Hasta La Gadget!

TORONTO (Reuters) – BlackBerry Ltd broke even in the first quarter, topping expectations, and forecast a smaller-than-expected annual loss on Thursday, even as its revenue fell sharply.

Shares of the smartphone industry pioneer rose more than 4 percent in premarket trading.

The Canadian company, which has shifted focus from its once-dominant smartphones to the software that companies and governments need to manage their devices, said it expects to post an adjusted annual loss of around 15 cents per share.

Analysts had estimated a fiscal 2017 loss of 33 cents per share.

“They have not put figures behind some of their forecasts in quite some time, and hopefully that speaks to improved visibility into the business,” said Morningstar analyst Brian Colello.

Excluding one-time items, the company posted profit of $14 million, or nil per share. Adjusted revenue totaled $424 million. Analysts, on average, expected a loss of 8 cents a share on revenue of $470.9 million, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S.

The Waterloo, Ontario-based company reported a net loss of $670 million, or $1.28 cents a share, as it ran up costs to restructure operations and wrote down the value of some assets.

A year ago, it reported a profit of $68 million, or 10 cents a share.

BlackBerry said the net loss reflected a $501 million impairment charge, a $57 million goodwill impairment charge, and a $41 million writedown of inventory and other charges.

Software and licensing revenue was $166 million in the quarter ended May 31, just below the growth rate they have targeted for the full year.

Colello said a better selling smartphone could make the segment profitable.

“They have done a really good job of cutting operating expenses and shrinking the cost side of the business as revenue has fallen over the past couple years. The problem seems to be that hardware keeps falling faster,” he said.

(With additional reporting by Matt Scuffham in Toronto; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

— 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.

One of the linchpins of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is to have everyone in the United States get Health Care Insurance. The way that the law instructed that this be done was to have the States set up Exchanges; access to the exchanges would allow each person to shop, preferably on-line, for an insurance policy that would best meet their needs. Accessing the exchange website would allow the people to compare the types of coverage, the premiums they would be responsible for, and the deductibles available. It would be one stop shopping for health insurance. This is a great idea on its face.

Since the requirements of health insurance were powers relegated to the states, each state would be in the best position to decide which policies would meet that particular state’s requirements.

Under the law, if the state decided that the cost for setting up the exchange was too high or for whatever other reason, they could choose to have the Federal government come in and set up an exchange for them. The Federal government preferred to have the states set up the exchanges but they could not force them to do so as that would violate rules of Federalism and the separation of powers. The Administration had to come up with a way to get the states to “buy in” and they decided to do this by making tax credits available to the people of the States that set up their own, non-federal, exchange.

These tax credits were critical for the law to succeed because without them, the costs of meeting the requirements of coverage would exceed eight percent of the income of many people which would allow those people to claim exemption from coverage. Since many of these people were healthy and would not generate much health care costs, insurance carriers really needed them to participate in order for business to be viable.

The reason that the premiums had to be high was the ACA’s requirements for “guaranteed issue” and “community rating.” The “guaranteed issue requirement” meant that insurers could not deny any person coverage due to a pre-existing medical condition. The “community rating” requirement prevented the insurance carriers from charging higher premiums for those with a pre-existing medical condition. It was probably the “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” issues that led to the failure of “Romney care” in Massachusetts and the commercial insurance market in New York, but that’s another story.

Without the tax credits along with the requirements of “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” it was foreseeable that many healthy individuals would face premiums that would exceed eight percent of their income whereby they would be exempt from buying health insurance or if they did not meet the eight percent level, they would opt out of the Affordable Care Act insurance requirements and pay the tax penalty (much less than the offered premiums) instead. These healthy people could buy the insurance after they became sick and they would suffer no penalties for waiting. This is another example of people acting rationally.

Surprising to the Obama Administration, many of the States decided to opt out of setting up their own exchanges. There was a very real concern that many people in those states, not being eligible for the tax credits, would not buy health insurance and they would not be penalized since the premiums they would have to pay amounted to more than eight percent of their income. If these predominately healthy people would not participate, the insurance carriers would lose money and have to withdraw from participating in the exchanges. This could have led to a death spiral for the whole Affordable Care Act.

Under direction from the White House, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) decided to make tax credits available to all who used the exchanges, even the exchanges set up by the Federal government.

The Petitioners in this Supreme Court case were citizens of Virginia, a state with a Federal Exchange. The Petitioners did not want to purchase health insurance and if they were not eligible for tax credits their premiums would have fallen above the eight percent threshold of their income and, thus, they would have been exempt from the law’s coverage requirement. However, with the IRS rule, they would have been eligible for the tax credits and would have to buy insurance or be subject to the IRS tax penalty.

The District Court which heard the case held that the Act made tax credits available to those enrolled in a Federal Exchange. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Fourth Circuit wrote that the Act was “ambiguous and subject to at least two different interpretations.” They chose to defer to the IRS’s interpretation.

At the same time that the Fourth Circuit was issuing its holding, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the IRS Rule, holding that the ACA “unambiguously restricts” the tax credits to State Exchanges. This Circuit did not believe that the Federal Exchange was a State Exchange.

When two different circuits come down with two different holdings of the law, it is not unusual for the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and they did.

The legal issue of the case was whether the Act’s tax credits would be allowed in States that have a Federal Exchange. The Supreme Court held that they would be allowed. The Court, in dicta, wrote “an Exchange established by the State…is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges–both State and Federal–at least for the purposes of tax credits.”

The Court went on to say that “[t]hose credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.” It seems like the Court was saving the Affordable Care Act from itself.

In a blistering dissent, Justice Scalia, made it clear that a Federal Exchange was not the same as a State Exchange and the tax credits were purposely kept out of the States which opted for a Federal Exchange. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the person responsible for setting up the Federal Exchanges was not a “State” and thus, citizens of those states should not have been eligible for the tax credits.

Historically, the Court does not like to salvage poorly written laws. They will interpret what is before them and then expect Congress to do its job by making the necessary repairs. In this case, the Supreme Court decided to make the credits available to everyone to make the insurance affordable to all. The Court did what Congress should have been responsible for.

In the United States, under our Constitution, any changes in the law should have come through the Congress. However, in light of the fact that the Congress was now controlled by the Republicans, it is unlikely that the necessary changes needed to save the law would have been passed; the ACA was in dire straits and the Obama administration recognized this.

King v. Burwell brought to light a significant problem with the Affordable Care Act. In an effort to save a poorly crafted bill, the Obama administration changed the law to allow the Internal Revenue Service to spend billions of dollars on tax credits for those using Federal Exchanges. Changing the law is not a power vested in the Executive branch under the Constitution of the United States. All spending rules must emanate from the United States Congress.

In what looks like an effort to avoid a Constitutional crisis, and the disintegration of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court ruled that any Exchange, including one set up by the Federal government, was really a State exchange. This power to re-write the law is, again, not a power vested in the Supreme Court. However, once the Supreme Court makes a decision, that decision is final.

It is said that the Supreme Court is not last because it is right, it is right because it is last. There must be finality in the law or we will have a society in disarray. The issue on tax-credits and the origination of the Exchanges under the ACA is over! At least for now.

Dr. Weiman’s website is www.medicalmalpracticeandthelaw.com

— 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.

by Maria Luci, editor at Maria’s Farm Country Kitchen and Rodale’s

Are you sure/That we are awake? It seems to me/That yet we sleep, we dream…
— William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Unlike the spellbound, dozing characters in Shakespeare’s beloved comedy, many of us wish we could get in a few more hours of dreaming each night. Yet, a serene, uninterrupted eight hours can be hard to come by, especially during hot midsummer nights.

Take heart! There are a number of simple changes you can make to your everyday routine to help you feel rested and refreshed each morning this summer. To get you started, here are 5 tips to help you naturally doze off all season long:
 

1. Work it out. Warm summer days are perfect for getting outdoors and wearing ourselves out, which is great because getting enough exercise during the day can help encourage better sleep at night. The best time of day to exercise for optimum nighttime sleep? In the morning. According to Women’s Health, research has shown that “people who do 30 minutes of moderate cardio in the morning fall asleep quicker, snooze for longer, and spend up to 75 percent more time in deep sleep than those who sweat later in the day.” However, if a morning workout isn’t your thing, yoga has been shown to help improve sleep quality no matter what time of day you practice it. Whatever form of exercise you, enjoy–walking, running, swimming, surfing, biking, or gardening–incorporate one or all into your summer days.

2. Keep your cool. According to the National Sleep Foundation, the best ambient temperature for sleeping is around 65 degrees. A cooler room works best with your body’s natural temperature during sleep and can not only help fight insomnia, but can also keep you asleep longer. If you don’t have air-conditioning, run fans and keep windows open at night, and wear lightweight pajamas. And if you’re really into the chill, place your bedsheets in a bag in the freezer before making the bed and hitting the hay. Taking a shower and going to bed with wet hair will also keep you feeling cool and fresh. And if sunburned skin has you feeling heated, be sure to cover the affected areas with after-sun lotion or aloe before bed.

3. Sleep with sheep. With merino, that is. A recent study found that sleepwear choices have an impact on your quality of sleep. Participants in the study who wore 100 percent merino wool pj’s in a room that was 63 degrees (close to the recommended 65 degrees) fell asleep faster and stayed in a deeper sleep longer. If your room tends to be hotter, stick with organic cotton pajamas, as study participants wearing cotton slept more deeply when the temperature in their rooms was 74 degrees.

4. Unplug. Turn off the television and screens–electronics give off heat and emit light than can mess with your sleep. Instead, grab a book or magazine, meditate, or count the stars. Still can’t doze off? Make a mental list of all you have to be thankful for, starting with the big things and going down to the littlest of blessings. Gratitude has been shown to improve sleep quality and help combat insomnia.

5. Roll in the hay. Not literally. What we mean is enjoy a little intimacy before bedtime. Sex help promotes sleep, as it increases production of the hormone prolactin, which is responsible for feelings of relaxation and sleepiness, and decreases the production of the stress hormone cortisol. On top of this, estrogen levels rise in women during intercourse, which, according to Women’s Health, “can enhance a woman’s REM cycle for a deeper sleep.” Get things started (with a partner or yourself!) with some Organic Lubricant & Personal Moisturizer and enjoy a chemical-free intimate experience before an equally satisfying snooze.

“So, good night unto you all.”

Maria Luci is the manager and editor at Maria’s Farm Country Kitchen and content creator and editor at Rodale’s. She grew up in Virginia, but now lives just outside Philadelphia with her husband, a black cat, and several Aloe plants. When not writing and editing, she’s usually cooking up organic recipes or running–or eating when she should be running.

For more from Maria Rodale, visit www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com

— 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.

Photo: Raquel Eatmon

A lot can happen in 52 years.

You are born. You travel through childhood and experience the awkwardness of adolescence before making your way into adulthood. From there you land a career and start a family. Shortly thereafter you become a grandparent and have a plan for retirement in mind.

A lot can happen in 52 years.

You could receive nearly half a dozen PhDs.

You could circle the world by plane about 9,000 times.

And perhaps most impressive, God, if he worked at his biblically reported speed, could’ve created the world 3,000 times over.

A lot can and did happen in the past 52 years but not so much for the town of Cleveland, Ohio — at least not the good stuff.

The city’s last championship was the Browns’ 27-0 win over the Baltimore Colts in 1964 — three years before the first Super Bowl. To help put this into perspective, 1964 was also the year Nelson Mandela was given a life sentence in South Africa. That was also the year U.S. government officials began talking about cigarette smoking and its relation to cancer. That year was the last time Cleveland fans experienced a big win.

Fifty-two years is a long wait for a city with three major sporting teams. Together, we’ve watched one disappointment after another hit the Cleveland Indians, Browns and Cavaliers.

Folks are still irate at the late Art Modell for relocating the Browns to Baltimore in 1995. Then in 2010, Northeast Ohio’s hero, LeBron James, devastated fans when he announced on live television that he was “taking my talents to South Beach”. People burned his jersey and cried before T.V. news cameras. It was a hot mess. It’s been a hot mess.

All of the loss, upsets and disappointments does something to the spirit. It affects us individually and, when we’re collectively cheering for the same thing, it affects the entire community. Sports is a big deal in this town. Always has been, always will be. Cleveland needed to win something, not for bragging rights, but to revive the soul of the people. We needed something to unite us.

Photo: Raquel Eatmon

Photo:Raquel Eatmon

I was born and raised in Ohio and Cleveland is my home. I started my company, Rising Media LLC in the C-land and it was a challenging move. I started my Woman of Power Leadership Conference in Cleveland and it was a long, tough road. LeBron James hit it on the head when he said, “Nothing is given here, you’ve got to earn it.” It’s a hard town because folks have experienced such hardships and hard times, and not just in the sporting arena.

But none of that matters anymore.

The CAVS brought home perhaps the sweetest victory this town has ever seen after clinching the NBA Championship on Sunday. The reward was so very badly needed. It was surreal. We’ve supported our teams through the good and the bad, or as LeBron has said, “We ride or die with them”. We’ve had their backs for so long. We wear their jerseys and buy into their brands.

Photo:Raquel Eatmon

Yes, it’s a win for the CAVS franchise and for LeBron and company, but none of that compares to what it does for the people of Northeast Ohio. It gives us a bump in the right direction. It allows us to feel a sense of validation, like we belong to an important club. We want the world to know that, even though we’re not surrounded by a sunny beach or Wall Street district, we matter.

We want and need to feel like we’re valued and that our teams are just as good as anyone else’s — no matter how hard of a time we’ve had or our parents have had. No matter what the former reports say about our hometown.

Over the years, the jokes have poured out calling our beloved town “The Mistake on the Lake”. People believed we were under a spell, and I sensed an uneasiness too. But maybe in all of that time we were being prepared for this moment.

No one in this town is thinking about any of the voodoo hoopla stuff now. It’s all about feeling the victory, feeling vindicated, validated and completely gratified.

Photo: Raquel Eatmon

Photo:Raquel Eatmon

Photo: Raquel Eatmon

Cleveland has taken on a new name and I believe a new meaning. “Believeland” has filtered through our social media threads and homemade signs. We pump our fists to it because we believe. We believe in what’s possible, even when analysts shared the predictions and quoted history: “no team has ever recovered from a 3-to-1 deficit and won in a NBA final.” Oh yes, we did that. We broke that record, we did what many called impossible.

We will be celebrating in Cleveland for a long, long time because we can, but more importantly because we need to. We matter. We bring value to our city and to the world. We’re celebrating right now in Cleveland. We’re ALL IN. So excuse us world if we party on like this for another six months or six years. Trust me, this win will never get old. We are revived by the King and his court so excuse us if we don’t sit down any time soon.

Photo:Raquel Eatmon

Photo: Raquel Eatmon

Photo: Raquel Eatmon

Photos: Raquel Eatmon

— 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.

New York real estate developer Donald Trump says he has “unlimited” personal wealth to fund his White House run, but a Reuters review of his financial disclosures suggests he does not have enough cash to see his campaign through to Election Day.

Trump this week dismissed concerns about his campaign finances after electoral filings showed he raised just $3 million in individual contributions in May and had a war chest of only $1 million at the end of the month. His Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, raised $26 million and ended May with a war chest of $42 million.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee who says he is worth about $10 billion, said in a statement on Tuesday that “if need be, there could be unlimited ‘cash on hand’ as I would put up my own money.”

Trump had cash and other liquid investments – money in funds, equities and cash – worth $60 million to $180 million in May, according to his filings with the Office of Government Ethics. The form does not require candidates to give precise values for their assets, only ranges.

If President Barack Obama’s spending in his successful re-election bid in 2012 election is any guide, then Trump is a few hundred million dollars short. Obama spent almost $600 million between June and November 2012, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Trump’s campaign declined to comment for this story but referred to his earlier statement, in which he said his White House bid costs less than a traditional one because it is “leaner and more efficient.”

If Trump did decide to self-finance his campaign, he could, in theory, tap the hundreds of millions dollars of revenue he says is generated annually by his businesses.

But it’s not clear how much of this revenue he could use. Business owners can take money out of a business only after deducting operating costs and taxes. Even then, much of an entrepreneur’s corporate earnings are often used to invest in building their businesses and maintaining their property assets.

Trump’s liquid assets stood at $80 million to $230 million in July last year, according to an earlier electoral filing. Using the midpoint of the ranges, Trump’s liquid assets have fallen $35 million in the past year.

The drop shows his campaign spending so far has already been funded in part by dipping into savings, rather than solely from his income.

“There is a real question about how much he has in terms of liquid assets,” said Norman Einstein, a political scholar and expert in political finance at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, citing the regulatory filings, which do not give a precise picture of Trump’s wealth.

“It’s quite possible that he doesn’t have anywhere near what he suggests he has and what he does have is tied up in real estate, and selling that is no easy task,” he said.

As a result, a more likely scenario would be Trump trying to borrow the funds, which could be probably done more quickly than trying to sell one of his buildings, he added.

Jan Barani, a former general counsel with the Republican National Committee, said Trump may not need as much money as people think.

“He’s breaking the mold on everything … he has proven that spending large sums of money does not guarantee success,” Barani said, referring to how Trump defeated well-funded Republican rivals such as former Florida Governor Job Bush in the early nominating contests, or primaries.

If Trump does not use his own money, he can seek donations, the traditional fund-raising route. Individual donors can contribute $2,700 each to his general election campaign.

Trump has also signed a joint fundraising agreement with the Republican National Committee. The NRC currently has $20 million in cash, money that will be used to help elect Trump and Republican lawmakers across the country.

Trump could also benefit if external groups like Super Pads raise money to campaign on his behalf. However, Trump has not yet blessed a Super PAC.

THE GROUND GAME

Trump has spent around $63 million so far in his presidential bid, including $46 million in loans he made to his campaign, FERC data shows.

Typically, television advertising and creating infrastructure at a state and local level to mobilize voters are the most expensive aspects of a U.S. presidential campaign. TV networks charge high fees for prime time slots and many ground troops needed to bring out the voters must be paid.

So far Trump has not needed to spend much on television advertising – his fiery rhetoric on illegal immigrants and what he says are the security risks posed by refugees from the Middle East have guaranteed him blanket media coverage.

Daniel Weiner, a campaign finance expert at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice said you can get only so far with free media in an election.

“TV advertising has been decreasing in importance for a long time, but the get-out-the vote stuff is crucial, particularly in an election that people perceive as being more about motivating their core voters, as opposed to winning over swing voters. And what we call ‘the ground game’ is quite expensive,” he said.

Trump has said he plans to outsource some of that ground game to the NRC, for example relying on their field staff in battleground states to help get out the vote.

BANKING ON BUILDINGS

Trump has significant real estate holdings, which he says have low debt on them. With Election Day on Nov. 8 now just four months away, some real estate experts say selling them to generate cash would be a challenge.

But several bankers say Trump could conceivably borrow hundreds of millions against them, despite his history of business bankruptcies and litigation with lenders.

Exactly how much he could borrow, how easily and at what interest rates depends on how much Trump owns of the buildings that he cites as his own and how much debt he has.

“You have years of prosperity and you have all of these alternative lenders and you have banks that are hungry for loans,” said one veteran banking executive, who was not permitted to speak on the record.”

If Trump needs to borrow tens of millions of dollars, he probably can, the executive said. “If it is hundreds of millions, that’s another matter.”

(Additional reporting by David Henry and Grant Smith in New York, Ginger Gibson in Washington; Editing by Ross Colvin)

— 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.