We’re still a few months away from the anticipated, or dreaded, date, though not the far from WWDC, so naturally we’re seeing near final speculation on how the iPhone 7 will look like, both inside and out. Most of the information, however, has been scattered here and there. Fortunately, someone has come up with professional looking product renders that could … Continue reading
Leave it to Microsoft to fulfill fans’ long-standing wish of bringing modern Halo multiplayer to PC and then obfuscate accessing it in the most spectacular way possible. It’s coming by way of Forge — Halo 5: Guardians Edition for Windows 10. As the…
Everyone can be hacked online — even the dead.
— 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.
People buying health insurance through the Affordable Care Act are getting frustrated with their premiums and deductibles, according to a poll out Friday, although a substantial majority still think highly of the coverage they get.
The poll, from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, provides a snapshot of how the people most affected by Obamacare feel the law is working out for them. The survey focuses on what experts call the “non-group” market for insurance — that is, Americans buying private coverage directly for themselves and their families, rather than those who get coverage through employers or from government programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
Until 2014, when the bulk of the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansion took effect, people in this situation were at the mercy of what was widely considered to be a dysfunctional insurance market. Carriers in most states could deny coverage or charge higher premiums to people with pre-existing health conditions. They could also sell policies with huge gaps in coverage. Meanwhile, even people with access to coverage frequently couldn’t afford it.
The Affordable Care Act has imposed new rules in an effort to fix these problems. Now, insurers must cover anybody willing to pay the premiums, with no markups for pre-existing conditions, and the plans must pay for maternity care, prescriptions, and other services that the government deems essential. The law also created exchanges — special electronic marketplaces through which consumers can comparison shop for policies and, depending on their incomes, receive tax credits that can reduce premiums and sometimes out-of-pocket costs significantly.
As of early this year, nearly 13 million people had signed up for coverage on the exchanges, which consumers know as healthcare.gov or state-specific marketplaces like Covered California. It’s a major reason the number of uninsured Americans has fallen to historic lows. And, according to Kaiser’s poll, the majority of consumers getting private coverage through one of the exchanges have positive feelings about it — with 54 percent saying their insurance is “good,” according to the poll, and another 14 percent rating it “excellent.” Just 16 percent said it was “not so good,” while 13 percent called their insurance “poor.”
Those figures represent a slightly more negative take on coverage, compared with what the Kaiser Foundation found in 2014 and 2015, when it asked the same questions. Even so, more than two-thirds are giving their new insurance high marks. These numbers are more or less the same for people who buy the newly regulated plans directly from insurers, outside of the exchanges.
But deeper in the poll are signs that, even with government assistance, consumers are growing weary of what they are paying for their insurance and their health care. A slim majority of exchange consumers (51 percent) say the value of their plans is “only fair” or “poor.” This is a reversal from the previous two years, when majorities said the value of their plans was “good” or “excellent.”
The big problem doesn’t seem to be choice of doctor and hospital, despite all the media attention to “narrow networks” in the new plans. Large majorities of customers said they were satisfied with those choices. Rather, the two largest sources of dissatisfaction, according to the survey, were premiums and deductibles.
The health care law actually limits out-of-pocket spending for non-group plans. Before the Affordable Care Act, no such limits existed. But some consumers can still end up owing thousands of dollars in medical bills before hitting those limits. Among survey participants reporting problems with their current insurance policies, the most common complaint was discovering that an insurer paid less for a service than the consumer expected.
The survey compared responses with those from people who get employer-sponsored insurance. Overall, people buying coverage on their own were generally less happy with their insurance. But that’s always been the case, and satisfaction with employer plans also seems to be declining — which probably has something to do with the fact that deductibles in employer plans have also been rising, and had been even before the Affordable Care Act took effect.
How attitudes change in the future is obviously impossible to predict. Many insurers have indicated they will be seeking substantial premium increases next year, because the current levels aren’t adequate to cover the medical bills of the newly insured. That’s bound to cause more dissatisfaction. But the tax credits provide insulation against large hikes, at least for most of those buying on the exchanges, although sometimes consumers must switch plans in order to keep costs low.
Helping people deal with medical expenses has already been a topic of much discussion in the presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton, front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has proposed making additional financial assistance available to people with high medical costs. Her rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has proposed scrapping the existing insurance system altogether and replacing it with a single, government-run plan, financed by taxes rather than premiums, that would have no cost-sharing for covered services.
Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump has been less specific about his ideas on health care. He has committed himself to repealing Obamacare, which he calls a “disaster,” and has indicated his support for some traditional conservative ideas, like allowing purchase of insurance across state lines. The end result of his agenda would likely be many more people struggling with health care bills, although Trump has promised that what he creates in place of the existing system will be “something terrific.”
— 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.
Perhaps it all started with President Harry Truman’s declaration that sending US troops to Korea was a “police action.”
Or maybe it was during that long string of early 20th Century military interventions in Central America and the Caribbean, when Marines were sent ashore willy-nilly to protect US business interests or citizens.
These actions were never officially called war.
Americans have a habit of calling war anything but, no matter how many times we send soldiers into battle. And now, in a time when US warplanes are bombing Syria and Iraq and the army has placed troops in both, when the US is perpetually droning Yemen and Afghanistan, none dares call any of these activities what they are. Least of all does President Obama, who avoids the word war like a plague.
Back in 2013, Obama declared the end of the Bush-era “perpetual war footing,” to be replaced by “a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America.” In 2014, he described his campaign against the Islamic State as a “targeted action” and a “sustained counter-terrorism strategy.” Sometimes he calls things that are really warfare an “effort,” sometimes just a “process,” sometimes a “campaign.” Once, he closed in on reality when he called the battle against the Islamic State a “fight.” Okay, getting warmer.
This alphabet of euphemisms have been successful in lulling everyone to sleep about the short term and potentially long term negative effects of Obama’s multiple wars.
As long as we don’t see them it’s not really war. Not many thorough media reports come out of Yemen or even Syria and Iraq these days. And as long as we, Americans, suffer no casualties, what’s the big deal? Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, soon to be the Democratic Party candidate for President, described the Administration’s 2011 intervention in Libya as a sort-of success because the US “didn’t lose a single person” during the operation. As Clinton might say, what difference at this point does it make if the country slid into chaos, and became an Islamic State outpost to boot?
In Iraq, US intervention makes life easier for the government in Baghdad that has failed to reach out to the large, disgruntled Sunni Muslim population that supports the Islamic State-backed insurgency. In Syria, Obama pretends his bombing has no effect on the outcome of the civil war, although it alleviates the Assad regime from having the take on the Islamic State itself.
But the real point of these word games is to avoid sharing responsibility with Congress, which in its own way, has been happy to cede war making authority to the President. Call something war, and Congress might have to actually contemplate approval and even ask constituents what they think.
In the entire history of the American republic, Congress has only declared war five times as Constitutionally required: for the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War (1846-48), the Spanish American War (1898), World War I and World War II. The US has had plenty of more conflicts than that, obviously. Even the ten-year long Vietnam War, which was initially termed the “Vietnam Conflict,” did not merit a war declaration, just a resolution to retaliate for non-existent attacks on a US naval ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. Congress cancelled that resolution in 1971, but the war lingered on, until the US withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975.
In 1973, Congress tried to edge itself back into the war-authorization game. It passed the War Powers Act, which demanded congressional approval for a President to use U.S. forces in combat in the event of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
In 2001, George W. Bush got authorization from Congress to act against perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. He got another one in 2002 to launch the Iraq war, though now everyone says they got bad info on why the US should invade. It’s not clear why president’s no longer seek a declaration of war as outlined in the Constitution. Maybe it’s because it would upset the American public, which prefers to hear about police actions.
Anyway, Obama isn’t concerned with such legal niceties, as loose as they are. In 2011, he went ahead and made war on the Libyan regime of Moammar Gaddafi on the grounds that it was just a “humanitarian intervention” (another grand euphemism). In his view, that meant he could do what he wanted. For his current assault on the Islamic State, Obama relies on Bush’s old 2001 resolution for 9/11, even though the Islamic state didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.
It’s remarkable how apathetic both Congress and the American public are to all this, since the original War Powers Act was passed to limit presidential authority to unleash US military power but has done nothing of the sort.
This was perhaps the most important long-range result of President Richard Nixon’s cancellation of the military draft and creation an all-volunteer army. The move not only tamed what remained of the anti-Vietnam War movement of the time, but relieved future Presidents from having to face the public when sending troops into combat. It also freed most common citizens from having to deal with the intimate risks of sending sons and daughters to fight and maybe die. Only volunteers would have to go. About the only responsibility John and Mary Doe have now is to honor troops at baseball games and put pro-military bumper stickers on their cars.
It’s time for American society as a whole, through Congress, to take responsibility for war, or whatever it is the President wants to call it. Congress ought to come up with a new version to match the current preoccupation with non-state, terrorist groups.
In this, I am on the side of former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, a failed Democratic presidential candidate who nonetheless tried to reign in the presidential war habit. Back in 2011, he labeled Congress’ diminished role in war decision making “the most important constitutional challenge facing the balance of power between the presidency and the Congress in modern times.”
“What has happened to reduce the role of the Congress from the body which once clearly decided whether or not the nation would go to war, to the point that we are viewed as little more than a rather mindless conduit that collects taxpayer dollars and dispenses them to the president for whatever military functions he decides to undertake?” he asked.
In 2012, he noted that, “Year by year, skirmish by skirmish, the role of the Congress in determining where the U.S. military would operate, and when the awesome power of our weapon systems would be unleashed, has diminished.”
Webb, who left the Senate in 2012, proposed to tighten Congress’ responsibility to authorize war. Nothing happened. What’s a good euphemism for being lazy, indifferent and weak?
It turns out now the US has put a handful of soldiers in Libya to scout out possible allies, among the country’s patchwork of anarchic tribal militias, to fight the Islamic State. If the number of American troops grows, I wonder what Obama call the action.
It appears the Administration has yet to settle on its preferred terminology. The word intervention has apparently been ruled out, if this weird exchange at a State Department press briefing the other day is any indication. The Q&A session took place in advance of a multinational meeting in Vienna to build support for one of Libya’s warring governments:
QUESTION: How much do you expect this ministerial meeting to lay the groundwork to requests for more military intervention?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, what does the word “intervention” mean? I’m not sure what that word means. I’m not being clever about this; I don’t know what the word means. I think they’re going to ask for military assistance. The Libyans want to have fresh, unified weapons – that is, as opposed to flotsam and jetsam and whatever they happen to have around – to be able to go after Daesh (the Islamic State). The Government of National Accord also wants to be able to stabilize cities against criminal groups and other extremist groups, such as Ansar al-Sharia and al-Qaida in the Maghreb. So I’m certain it will include requests for training and equipment, but “intervention” – I’m not sure what that word means and I’m not clear what the Libyans are going to ask for about that, so I’m not sure.
Perhaps the Senior Official should pick up a dictionary.
— 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.
Just two hours after giving birth to her son, Kristina says her family was ripped apart.
“The day that we had our child was one of the best days of our lives and also the worst day of our lives,” she says. “That was the last day we were able to be a family.”
Kristina says shortly after giving birth, Child Protective Services visited her in the hospital and told her that her boyfriend, Jayson, must leave the hospital immediately and have no contact with their newborn son.
“CPS said Jayson has been accused of sexually molesting his daughter and his son,” Kristina explains. “Some of the things that I was told were some of the most heinous things that you could ever possibly think of an adult doing with a child. It made me physically sick to my stomach.”
Kristina says when she first met Jayson, it was “love at first sight.” Within two weeks of their first meeting, Kristina says she let Jayson move in with her and her two sons.
While Kristina says she was aware Jayson – who adamantly denies the findings against him – had lost his parental rights to his four children from a previous relationship, she claims he never mentioned the abuse claims.
“Jayson told me that he had lost the rights to his four children because of his ex-wife being neglectful,” Kristina says.
Jayson, however, insists he told Kristina about the molestation findings against him.
“I don’t know if she’s lying or doesn’t remember, but I did show her the paperwork from CPS,” Jayson claims. “I did not know that CPS was going to remove the child if I had another child with another woman.”
However, Kristina says that according to CPS, Jayson knew he would not be allowed to have any more children – which she says she learned while in the hospital.
“The CPS worker told me that Jayson was aware that if he had any other children after his four previous children, that they automatically would be taken away from him. He never mentioned that to me,” Kristina adds. “I was devastated.”
It was then, Kristina says, that she was faced with a difficult choice of choosing between her son and the man she’s in love with.
“CPS gave me a choice. They said if I don’t sign the piece of paper that would keep Jayson out of my son’s life, they would have to take custody of all three of my children,” she says. “Jayson hasn’t seen his son now for two-and-a-half months.”
Now, Kristina says she’s searching for the “truth.”
“I believe that CPS made up these allegations to take his children away from him,” she adds. “I’m still in love with him even today.”
On this episode of Dr. Phil, Kristina and Jayson discuss the findings against him. Plus, hear from Kristina’s mother, Mary, who claims Jayson threatened to kill her and blow up her house.
And, on Friday, Jayson takes a polygraph exam regarding the molestation accusations. What will the results reveal? Check here to see where you can watch.
— 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.
Andrea Ring
Prior to joining Big Spaceship, Andrea Ring was the SVP of Planning/Experience Planning at R/GA. Over the course of her nine and a half year tenure, she built up a team of 40 planners and helped brands such as Nike, Google, and Samsung figure out how to rethink their businesses and develop meaningful relationships with the right consumers. Before joining R/GA. she worked as a brand planner with J. Walter Thompson, Bigchalk.com, and Digital Pulp Advertising. Over the course of her career, Andrea has been awarded numerous strategy and creative awards, and has spoken passionately about the future opportunities for brands in the connected age.
How has your life experience made you the leader you are today?
I’m the youngest of four. By the time I came around, my parents were tired of taking photos (there are literally no photos of me as a child) and they had very little fight left in them. As a result, I had to fend for myself, and learn to be clever enough to get the attention I wanted.
My three older siblings went straight into medicine; but I went into waitressing, writing, public policy, yoga-mat making, digital strategy, and branding. I always strove to punch above my weight. I wanted to try everything; but I also wanted to be really good at what I did.
That’s why I love resumes that read like interesting stories. I am attracted to big, bright, minds and spirits; people who want to be really good at what they do, but want to try tons of things before they settle down. It’s my job to both spark people’s curiosity, and to help them develop their craft so they can be proud of their work and become a true leader themselves.
How has your previous employment experience aided your tenure at Big Spaceship?
I spent the last ten years developing and building the Planning and Strategy Department at R/GA. When I started, there were only two planners. When I left, I had developed a department of over 60 people that played pivotal roles on almost every piece of business.
I learned two impactful lessons from R/GA:
First, I learned about good work – what it looks and feels like – and how much hard work goes into making something that’s really good. Developing excellent work takes leadership, and passion, and time… I try to encourage, push, and train the teams at Big Spaceship to make work they are proud of.
Second, I learned the painful lesson that even a tough “invincible” woman like myself has to deal with the realities of being a working mom in a male-dominated industry…the best I can do is lead by example and make sure that everyone is given a fair shot to do their best work.
What have the highlights and challenges been during your tenure at Big Spaceship?
The biggest highlight has been working closely with scores of millennials who live and breath the internet. Sometimes, the younger-ones get a bad rap. Of course they have tons of things to learn and to grow into, but their curiosity, work ethic, and deep understanding of all things digital is inspiring to say the least.
As far as the challenges, I think that everyone, across every agency, will agree that our jobs are getting harder…and more interesting. Digital isn’t just a place to create zany videos and pranks anymore; it’s a proper place to build a brand. Big Spaceship has shifted from being a project shop to a modern agency that builds modern brands. There are some growing pains that come with that.
What advice can you offer to women who want a career in your industry?
Be yourself. Talk like yourself. Think like yourself. Don’t get caught up in what you think people want to hear. If you do this, you will learn how to trust your own instincts.
Find a mentor. Find someone who cares about you, male or female who can tell you the hard truth. Find someone who will tell you what you need to work on, and where and how you thrive. Find someone who can tell you how to negotiate, and how much money you should rightfully be earning.
Don’t dress silly. You all know what I mean. Silly is anything that draws attention to you for any of the wrong reasons. I may sound old fashioned here, but I think it’s important.
What is the most important lesson you’ve learned in your career to date?
I think it’s an important skill to figure out when you are in the right role, position, agency…and when it’s time to push upwards or even out. Like the song goes, “You’ve got to know when to hold em…know when to walk away, know when to run.” The bottom line, is there are some times when you are ready for the next level, but there are times when it is important to stay where you are, to dig in, and learn as much as you possibly can. We have to balance ambition with the appropriate level of craft-building and patience.
How do you maintain a work/life balance?
Man, my two-year-old is cute. I make sure I am home by 6:45, and I find a way to run almost every day. Living and working in Brooklyn makes this a lot easier. I can actually work right up until 6:35 and still get home in time.
The only thing that makes being away from little Desmond ok, is actually liking my job. And, it doesn’t hurt that I have a TON of people in my life who help me get through.
What do you think is the biggest issue for women in the workplace?
The issues are quite nuanced. I have several colleagues who all agree that we never felt mistreated in the workplace until we hit a level of seniority at around forty, and then SLAM we felt the glass ceiling for the first time. It was a nasty surprise.
So, that’s the biggest issue: most women don’t really feel or recognize there is an issue until it’s pretty late in their careers. Women should be trained to negotiate BEFORE they settle for lower pay for ten straight years. Women should be taught the language of business earlier than later so they can work it into their own style and personality.
How has mentorship made a difference in your professional and personal life?
I used to think I could figure everything out on my own. The shift happened at R/GA when I saw how much better my work became through collaboration; and that there is always someone else to learn from. The people that helped me the most, all had the great fortune of working with executive coaches who taught them a lot about themselves at work. I always used to poo poo such coaching until I finally experienced it myself.
Which other female leaders do you admire and why?
The female leaders I admire have two main qualities: they are extremely good at their craft, and they are still human, funny, kind, and down to earth.
Chloe Gottlieb, the SVP Creative Director of R/GA is the absolute best. She is strong, and wacky, and fair, and brilliant. She can turn up the energy in every room, and make people feel empowered and inspired even after an insanely tough work review.
Connie Britton, the amazing actress and philanthropist is also one of my favorites. She is a remarkably gifted actress, but she is also open-minded, clear-headed and funny.
What do you want Big Spaceship to accomplish in the next year?
We are going to do things that are meaningful for clients and for the world. I am hell-bent on doing something big to combat climate change. Just you wait.
— 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.
Google didn’t make much of a big splash about Android Pay at I/O 2016, but Bank of America isn’t going to let the conference pass without putting a word in. Going on stage with Google senior director for Android Pay Pali Bhat, BoA’s head of digital banking Michelle Moore made the big announcement Android Pay users have been hoping for … Continue reading
The FCC has unveiled a new online portal where anybody can see the kind of complaints people have been submitting to the commission. And according to the info on the website, the FCC has received 20,991 net neutrality complaints since the rules took…
Texas Republicans are worried about which bathrooms people use, but maybe they should be more concerned with hiring a proofreader.
Due to an apparent grammatical error, the party’s official platform — the Texas GOP’s policy goals for the upcoming election — declares that more than half of the state is gay:
Homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.
Several sharp-eyed readers spotted a few problems with that plank in the party’s platform. As the New Civil Rights Movement noted, the use — or misuse — of the comma in the sentence could suggest that homosexuality is “shared by the majority of Texans.”
NPR also pointed out the sentence’s verb problem: Because the word “has” is used instead of “have,” the sentence means homosexuality “has been ordained by God in the Bible, recognized by our nations founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.”
Let’s not even get into that “nations founders” business.
NPR noted that a similar sentence was included in the 2014 platform, but without the errors.
Grammar aside, the document is both transphobic and homophobic. It calls for laws restricting the rights of trans people to use the bathroom of their gender identity, and orders the state to reject the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. It also opposes women’s rights, denies climate change and demands a right to teach creationism in public schools.
— 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.
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
