Sunday, October 23, 2011
Let's get together at Stevo's Cafe
Where to find us If we can help just 2 charities raise money, or help a few businesses get new customers or have our followers find our content entertaining and informative. We will feel our blog is a success. Have a question? Get it answered by our followers! More importantly, What do you talk about when you go to coffee with your mom, dad, a long lost friend, family, boyfriend, girlfriend etc... This is what you share on Stevo's Cafe! As an example, I have a friend that sends me great jokes, youtube videos, and photographs and I want to share them with all my friends and family with one click. I am actually tired of Facebook(they are constantly changing how to do things. I'm tired of figuring out the new methods) Honestly, I have gotten nothing for my business or personal life from twitter (limited characters????) I am tired of balancing between all of them. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we are a better way, just trying to make it easier, more entertaining and a lot more fun. So share your STUFF on Stevo's Cafe! Are you a college student, a senior citizen, a teenager or someone who likes to teach other people? Want to learn about insurance, how to do a google profile, find someone to help you add google analytics to your website or learn where the best auto repair shop is in your area? It all works and you can find it all in Stevo's Cafe! Do you know what a QR Code is and how to promote your business with one? You will hanging out in Stevo's Cafe! you can even post your QR Code on my cafe to share your information. Want everyone to know about your fundraiser, a special TV program, your favorite restaurant or do you own a business and want to promote it? For example, I am always looking for a way to help find people to foster or adopt an Italian Greyhound. Stevo's Cafe will be a perfect place for me to reach a large audience with informative information. You get the idea. So let's start the journey and see how many people will benefit from our blog. We cant do it without you...Please add our blog address on all your signatures, home pages, e-mails or any other place where lots of people go. In return, list what you want us to pass on. Nothing is better than word of mouth. So sign up to follow us and get a notification when there is a new posting, it may be the best information you received that day. Also, no members, no usernames, no passwords! Just post it and your audience will see it. Etsy members; what a great way to promote your site. My wife does ETSY and I constantly hear how frustrated Etsy members are about the hundreds of thousands of competing sites within ETSY, so promote your products to a smaller audience and build quality customers that will follow you on Stevo's Cafe. So have I beat a dead horse? That's OK, as no one judges your post on Stevo's Cafe. P.S. If you use a software that automatically puts your post on several locations, please add us.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Federal COBRA Subsidy Coming to an End
The March 2009 Federal COBRA subsidy that mandated employers cover 65% of COBRA premiums for employees who were involuntarily terminated between September 2008 and May 2010 for a period of up to 15 months is coming to an end. The last group of eligible recipients (those who began receiving assistance in May 2010) will cease to be subsidy-eligible as of August 31st, 2011. This means that anyone receiving assistance through the subsidy will now be responsible for 100% of the COBRA premiums should they choose to continue coverage.
There is currently no pending action from Congress that would extend the subsidy any further.
What does this mean?
People no longer benefiting from the subsidy may seek to save money with a less expensive individual policy.
Please note, some employers may not be aware that they are no longer required to subsidize terminated employees’ COBRA premiums. Employers had been responsible for paying the 65% subsidy up front. They would then be eligible to recover those monies in the form of credit toward their quarterly employment tax return. When the subsidy is no longer mandated, the tax credit will no longer be available.
Also, some individuals may not be aware they’ll no longer be getting a subsidy. While employers are encouraged to send a notice to subsidy beneficiaries that their eligibility is coming to an end, there are no requirements of such notice in place.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
CALIFORNIA WRESTLES WITH HOW TO DEAL WITH IMPACT OF HEALTHCARE REFORM
Ventura County Star -
Aug. 15: Sacramento - Even as a new round of federal budget-cutting that could target Medicaid is poised to take place and Republicans in Congress continue their fight to block the implementation of health care reform, health policy experts in Sacramento are plowing through a thicket of issues that must be resolved before a historic expansion of insurance coverage can be implemented in 2014.
"Regardless of the ongoing debate around the country about the Affordable Care Act, implementation from the federal perspective is full speed ahead," said Richard Figueroa, health reform manager for the nonprofit California Endowment. "And most states have been gearing up on the theory that it's better for them to own it."
Already this month two of the state's leading health policy think tanks have issued detailed reports outlining various challenges and opportunities that will be presented by adding up to 3 million new beneficiaries to Medi-Cal and opening a Health Benefit Exchange that is expected to facilitate the purchase of partially subsidized private insurance for 2 million Californians.
One of the core questions to emerge is how best to accommodate the working poor, the low-income workers who earn too much to qualify for Medi-Cal, are least likely to have job-based insurance coverage and are most likely to now be uninsured.
Should those on the bottom rungs of this group be left to fend for themselves to purchase private insurance through the exchange, or should the state avail itself of a little-known provision in the federal act that allows it to create what is known as a Basic Health Program that would offer insurance under slightly different rules?
The question has divided policymakers, as Senate Health Committee Chairman Ed Hernandez, D-Los Angeles, is backing legislation that would put California at the forefront in creating a state-run basic health plan, while the operators of the exchange are opposing the legislation unless it is put on hold for at least a year.
If approved, the program would go into effect at the same time the new federal law and the health insurance purchasing exchanges become operative, on Jan. 1, 2014.
The bill, SB 703, is sponsored by Local Health Plans of California, an association of a dozen safety-net health care plans around the state.
Executive Director John Ramey asserts creating a basic health plan would be a win-win-win proposition for California because it would provide better coverage at a better price to consumers, at less cost to taxpayers.
"What makes it possible is that California has an average-priced individual health insurance market and below-average Medi-Cal reimbursement rates," he said.
He believes a basic health plan, operated through a network of safety-net providers, can make insurance more affordable to consumers while also providing payments to providers that are above Medi-Cal rates.
The plan would be open only to those with incomes of between 133 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or between $14,484 and $21,780 a year for an individual.
Ramey estimates that plans purchased through the exchange would cost such individuals an average of $200 a month, between premiums, copays and deductibles.
Directors of the Health Benefit Exchange say Hernandez and the bill's backers are getting too far out front, arguing the cost estimates are uncertain and federal regulators have yet to issue detailed guidelines on how the basic health programs would work.
The board voted last month to oppose the bill unless it is put on hold for at least a year. Without the federal guidelines, no one can "fully understand the risks and benefits for states associated with this optional program," acting Administrative Officer Patricia Powers wrote in a letter to Hernandez.
Officials with the Health Benefit Exchange are concerned that the creation of a Basic Health Program in California could significantly reduce the pool of consumers who would purchase private plans through the exchange and potentially adversely affect the risk pool, which would make it more difficult for the exchange to negotiate for low prices.
An analysis by the nonprofit California Healthcare Foundation estimates the exchange could enroll about 2 million people in the individual insurance market after three years of operation, but that enrollment would be "considerably lower" if the Basic Health Program is established.
Aug. 15: Sacramento - Even as a new round of federal budget-cutting that could target Medicaid is poised to take place and Republicans in Congress continue their fight to block the implementation of health care reform, health policy experts in Sacramento are plowing through a thicket of issues that must be resolved before a historic expansion of insurance coverage can be implemented in 2014.
"Regardless of the ongoing debate around the country about the Affordable Care Act, implementation from the federal perspective is full speed ahead," said Richard Figueroa, health reform manager for the nonprofit California Endowment. "And most states have been gearing up on the theory that it's better for them to own it."
Already this month two of the state's leading health policy think tanks have issued detailed reports outlining various challenges and opportunities that will be presented by adding up to 3 million new beneficiaries to Medi-Cal and opening a Health Benefit Exchange that is expected to facilitate the purchase of partially subsidized private insurance for 2 million Californians.
One of the core questions to emerge is how best to accommodate the working poor, the low-income workers who earn too much to qualify for Medi-Cal, are least likely to have job-based insurance coverage and are most likely to now be uninsured.
Should those on the bottom rungs of this group be left to fend for themselves to purchase private insurance through the exchange, or should the state avail itself of a little-known provision in the federal act that allows it to create what is known as a Basic Health Program that would offer insurance under slightly different rules?
The question has divided policymakers, as Senate Health Committee Chairman Ed Hernandez, D-Los Angeles, is backing legislation that would put California at the forefront in creating a state-run basic health plan, while the operators of the exchange are opposing the legislation unless it is put on hold for at least a year.
If approved, the program would go into effect at the same time the new federal law and the health insurance purchasing exchanges become operative, on Jan. 1, 2014.
The bill, SB 703, is sponsored by Local Health Plans of California, an association of a dozen safety-net health care plans around the state.
Executive Director John Ramey asserts creating a basic health plan would be a win-win-win proposition for California because it would provide better coverage at a better price to consumers, at less cost to taxpayers.
"What makes it possible is that California has an average-priced individual health insurance market and below-average Medi-Cal reimbursement rates," he said.
He believes a basic health plan, operated through a network of safety-net providers, can make insurance more affordable to consumers while also providing payments to providers that are above Medi-Cal rates.
The plan would be open only to those with incomes of between 133 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or between $14,484 and $21,780 a year for an individual.
Ramey estimates that plans purchased through the exchange would cost such individuals an average of $200 a month, between premiums, copays and deductibles.
Directors of the Health Benefit Exchange say Hernandez and the bill's backers are getting too far out front, arguing the cost estimates are uncertain and federal regulators have yet to issue detailed guidelines on how the basic health programs would work.
The board voted last month to oppose the bill unless it is put on hold for at least a year. Without the federal guidelines, no one can "fully understand the risks and benefits for states associated with this optional program," acting Administrative Officer Patricia Powers wrote in a letter to Hernandez.
Officials with the Health Benefit Exchange are concerned that the creation of a Basic Health Program in California could significantly reduce the pool of consumers who would purchase private plans through the exchange and potentially adversely affect the risk pool, which would make it more difficult for the exchange to negotiate for low prices.
An analysis by the nonprofit California Healthcare Foundation estimates the exchange could enroll about 2 million people in the individual insurance market after three years of operation, but that enrollment would be "considerably lower" if the Basic Health Program is established.
Updated Health Reform Info...
Associated Press -
Aug. 12: Washington - A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.
The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.
The states and other critics argued the law violates people's rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.
The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that "the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."
"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said.
Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus disagreed in a dissent. The 11th Circuit isn't the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government's new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.
But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' coverage.
The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson's ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."
The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its "quintessential" rights when it adopted the new law.
During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.
The arguments unfolded in what's considered one of the nation's most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.
Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he's been under particular scrutiny because of his daughter's outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care law.
Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court,
but Marcus was also previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami's lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.
Aug. 12: Washington - A federal appeals court panel on Friday struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.
The divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law. But the panel didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.
The states and other critics argued the law violates people's rights, while the Justice Department countered that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.
The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that "the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."
"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," the opinion said.
Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus disagreed in a dissent. The 11th Circuit isn't the first appeals court to weigh in on the issue. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the government's new requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, and an appeals court in Richmond has heard similar legal constitutional challenges to the law.
But the Atlanta-based court is considered by many observers to be the most pivotal legal battleground yet because it reviewed a sweeping ruling by a Florida judge.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but he also threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' coverage.
The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold Vinson's ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."
The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its "quintessential" rights when it adopted the new law.
During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.
The arguments unfolded in what's considered one of the nation's most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.
Dubina, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, is not considered to be as reflexively conservative as some of his colleagues. But he's been under particular scrutiny because of his daughter's outspoken opposition to the health care overhaul. U.S. Rep. Martha Dubina Roby, a Montgomery, Ala., Republican elected in November, voted to repeal the health care law.
Marcus and Hull were both tapped by President Bill Clinton to join the court,
but Marcus was also previously appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on the Florida bench after several years as Miami's lead federal prosecutor. And Hull, a former county judge in Atlanta, is known for subjecting both sides of the counsel table to challenging questions.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Four New Generics Available
We recently read...Generic Aldara, Augmentin XR, Flomax and Yaz brand name drugs are now available in the Generic form.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)