winning over men, who voted for him by 13 points over the Democrat. Romney lost the women's vote by 4 points. The gender gap that year was the largest in that state since 1990, when William Weld became Massachusetts’ first GOP governor since 1975—largely thanks to the support of women voters. In 1994, when Romney ran for the Senate against incumbent Sen. Ted Kennedy, female voters picked Kennedy over Romney by 24 points.
There were unique factors in all of these races. Kennedy, a pro-choice and equal rights champion, was a legend in a Democratic state; Romney ran against a woman in the 2002 governor's race. But in 2008, he lost the women's vote in the GOP primary to Sen. John McCain (who then lost women voters to Obama by 13 points).
Romney’s performance in the GOP primary this year suggests that his gender deficit is an enduring one. Not only did Romney lose the women’s vote in many states to the ultra-conservative Santorum, but Newt Gingrich bested him among women in South Carolina [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/newt-gingrich-defies-conventional-wisdom-about-women-voters/2012/01/22/gIQADdtuJQ_blog.html ]—and that was after Gingrich's second wife dropped the bombshell that her former husband had once asked her to have an "open marriage."
Parsing just what it is that women don't like about the presumptive GOP nominee isn't easy because Romney, as you may have heard, is a bit of a social clunker. (Remember the "Who let the dogs out? [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4 ]" incident?) He strikes people in all walks of life as kind of awkward. But judging from the polls, men seem willing to overlook his goofy sense of humor, the fake butt-pinching episode [ http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0615mitts_pinch_of_humor_falls_flat_in_nh ], and the odd social interactions. Many women, though, seem to experience a dislike that can't be explained solely by his (current) policy positions, which aren't much different from those of other Republicans.
The clues to Romney's women problem may lie in his personal history. His mother, a former Hollywood starlet, ran for the Senate herself. He also has two sisters; one of them, Jane, is an actress and a Democrat who has been called the "Billy Carter" of the family [ http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1111/A_complicated_Romney_family.html ].) But at 12 and 9 years older than Romney, his sisters weren't around the house to influence him in adolescence in a way they might have if they were closer in age. For the most part, his life has been characterized by his involvement in a string of virtually all-male or heavily male-dominated institutions. "Of most of the environments that he's electively joined, women are, if not structurally excluded from leadership, they are historically excluded," observes Joanna Brooks, a senior correspondent at Religion Dispatches and a Mormon feminist who's been studying Romney for years.
Romney’s professional life was spent in the sausage fest of high finance and politics. That's true of lots of men, especially rich ones who enter politics. But Romney is also steeped in a religious culture in which gender roles historically have been rigidly segregated and in which men and women operate in distinctly different spheres. His role in the male-dominated Mormon church has gone far beyond spending some time in the pews every Sunday. Romney was groomed from an early age to assume responsibility as a leader in the LDS church.
Within the Mormon church, laymen (and only men) are vested with considerable power, unlike, say, the Catholic Church, which is also male dominated but which has professional clergy. Male lay members serve as the Mormon church's spiritual leaders. In that role, men like Romney are charged with counseling the faithful and laying down church law within their flocks, a job that has traditionally included trying to enforce the church's strict vision of gender roles.
Brooks notes that it's not unusual among Mormon men of his generation to have difficulties relating to women as equals in the professional world. She explains that they came of age at a time when the church openly opposed the women's movement, which presented a significant challenge to a church whose theological and cultural logic is organized around strongly defined gender roles. As a result, she says, Mormon men of that era sometimes seem to have the sense that "there is no proper way to engage with women as adult equals."
After attending an all-boys prep school in Michigan and then spending a year at Stanford, Romney, like most Mormon men, spent almost three years cloistered with other young men as a missionary. He was dispatched to France, where female missionaries were present in small numbers but dating was strictly verboten. Mission counselors urge their young charges to marry quickly upon returning home, a reflection of the church's emphasis on marriage, its strict ban on premarital sex, and its emphasis on chastity. In Romney's case, within three months of returning from his mission he married the girl he'd pledged to wed while in high school.
There's no evidence that Romney had much experience with the emotionally rough and tumble world of dating, where women can provoke emotional vulnerability in even the manliest of men. At a time when lots of young men were still sowing wild oats, Mitt and Ann were having kids, the first within a year of marriage, while they were both in college at Utah's Brigham Young University. (The Romneys eventually had five boys, ensuring that Mitt would be spared any confrontations with that alien species—teenage girls—as he got older in his male-dominated household. Even Seamus, the Romneys' now-famous Irish Setter, was a guy.)
The Mormon-church-owned BYU was hardly the place for Romney to expand his interactions with women. While the women's movement was rapidly breaking down barriers for women after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which barred discrimination on the basis of gender, BYU maintained a long-standing prohibition on hiring married women of childbearing age, leaving few women as faculty members or administrators.
When Romney arrived on campus in 1969, the school still had a ban on women's pantsuits. Church leaders had partly designed BYU as a place for women to find husbands [ http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=11586 ] and learn skills that would make them better wives and mothers. (It's still a running joke among female students that they're attending BYU to obtain an "RM"—or "returned missionary.")
At the university, Romney spent his free time in BYU's all-male "Cougar Club," raising money for the school and leading religious meetings of the club's members when not in class. After graduating in 1971, Romney entered an elite and virtually all-male joint law and business program at Harvard, where just 10 percent of the MBA students were female. Romney later moved on to the testosterone-fueled world of finance at Bain Capital. He has acknowledged that his firm had few women in positions of power [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/mitt-romney-women-ted-kennedy_n_1418573.html ]—only about 10 percent of the firm's vice presidents were women.
Romney carried this guy-centric history into politics. In his first political race, in 1994, Romney's traditional family and long marriage could have been a selling point, especially given that Ted Kennedy was suffering in the polls largely because of his own issues with women. A few years earlier, Kennedy had been forced to testify in the rape trial of his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, because he had been out drinking with Smith the night Smith was accused of sexually assaulting a woman.
During that Senate campaign, Romney ran as a moderate and tried to cast himself as the anti-Kennedy: a devoted family man who'd never strayed from the path. In a well-meaning attempt to bolster that image, Romney's mother, Lenore, volunteered to an interviewer that Mitt and Ann had waited until they were married to have sex. Still, Romney lost the women’s vote by historic proportions.
It's possible that Romney's straight-laced and pious bearing might have hurt him in that race. Some infamous womanizers have been good politicians perhaps because they were good at connecting with the ladies (see Bill Clinton). Romney seems handicapped in this area. He often comes off on the campaign trail as someone who isn't terribly interested in listening to ordinary voters. He has a habit of ignoring questions that he doesn’t want to answer. And he doesn't demonstrate much empathy, a liability that may disproportionately hurt him among women.
Recall the incident in South Carolina in January when an African American woman approached the rope line and told Romney about her economic woes. At such a moment, Clinton might have offered her a big bear hug. Romney offered her cash [ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/romney-gives-unemployed-woman-cash-on-ropeline/ ], pulling $50 to $60 out of his pocket and thrusting it upon her. Romney was clearly trying to be nice, yet the gesture came off as patronizing. It's a quality that’s likely to be off-putting to women, who are sensitive about having their ideas and complaints dismissed by men.
Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney's campaign, responded to questions for this story by forwarding a 2004 study showing that when Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he had the highest percentage of female appointees in the country. And Romney has employed women in senior campaign posts. One example is Beth Myers, the longtime Romney adviser who's heading up his vice presidential search and who served as his chief of staff in Massachusetts.
Romney has indeed shown the ability to take women seriously and to rethink his views of their issues when pressed to do so. In 1993, he was serving as the Belmont LDS "stake" president when a group of feminists in the church were agitating for more equitable treatment. Romney grudgingly met with the 250 women to consider their demands, which included installing changing tables in the men's room and the opportunity to address the congregation the way men could.
When Romney showed up at the meeting, he brought the tools of his trade: flip charts and markers. His approach, and his follow up, which included implementing a number of the women's demands in the church, left the female congregants feeling hopeful. Many of them who've spoken to the press in recent months point to that meeting as evidence that Romney is capable of being responsive to women's concerns.
But then there are other stories from his time as a church leader that show different, more domineering interactions with women. Among the most oft-repeated incidents is one in which Romney visited a divorced woman from his church who'd become pregnant with her second child out of wedlock. She wanted the baby and planned to raise it by herself. But Romney informed her that the church believed she should give her child to the LDS adoption agency because she was unmarried. If she refused, the woman recalled, Romney said the church would excommunicate her. She ended up keeping her baby anyway, and later quit the church. (According to The Real Romney [ http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/02/mitt-romney-201202 ], a new book written by a pair of Boston Globe reporters, Romney would later deny that he had threatened to excommunicate the woman. But she told the Globe reporters that Romney's message "was crystal clear: 'Give up your son or give up your God.'") The side of Romney that is capable of making such a demand on a mother may be the part of him that many women voters, consciously or not, find unappealing.
In many ways, Romney is a case study for the old feminist argument that gender equality isn't just good for women, but good for men, too. His life in the monastery of paternalistic, male-dominated institutions has garnered him great riches and success. But his life in the boy's club has also given him few opportunities to practice genuinely connecting with ordinary women who make up the female voting bloc—a problem that could doom him in November.
Copyright ©2012 Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/mitt-romney-and-women-who-dont-love-him [with comments]
===
JPMorgan’s Deficient Disclosures
May 24, 2012
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/jpmorgans-deficient-disclosures/ [with comments]
*
Bank Regulators Under Scrutiny in JPMorgan Loss
May 25, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/business/regulators-role-at-jpmorgan-scrutinized.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/business/regulators-role-at-jpmorgan-scrutinized.html?pagewanted=all ]
*
The Hunch, the Pounce and the Kill
How Boaz Weinstein and Hedge Funds Outsmarted JPMorgan
May 26, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/business/how-boaz-weinstein-and-hedge-funds-outsmarted-jpmorgan.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/business/how-boaz-weinstein-and-hedge-funds-outsmarted-jpmorgan.html?pagewanted=all ]
*
Carlos Slim, World's Wealthiest Man, Capitalizing On European Debt Crisis
05/24/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/carlos-slim-european-debt-crisis_n_1542912.html [with comments]
*
Postponing Retirement: Record Number Of Americans Choosing To Stay At Work
05/24/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/older-workers-and-money-s_n_1522484.html [with comments]
*
Bank earnings rebound, but lending slackens
May 24, 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/24/us-financial-regulation-fdic-idUSBRE84N16L20120524 [no comments yet]
===
The Majority of People With Individual Insurance Have Terrible Coverage
The good news is that their coverage levels will have to go up under the Affordable Care Act.
May 29 2012
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/05/the-majority-of-people-with-individual-insurance-have-terrible-coverage/257746/ [no comments yet]
*
Most Individual Health Policies Don't Meet ACA Rules
May 29, 2012
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/32969
*
Insurance plans fall short of health law standards, study finds
May 29, 2012
http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/insurance-plans-fall-short-of-health-law-standards-study-finds/4bed771810cc65be2a010764255b0bd6
*
Better Health Insurance For Americans By 2014
May 29, 2012
http://www.empowher.com/cancer/content/better-health-insurance-americans-2014 no comments yet]
*
Thanks to Obamacare, Your Health Insurer May Have to Send You Money
May 29, 2012
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-29/thanks-to-obamacare-your-insurance-company-may-have-to-mail-you-a-check [no comments yet]
*
Obamacare May Be Helping Improve Insurers' Notoriously Poor Customer Service
5/29/2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2012/05/29/obamacare-may-be-helping-improve-insurers-notoriously-poor-customer-service/ [with comments]
*
Price hikes offset slower health care use
J.K. Wall
May 29, 2012
So much for all those employer wellness programs.
Newly available data from private health insurance plans show that price hikes by hospitals, doctors and drug companies have kept employer spending rising recently even as their employees and dependents have moderated their consumption of health care services.
The analysis of health insurer data was conducted by the Health Care Cost Institute, a group in Washington, D.C., formed to analyze the data reported to meet new requirements of the 2010 Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act.
The data are from four health insurers—Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group, Louisville-based Humana Inc., Hartford-based Aetna Inc. and California-based Kaiser Permanente. Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. was not part of the analysis.
The data cover only Americans under 65 that are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance, which is typically the most lucrative form of payment for hospitals and doctors. Health care experts have said for years that doctors and hospitals hike prices for employer-sponsored insurance in order to offset payments from government-sponsored plans like Medicare and Medicaid that do not fully cover their costs.
Overall spending on health care services rose 16 percent from 2007 to 2010, when it averaged $4,255 per patient.
From 2007 to 2010, the number of hospital stays per 1,000 people covered by employer-sponsored insurance plans fell 7 percent. But during the same time, the price per stay jumped 20 percent. As a result, total spending for hospital stays rose nearly 12 percent, to $893 per person covered by private health insurance.
ER visits and outpatient surgeries at hospital facilities were unchanged from 2007 to 2010, but prices rose nearly 32 percent.
Outpatient procedures, such as lab and pathology tests, imaging and other ancillary services, saw both utilization and prices rise about 8.5 percent from 2007 to 2010.
Total spending on outpatient services average $1,126 per patient in 2010.
Physician fees for office visits and procedures performed rose nearly 7 percent during those three years, a tick ahead of the 5-percent rise in use. Per-person spending on physicians averaged $1,472 in 2010.
And drug prices rose 11 percent even as the rate of prescription patients rose just 2 percent. Per-person spending on drugs in 2010 averaged $765.
“We hope this report will help people get a much clearer picture about what triggers health care growth and spending,” David Newman, executive director of the Health Care Cost Institute, said in a prepared statement. “Having this amount of data allows us to drill down and examine the underlying causes of health care spending among a population that hasn’t been studied extensively in a way that can provide answers to important questions.”
Copyright © 2012 Indianapolis Business Journal
http://www.ibj.com/price-hikes-offset-slower-health-care-use/PARAMS/article/34652 [with comment]
*
Changing How Health Care Is Paid for and Delivered
Delivery System Reform Is Integral to Health Care Reform
May 29, 2012
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/05/healthcare_event.html
*
Romney to Replace Obamacare with...Essentially Nothing
May 29, 2012
http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-to-replace-obamacare-withessentially-nothing-2012-5 [no comments yet]
*
Obamacare Has Already Transformed U.S. Health Care
March 22, 2012
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-22/obamacare-has-already-transformed-u-dot-s-dot-health-care [with comments]
===
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74808111 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75037439 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75240354 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75538225 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75631548 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75240354 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75977833 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75989418 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76012416 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76013448 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76032794 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76056154 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76058920 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76068307 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76070562 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76073781 (and any future following)
May 23, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/us/politics/bain-strategy-against-romney-may-have-pitfalls-for-obama.html [with comments]
*
Debunking the theory that Obama’s attacks on Bain are ill-advised and ineffective
May 25, 2012
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2012/05/25/debunking-the-theory-that-obamas-attacks-on-bain-are-ill-advised-and-ineffective/ [with comments]
*
The Lesson of Bain Capital
Editorial
Published: May 25, 2012
Mitt Romney’s campaign claims to be outraged that President Obama would dare criticize its candidate’s experience of running Bain Capital [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/us/politics/perceptions-of-bain-years-help-and-hinder-romney.html ], a private-equity firm. Some Democratic politicians have also said the president went too far in tarring an important driver of economic growth. The financial price has been high: Mr. Romney’s campaign is reaping unusually generous Wall Street contributions, while Mr. Obama’s campaign is raising far less from the financial sector than it did four years ago.
The Obama campaign, however, is right to make an issue of Mr. Romney’s tenure at Bain. Mr. Romney argues that his experience in the private sector makes him the best choice to revive the economy, and voters need to understand the precise nature of that experience.
Two weeks ago, the Obama campaign released an ad showing a few of the 750 Kansas City steelworkers who were laid off after Bain Capital bought their company and later sent it into bankruptcy proceedings. “We view Mitt Romney as a job destroyer,” one of them said [ http://www.romneyeconomics.com/gst/gst-intro/video ]. The president explained later [ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/21/remarks-president-nato-press-conference ] that Mr. Romney’s principal goals in the private-equity field — maximizing profits, making money for investors — are not what the presidency is about. “My job is to take into account everybody, not just some,” he said. “My job is to make sure that the country is growing not just now, but 10 years from now.”
At Bain Capital, Mr. Romney made businesses more efficient, but often at a high human cost. (More than a fifth [ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577140850713493694.html ] of Bain’s acquisitions went bankrupt, while Bain usually made money.) His embrace of Republican budgets that would benefit the wealthy while hurting the poor and the middle class shows his priorities haven’t changed.
Private equity, rarely by design, has created many jobs. But the practice of leveraged buyouts, in which Bain was a big player, has also contributed significantly to the growth of the income gap, moving wealth from the middle class to the top end. The president is helping to remind voters of the direct line between Mr. Romney’s previous priorities and the ones he intends to pursue in office.
© 2012 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/opinion/the-lesson-of-bain-capital.html
===
UPDATE 2-Obama campaign targeting Romney's record as governor
May 25, 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/25/usa-campaign-obama-idUSL1E8GP1QA20120525 [with comments]
===
In Defense of Voting Rights
Editorial
Published: May 19, 2012
Racial discrimination in voting is “one of the gravest evils that Congress can seek to redress,” Judge David Tatel wrote in a crucial ruling [ http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D79C82694E572B4D85257A02004EC903/$file/11-5256-1374370.pdf ] on Friday upholding the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/v/voting_rights_act_1965/index.html ].
In extending the law in 2006, Congress did just that, after reviewing racial bias in the nine states and parts of several others that have deep histories of discrimination. These “covered jurisdictions” had long been required by Section 5 of the law to get permission from the Justice Department or a federal court before making any changes to their voting rules. Congress found that discriminatory practices were still persistent and pervasive in those jurisdictions, and that the preclearance requirement remained necessary.
In his 2-to-1 majority opinion for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Judge Tatel explained that Congress’s judgment, supported by a legislative record of more than 15,000 pages and 22 hearings, “deserves judicial deference” because of the weight of the evidence. The ruling upheld a forceful decision [ http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/shelbycounty-dct.pdf ] by a federal district judge that reached the same conclusion in 2011.
The case, Shelby County, Ala. v. Holder, has great significance because in 2009, by a vote of 8 to 1, the Supreme Court said there were “serious constitutional questions” about whether Section 5 met a current need. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, left some legal experts with the impression that the court had come close to striking down Section 5, which, fortunately, it did not do.
A dissent in the Alabama ruling argues that Section 5 is no longer constitutional because it is not “congruent and proportional” to the problem it aims to solve. But the thoroughness of Judge Tatel’s opinion dispels that idea. The majority found that voting rights discrimination is heavily concentrated in covered jurisdictions, and that overt discrimination persists in those places despite decades of Section 5 preclearance.
Since 2009, there has been a wave of regressive voting measures across the country. No one seriously argues that “the blight of racial discrimination in voting [ http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0383_0301_ZO.html ],” as the Supreme Court once called it, has been halted.
With a 98-to-0 vote in the Senate and a vote of 390 to 33 in the House, Congress concluded that the work of Section 5 is not yet done. The appellate court has powerfully and persuasively affirmed that conclusion.
© 2012 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/opinion/sunday/in-defense-of-voting-rights.html
*
Voter Purge, Minority Voting Rights Flashpoints Of New Showdown In Florida
05/27/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/27/voter-purge-florida-showdown-minority-voting_n_1547541.html [with comments]
*
EXCLUSIVE: Florida Telling Hundreds Of Eligible Citizens That They Are Ineligible To Vote
May 27, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/27/491012/exclusive-florida-ineligible-to-vote/ [with comments]
*
Ohio GOP tries to suppress the vote
The Ed Show
May 25, 2012
Republicans in Ohio are trying their very best to make it difficult to vote. Ed Schultz talks to Judith Brown Dianis about the latest efforts to block the vote.
© 2012 msnbc.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/47572689#47572689 [the above YouTube of the segment at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmJ1VIjRZGs ]
*
Ohio GOP tries to suppress the vote
The Ed Show
May 24, 2012
Republicans in Ohio are trying their very best to make it difficult to vote. Ed Schultz talks to Judith Brown Dianis about the latest efforts to block the vote.
© 2012 msnbc.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/vp/47572689#47572689 [the above YouTube of the segment at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2_MpLxMlwA ]
===
The Politics of Religion
Editorial
Published: May 27, 2012
Thirteen Roman Catholic dioceses and some Catholic-related groups scattered lawsuits across a dozen federal courts last week claiming that President Obama was violating their religious freedom [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/us/catholic-groups-file-suits-on-contraceptive-coverage.html ] by including contraceptives in basic health care coverage for female employees. It was a dramatic stunt, full of indignation but built on air.
Mr. Obama’s contraception-coverage mandate specifically exempts houses of worship. If he had ordered all other organizations affiliated with a religion to pay for their employees’ contraception coverage, that policy could probably be justified under Supreme Court precedent, including a 1990 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia.
But that argument does not have to be made in court, because Mr. Obama very publicly backed down from his original position and gave those groups a way around the contraception-coverage requirement.
Under the Constitution, churches and other religious organizations have total freedom to preach that contraception is sinful and rail against Mr. Obama for making it more readily available. But the First Amendment is not a license for religious entities to impose their dogma on society through the law. The vast majority of Americans do not agree with the Roman Catholic Church’s anti-contraception stance, including most American Catholic women.
The First Amendment also does not exempt religious entities or individuals claiming a sincere religious objection from neutral laws of general applicability, a category the new contraception rule plainly fits. In 1990, Justice Scalia reminded us that making “the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land” would mean allowing “every citizen to become a law unto himself.”
In 1993, Congress required government actions that “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion [ http://www.churchstatelaw.com/federalstatutes/7_2.asp ]” to advance a compelling interest by the least restrictive means. The new contraceptive policy does that by promoting women’s health and autonomy.
And there was no violation of religious exercise to begin with. After religious groups protested, the administration put the burden on insurance companies to provide free contraceptive coverage to women who work for religiously affiliated employers like hospitals or universities — with no employer involvement.
This is a clear partisan play. The real threat to religious liberty comes from the effort to impose one church’s doctrine on everyone.
© 2012 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/opinion/the-politics-of-religion.html
*
Mitt Romney and the Women Who Don't Love Him
Pete Marovich/ZUMA Press
Why the presumptive GOP nominee has zero game with female voters, explained.
By Stephanie Mencimer
Fri May. 25, 2012 3:00 AM PDT
Mitt Romney has a particular effect on voters of the opposite sex—and it's not a good one. During the heated final days of the GOP primary, female Republicans in many states favored Rick Santorum. Romney's dismal luck with the ladies was more apparent in April, when, according to a Washington Post poll, he was trailing President Barack Obama among women voters by 19 percentage points. Romney's female appeal hasn't improved much in the past month. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released this week [ http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/22/11816298-nbcwsj-poll-obama-romney-locked-in-tight-contest ] still puts him 15 points behind Obama.
His numbers are particularly dismal among single gals. While Romney leads Obama among married women [ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57416083-504564/poll-reveals-gap-between-married-and-single-women/ ] by about 9 points, Obama blows him away among single women by 36 points. This matters: There are 55 million single women in the United States. If they got motivated, they are a big enough block to swing the election.
The Romney campaign has responded to the candidate's female voter problem by deploying Ann Romney and putting the candidate on the stump with high-profile Republican women including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. It has also been prominently touting his recent endorsement by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), who proclaimed Romney "the better choice for women." He's been peppering his stump speeches with stories of women he's met on the campaign trail (people like "Woman Whose Husband Took an Upholstery Class," as the AP dubbed her [ http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Gender-gap-is-Romney-target-3578187.php ], because the Romney campaign has failed to actually identify any of these women). And recently the Romney campaign tried to take Barack Obama down a peg with women by insisting (falsely) that the majority of jobs lost during the recession were lost by women.
Republicans writ large have had problems with female voters for two decades: George H.W. Bush won the female vote in 1988 and lost it (and the election) in 1992. Bob Dole lost women voters by 16 points in 1996. And George W. Bush lost by 11 points in 2000 and 3 points in 2004. But Romney's problem with women seems to go deeper than that of the average Republican candidate. Consider this: Romney has never netted a majority of women voters during any of his political races, even when he won.
In 2002, Romney won the governorship in Massachusetts largely by winning over men, who voted for him by 13 points over the Democrat. Romney lost the women's vote by 4 points. The gender gap that year was the largest in that state since 1990, when William Weld became Massachusetts’ first GOP governor since 1975—largely thanks to the support of women voters. In 1994, when Romney ran for the Senate against incumbent Sen. Ted Kennedy, female voters picked Kennedy over Romney by 24 points.
There were unique factors in all of these races. Kennedy, a pro-choice and equal rights champion, was a legend in a Democratic state; Romney ran against a woman in the 2002 governor's race. But in 2008, he lost the women's vote in the GOP primary to Sen. John McCain (who then lost women voters to Obama by 13 points).
Romney’s performance in the GOP primary this year suggests that his gender deficit is an enduring one. Not only did Romney lose the women’s vote in many states to the ultra-conservative Santorum, but Newt Gingrich bested him among women in South Carolina [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/newt-gingrich-defies-conventional-wisdom-about-women-voters/2012/01/22/gIQADdtuJQ_blog.html ]—and that was after Gingrich's second wife dropped the bombshell that her former husband had once asked her to have an "open marriage."
Parsing just what it is that women don't like about the presumptive GOP nominee isn't easy because Romney, as you may have heard, is a bit of a social clunker. (Remember the "Who let the dogs out? [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4 ]" incident?) He strikes people in all walks of life as kind of awkward. But judging from the polls, men seem willing to overlook his goofy sense of humor, the fake butt-pinching episode [ http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0615mitts_pinch_of_humor_falls_flat_in_nh ], and the odd social interactions. Many women, though, seem to experience a dislike that can't be explained solely by his (current) policy positions, which aren't much different from those of other Republicans.
The clues to Romney's women problem may lie in his personal history. His mother, a former Hollywood starlet, ran for the Senate herself. He also has two sisters; one of them, Jane, is an actress and a Democrat who has been called the "Billy Carter" of the family [ http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1111/A_complicated_Romney_family.html ].) But at 12 and 9 years older than Romney, his sisters weren't around the house to influence him in adolescence in a way they might have if they were closer in age. For the most part, his life has been characterized by his involvement in a string of virtually all-male or heavily male-dominated institutions. "Of most of the environments that he's electively joined, women are, if not structurally excluded from leadership, they are historically excluded," observes Joanna Brooks, a senior correspondent at Religion Dispatches and a Mormon feminist who's been studying Romney for years.
Romney’s professional life was spent in the sausage fest of high finance and politics. That's true of lots of men, especially rich ones who enter politics. But Romney is also steeped in a religious culture in which gender roles historically have been rigidly segregated and in which men and women operate in distinctly different spheres. His role in the male-dominated Mormon church has gone far beyond spending some time in the pews every Sunday. Romney was groomed from an early age to assume responsibility as a leader in the LDS church.
Within the Mormon church, laymen (and only men) are vested with considerable power, unlike, say, the Catholic Church, which is also male dominated but which has professional clergy. Male lay members serve as the Mormon church's spiritual leaders. In that role, men like Romney are charged with counseling the faithful and laying down church law within their flocks, a job that has traditionally included trying to enforce the church's strict vision of gender roles.
Brooks notes that it's not unusual among Mormon men of his generation to have difficulties relating to women as equals in the professional world. She explains that they came of age at a time when the church openly opposed the women's movement, which presented a significant challenge to a church whose theological and cultural logic is organized around strongly defined gender roles. As a result, she says, Mormon men of that era sometimes seem to have the sense that "there is no proper way to engage with women as adult equals."
After attending an all-boys prep school in Michigan and then spending a year at Stanford, Romney, like most Mormon men, spent almost three years cloistered with other young men as a missionary. He was dispatched to France, where female missionaries were present in small numbers but dating was strictly verboten. Mission counselors urge their young charges to marry quickly upon returning home, a reflection of the church's emphasis on marriage, its strict ban on premarital sex, and its emphasis on chastity. In Romney's case, within three months of returning from his mission he married the girl he'd pledged to wed while in high school.
There's no evidence that Romney had much experience with the emotionally rough and tumble world of dating, where women can provoke emotional vulnerability in even the manliest of men. At a time when lots of young men were still sowing wild oats, Mitt and Ann were having kids, the first within a year of marriage, while they were both in college at Utah's Brigham Young University. (The Romneys eventually had five boys, ensuring that Mitt would be spared any confrontations with that alien species—teenage girls—as he got older in his male-dominated household. Even Seamus, the Romneys' now-famous Irish Setter, was a guy.)
The Mormon-church-owned BYU was hardly the place for Romney to expand his interactions with women. While the women's movement was rapidly breaking down barriers for women after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which barred discrimination on the basis of gender, BYU maintained a long-standing prohibition on hiring married women of childbearing age, leaving few women as faculty members or administrators.
When Romney arrived on campus in 1969, the school still had a ban on women's pantsuits. Church leaders had partly designed BYU as a place for women to find husbands [ http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=11586 ] and learn skills that would make them better wives and mothers. (It's still a running joke among female students that they're attending BYU to obtain an "RM"—or "returned missionary.")
At the university, Romney spent his free time in BYU's all-male "Cougar Club," raising money for the school and leading religious meetings of the club's members when not in class. After graduating in 1971, Romney entered an elite and virtually all-male joint law and business program at Harvard, where just 10 percent of the MBA students were female. Romney later moved on to the testosterone-fueled world of finance at Bain Capital. He has acknowledged that his firm had few women in positions of power [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/mitt-romney-women-ted-kennedy_n_1418573.html ]—only about 10 percent of the firm's vice presidents were women.
Romney carried this guy-centric history into politics. In his first political race, in 1994, Romney's traditional family and long marriage could have been a selling point, especially given that Ted Kennedy was suffering in the polls largely because of his own issues with women. A few years earlier, Kennedy had been forced to testify in the rape trial of his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, because he had been out drinking with Smith the night Smith was accused of sexually assaulting a woman.
During that Senate campaign, Romney ran as a moderate and tried to cast himself as the anti-Kennedy: a devoted family man who'd never strayed from the path. In a well-meaning attempt to bolster that image, Romney's mother, Lenore, volunteered to an interviewer that Mitt and Ann had waited until they were married to have sex. Still, Romney lost the women’s vote by historic proportions.
It's possible that Romney's straight-laced and pious bearing might have hurt him in that race. Some infamous womanizers have been good politicians perhaps because they were good at connecting with the ladies (see Bill Clinton). Romney seems handicapped in this area. He often comes off on the campaign trail as someone who isn't terribly interested in listening to ordinary voters. He has a habit of ignoring questions that he doesn’t want to answer. And he doesn't demonstrate much empathy, a liability that may disproportionately hurt him among women.
Recall the incident in South Carolina in January when an African American woman approached the rope line and told Romney about her economic woes. At such a moment, Clinton might have offered her a big bear hug. Romney offered her cash [ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/romney-gives-unemployed-woman-cash-on-ropeline/ ], pulling $50 to $60 out of his pocket and thrusting it upon her. Romney was clearly trying to be nice, yet the gesture came off as patronizing. It's a quality that’s likely to be off-putting to women, who are sensitive about having their ideas and complaints dismissed by men.
Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney's campaign, responded to questions for this story by forwarding a 2004 study showing that when Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he had the highest percentage of female appointees in the country. And Romney has employed women in senior campaign posts. One example is Beth Myers, the longtime Romney adviser who's heading up his vice presidential search and who served as his chief of staff in Massachusetts.
Romney has indeed shown the ability to take women seriously and to rethink his views of their issues when pressed to do so. In 1993, he was serving as the Belmont LDS "stake" president when a group of feminists in the church were agitating for more equitable treatment. Romney grudgingly met with the 250 women to consider their demands, which included installing changing tables in the men's room and the opportunity to address the congregation the way men could.
When Romney showed up at the meeting, he brought the tools of his trade: flip charts and markers. His approach, and his follow up, which included implementing a number of the women's demands in the church, left the female congregants feeling hopeful. Many of them who've spoken to the press in recent months point to that meeting as evidence that Romney is capable of being responsive to women's concerns.
But then there are other stories from his time as a church leader that show different, more domineering interactions with women. Among the most oft-repeated incidents is one in which Romney visited a divorced woman from his church who'd become pregnant with her second child out of wedlock. She wanted the baby and planned to raise it by herself. But Romney informed her that the church believed she should give her child to the LDS adoption agency because she was unmarried. If she refused, the woman recalled, Romney said the church would excommunicate her. She ended up keeping her baby anyway, and later quit the church. (According to The Real Romney [ http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/02/mitt-romney-201202 ], a new book written by a pair of Boston Globe reporters, Romney would later deny that he had threatened to excommunicate the woman. But she told the Globe reporters that Romney's message "was crystal clear: 'Give up your son or give up your God.'") The side of Romney that is capable of making such a demand on a mother may be the part of him that many women voters, consciously or not, find unappealing.
In many ways, Romney is a case study for the old feminist argument that gender equality isn't just good for women, but good for men, too. His life in the monastery of paternalistic, male-dominated institutions has garnered him great riches and success. But his life in the boy's club has also given him few opportunities to practice genuinely connecting with ordinary women who make up the female voting bloc—a problem that could doom him in November.
Copyright ©2012 Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/mitt-romney-and-women-who-dont-love-him [with comments]
===
JPMorgan’s Deficient Disclosures
May 24, 2012
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/jpmorgans-deficient-disclosures/ [with comments]
*
Bank Regulators Under Scrutiny in JPMorgan Loss
May 25, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/business/regulators-role-at-jpmorgan-scrutinized.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/business/regulators-role-at-jpmorgan-scrutinized.html?pagewanted=all ]
*
The Hunch, the Pounce and the Kill
How Boaz Weinstein and Hedge Funds Outsmarted JPMorgan
May 26, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/business/how-boaz-weinstein-and-hedge-funds-outsmarted-jpmorgan.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/business/how-boaz-weinstein-and-hedge-funds-outsmarted-jpmorgan.html?pagewanted=all ]
*
Carlos Slim, World's Wealthiest Man, Capitalizing On European Debt Crisis
05/24/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/carlos-slim-european-debt-crisis_n_1542912.html [with comments]
*
Postponing Retirement: Record Number Of Americans Choosing To Stay At Work
05/24/2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/older-workers-and-money-s_n_1522484.html [with comments]
*
Bank earnings rebound, but lending slackens
May 24, 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/24/us-financial-regulation-fdic-idUSBRE84N16L20120524 [no comments yet]
===
The Majority of People With Individual Insurance Have Terrible Coverage
The good news is that their coverage levels will have to go up under the Affordable Care Act.
May 29 2012
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/05/the-majority-of-people-with-individual-insurance-have-terrible-coverage/257746/ [no comments yet]
*
Most Individual Health Policies Don't Meet ACA Rules
May 29, 2012
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/32969
*
Insurance plans fall short of health law standards, study finds
May 29, 2012
http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/insurance-plans-fall-short-of-health-law-standards-study-finds/4bed771810cc65be2a010764255b0bd6
*
Better Health Insurance For Americans By 2014
May 29, 2012
http://www.empowher.com/cancer/content/better-health-insurance-americans-2014 no comments yet]
*
Thanks to Obamacare, Your Health Insurer May Have to Send You Money
May 29, 2012
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-29/thanks-to-obamacare-your-insurance-company-may-have-to-mail-you-a-check [no comments yet]
*
Obamacare May Be Helping Improve Insurers' Notoriously Poor Customer Service
5/29/2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2012/05/29/obamacare-may-be-helping-improve-insurers-notoriously-poor-customer-service/ [with comments]
*
Price hikes offset slower health care use
J.K. Wall
May 29, 2012
So much for all those employer wellness programs.
Newly available data from private health insurance plans show that price hikes by hospitals, doctors and drug companies have kept employer spending rising recently even as their employees and dependents have moderated their consumption of health care services.
The analysis of health insurer data was conducted by the Health Care Cost Institute, a group in Washington, D.C., formed to analyze the data reported to meet new requirements of the 2010 Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act.
The data are from four health insurers—Minnesota-based UnitedHealth Group, Louisville-based Humana Inc., Hartford-based Aetna Inc. and California-based Kaiser Permanente. Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. was not part of the analysis.
The data cover only Americans under 65 that are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance, which is typically the most lucrative form of payment for hospitals and doctors. Health care experts have said for years that doctors and hospitals hike prices for employer-sponsored insurance in order to offset payments from government-sponsored plans like Medicare and Medicaid that do not fully cover their costs.
Overall spending on health care services rose 16 percent from 2007 to 2010, when it averaged $4,255 per patient.
From 2007 to 2010, the number of hospital stays per 1,000 people covered by employer-sponsored insurance plans fell 7 percent. But during the same time, the price per stay jumped 20 percent. As a result, total spending for hospital stays rose nearly 12 percent, to $893 per person covered by private health insurance.
ER visits and outpatient surgeries at hospital facilities were unchanged from 2007 to 2010, but prices rose nearly 32 percent.
Outpatient procedures, such as lab and pathology tests, imaging and other ancillary services, saw both utilization and prices rise about 8.5 percent from 2007 to 2010.
Total spending on outpatient services average $1,126 per patient in 2010.
Physician fees for office visits and procedures performed rose nearly 7 percent during those three years, a tick ahead of the 5-percent rise in use. Per-person spending on physicians averaged $1,472 in 2010.
And drug prices rose 11 percent even as the rate of prescription patients rose just 2 percent. Per-person spending on drugs in 2010 averaged $765.
“We hope this report will help people get a much clearer picture about what triggers health care growth and spending,” David Newman, executive director of the Health Care Cost Institute, said in a prepared statement. “Having this amount of data allows us to drill down and examine the underlying causes of health care spending among a population that hasn’t been studied extensively in a way that can provide answers to important questions.”
Copyright © 2012 Indianapolis Business Journal
http://www.ibj.com/price-hikes-offset-slower-health-care-use/PARAMS/article/34652 [with comment]
*
Changing How Health Care Is Paid for and Delivered
Delivery System Reform Is Integral to Health Care Reform
May 29, 2012
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/05/healthcare_event.html
*
Romney to Replace Obamacare with...Essentially Nothing
May 29, 2012
http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-to-replace-obamacare-withessentially-nothing-2012-5 [no comments yet]
*
Obamacare Has Already Transformed U.S. Health Care
March 22, 2012
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-22/obamacare-has-already-transformed-u-dot-s-dot-health-care [with comments]
===
(linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=74808111 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75037439 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75240354 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75538225 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75631548 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75240354 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75977833 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75989418 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76012416 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76013448 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76032794 and preceding (and any future following)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76056154 and preceding and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76058920 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76068307 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76070562 and following
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76073781 (and any future following)
Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07
"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790
F6
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
