Datasets:

textminr

/

mn-ds

like 0

fortune--2019-08-21--How Womens Educational Gains Are Changing the Working World The Broadsheet

fortune

How Women’s Educational Gains Are Changing the Working World: The Broadsheet

Good morning, Broadsheet readers! Reshma Saujani argues men should redirect their bravery, Jane Lauder becomes one of the world’s 500 richest people, and women’s pursuit of higher education is having a knock-on effect. Have a wonderful Wednesday. – Getting educated. The Wall Street Journal yesterday reported that this year could see the moment when women start making up the majority of the U.S.’s college-educated workforce. Surpassing that threshold reflects women’s pursuit of higher education; they have constituted the majority of college students seeking bachelor’s degrees since the 1980s. College-educated women’s increased representation is changing employers’ approach to benefits, with companies aiming to attract and retain such skilled talent with offerings like egg freezing and improved paid parental leave. At the same time, there are some not-so-nice forces behind the trend. Economic Policy Institute senior economist Elise Gould tells the WSJ that women are looking to education as a way to narrow the gender pay gap. I wrote about Georgetown data on the subject last year and it ain’t pretty: Women with a bachelor’s degree earn the same as men with an associate’s degree—a disparity that persists as you climb the rungs of the academic ladder. In other words, some women may be obtaining advanced degrees simply so they can make as much as less educated men. But let’s end on a high note. Pew Research’s Richard Fry surmises that since college degrees are often a prerequisite for promotions, working women’s educational gains indicate their improved ability to advance in the corporate world. – A better use of bravery. Growing up, boys receive endless messaging about the importance of bravery and risk-taking—sending them to the C-suite, public office, and beyond. Now, Girls Who Code CEO Reshma Saujani writes, men need to use that bravery in service of women. Fortune – Mette’s meeting. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, the nation’s youngest PM who assumed the job in June, has gotten wrapped up in President Donald Trump’s obsession with buying Greenland, a self-governing country that’s part of the Denmark kingdom. Trump cited her disinterest in selling Greenland to the U.S. as his reason for canceling his planned visit to the Danes. Washington Post – A pretty good Monday? Jane Lauder—heir to the Estée Lauder fortune, global brand president at Clinique, and a member of Eventbrite’s board of directors—became one of the world’s 500 richest people this week after her wealth surged by $447 million on Monday (that’s right: in one day). Estée Lauder reported strong earnings thanks to sales growth in Asia; Lauder is now No. 461 on Bloomberg’s list of the world’s wealthiest, one of 69 women in the group. Bloomberg – Work/work. How do couples where both partners work, well, make it work? Harvard Business Review examines the question from a few angles: how spouses choose which career to prioritize when, how couples decide about whether to relocate, and the choice some partners make to live apart. Harvard Business Review MOVERS AND SHAKERS: Barbara Messing is leaving her post as Walmart CMO. Ava DuVernay’s film collective Array promoted Tilane Jones to president. Uber hired Square’s Melinda Roylett as U.K. general manager. Former New Hampshire Republican Party chairwoman Jennifer Horn resigned from the board of Log Cabin Republicans in protest of the pro-LGBT GOP organization’s endorsement of President Trump. Founder and president of Nature Knows Inc. Andrea Watson joins the board of women-focused ridesharing service Safr. Former head of HR at Eventbrite Carolyn Satenberg joined Digit as its first head of people. – Daily 2020 update. Dr. Jill Biden gave a less-than-inspiring pitch this week for her husband’s candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination. “Your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care, than Joe is, but you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election,” the former second lady said. “And maybe you have to swallow a little bit and say, ‘OK, I personally like so and so better,’ but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.” The next day, Sen. Elizabeth Warren put forward her criminal justice reform proposal, which includes repealing most of the 1994 crime bill Joe Biden authored. – Chile’s communist reformers. Camila Vallejo and Karol Cariola became known in Chile eight years ago as student-movement leaders; now the pair have introduced a labor-reform bill that would cut the maximum hours of the workweek in Chile from 45 to 40. As stars on Chile’s left (both are Communist Party members) who are opponents of Chile’s president, the duo earn comparisons to, yes, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Bloomberg – Money moves. Are you familiar with modern monetary theory—or its best-known advocate, Stephanie Kelton? A senior economic adviser to Bernie Sanders, Kelton has become an economic rock star based on the argument that the government should simply print more money to pay for major programs like the Green New Deal. The theory worries many—their main fear being inflation—but Kelton has made the fringe proposal more mainstream than ever. The New Yorker Today’s Broadsheet was produced by Emma Hinchliffe. Share it with a friend. Looking for previous Broadsheets? Click here. For black women navigating corporate careers, this book is a must-read Essence Trial date set in USWNT’s suit against U.S. Soccer Wall Street Journal Meet one of the oldest black farmers in the American South Zora “It’s a bit like being a hairdresser—some people take the chance to disclose their worldly secrets.” -Jenny Watkins, a black cab driver in London, on her job

Claire Zillman, reporter

https://fortune.com/2019/08/21/how-womens-educational-gains-are-changing-the-working-world-the-broadsheet/

2019-08-21 10:14:19+00:00

education

social learning

foxnews--2019-02-21--Why civics education matters

foxnews

Why civics education matters

**Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign up here.** On the roster: Why civics education matters - House readies resolution to end national emergency - Harris calls for new election in NC House race - Biden considers his family ahead of 2020 decision - Girl scout of the year WHY CIVICS EDUCATION MATTERS You no doubt heard the news. Americans don’t know bupkis about our history and system of government. The survey from the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation found appallingly low percentages of Americans were conversant even in the basic facts of our system and past. In order to pass a U.S. citizenship test, an applicant must get at least 60 percent of the questions on a civics and history test correct. You can take a sample test here but knowing you, dear readers, 60 percent will seem like a rock-bottom grade. If you have been reading us for any length of time you will also know that civics and history education is something of a hobbyhorse for us, so we were certainly happy to see attention brought to the subject. What concerns us, however, is that very few people seem to be discussing why this is a problem. Knowing civics and history isn’t something that is an abstract good like knowing how to play the clarinet, hit a one-handed backhand or tell the difference between Monet and Manet. It is a practical, vital knowledge the lack of which is creating a crisis for our country. Civics education, where it still exists, is treated often as something obligatory. You make your bed, you shine your shoes for church, you say “please” and you know how many justices are on the Supreme Court. If we expect students to care and schools to emphasize the subject, we had better make sure that everyone understands what’s at stake. Without a working knowledge of what this country is and how our system works, each generation becomes less able to operate this miracle that has proven to be a light into the world. The most significant problems facing our government today aren’t really ideological, they’re systemic. For example, there are good debates to be had about how the federal government should allocate the nearly $3.5 trillion in tax revue it collects each year. Where should it be spent and in what increments? How much more money should the government borrow? But politicians have essentially destroyed the system that allowed those questions to be addressed for the previous two centuries. Most of the money that’s being spent is doled out on schedules and rates set decades ago.  Less than a third of federal spending is actually appropriated by the current Congress. The other 70 percent goes to entitlement programs, pensions, pre-programed welfare systems and interest on the $22 trillion national debt. It’s that way because previous generations of lawmakers determined they and their successors were too irresponsible to allocate money anymore.   While most federal outlays cruise on like a deep space probe zooming out past Pluto, what obviously will happen to the discussion over the ever-shrinking slice that Congress really does control? When there was plenty of money, the appropriations system allowed for an orderly, if greasy, means for allocating the money. Now, every time the bills come due at the end of the federal fiscal year, we start jumping off of fiscal cliffs. We recently endured what was called the “Seinfeld shutdown,” the shutdown about nothing. Lawmakers and the president were at odds over a little flyspeck of spending – four hundredths of a percent of the deficit alone – and closed a substantial part of the government for more than a month only to come to what was an obvious compromise from the start. However you feel about border barriers and “delayed action for childhood arrivals” and anything else about immigration, that’s not a sensible way to have discussions about spending priorities. That’s not liberal or conservative, Republican or Democratic but rather systemic. The way the U.S. government handles its money is a rotten, chaotic mess. But there’s little political advantage to be had in addressing that. In fact, there’s substantial political disadvantage.  Listen to the president and his potential general election opponents as they talk about money. They sound like 1970s pornographic actress and disco star Andrea True. “How do you like it? More, more, more.” More tax cuts, more infrastructure spending, more entitlements, more welfare programs. More, more, more. Spending is just one example. We could say the same of our legal, educational, medical and national security apparatuses. Deep problems continue to churn, but politicians across the spectrum tend to offer painless pabulum.       Now, we should rightly blame the politicians who pander and deceive. But as the scorpion told the frog, we know it is their nature. As comedian Chris Rock once joked about sexual fidelity, “Men are only as faithful as their options.” A dim, if not entirely undeserved view. For politicians, the maxim would hold that they are only about as honest as they have to be. And voters are letting them get away with murder. We will not reinvent human nature in such a way that a new generation of selfless politicians rises up to save us from ourselves. But that is what Americans look for each successive election. What do we want each cycle? Change. And each cycle they deliver the kind of surficial change that temporarily gratifies the bloody-minded partisanship of one side but leaves most people with a deeper-still feeling of unease. Something is wrong, but we just can’t say what.  So what will we choose next time? Why change, of course. The purpose of an educated electorate – the crucial aim of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and others – was as the ultimate guarantor of good government. If the people do not know what they have, they won’t know how to use it. They won’t know which demands are sensible to make. They will become easy prey for demagogues. Welp. The urgent work of educating the next generation in American history and civics isn’t just something that would be nice or to avoid national embarrassment. It is actually about rebuilding a bulwark against tyranny. As our government slips deeper and deeper into dysfunction and people come to have less and less faith in the American system, we become sitting ducks for the kind of authoritarianism that has ruled most of our species for most of our history.  Civic classes are about nothing less than guaranteeing “the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”        THE RULEBOOK: HOLD YOUR GROUND   “Whatever efficacy the union may have had in ordinary cases, it appears that the moment a cause of difference sprang up, capable of trying its strength, it failed.” – Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Federalist No. 19 TIME OUT: THE PRICE OF COLLEGE SPORTS Sports Illustrated: “UNC-Duke at Cameron Indoor Stadium is typically a showcase for everything that's great about sports… But the story was [Zion Williamson’s injury]. He's the presumptive No. 1 pick in the NBA draft, and one of the biggest names in sports at the moment. … What happens when the biggest game in America becomes dominated by the player who left after 30 seconds? For one, after 48 hours of news stories about Duke-UNC ticket prices, there were natural conclusions drawn about the injustice of Zion performing as an unpaid amateur and suffering an injury while almost everyone else in the college sports ecosystem was able to get rich off the game. That argument makes some sense. … And why does Zion Williamson have to be in college at all? … If players are talented enough to be drafted into the NBA after high school, many around the sport think they should be able to make that transition as soon as they graduate.” Flag on the play? - Email us at HALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COM with your tips, comments or questions. SCOREBOARD Trump job performance  Average approval: 41.8 percent Average disapproval: 54.4 percent Net Score: -12.6 points Change from one week ago: no change   [Average includes: Fox News: 46% approve - 52% disapprove; Gallup: 44% approve - 52% unapproved; CNN: 42% approve - 54% disapproval; IBD: 39% approve - 57% disapprove; Quinnipiac University: 38% approve - 57% disapprove.] HOUSE READIES RESOLUTION TO END NATIONAL EMERGENCY WaPo: “Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday night that the House will vote in the coming days on a resolution rejecting President Trump’s national emergency declaration, encouraging fellow Democrats to support the effort as they try to stop Trump’s push to expand efforts to build a barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border. In a ‘Dear Colleague’ letter, the California Democrat said Trump’s declaration ‘undermines the separation of powers and Congress’s power of the purse, a power exclusively reserved by the text of the Constitution to the first branch of government, the Legislative branch, a branch co-equal to the Executive.’ By invoking a national emergency, Trump is claiming authority to shift federal funds appropriated by Congress for other purposes to be spent instead on his border wall. Pelosi announced that the House would move ‘swiftly’ to pass a disapproval resolution authored by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.), although she did not specify an exact date and indicated it would move through a House committee before coming to the floor.” Sen. Collins backs lawsuit against national emergency - Portland Press Herald: “Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Wednesday that she supports the lawsuit filed by 16 states – including Maine – challenging President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to build a southern border wall. But Collins also signaled support for a straightforward congressional disapproval of an emergency declaration that she views as having ‘dubious constitutionality’ and setting a dangerous precedent. ‘It may be that the courts will stop what I believe to be a very unwise action, or it may come about through Congress,’ Collins said Wednesday. ‘If the House passes a resolution of disapproval and it is a clean resolution, I will support that.’ … The three other members of Maine’s congressional delegation – independent Sen. Angus King and Democratic Reps. Chellie Pingree and Jared Golden – also have strongly criticized the president’s emergency declaration.” The Judge’s Ruling: Trump's brazen overreach - This week Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano explains how the president’s national emergency is unconstitutional: “When the president acts pursuant to authority granted to him by the Congress in an area of government delegated to him by the Constitution, his authority is at its peak, and he is free to exercise it as he sees fit. When he acts in an area as to which the Congress has been silent, he acts in a twilight zone and can succeed only if the area of his behavior is delegated to him under the Constitution and if he enjoys broad public support. But when the president acts in an area that the Constitution gives exclusively to Congress -- such as spending money -- and when he acts in defiance of Congress, his acts are unconstitutional and are to be enjoined.” More here. HARRIS CALLS FOR NEW ELECTION IN NC HOUSE RACE Raleigh News & Observer: “In a startling statement, Republican candidate Mark Harris Thursday called for a new election in the 9th Congressional District ‘to restore the confidence of voters.’ Harris’ statement came after a break in a hearing after he had testified about his dealings with Bladen County operative McCrae Dowless. On the stand, Harris said he suffered two strokes in January while hospitalized for a severe infection and was ‘struggling’ to get through the hearing. After hearing the evidence of absentee ballot fraud, Harris said, ‘I believe a new election should be called.’ A member of North Carolina’s State Board of Elections had pressed Harris on why he didn’t heed warnings from his son about hiring Dowless to run an absentee ballot operation in his 2018 campaign for Congress. … ‘He raised concerns (about Dowless). I did not consider John’s (emails) to be a warning. I thought he was overreacting,’ [Harris said].” BIDEN CONSIDERS HIS FAMILY AHEAD OF 2020 DECISION  NBC News: “Joe Biden wants to be president. And each day, he’s closer to being ready to run for the office. But even as he weighs a campaign to unseat President Donald Trump, Biden is carefully considering a key question — what happens when the president or his top allies try to make his family an issue? Conversations with aides to the former vice president and others who’ve spoken with him in recent weeks present the idea of a Biden candidacy as not if but when. … But Biden knows and expects the president to fight as hard to stay in the White House as he did to win it in the first place — and he’s already shown nothing is off limits. … No line of attack would be more reprehensible to the former vice president than one directed at his family, and he and his team have been forced to consider that even as they also weigh the political dynamics.” Harris swipes at far-left Dems over open borders - Fox News: “Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris said ‘We can't have open borders’ as she continues to disassociate from her party’s calls for unrestricted immigration and tearing down existing barriers at the U.S.-Mexico border. The U.S. senator from California, a leading 2020 hopeful for the White House on the Democratic side, has recently been overshadowed by the entry of Senate colleague Bernie Sanders -- the progressives’ likely first choice -- into the race, and the potential candidacy of Beto O’Rourke the former congressman from Texas who’s been making inroads and positioning himself as the anti-Trump candidate. This prompted Harris to come out against O’Rourke’s call to tear down the existing 700 miles of fencing on the U.S.-Mexico border during a Wednesday night appearance on Comedy Central's ‘The Daily Show.’” Family matters: Kamala’s dad isn’t happy over her comments on weed - Fox News: “The father of Sen. Kamala Harris is trying to distance himself from the 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful after she said her pot smoking in college stemmed from her Jamaican heritage. … Harris' father, Donald, disapproved of the comments, which he told the Jamaica Global Online constituted ‘identity politics.’ ‘My dear departed grandmothers ... as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics,’ he said. Donald Harris continued: ‘Speaking for myself and my immediate Jamaican family, we wish to categorically dissociate ourselves from this travesty.’” Williamson: ‘One last grift for Bernie Sanders’ - National Review: “Right-wing populists and left-wing populists may disagree about such world-changing issues as whether the phrase ‘a man with ovaries’ actually means anything, but on the fundamental policy questions they come down strikingly close to one another. That is because the enemy of populism isn’t the right wing or the left wing — the enemy of populism is liberalism, understood here not in the demented sense we use it in U.S. politics (where liberals are the people opposed to liberalism) but in its proper sense, meaning the classical-liberal regime of property rights, free enterprise, free trade, individual rights, and a worldview based on well-ordered liberty emphasizing cooperation within and between nations.” Disinformation cyber campaign begins against Dems - Politico: “A wide-ranging disinformation campaign aimed at Democratic 2020 candidates is already underway on social media, with signs that foreign state actors are driving at least some of the activity. The main targets appear to be Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), four of the most prominent announced or prospective candidates for president. A POLITICO review of recent data extracted from Twitter and from other platforms … suggests that the goal of the coordinated barrage appears to be undermining the nascent candidacies through the dissemination of memes, hashtags, misinformation and distortions of their positions. But the divisive nature of many of the posts also hints at a broader effort to sow discord and chaos within the Democratic presidential primary. The cyber propaganda … is being pushed across a variety of platforms…” POMPEO RULES OUT ON KANSAS SENATE RUN Politico: “Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Thursday that he has ruled out running for a soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat in his home state of Kansas next year in favor of remaining the nation's top diplomat. The former Kansas congressman and CIA director had dodged questions about whether he planned on running in 2020 to claim the seat held by retiring GOP Sen. Pat Roberts, fueling speculation that he might by attending certain events and meeting with GOP operatives in the state. But on NBC's ‘Today’ show on Thursday, the secretary of state threw cold water on the prospect, telling anchor Craig Melvin ‘it’s ruled out.’ ‘I love Kansas. I'm going to be the secretary of State as long as President Trump gives me the opportunity to serve as America’s senior diplomat,” Pompeo said. ‘I love doing what I'm doing and I have 75,000 great warriors out and around the world trying to deliver for the American people.’” Poll: Joni Ernst's approval rating soars ahead of 2020 re-election - Des Moines Register: “U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst’s approval rating has hit its highest point ever as she prepares for a 2020 re-election campaign, a new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows. Fifty-seven percent of Iowans say they approve of the job she’s doing — a 10 percentage-point increase since September. She earns approval from a majority of Iowans in each of the state’s four congressional districts. That includes a high of 65 percent in the Republican-heavy 4th District, in northwest and north central Iowa, and a low of 51 percent in the Democratic-leaning 2nd District, in southeast Iowa. … Ernst, a military veteran from Red Oak, became the first woman in Iowa elected to either chamber of Congress in 2014. … She announced in December that she intends to seek re-election.” Alabama Rep. Bradley Byrne announces 2020 Senate run - AL.com: “U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne became the first official Republican entrant into the 2020 U.S. Senate race announcing his intention to run in a race that could become one of the most expensive political contests in Alabama history. … Democratic U.S. Senator Doug Jones, who narrowly defeated Republican Roy Moore in that election, raised more than $24 million. … Byrne said he anticipates, similar to the 2017 special election, national attention paid to the Alabama Senate contest next year. The race is considered one of the few 2020 Senate contests in which a Democratic officeholder is seeking re-election against a Republican inside a state that has long been dominated by GOP leadership.” PLAY-BY-PLAY Neal Kaytal: What to expect from the Mueller report - NYT Poll shows Virginians aren’t demanding Ralph Northam’s resignation - Sabato’s Crystal Ball AUDIBLE: NO ONE KNOWS “I have read it and I have reread it and I asked Ed Markey… what in the heck is this?” – Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., discussing his struggle to understand the Green New Deal on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday. FROM THE BLEACHERS “It's midnight. And I'm listening to ITYW podcast and you mentioned a Pawpaw. I hope this finds you because 50 years ago in the movie Jungle Book a Pawpaw is mentioned in the lyrics of Bare Necessities. I sang it all the time and never knew what I was singing about. Now I do. And I love ice cream. So I'll have to [check] that out. Please share my note with Dana.” – Brian Keill, Pearl River, N.Y. [Ed. note: The 1967 animated version was one of my favorites as a little boy. It’s scary enough to give you some bad dreams — that snake! — but funny enough and tender enough to make it beloved. But I hadn’t remembered that paw paws made an appearance. Makes it even *ahem* sweeter.] “Yet another polling question, although I understand the ones you use and the methodologies behind them. What does confuse me is that some days you have a certain set of polls, other days you have a different set of polls. The average can go up or down significantly based solely on one poll being included and another one being removed. Any chance you could enlighten us on that piece?” – Mike Schlender, Minneapolis [Ed. note: As they would say in the business world, Mr. Schlemder, “FIFO” or first in, first out. We cycle out the oldest polls when new one comes in.] Share your color commentary: Email us at HALFTIMEREPORT@FOXNEWS.COM and please make sure to include your name and hometown. GIRL SCOUT OF THE YEAR WISN: “As if any of us needed any more of an incentive to buy even more boxes of Girl Scout cookies, a fifth-grade marketing genius just reinvented her Samoas packaging in the best way possible. The Colorado-based ‘Cookie CEO’ Charlotte Holmberg — who earned the title after selling more than 2,000 boxes in 2018 — is upping her game in a major way in the new year. Turning her Samoas into Momoas, the elementary schooler redesigned her packaging to include a shirtless Jason Momoa, and unsurprisingly, they're flying off the figurative shelves. Holmberg happened to have a marketing professional already on her sales team — her mom — and after spotting a few Momoa Samoa memes, she thought up the rebranding. The pair printed a shot of the ‘Aquaman’ star on the classic purple packaging, and suddenly, everyone was eager for a box.” AND NOW, A WORD FROM CHARLES… “Say it and sign it. To get, you have to give. That’s the art of the deal, is it not?” – Charles Krauthammer (1950-2018) writing in the Washington Post on Sept. 1, 2016. Chris Stirewalt is the politics editor for Fox News. Brianna McClelland contributed to this report. Want FOX News Halftime Report in your inbox every day? Sign up here.

Chris Stirewalt

http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/9ntotgoX9ec/why-civics-education-matters

2019-02-21 21:35:07+00:00

education

social learning

foxnews--2019-04-24--Warrens 125T education plan sweeping giveaway to the wealthy at expense of the poor WaPo edito

foxnews

Warren's $1.25T education plan 'sweeping' giveaway to the wealthy at expense of the poor, WaPo editorial board says

Democrat Elizabeth Warren’s $1.25 trillion plan to cancel existing student loan debt and make college free has been slammed as a “sweeping bailout for the middle class” and a regressive giveaway to the wealthy at the expense of the poor. “Her latest big idea — to eliminate vast quantities of student debt and make public universities tuition-free — is not a sound idea,” wrote the Washington Post’ editorial board on Tuesday. WARREN'S MASSIVE $640 BILLION STUDENT LOAN CANCELLATION QUESTIONED OVER FAIRNESS TO STUDENTS WHO PAID OFF THEIR DEBTS Warren unveiled the far-reaching plan on Monday, pledging to cancel almost all student loan debt for 42 million Americans and introducing tuition-free college, with a total price tag of about $1.25 trillion over 10 years, including a one-off cost of $640 billion to cancel the debts. Under the proposal, each person’s student debt would get a relief of $50,000 if household income is up to $100,000. Higher incomes would also be entitled to massive debt reductions, while only those households with earnings of over $250,000 would get no student debt reduction. But as the editorial notes, spending over $640 billion to provide relief to graduates, who are defaulting on their student debts at a lower rate than before, comes at the expense of people who didn’t go to college at all and other priorities that would benefit the country better. “What might be unfair is debt relief to the exclusion of other priorities with wider benefits, including to people who did not go to college at all,” the board wrote. “Ms. Warren proposes a wealth tax to cover the cost, the proceeds of which would then not be available for alternative, possibly more progressive uses.” The tuition-free college, meanwhile, was lambasted by the newspaper as solely for the benefit of “the upper reaches” of income in the country as the children of rich parents will now be able to finish university debt-free even though their parents “are perfectly capable of helping defray the cost” of a for-profit school. The board went on to praise Sen. Amy Klobuchar, another 2020 contender who’s viewed as a more moderate candidate, for saying during an event in New Hampshire that she can’t match Warren’s plan because it’s unrealistic. “For us, though, policy priority is the essential concern. Student-loan defaults are concentrated among students who attended for-profit institutions, or who accumulated low loan balances but then dropped out and were stuck paying the money back out of lower-than-anticipated earnings,” the board wrote. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP “Such issues are hardest for students and families of color, as Ms. Warren correctly emphasized. This calls for a targeted approach that relieves the worst financial stress of those least able to handle it, not a sweeping bailout for the middle class and above.”

Lukas Mikelionis

http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/DoetpZ9ogN4/warrens-1-25-trillion-education-plan-sweeping-giveaway-to-the-wealthy-at-expense-of-the-poor-wapo-editorial-board-says

2019-04-24 08:58:03+00:00

education

social learning

foxnews--2019-05-29--Bidens education plan pledges to defeat the NRA support assault weapons ban

foxnews

Biden's education plan pledges to 'defeat' the NRA, support assault weapons ban

Former Vice President Joe Biden pledged on Tuesday to "defeat the National Rifle Association" as part of his 2020 campaign promise to fight for school safety. "As President, he will secure passage of gun legislation to make our students safer, and he knows he can do it because he’s defeated the National Rifle Association twice before," Biden's plan, released on Tuesday, read. It stated part of the plan to "defeat" the NRA included supporting legislation that banned "assault weapons" and high-capacity magazines. His plan came after a slew of school shootings that prompted Democrats to call for gun control laws. Biden's planned seemed more moderate than other 2020 candidates' -- specifically Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif., -- in that he focused on working through Congress rather than substantially expanding executive authority in the ways others proposed doing. Biden's proposal also took aim at the NRA's push to arm teachers, saying it "isn't the answer." "Parents shouldn’t have to worry about whether their kids will come home from school, and students shouldn’t have to sacrifice themselves for their friends days before graduation," he said. "We cannot let gun violence become an acceptable part of American life. Biden knows that arming teachers isn’t the answer; instead, we need rational gun laws." The NRA did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment. Biden and the NRA, however, found common ground in a 1986 law that, overturned multiple gun regulations. Biden supported the law which, according to the NRA, was "the law that saved gun rights" in the U.S. The NRA has become a major target in the periods following school shootings -- that included during the 2020 election cycle. While New York fought to pressure banks into severing ties with the organization, 2020 Democrats said they would take on the gun rights organization. Booker, in particular, vowed to “bring a fight to the NRA like they have never ever seen before.” His gun control plan endorsed progressive measures like universal background checks but caught special attention for pushing a requirement that gun owners obtain licenses from the federal government. Harris, in April, threatened to sign a series of executive orders -- including universal background checks -- if Congress didn't address the issue in her first 100 days as president. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Amid criticism of the NRA, Trump decried New York state's "siege" on the organization. "The NRA is under siege by Cuomo and the New York State A.G., who are illegally using the State’s legal apparatus to take down and destroy this very important organization, & others," he said. "It must get its act together quickly, stop the internal fighting, & get back to GREATNESS - FAST!"

Sam Dorman

http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/m1RLfkdqlmo/joe-biden-plan-defeat-nra-ban-assault-rifles

2019-05-29 00:14:37+00:00

education

social learning

france24--2019-01-20--Taking universal out of university Why foreign student fees challenge Frances education model

france24

Taking universal out of university: Why foreign student fees challenge France’s education model

France’s decision to hike tuition fees for international students more than tenfold has triggered a standoff with universities and revived a debate about the role of state-funded higher education and its responsibility to the French-speaking world. When Abdalah Faye looked beyond his native Senegal for a place to pursue his university studies, there was only ever one destination on his mind: France, the former colonial power and traditional destination for expatriate students from the West African country. “France and Senegal share a common language, a common history, our education system is copied on the French, we value French diplomas more than our own, and France is home to many of my fellow countrymen,” said the 27-year-old politics student, listing the reasons that brought him to France. And then there’s the money issue. Higher education in France has long been much cheaper than in other Western countries – in fact almost free, for foreigners and French nationals alike. “France is the country that gives everyone an equal chance,” said Faye, who is pursuing a master’s degree at the University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ), west of Paris. “That includes the children of farmers from the remotest corners of Senegal, who couldn’t possibly think of studying in America, Canada or elsewhere.” Home to centuries-old universities such as the Sorbonne in Paris, as well as leading business schools, France is the world's top non-English-speaking destination for students, though it ranks well behind the United States and Britain, and is now trailing Australia too. The number of foreign students at French universities fell by 8.5 percent between 2011 and 2016 and the country has seen increased competition from Germany, Russia, Canada and China. In order to address the “shifting balance of power” in global education, France’s government has unveiled a plan, dubbed “Welcome to France”, to lure more international students. Measures include simplifying student visa regulations, offering more English-language courses and improving accommodation, in an effort to increase the number of foreign students from roughly 300,000 today to more than half a million by 2027. But the revamped “welcome” will come at a cost for international students, who have so far enjoyed near-free higher education, just like French and EU nationals. When the new academic year begins in September, non-EU students will see their annual fees for a bachelor degree jump from €170 ($195) to €2,770, while the cost of a master’s or doctoral degree will go from the current €243 per year to €3,770 – a 1,600% increase. Announcing the measures back in November, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe stressed that France would still “subsidise two thirds of the cost of studies" – averaging at just over €10,000 per year for each student. "And the fees will remain well below the €8,000 to €13,000 charged by the Dutch or the tens of thousands of pounds paid in Britain," he added. But that is small comfort for the likes of Faye, who already struggles to make ends meet while working the maximum 20 hours per week authorised for foreign students. “I never took a cent from my family back home,” Faye told FRANCE 24. “I already have to skip classes to work so that I can afford my food and rent. There is no way I can afford the fees as well.” The decision to massively increase tuition fees has been described as a “paradigm shift” by France’s Conference of University Presidents, an umbrella organisation representing the heads of France’s 75 universities. The conference has been cautious in its response, welcoming many of the government’s measures while warning that top students from abroad should not be priced out of the system. The body also warned that the prospect of increased income from fees should not be used as a pretext for a decline in state funding – a persistent concern in a country attached to the principle of publicly-funded education. The response from individual university presidents has been more critical, with several openly defying the government. By mid-January, seven universities had announced they would not charge international students higher fees in the forthcoming academic year, prompting a rebuke from the higher education minister, Frédérique Vidal, who stressed their “duty of obedience and loyalty” as civil servants. French universities are allowed to waive fees for up to 10 percent of their students, meaning they will have some leeway to refuse to apply the increased fees without actually flouting the law. Some university heads pointed to a lack the information and consultation surrounding the reform, noting that the government’s top-down approach contradicted its stated aim to strengthen universities’ autonomy in what remains a highly centralised system. “There was no discussion with the academic world,” lamented Nathalie Dompnier, president of Lyon 2 University. “We discovered the figures in November and received no explanation for the increase in fees and how it was calculated. […] We don’t know what financial support measures will be put in place, so we will not implement the fee increase.” Others decried a measure that “discriminates” against foreign students and introduces a form of “selection by money”. “France honours itself by showing it can welcome students from poor backgrounds, we must not turn back on this principle,” said Nadia Dupont, an administrator in charge of training at the University of Rennes-II, in western France. Supporters of the hiked fees say there is a principled case for ensuring foreigners contribute to funding a costly education system. “In so far as state higher education in France is essentially financed through public funds and thus by taxpayers, it is appears logical to ask for a contribution from the students (and parents) who do not pay taxes,” writes Professor Jérôme Caby of the Sorbonne Business School in Paris. However, a study commissioned in 2014 by Campus France, a government body in charge of promoting French universities abroad, has shown that foreign students have a beneficial impact on the local economy: while the state spends €3 billion each year on their education, they contribute €4.65 billion to the French economy. As Daniela Susanibar Rosas, a law student at Paris-1 University, told the FRANCE 24 Debate show: “We work here, we pay rent, we move the economy – there are small cities in France that work only because they are student cities.” Jean-Claude Lewandowski, an education specialist, said the fees hike will only be successful if the reform meets three conditions: a huge expansion in bursaries and loans, a sweeping cut in administrative obstacles (notably visa restrictions and access to housing), and better integration of newcomers. “Aside from the issue of tuition fees, foreign students are often poorly welcomed in France,” Lewandowski wrote on his blog, citing expensive accommodation, run-down campuses and a lack of communication with local students and staff members. In this respect, he added, the prime minister’s promises to ease visa restrictions, expand scholarships, and offer newcomers more French-language classes signal a positive step. Critics of the hiked fees have been less than impressed with the prime minister’s suggestion that foreigners regarded free education as being cheap in quality – and that the top students would therefore look elsewhere. “Philippe thinks that introducing higher fees will make France more attractive because international students associate price with value,” writes education expert Juliette Torabian in the Times’ Higher Education Supplement. Whereas “research suggests that international recruitment is most sensitive to perceived quality of teaching and institutional reputations. While universities in some countries charge higher international fees, they also provide students with a high return via their good reputations with employers and the quality of their facilities, accommodation and pastoral and academic support.” Analysts at the OECD say raising tuition fees can be a “double-edged sword”, sometimes leading to a steep decline in the number of international applicants. While New Zealand was able to offset higher fees with a generous scholarship policy and expanded working rights for foreign students, a dramatic increase in fees for foreigners in Sweden in 2011 coincided with an 80% slump in applications from abroad. “A reduction in the number of international students can potentially harm a tertiary education system, as international students do not only bring their financial contribution, but also a diversity of perspectives and cultures that improves the educational experience of all students,” write OECD analysts Daniel Sanchez-Serra and Gabriele Marconi. “Discrimination by nationality can also harm the student experience by creating divides between students,” they add. In some cases, attempts to discriminate between national and foreign students have actually brought the two closer together – in protest. Last year Belgian students successfully rallied against plans to charge higher fees for international students, forcing the government to back down. Similarly, since Philippe’s announcement in November, French students have staged a number of protests – the largest drawing crowds of several hundred – to denounce an “unfair and discriminatory measure” and express their “fraternity” with foreign students. Much of the criticism levelled at the government’s plan revolves around the universal mission that education is invested with under France’s republican tradition, a mission that underpins the extensive network of French schools scattered across the globe. In this case, it is coupled with an element of post-colonial responsibility, or guilt, towards former dominions. In a Le Monde op-ed signed by more than 60 professors and lecturers, French academics said the fees would inevitably lead to a decline in the number of African students – who currently account for 45% France’s of international students – enrolling in the country’s universities, noting that the vast majority would no longer be able to afford higher education in France. By denying African students “a dignified welcome, France gives up on its privileged relationship with the African intellectuals, engineers and executives of tomorrow,” the authors wrote, lamenting a measure that will accelerate “France’s loss of credibility on the continent”. Already Africa’s brightest minds are being lured to China, India and Middle Eastern countries where “Islamist ideologies hold sway”, they said, adding: “France’s decision to turn its back on African youth signals the abandonment of the universalist […] message carried by French social sciences on the African continent.” According to researchers Lama Kabbanji and Sorana Toma, of the Institute for Development Research and the University of Paris-Saclay respectively, the introduction of tuition fees is in line with a decade-old policy of “chosen immigration”, which has resulted in a relative decline in the number of immigrants from poorer countries and students from Africa. Lawmaker M’jid El Guerrab, who represents French nationals in West and North Africa, including Senegal and Morocco, said such measures would only increase the “Francophobic” sentiment witnessed among youths in his vast constituency, and the sense that “they are unwanted” in France. “For some Moroccan families, the fees announced by Edouard Philippe are the equivalent of a year’s salary,” El Guerrab told Jeune Afrique, noting that less than 1% of Moroccan students in France currently benefit from scholarships. “French universities will therefore become the exclusive preserve of the wealthy, and this selection by money is not in line with our republican tradition.” For Faye, the Senegalese student, the new government policy reflects changing attitudes in France, and a hardening stance on immigration in particular. “France no longer wants to give privileged access to people from its former colonies, it wants wealthier students,” he said, adding: “But the wealthy don’t come to France – they go to America.”

Benjamin DODMAN

https://www.france24.com/en/20190120-france-education-university-tuition-fees-international-foreign-students-africa

2019-01-20 17:04:11+00:00

education

social learning

france24--2019-05-14--Controversial education reform bill goes before French Senate

france24

Controversial education reform bill goes before French Senate

Chrisophe Archambault, AFP | A banner reads, 'No to the reform Blaquer (referring to the French Education Minister)' as teachers demonstrate during a nationwide strike in Paris on November 12, 2018. Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer’s school reform bill, nicknamed the law for "putting trust back into schools", will be put to a vote in the French Senate on Tuesday. But school unions say they are concerned by aspects of the sweeping bill. Blanquer’s “trust back into schools” bill was passed by the National Assembly in February and goes before senators on Tuesday. However, many teachers and parents are voicing serious concerns about key elements of the draft bill. The main primary school unions – SNUipp and FSU, UNSA and Sud – are calling on teachers, parents and local elected officials to demonstrate against it on May 18. Compulsory education from the age of 3 years, teachers’ duty to set an example, teacher training – the Blanquer bill covers many aspects of national education. “This bill focuses on administration rather than education,” said Francette Popineau, co-secretary general of the SNUipp-FSU union in an interview with FRANCE 24. “The bill does not resolve the problem of social inequality and exclusion. In fact, it’s creating new ones.” One of the key points of the Blanquer bill is compulsory school attendance from the age of 3 years. Currently, children in France only have to attend school from the age of 6, when primary school (École élémentaire) begins. However, most children already attend nursery school (maternelle) from the age of 3. While unions are happy with this change, they are unconvinced that there are the financial means to implement it. The FSU union views it as “a gift to private schools”. “If kindergarten becomes compulsory, private schools will automatically receive funding from local authorities, but public schools will not receive as much funding,” said Popineau. When the bill was first drawn up, the most contentious issue was the possible abolishment of the role of school principal – which unions feared was a crafty way to reduce the number of civil servants. Blanquer responded to the criticism with a column in French daily Le Parisien, where he said the bill did not “threaten the situation between schools and their principals” and that this measure would not be imposed throughout France. “Far from it,” said Blanquer in the piece in late March. “If this measure were imposed everywhere in France, I would completely understand the outcry, but that is not the case at all. It will probably involve just a few dozen schools.” Article 1 of the draft law also stipulates that teachers have a duty to be "exemplary" role models for their pupils. But unions see this as a challenge to freedom of expression. “Teachers should keep their opinions to themselves – that's normal,” said Popineau. “But a teacher should also be able to speak out about problems in the system without fear of reprisals. Some teachers could feel intimated by this new measure.” However, the government responded to this criticism by saying that this measure only applies within the context of a current law that guarantees civil servants freedom of expression. One very divisive point is teacher training. The new law will allow students hesitating to continue long-term studies for financial reasons to become trainee teachers through a so-called pre-professionnalisation scheme. These students will be recruited during their studies and would spend two half-days every week in a college or school. Unions fear that these education assistants would be “used to replace absent or missing staff”. “It’s like asking an apprentice to take control of an aircraft after just watching what the pilot does a few times. Would you be willing to board his plane? The same is true for schools,” said Popineau.

FRANCE 24

https://www.france24.com/en/20190514-new-french-education-reform-bill-sparks-controversy

2019-05-14 11:57:34+00:00

education

social learning

france24--2019-05-31--Students teachers across Brazil protest Bolsonaros education cuts

france24

Students, teachers across Brazil protest Bolsonaro’s education cuts

Miguel Schincariol, AFP | Demonstrators protesting education budget cuts take to the streets of Sao Paulo, Brazil, May 30, 2019. Thousands of protesters took to the streets in dozens of cities in Brazil Thursday for a second nationwide demonstration in as many weeks over the government's plan to slash education spending. Far-right President Jair Bolsonaro's government has provoked outrage among students and teachers over its proposal to freeze 30 percent of discretionary spending for public universities in the second half of this year. A suspension of post-graduate scholarships for students in science and the humanities has also fueled anger. Protests began in the capital Brasilia in the morning and have since spread across the country to more than 80 cities, local media reported. "The main message is that a 30 percent cut to education is absurd and makes it impossible for higher education in this country," said Lina Vilela, a teacher at the Brasilia rally where protesters held posters with messages such as "Our books and pencils are our weapons." Karina Afonseca said she was protesting against "the intellectual setback" Bolsonaro's actions would cause in Brazil. "I'm here for those who are poor and deserve the right to quality public education," social services student Kaio Duarte said. "I'm worried that the next generation won't have all of the rights to education that I have had." In Rio de Janeiro, protesters carried signs describing Bolsonaro as "the enemy of education." "We can't simply pretend everything is OK -- it is not OK," said university student Isadora Duarte, 24. Tens of thousands protested across Brazil on May 15 -- the first nationwide demonstration since Bolsonaro took power in January, which underscored growing opposition to the embattled president. Bolsonaro, who has railed against socialism as he seeks to promote his ultraconservative ideas, described the May 15 protesters as "useful idiots" and accused leftist militants of stoking the rallies. But Thursday's turnout could be lower after the government said it would free up 1.59 billion reais in funding (about $400 million) for the sector. Thursday's demonstrations come after thousands of pro-Bolsonaro protesters marched in cities across Brazil on Sunday in a show of support for the leader, who has seen his popularity plummet in his first five months in office. Among their demands was for Congress to speed up approval of the government's stalled pension overhaul, seen as key to unlocking other much-needed reforms that are crucial to kick-starting economic growth.

NEWS WIRES

https://www.france24.com/en/20190531-brazil-protests-education-cuts-bolsonaro

2019-05-31 15:03:37+00:00

education

social learning

freebeacon--2019-11-12--Education Unions Report Sharp Declines in Membership, Revenue

freebeacon

Education Unions Report Sharp Declines in Membership, Revenue

Teachers' unions are experiencing sharp declines in membership and revenue in former union strongholds Oregon and Washington, according to new annual reports. Two Oregon teachers' unions—the state's American Federation of Teachers (AFT) chapter and the Oregon School Employees Association (OSEA)—reported drops in paying members of 35 percent and 36 percent, respectively. Both unions lost nearly $1 million in revenue as a result, with the OSEA closing three field offices and accepting a $400,000 bailout from its parent organization to help make ends meet. In Washington, the Federation of State Employees disclosed a 27 percent decline in financial supporters since June 2018. The membership declines reflect the waning power of unions in the United States. Just 10.5 percent of American workers were members of unions in 2018, the lowest percentage in the past century. Hillary Clinton won union voters in 2016 by the narrowest margin of any Democrat since 1984, despite the fact that nearly every major union endorsed her campaign against President Trump. A major turning point came in 2018 when the Supreme Court declared forced dues schemes for government workers unconstitutional in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Unions nationwide hemorrhaged revenue, as agency fee payers resigned. The loss of those partial dues payers caused AFT's national office to lose 4.3 percent of its total financial supporters even as it added thousands of new members. Aaron Withe, national director of the pro-free market Freedom Foundation, said the effects of the ruling have been especially pronounced in traditional union strongholds Oregon and Washington because of outreach efforts. The foundation launched an information campaign targeted at agency fee payers and union members to advise them of their right to stop paying labor groups. "The fallout that the unions are experiencing in Oregon and Washington are a direct result of our full-scale outreach campaign," Withe said. "We've spoken to tens of thousands of public employees at their homes and offices, and what we've found is that when they learn their rights under Janus, they opt out in droves." Neither Oregon nor Washington labor officials responded to requests for comment. In response, union leaders have launched a Janus counterattack, introducing hundreds of bills in state legislatures across the country to advance pro-union policies. Many of these bills unionize new workers without their knowledge or consent and provide nonmember fee workarounds in states such as Oregon. The National Right to Work Foundation, which successfully argued the Janus case before the Supreme Court, is now fighting several legal battles to close loopholes that labor unions use to prevent workers from ending their payments. Many local and state unions have attempted to install "withdrawal windows," refusing to honor resignation requests that do not meet certain deadlines. Foundation spokesman Patrick Semmens said such policies directly reflect labor unions' fears over their waning influence. "When you see a significant drop in membership like this when union support is finally voluntary it demonstrates just how much union bosses rely on coercion to corral workers into their ranks," he said. "Hundreds of thousands of teachers and other public employees across the country remain trapped in dues payments because of union policies that block workers from exercising their First Amendment rights." Withe said the Freedom Foundation plans on expanding its operations to other states, including those in the Rust Belt, to bring its education campaigns in Oregon and Washington to larger audiences. "We expect to see these results continue in the larger states that we operate in as we continue and expand this campaign," Withe said. The success of those information campaigns could have major effects in the political landscape. Labor unions contributed more than $1.6 billion to left-wing political advocacy groups between 2016 and 2018, and top Democratic presidential candidates have gone to great lengths to secure these substantial financial and political resources. Former vice president Joe Biden and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) have released plans to bolster union membership and the size of union war chests in the future.

Collin Anderson

https://freebeacon.com/issues/education-unions-report-sharp-declines-in-membership-revenue/

Tue, 12 Nov 2019 10:00:39 +0000

education

social learning

freebeacon--2019-12-09--American Education’s Great Stagnation

freebeacon

American Education’s Great Stagnation

American schoolchildren's educational attainment has stagnated in the 21st century, according to data from two recently updated assessments of reading, math, and science skills. Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), released in November, and from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), released Tuesday, indicate that American kids have seen minimal improvement in their academic abilities since the early to mid-2000s. "For all of these ambitious efforts we've seen unfold, they don't seem to be making much difference, at least when it comes to measured student performance in reading and math," Rick Hess, an education policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told the Washington Free Beacon. Experts who spoke with the Free Beacon agreed that the causes of this stagnation are unclear—as one put it, "it's always kind of a guessing game as to what's behind these numbers." At the same time, this flatlining suggests that the education experiments of the past decade, and in particular of the Obama administration, have had minimal benefits on student achievement and may even have hindered the most disadvantaged students. The NAEP, commonly referred to as the nation's report card, is an assessment of academic proficiency taken by a sample of 4th, 8th, and 12th graders across the country. The test covers a number of subjects, but the most closely watched indicators of academic improvement are the fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math evaluations. Through the 1990s and early 2000s, achievement, particularly in mathematics, rose steadily, but then began to flatten out. As a report from the Brookings Institution notes, "for both fourth grade and eighth grade, the average [math] scores from 2017 were identical to the average scores from 2009." Fourth-grade reading scores have been more or less flat since the 2007 assessment; eighth-grade scores have seen improvement, but not on par with the early growth in math scores. This flatlining obscures an underlying trend: Over the past decade or so, NAEP scores among African-American students, particularly boys and particularly in major cities, have actually declined. That means that the much-bemoaned "achievement gap" between black and white students—which much of education policy is focused on closing—may be widening. "You saw substantial gains by black children relative to white children from the mid-'70s to the '90s, and you saw some of that in the early years after [No Child Left Behind]," Hess said. "One of the striking things has been that you have actually seen a worsening on some of these fronts, both in terms of low-income children and also black children." A similar overall trend is apparent in the PISA, a triennial assessment of 15-year-olds in nations around the world. The United States outperforms the OECD average, but that performance is not a product of improving test scores—in fact, PISA scores have been more or less flat since 2000. The 2018 PISA, released last week, does show at least one bright spot: The share of Americans performing at the top levels in reading increased by about 4 percentage points between 2009 and 2018. But even those gains may not be cause for celebration, as there was no similar improvement among low-achieving students. The flatlining of test scores has taken place even as national spending on education has risen steadily. Through most of the 1990s, when NAEP scores tended to rise, per-pupil spending in primary and secondary schools was below $10,000. Today, spending has easily cleared $12,000 per pupil with little improvement in performance. The underlying cause of this stagnation is unclear. Experts the Free Beacon spoke to did not quite agree when it began—most agreed that there was a bump after the implementation of No Child Left Behind, but disagreed about when that increase slackened off. Michael Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a leading education think tank, linked the flattening to the Great Recession. The recession "likely had a huge negative impact on kids, especially poor kids from the most disadvantaged families," Petrilli told the Free Beacon. "When you're looking at some of these latest results, these are kids who were sort of born into the latest recession or were quite small during the worst years of unemployment." School spending also declined in the wake of the recession, Petrilli noted, although at no point did it fall below pre-Great Recession levels. It's a plausible story—even post-recovery, the recession appears to have fundamentally altered the spending, job-seeking, and even childbearing practices of young adults, so why not also their children's educational outcomes? This, Petrilli argued, means that we may not see more NAEP growth until the Great Recession cohort ages out of school. Max Eden, an education expert at the Manhattan Institute, is not so sure. While offering the caveat that it is hard to draw many conclusions from the data, he suggested that the Obama administration's Common Core did not deliver on its promises to increase achievement and may have actually harmed socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Eden also pointed to Obama administration efforts to reduce school punishments and suspensions—policies it perceived as racially inequitable. One recent study conducted by the nonpartisan RAND corporation found that "restorative practices" in punishment actually worsened educational outcomes in grades six through eight. "I'm very much inclined to believe that this push towards discipline reform, to try to lower suspensions and expulsions … will do more harm than good," Eden said. "I don't think policy can do nothing at all, but I think that the policies we have implemented have done more harm than good." The bad news is not limited to the United States. Eden noted that just as NAEP scores are a blow to Common Core, so too is the rapid decline of PISA scores from Finland, once heralded as a model for education policy. "The people who had been the central opinion makers of education policy were just pretty fundamentally wrong," Eden said. "About 15 years ago Finland was the top-scoring country, pretty near the top in the world, and if you Google for ‘Finland education,' you'll find just hundreds and hundreds of articles written about how the Finland model works.… But just about no country has fallen farther, faster over the past few years than Finland." Hess agreed with Eden's skeptical view of what the education establishment has pitched during the stagnation and emphasized that policy can only go so far in changing outcomes. "The idea that policy can do little to shape education in the short term is always correct," Hess said. "That's been true for a half century plus. Folks have been trying to use federal policy to change school outcomes. All policymakers can really do is move crude levers.… For those things to actually change what happens in schools is at best a multiyear process."

Charles Fain Lehman

https://freebeacon.com/issues/american-educations-great-stagnation/

Mon, 09 Dec 2019 10:00:05 +0000

education

social learning

freedombunker--2019-01-04--Honoring the Emancipation Proclamation with Educational Freedom

freedombunker

Honoring the Emancipation Proclamation with Educational Freedom

New Year’s Day marked the 156th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, which guaranteed: On this day, Booker T. Washington serves as a shining example of the importance of freedom and education. As Pepperdine University Economics Professor Gary M. Galles explained in a recent Foundation for Economic Education article: Booker T. Washington...sought ‘the most complete freedom compatible with the freedom of others,’...born a slave, [Washington] was seven when the Emancipation Proclamation was announced. At 11, he got his first book and taught himself to read. He thought to ‘get into a schoolhouse and study...would be about the same as getting into paradise.’ At 16, he went 500 miles to the Hampton Institute, where he attended classes by day and worked nights to earn his room and board. After graduation, Hampton made him an instructor. In 1881, he founded the Tuskegee Institute. ...Washington recognized that for blacks’ advancement, starting from the legacy of government-enforced slavery, coercion of others was not the answer. Today, a majority of African-Americans, as well as Americans in general, embrace Washington’s legacy of liberty as opposed to coercion regarding the education of their children. Assigned public schooling has been on the decline since 1999 for students overall, but the decline is twice as high for African-American students compared to the general student population, down by 10 percentage points versus 5 percentage points. Yet the proportion of African-Americans reporting that their children’s school was their first choice has remained stuck at around 10 percentage points below the overall population since 2012, the earliest year available from the U.S. Department of Education (here and here). Not surprisingly, African-Americans want more educational options that better meet their children’s needs. According to the most recent EdChoice national survey, a majority of African-Americans believe American K-12 education is on the wrong track, 55 percent, the same percentage as the general population (p. 63). However, support for a variety of parental choice programs is noticeably higher among African-Americans compared to the general population: These results mirror findings from several other surveys, including those conducted by Education Next, Beck Research for the American Federation for Children, the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, Gallup, the Black Alliance for Educational Options, and even PDK’s annual survey of Americans’ attitudes toward public schools (in spite of their pollsters’ dubious framing of educational choice-related questions. See here, here, here, and here.) “The most complete development of each human being,” according to Washington, “can come only through his being permitted to exercise the most complete freedom compatible with the freedom of others.” Full and unfettered parental control over the education and upbringing of their children is the ultimate exercise of freedom and perhaps the best way to fulfill the promise of the Emancipation Proclamation that “all persons held as slaves...shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” [This post originally appeared on The Independent Women’s Forum blog here.]

Vicki Alger

http://freedombunker.com/2019/01/04/honoring-the-emancipation-proclamation-with-educational-freedom/

2019-01-04 21:00:33+00:00

education

social learning

freedombunker--2019-01-09--Corruption is Inherent in the Government Education System

freedombunker

Corruption is Inherent in the Government Education System

Violent criminals have always been Jerry Brown’s favorite candidates for pardons but on his way out the door, the recurring governor saw fit to pardon Bill Honig, once the subject of a gushing profile in People magazine. The former state education boss was convicted on felony conflict-of-interest charges during the 1990s, but in 2011 Brown picked Honig for the state Board of Education. The convicted felon withdrew his name, but there’s more to the story. Bill Honig knew government education was a bust, complaining that dumbed-down textbooks were “all horrors,” but he still defended the system. The alleged partisan of “quality education” would not allow parents in Compton and other inner-city areas to choose the schools their children attend. He said school choice would create “elite academies for the few and second-rate schools for the many” and authored “Why Privatizing Public Education Is a Bad Idea,” in The Brookings Review. Honig opposed the 1993 Proposition 174, the last measure for school choice that came before the voters. So did his successor Delaine Eastin, another close ally of the California Teachers Association. On Eastin’s watch, the California Department of Education gave away more than $20 million to an interlocking directorate of ineligible “community-based organizations.” When auditors uncovered this massive fraud, Eastin fired the whistleblowers and kept the money flowing. Both whistleblowers sued to get their jobs back and a jury awarded one $4.5 million and held Eastin liable for $1.4 million in non-economic damages and $150,000 in punitive damages because she had “acted with malice.” The rewards were subsequently reduced and punitive damages dropped, so Eastin did not need a pardon from the governor, the office she sought last year. California taxpayers should also consider Eastin’s pal John Mockler, who wrote Proposition 98 as an “antidote” to Proposition 13. Mockler formed a lobbying firm to represent publishers and education bureaucrats. These connections came in handy when he served as state secretary of education and executive director of the State Board of Education under governor Gray Davis. Mockler became a rich man working both sides of the table but his conflict of interest never drew charges. As Mockler, Eastin and Honig confirm, corruption is inherent in the government monopoly education system. That is unlikely to change under new governor Gavin Newsom, who wants to expand the system with universal pre-school and spend $1.8 billion on a range of early education programs. K. Lloyd Billingsley is a Policy Fellow at the Independent Institute and a columnist at The Daily Caller.

K. Lloyd Billingsley

http://freedombunker.com/2019/01/09/corruption-is-inherent-in-the-government-education-system/

2019-01-09 21:31:21+00:00

education

social learning

freedombunker--2019-01-09--Is Education a Commodity

freedombunker

Is Education a Commodity?

I have argued for school choice long enough that I’ve heard (and read) this objection many times. I’ve tried to have sympathy for it, too, but to no avail. I generally ask the person what they mean by “commodity” and why they believe education does not qualify. As best I can tell, the problem is that the term “commodity” has at least two definitions in the public consciousness. Whether or not education is or should be a commodity might just depend on the definition we are using. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, there are no fewer than five definitions of the word “commodity.” When we debate whether education is a commodity, I think two of these definitions are usually at play. One definition (number 5), suggests that a commodity is a good “that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market.” Education clearly qualifies as a commodity. By this definition, anything that can be traded on a market—from the food I buy to counseling services—is a commodity. This is the definition defenders of school choice like myself use. And by this definition, education—or at least formal schooling—clearly qualifies as a commodity. It can be, and in fact is, bought and sold in the same way counseling services might be bought and sold. A school has a service to provide and is willing to provide it in return for payment. In fact, if the critics were right that school isn’t a commodity—at least by this definition—the school choice debate would be a non-issue. Schooling couldn’t be bought or sold. Yet, clearly, it can. Some folks who say education isn’t a commodity might mean that education should not be bought or sold, even though it technically can. If that is what they mean, I’d simply ask them to be clearer in their language. They do not mean that education is not a commodity, but that it should not be bought or sold. It seems like a nit-pick, but the change in phrasing is important because it is quite literally a different debate. Rather than a debate over whether education is like other services we buy or sell, the new question becomes whether or not we ought to sell it even if it is like those other services. I’ve had a good many discussions with people with deep moral objections to the buying and selling of education; even if it can be bought and sold, they say, it should not be. Perhaps because I do not have much sympathy for that view, I like to ask why they say that education should not be bought and sold. Their answers are usually about how good educations can’t be standardized because students aren’t widgets. Commodities might invoke images of raw products that are standardized in quality. This gets us to the second possible definition of “commodity,” the one I think is most common in the minds of school choice detractors. Merriam-Webster suggests that a “commodity” can refer to “a mass-produced unspecified product.” Investopedia seconds that definition by pointing out that the “quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers.” If we are thinking of commodities in this way, commodities might invoke images of raw products that are standardized in quality, from corn to copper. If this type of standardized thing is what we mean by “commodity,” I can understand why folks don’t want education to be a commodity. As long as students are different, they might argue, education shouldn’t be “one size fits all.” I agree! Then again, that’s why I am for school choice. If we want to avoid “commodification,” the worst thing we can do is leave schools in the hands of governments. When someone objects to school choice because it “commodifies” education, I like to remind them of two things. First, if crass standardization is what they are worried about, governments and their public school systems do a wonderful job of standardizing! I’d argue that the worst thing we can do if we want to avoid “commodification” is to leave schools in the hands of governments. Conversely, the best thing we can do is to open up avenues for competing providers and school choice. Secondly, I like to remind those who object to the “commodification” of education that they are probably using a different definition of the word than I am. When they hear “commodity,” they are probably imagining some standardized thing like widgets. When I hear “commodity,” I am simply imagining a service that can be bought and sold in a market. Some things in markets—a lot of items in my grocery store, for instance—are standardized because people want standardization. (I certainly want to know that the cheese I buy today will taste the same as the cheese I bought last week.) Other things we buy in markets—think counseling or interior design services—are not at all standardized because consumers don’t want standardization. In fact, markets will produce goods and services that are as standardized (or not) as customers seem to want. Some families might want a standardized approach to education because they believe X model is effective and want their children educated in that model with fidelity. Other families will prefer schools that are not standardized, that are flexible enough to educate different students differently. “Commodity” is a tricky word with several possible definitions. It can refer to anything that can be traded in a market, or more specifically, to a standardized and interchangeable product. When school choice opponents object that “education is not a commodity,” it probably behooves us to ask what they mean by “commodity” and what their precise objection actually is.

Sean McBride

http://freedombunker.com/2019/01/09/is-education-a-commodity/

2019-01-09 16:00:59+00:00

education

social learning

freedombunker--2019-01-23--Private Schools Provide Educational ChoiceFor Now New at Reason

freedombunker

Private Schools Provide Educational Choice—For Now: New at Reason

For families uninterested in whatever education public schools may provide, the most established alternatives continue to be independent schools run by private groups, religious organizations, and businesses. They recruit students by offering strong academics, religious and moral instruction, and different approaches ranging from firmer discipline to student-guided education. That such schoos continue to attract families that (usually) must pay tuition on top of the taxes they're forced to cough up to support government institutions is a testament to their success in satisfying customers, suggests J.D. Tuccille. But that success has long stuck in the craws of some critics, including government officials. They've launched attacks including efforts a century ago to outright ban private schooling in Oregon and modern New York's scheme to strip such schools of anything more than a façade of autonomy.

Ed Krayewski

http://freedombunker.com/2019/01/23/private-schools-provide-educational-choice-for-now-new-at-reason/

2019-01-23 20:30:00+00:00

education

social learning

pravadareport--2019-11-08--America’s education system: Teaching the price of everything and the value of nothing

pravadareport

America’s education system: Teaching the price of everything and the value of nothing

America’s education system: Teaching the price of everything and the value of nothing "Ask students to read for more than a couple of sentences and many will protest that they can't do it. The most frequent complaint that teachers hear that it's boring. It is not so much the content of the written material that is at issues here; it is the act of reading itself that is deemed to be boring. What we are facing here is not just time-honored teenage torpor, but the mismatch between a post-literate New Flesh that is too wired to concentrate and the confining concentrational logics of decaying disciplinary systems. To be bored means simply to be removed from the communicative sensation-stimulus matrix of texting, You Tube and fast food; to be denied, for a moment, the constant flow of sugary gratification on demand. Some students want Nietzsche in the same way they want a hamburger; the fail to grasp-and the logic of the consumer system encourages this misapprehension-the indigestibility, the difficult is Nietzsche." Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? I am a substitute teacher (grades K-12) in a public school system located in Virginia, a state on the eastern seaboard of the United States. For many years prior to becoming a substitute teacher, I also taught at a private school in Virginia. Tuition and fees at the private school are approximately $42,000 (USD), the public schools are, of course, tuition free. To be sure, there are highly motivated students in both educational settings that call into question Mark Fisher's observation above. But in the main, both organization's struggle with figuring out if they are working with their subjects as students or as consumers of services provided by teachers and administrators. From what I have observed in the tiny microcosm in which I've worked, adults have not figured out how to teach Generation Z. It is as if K-12 students are; well, lab rats, in a messy experiment that reflects adult confusion about how to facilitate learning in an era when all the "book learning" education seeks to impart is largely available on the World Wide Web (WWW). Reality hits video screens before adults can interpret it for their children; that is, assuming the adults are up to the task. Twitter, a modern day ticker-tape, dumbs down the American populace. Attention spans for students and adults are measured in 10 minute increments, if that. Teachers are little more than circuits in America's educational network and, as such, transmit surface information to the students and little more. The kids know a lot, for sure, but they, like the adults that school them and lead them, have no intellectual depth, something required for critical thinking. It is fitting, I suppose, that in these times when the United States is a polarized nation of cynics who believe in nothing, it's not surprising that its educators teach the young to be cynics. But as Oscar Wilde noted through one of his characters, a cynic is "one who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing." And yet the very adults (academics, corporate leaders, politicians) that created this cynical, digitized short attention span world whine about students not being able to read and write, think critically or master math. There is a reason for that: They are not being taught effectively to do those things. All of which reaffirms something I wrote in 2013: The American Education System is creating Ignorant Adults. The leaders of Boeing and Lockheed Martin worry out loud about the absence of US school aged students who can excel at science, technology, engineering and math disciplines (STEM). But they have no problem funding initiatives for Chinese students and aviation professionals in China. Back in the USA, school classrooms are a mishmash of technology, new wave/repackaged learning techniques and revisionist history. Apple I-Pads and Smart Boards are located in each classroom for student/teacher use. They are all connected to software that provides music, cartoons and learning platforms like Canvas for most grade levels. The latest teaching fads like Maker Learning with its "Digital Promise" backed by Google and Pixar, among others, competes with concepts like the Flipped Classroom, Blended Learning and other pedagogies that come in and out of vogue. And yet, along side all the technology are crayons, magic markers, pencils, paper and cardboard for writing and drawing. It's no stretch to say that iPhones, Android and other hand held devices may cause epigenetic changes. Students, teachers/coaches and administrators are constantly staring head down at their computing-communications devices. It is tough to get a face-to-face conversation going with most anyone in these groups as their eyes and heads are in the down position while sitting, walking or standing. Even if you are having a meatspace meeting, participants will incessantly dart their eyes to the handheld safely nearby the hand, in the hand, or on the lap (looking down again). America's past, woeful in many respects, is being revised again by adults to suit the agenda of those who seek to promote a narrative that seeks to change the political/cultural narrative of US society and its history, and it is aimed at young students in particular. The New York Times (NYT) 1619 Project is an example of this. According to the World Socialist Website, "The 1619 Project, launched by the Times in August, presents American history in a purely racial lens and blames all white people for the enslavement of 4 million black people as chattel property. " The NYT has provided teaching materials that are being used by colleges, universities and high schools across the United States. Who is willing or capable of debating the claims of the New York Times; or should we say, who is willing to be labeled a racist for disagreeing with The revisionist authors of the 1619 Project? At the collegiate level, at least, there may be debate on the matter but at the high school level, what teacher is going to argue against using 1619 teaching materials. After all it is the New York Times. What is very troubling about the NYT revisionism is that it makes the preposterous claim that racism is part of the DNA of all white people. The World Socialist Website claims that: "This is dangerous politics, and very bad history...[it] mixes anti-historical metaphors pertaining to biological determinism (that racism is printed in a "national DNA") and to religious obscurantism (that slavery is the uniquely American "original sin"). But whether ordained by God or genetic code, racism by whites against blacks serves, for the 1619 Project, as history's deus ex machina. There is no need to consider questions long placed at the center of historical inquiry: cause and effect, contingency and conflict, human agency and change over time. History is simply a morality tale written backwards from 2019." I have often winced at some of the practices I observed in classrooms. On a typical day as a substitute, I arrive at a school, pick up instructions left by the teacher who is absent (or has a meeting), and head to the classroom. Substitute teachers, or Subs, are a lower class of species, members of the gig economy, and treated as such by the "real" teachers and students. I remember one teacher I subbed for was headed off to a meeting and as she left said, "Sharpen my pencils for me." I dutifully did. A majority of the teachers and administrators don't ask for your name, you're just known as "The Sub." Once students complete their work (if they even choose to do it), which for most does not take much class time, they are free to play video games, stick ear buds in and listen to music or hang out with friends via the handheld device. One of the popular video games with male 6th to 12th graders is Krunker, a first person shooter game. Is US society really that concerned about active shooters in schools? The State and corporations can be found in some form in the public school system. One elementary school has Lockheed Martin as a sponsor of a science program. In another elementary school, a class is learning about Virginia's geography: The students print and video work product will ultimately be used by a tourism association in the State. In both institutions learning is calibrated to the SAT, ACT and various Advanced Placement tests. Student test scores serve as one metric for teacher performance reviews along with standards set by school boards, the State, or independent audits in the private school case. Students are not required to stand or even pay attention to the United States Pledge of Allegiance that is carried via intercom into the classrooms each morning. Some schools don't even bother with it. Yet, during sporting events like American contact football, students/athletes and fans are required, or let's say by the pressure of custom are compelled, to stand for the playing of the United States' National Anthem. American flags are stitched into football jerseys and prior to games one football player is selected to run the American flag onto the field amidst the adrenaline fueled shouts and growls of fellow teammates following close behind. A color guard from a high school's junior reserve officer training corps (JROTC) sometimes is present. They present in strict marching formation the American flag along with the flags of the US Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. To stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance in a classroom takes one minute. To be upright for the National Anthem takes, perhaps, five minutes. The school band normally plays the latter and on occasion high school Madrigals will sing the National Anthem. Yes, the militarization of US society and the deification of military personnel, even if they are accountants in uniform working at the Pentagon, is something to be concerned about. But saying the Pledge, and standing for the National Anthem, should be a requirement for students. There has to be some measure or display of loyalty to one's country and the young must learn that. Still many want to wipe away any sense of citizenship, patriotism. Well, they are doing a fine job of that. Students at both institutions are the beneficiaries of some serious force protection measures normally associated with protecting military personnel stationed at installations around the globe. The public schools in which I worked have armed police officers on site with a phalanx of civilian security/disciplinarians roaming the halls. Security cameras are everywhere indoors (hallways) and outside (entry and exit) recording movements. Public school buses are also outfitted with cameras and tracking systems. The private school where I was once employed uses a less blunt force approach opting for a more subtle presence: security personnel are a bit less obvious and do not carry firearms. The school does employ a corporate style full-time director of security and safety with some serious emergency management credentials. It is the same security scene at public and private schools across the United States which raises an interesting question: Are students really captive minds in minimum security enclosures subjected daily to social, emotional learning techniques or socialization/habilitation for entry into society? Or are they "free" learners allowed to be creative and explore beyond the confines of the pedagogy that seeks to "standardize" them. There is a functioning big data brother at work tracking students as they make their way through K-12 known as the Common Core of Data (CCD). CCD is described by Marc Gardner in a presentation for the US National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)as "the annual collection of the universe of United States public elementary, secondary education agencies and schools. Data include enrollment by grade, race/ethnicity and sex, special education, english learners, school lunch programs, teachers, dropouts and completers." The CCD also gathers information from state justice, health and labor departments. The NCES also collects data from private schools. It doesn't end there. Colleges and universities are tracking high school seniors as they begin their searches for schools they'd like to attend. The Washington Post recently reported that many colleges and universities have hired data capture firms to track prospective students as they explore websites. "Records and interviews show that colleges are building vast repositories of data on prospective students - scanning test scores, zip codes, high school transcripts, academic interests, web browsing histories, ethnic backgrounds and household incomes..." The owner of Canvas, referenced above, is Instructure. Their mission, according to their investor website is to "grow [the young] from the first day of school to the last day of work [retirement]." One of the capabilities that Instructure provides its clients is Canvas Folio Management. According to the investor webpage, it "delivers an institutional homepage and deep, real-time analytics on student engagement, skills and competencies, network connections, and interactions across various cohorts. Allows institutions to generate custom reports tied directly to student success initiatives and export accreditation-ready reports on learning outcomes at the student, cohort, course, program, or institutional level." Ah, yes, the thrill of being hunted for a life time by big data brother. Anyway, there is no escape. Don't try this in a Classroom "Learning is an active process, not simply a matter of banking information in a recipient passive mind. Teaching therefore has to be a transactional process rather than just the transmission of information. The transactional aspect is essential to enabling students to challenge their situations in life, which they must learn to do if they are to play their parts as active citizens of a better world...teaching must be approached as an intellectually disruptive and subversive activity if it is to instill inquiry skills in learners and encourage them to think for themselves rather than mindlessly accept received ideas. We believe it is more important in the digital age than ever before." (Ingenious: The Unintended Consequences of Human Innovation by Peter Gluckman and Mark Hanson, Harvard, 2019).

http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/144023-education_america/

Fri, 08 Nov 2019 12:01:00 +0300

education

social learning

sottnet--2019-12-14--Scientists warn against errors in digitisation of education

sottnet

Scientists warn against errors in digitisation of education

Some experts believe that the rapid digitisation of the world economy has several controversial social and cultural implications that require careful analysis.A research group at the Federal Institute of Educational Development of the Russian Presidential Academy of the National Economy and Public Administration (FIRO RANEPA) has studied the risks and prospects of digital trends in education.Researchers from the RANEPA Federal Institute of Educational Development have presented a project, "Didactics Concept of Digital Vocational Education and Training", which outlines ways of organising a personalised digital educational process based on a field of educational theory - Digital Didactics.The authors of the study note that today the digital economy is the main "customer" for vocational education and training. The analysis of promising markets shows that within the next 3-5 years, graduates of various fields will need to master digital production technology.The study stresses that given the dynamically changing technological and socio-economic realities of modern society, educational requirements facing university graduates are also constantly being updated. In this regard, educational models that would successfully function under conditions of "floating" didactic purposes are required.Against this backdrop, RANEPA researchers have pointed to a high risk of digital over-optimism, which could lead to the dehumanisation of education as a social institution. They believe this can be most acutely demonstrated by substituting the digitisation of education with ineffective "digitising".The authors of the study believe that building a digital educational process requires the development of a new field of educational research - Digital Didactics.The key factors determining the formation of new approaches to learning, according to the authors, are three phenomena of the 21st century: the digital generation, which has special socio-psychological characteristics, new technologies that form the digital environment, and, finally, the digital economy and its requirements for human resources.Illustrating the problem of the unsuccessful digitisation of education , researchers analyse several cases, including the events at the Brooklyn's Secondary School for Journalism, where in November 2018, high school students held a protest against the online learning platform Summit Learning.According to frustrated students, the network project, which covers 380 schools and 55,000 schoolchildren in the United States,As the protesters stated,These and other examples, researchers believe, demonstrate that the success of professional and personal self-determination and social adaptation of young people requires a flexible combination of digital, material and pedagogical technologies. Creating a digital educational process using web-based didactics will allow us to overcome the current transitional period, they say.The major condition for the emergence of next-generation education, according to scientists, is the development of teaching techniques.First of all, it concerns the implementation of distance learning, complex case studies, blended learning, flipped learning, and project method. Simulators and augmented reality tools should also be used to develop professional and advanced capabilities.It is noted that the use of the game environment, the ability to cater to the individual pace and rhythm of workers, as well as various interactive features, such as the student's choice of the starting difficulty level of tasks, would help to improve, in the near future, the effectiveness of learning using educational materials.The authors of the study paid special attention to the problem of digital and pedagogical assessment technologies, which would ensure the objectivity and transparency of tests while maintaining stable educational motivation.The experts prompted their audience to abandon the traditional assessment, including due to its "repressive functions", and paid attention to the inclusive assessment systems that imply instantaneous feedback between the teacher and the students through the use of IT-tools.According to research team leader Vladimir Blinov, head of the Research Centre for Vocational Education and Qualifications Systems of FIRO RANEPA, Big Data technologies allow educators to carry out a personalised monitoring of the educational process, tracking the dynamics of changes and conducting a comparative analysis. The teacher, equipped with operational information on the quality of the tasks, will be able to more effectively direct the movement along the educational route.Other ways of assessing learning performance, such as personal digital footprint management or multi-layered monitoring of learning progress based on cumulative assessment technologies (e.g., ranking or portfolio), can also help to make learning even more exciting.The study concludes with a glossary of the key concepts of the new digital social reality.

https://www.sott.net/article/425689-Scientists-warn-against-errors-in-digitisation-of-education

Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:05:05 +0000

education

social learning

talkingpointsmemo--2019-08-27--Obama Unveils New Education Campaign On Redistricting Issues

talkingpointsmemo

Obama Unveils New Education Campaign On Redistricting Issues

Former President Barack Obama put his name on yet another redistricting reform effort ahead of the 2021 map-drawing cycle. Obama on Monday announced “Redistricting U,” an education campaign being led by the group All On the Line. All On the Line’s parent organization is affiliated with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, the Eric Holder-led effort that Obama has also endorsed. “For Redistricting U, All On The Line is sending dedicated trainers to cities across the country to train volunteers, give them the skills and tools they need to impact the redistricting process, empower them as leaders in the movement for fair maps, and hear their ideas about approaches that will work best in their communities,” Obama said in a fundraising email announcing the new campaign. Saumya Narechania, All On The Line’s campaign manager and advocacy director, told TPM  that his group was organizing multiple waves of training sessions to mobilize grassroots activists around the issue. The first wave of trainings — in-person, half-day sessions — will take place this fall in roughly two dozen locations, Narechania said. There are 10 states in particular the group is targeting — most of them purple states or red states Democrats hope to turn purple. Narechania said participants will learn the basics of the redistricting process and the ins-and-outs of how it works in their state. The trainings will also discuss messaging around redistricting issues and how to develop action plans in the specific communities. Those activists may go on to offer public comments in the redistricting process, specifically in states with independent commissions, or pressure their state legislators to adopt or reject certain maps. The campaign is one of several new initiatives that redistricting reform advocates have launched ahead of the next round of map-drawing, which will occur after the 2020 census. Republicans dominated the last round of redistricting and in several states, like North Carolina and Wisconsin, locked in maps that gave them overwhelming majorities in the legislatures even as the statewide vote was much closer. Rather than seek equivalent Democratic gerrymanders (which, to be fair, do exist in states like Maryland), the National Democratic Redistricting Committee says it’s supporting candidates who have pledged to make map-drawing fairer. Republicans meanwhile have put up their own group, the Scott Walker-led National Republican Redistricting Trust, that has sought to block reform efforts and protect GOP-tilted maps. Walker’s statement appeared to allude to reporting suggesting that Obama, as an Illinois state legislator, redrew his district to include the donor base that helped propel his 2004 U.S. Senate run “He’s the only President in the past 40 years to gerrymander his way to the Presidency,” Walker said. “America’s only modern gerrymanderer-in-chief is now trying to convince the American people that he’s against his own redistricting practices.”

Tierney Sneed

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obama-unveils-new-education-campaign-on-redistricting-issues

2019-08-27 18:32:46+00:00

education

social learning

tass--2019-04-04--Stoltenbergs comparison of Stalin Hitler IS shows lack of education says Moscow

tass

Stoltenberg’s comparison of Stalin, Hitler, IS shows lack of education, says Moscow

© AP Photo/Francisco Seco MOSCOW, April 4. /TASS/. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s statement comparing Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and the IS terrorist group (outlawed in Russia) shows his lack of education, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated during Thursday’s briefing. "This statement is more stupid than inappropriate," she stated. "Many Western politicians are notorious for their absurd and stupid statements that have no relation to facts. They are simply ignorant." "I think that the quality of Western education is a big myth. In my opinion, this all comes down to a lack of education," the diplomat concluded. Earlier, NATO Secretary General has explained the increase of the organization’s defense budget due to threats from the outside world. He claimed that neither Hitler, Stalin, nor the IS would have been defeated by means of peaceful protests or dialogue. In other media

http://tass.com/society/1052189

2019-04-04 17:01:57+00:00

education

social learning

telesurtv--2019-06-25--Cuba To Help Nicaragua Improve Its Education System

telesurtv

Cuba To Help Nicaragua Improve Its Education System

Cuba’s government has signed cooperation agreements with Nicaragua, which the Sandinista government hopes will help strengthen its education system.  There will be "exchanges" whereby Cuba will visit and share their experiences building a world-class school system. > _**RELATED:**_ > > [_**Nicaragua Creates 2,000 ‘Reconciliation Commissions’ for Peace**_](https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Nicaragua-Creates-2000 -Reconciliation-Commissions-for-Peace-20190618-0007.html) Nicaragua’s Vice President Rosario Murillo announced Tuesday that Cuba’s Education Minister Ana Elsa Velazquez is visiting the country. The visit comes as the two countries sign accords relating to cooperation in various areas of education, and on the training of Nicaragua’s teaching staff. State media has reported details of what Cuba’s minister has planned during her visit. She will speak in the towns of Esteli and Matagalpa to conferences of primary school teachers, where she will explain how Cuba has built a quality education system, including the use of "mobile teachers" that are deployed to homes where children are unable to attend their local institution. Vice President Murillo celebrated the visit, saying; “Cuba is a wonderful country of solidarity, and with a high level of development in quality education, and with a long-standing commitment to solidarity and revolutionary fraternity.” The achievements of Cuba’s education system have been praised internationally. These include the elimination of illiteracy in just one year at the beginning of the revolution. The teaching methods and programs used to achieve this, known as  ‘Yo Si Puedo’ (Yes I Can) have been deployed in Venezuela and Bolivia to eliminate illiteracy in the respective countries. According to World Bank figures, as a proportion of its GDP, Cuba[ spends more](https://cuba- solidarity.org.uk/information/facts/) than any other country in the world on its public education system, which is free at all levels for its citizens.

teleSUR/ov-MH

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Cuba-To-Help-Nicaragua-Improve-Its-Education-System-20190625-0013.html

2019-06-25 16:47:19+00:00

education

social learning

telesurtv--2019-06-26--Costa Rican Teachers Protest Education Reforms

telesurtv

Costa Rican Teachers Protest Education Reforms

Teachers affiliated with the Association of Secondary School Teachers [APSE](https://apse.cr/) marched Tuesday in the capital toward the National Assembly, protesting against the neoliberal policies affecting the public sector that will criminalize strikes. > **RELATED: > [Activists, Right Groups Demand Justice for Slain Costa Rican Indigenous Leader](https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Activists-Right-Groups-Demand- Justice-for-Slain-Costa-Rican-Indigenous-Leader-20190320-0023.html)** "The protest aims to show the public that the government and most legislators are attempting to criminalize protestors and dissolve unions, as well as reducing wages of public servants, especially in the education sector," APSE President Melida Cedeño told reporters Tuesday. Demonstrators have been on a work stoppage for five days showing their ire against the Essential Services bill, the Dual Education bill and the Public Employment bill. Cedeño emphasized the strike had received support from across all regions of the country and condemned the education proposals that would declare education fundamental and all strikes by education workers illegal. Teachers reject the bills named "Dual Education and Dual Technical Training," arguing it is an attempt to put education at the service of the private sector, creating a low-cost labor force. In addition to the teacher protests, a group of demonstrators, small-fisherman among them, allegedly stormed the president's palace in San Jose and threw an explosive towards the head of state's residence. According to AFP, the demonstrators launched a low-impact explosive along with stones at the palace. The artesenal fishermen want the government to not implement a value-added tax set to go into force July 1. President Carlos Alvarado says his administration is open to dialogue with the fishing sector that is a major source of income for the Central American nation, but that violence isn't acceptable. "This won't be done with violence, repression, knocking down gates, damaging public infrastructure with stones or dynamite, which can harm many people ," Alvarado said. "That is not the Costa Rican way.  W will not accept this," added the president. One demonstrator was reportedly beaten over the head.

teleSUR / md-EF

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Costa-Rican-Teachers-Protest-Education-Reforms-20190625-0031.html

2019-06-26 02:37:54+00:00

education

social learning

theamericanconservative--2019-05-13--How Massachusetts Showed the Way on Education Reform

theamericanconservative

How Massachusetts Showed the Way on Education Reform

We are now nearly four decades beyond the publication of A Nation at Risk, a federal report that indicted the “rising tide of mediocrity” and initiated a well-deserved period of hand-wringing about K-12 public education in the United States. Massachusetts was the only state to respond to the call to create a school system that would be among the best in the world. Sadly, now even the Bay State is retreating from the policies that delivered its historic success. The landmark Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993, which was entirely state-led, pushed academic content and high standards over the Bush I and Clinton administrations’ agenda of K-12 education as merely workforce development training. Today, however, Beltway-driven initiatives like the Obama administration’s Common Core State Standards, together with a new generation of state leaders who seem to have forgotten the importance of tying new money to high standards, accountability and enhanced school choice, threaten to undermine the reforms that made the Bay State the nation’s unquestioned educational leader. The Education Reform Act required the state to draft liberal arts-rich “curriculum frameworks” to help schools choose curricula by specifying the content students should be able to master. Developed after years of public debate and with input from teachers and experts, the English, writing, math, science, and history frameworks were internationally benchmarked, with an eye toward authentic college readiness. Classic literature, like the works of Charles Dickens, Jules Verne, Mark Twain, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, made up about 80 to 90 percent of the English content. In math, students were required to start studying algebra in the eighth grade, years before the National Mathematics Advisory Panel made the same recommendation. A wide range of voices—including the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, noted standards expert E. D. Hirsch, Jr., educational historian Diane Ravitch, Achieve, Inc., and the American Federation of Teachers—hailed the Massachusetts frameworks as national models. Passing Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests based on the frameworks became a high school graduation requirement early in the current century. The tests also earned accolades and applied pressure to school systems to develop rigorous curricula. If they didn’t, their students’ scores would show it. Another state test was developed for new teachers, who had to demonstrate communication and literacy skills and the knowledge to teach this material within the frameworks. The results of the reform were better than even the law’s authors had hoped. Beginning in 1993, Massachusetts’ SAT scores rose for 13 consecutive years. The state’s scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shot up, too. By 2005, Massachusetts students became the first to score best in the nation in all four major NAEP categories (fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math). Since then, they have repeated the feat on every subsequent administration of NAEP except one. While American students as a whole lag behind their international peers, the 2007 and 2011 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study results showed that Massachusetts students were competitive with their counterparts in places like Japan, Korea, and Singapore. In 2007, the Bay State’s eighth graders even tied for first place internationally in science. In addition to across-the-board improvements, race- and class-based achievement gaps narrowed. E.D. Hirsch found that Massachusetts was one of three states that made the most progress at reducing achievement gaps between 1998 and 2005. Between 2002 and 2009, the NAEP scores of African Americans and Hispanics on both fourth- and eighth-grade reading tests improved more rapidly than those of white students. Low-income students made gains as well. With this record, Massachusetts should be the model for other states to follow. But the Bay State has chosen to retreat from its own success. In 2008, Massachusetts turned its back on accountability when an independent agency that conducted comprehensive audits of school districts was eliminated. When the Obama administration kicked off its push to federalize public education by making adoption of Common Core English and math standards a condition of receiving federal grant money, Massachusetts acquiesced. It adopted the standards in 2010. Common Core cut the amount of classic literature, drama, and poetry that Massachusetts students study by 60 percent. The math standards, which Stanford University mathematics professor emeritus R. James Milgram called “shopping cart math,” no longer get students to algebra by eighth grade. Subsequent revisions also dumbed down the Bay State’s science and U.S. history standards. In 2009, then-governor Deval Patrick’s administration brushed aside the state law that required history to join English, math, and science as a high-stakes test. Instead he pushed new age fads, including educating the “whole child” and vacuous “21st-century skills.” The Education Reform Act had also created the nation’s best charter schools. A Stanford University study found that Boston charters were doing more to close achievement gaps than any other group of public schools in the country. But after the failure of repeated legislative attempts to loosen restrictions on the number of charters that could operate, supporters chose to make the issue the subject of a statewide referendum in 2016. Opponents prevailed, claiming charters “drain money” from traditional public schools, even though Massachusetts is the only state to provide full and partial reimbursements to school districts that lose students to charters. Results from the dismantling of education reform have been swift and predictable. While Massachusetts still ranks first on NAEP, from 2011 to 2017, state scores either stagnated or declined in both English and math. In the Common Core era, the Bay State was among those that saw the biggest declines in math. By 2013, the percentage of students scoring “Proficient” on MCAS fourth-grade reading tests had fallen by 10 points. SAT scores have also dropped significantly, especially in writing. More than a quarter-century after education reform, the state’s K-12 funding formula is no longer keeping up with rising health insurance and special education costs. Rather than tie new money to reforms, the foundation of the historic 1993 law, it appears lawmakers plan to simply increase spending with no strings attached. If your children ever grouse about why they have to learn history, you might want to direct them to the story of public education in Massachusetts. Here, state leaders have forgotten what led to the nation’s most successful reforms and appear determined to return to the barren landscape that existed before they were enacted. Massachusetts has demonstrated what works in public education. Why are the state’s leaders running away from it? Charles Chieppo is a senior fellow at and Jamie Gass directs the Center for School Reform at Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based think tank.

Charles Chieppo and Jamie Gass

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-massachusetts-showed-the-way-on-education-reform/

2019-05-13 04:01:17+00:00

education

social learning

theatlantic--2019-07-05--Higher Education Has Become a Partisan Issue

theatlantic

Higher Education Has Become a Partisan Issue

Over the past 25 years, since Newt Gingrich helped Republicans reclaim the gavel in the House of Representatives, Americans have become more politically polarized. Not only do members of one party view the other party as wrong, but they more frequently view them as a “threat to the nation’s well-being.” Americans don’t trust the other side, and more and more they mistrust institutions too, including the media and higher education. Polls have shown that confidence in higher education, overall, has decreased in the past few years. A Pew Research Center survey found that 61 percent of Americans are worried about the path America’s colleges and universities are on. Democrats think that the cost of tuition is too high and, to a much lesser extent, that students are not getting the skills they need for the workplace. But Republicans overwhelmingly hold negative views of the sector; 73 percent  thought higher education was going in the wrong direction, as opposed to 52 percent of Democrats. A 2018 Gallup poll found that only 39 percent of Republicans expressed a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the sector, down 17 percentage points from 2015. For many Republicans, mistrust of Democrats and mistrust of institutions collide when it comes to higher education, because they see colleges and universities as having a liberal bent. They point to surveys showing that college leadership leans liberal, and that liberal professors outnumber conservative ones on campuses. The latest corroboration for some conservatives was Harvard’s decision to rescind admission to Kyle Kashuv, a Parkland survivor and conservative activist, because of racist messages he sent via Google Docs while in high school. For some, this drove home the message that liberals, and universities, practice selective forgiveness, allowing for the former sins of liberal institutions and people (see: Harvard University’s own past) but not doing the same for conservatives. Read: Kyle Kashuv becomes a symbol to conservatives who say the left can’t forgive It’s been an open question for some time whether this partisan mistrust would translate into tangible, monetary penalties for higher education. One answer came last fall, when voters in Montana took to the polls to decide whether they would continue to tax themselves to support higher education. The tax, known as the six-mill levy, has been voted on once every decade since 1948, and this vote was seen as a bellwether for public sentiment on higher education. Though the measure had been passing narrowly in preceding years, voters in 2018 again decided to continue taxing themselves to support their state universities. The support was likely the result of an interesting phenomenon that occurs when the conversation is not about “higher education” as a monolith but about people’s local colleges. Even though people may feel dubious about higher education more broadly, they can see the good that their local schools do and often feel favorably toward them as a result.

Adam Harris

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/07/alaska-governor-vetoes-higher-education-funding/593368/?utm_source=feed

2019-07-05 16:07:26+00:00

education

social learning

theblaze--2019-08-20--The public education system should teach kids how to obtain a job not how to be PC

theblaze

The public education system should teach kids how to obtain a job not how to be PC

The public education system should teach kids how to obtain a job not how to be PC

TheBlaze Staff

https://www.theblaze.com/graham-allen/the-public-education-system-should-teach-kids-how-to-obtain-a-job-not-how-to-be-pc

2019-08-20 18:24:13+00:00

education

social learning

thedailyexpress--2019-12-06--Nicola Sturgeon admits disappointments in education survey

thedailyexpress

Nicola Sturgeon admits disappointments in education survey

The First Minister continued to insist that this week’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report for 2018 showed “stable” scores in both areas, despite hitting record lows. It came as her general election campaign was hit by a survey suggesting Scots are losing faith in her government’s ability to manage the NHS, justice and education. The poll found that 50 percent of the electorate think the health service has got worse in the past five years, while only seven percent think it has got better. It came as Ms Sturgeon launched a battle bus tour of Scotland for the final week of the general election campaign, ditching the private helicopter dubbed “Ayr Force One”. Addressing a crowd of around 30 supporters in South Queensferry, the First Minister repeated calls for voters “to stop Brexit” and “lock Boris Johnson out of power”. First stop for the battle bus – a Volvo converted to run on biofuel – was the Christmas Village shop at Crieff Visitors Centre in Perthshire. Earlier, Ms Sturgeon told MSPs that maths and science performance was not up to scratch and insisted her government’s reforms would deliver an improvement similar to “that which we have already delivered in reading”. But Scottish Tory acting leader Jackson Carlaw accused her of being in “denial”, warning this was “a little like people celebrating the fact that they have just had their kitchen redecorated when the front two rooms in the house are on fire”. He disclosed that only one of the 40 developed countries assessed in the survey has experienced a larger drop in science performance since 2006, the year before the SNP came to power. Mr Carlaw said Scotland has also experienced the fifth largest decline in maths over this period and argued that SNP ministers’ response was “almost as alarming as the results themselves”. Professor Lindsay Paterson, an education expert at the University of Edinburgh, has said the results “would make any parent wince with shame” but “even worse is the disgraceful political spin which the Scottish Government has struggled to impose”. Although Scottish pupils’ reading skills improved by 11 points, this only brought Scotland’s score back close to its 2012 level. Ms Sturgeon also repeated her claim the PISA survey showed a closing of the attainment gap between rich and poor children, despite the report stating it was very similar to the 2012 and 2015 results. Speaking after First Minister’s Questions, Mr Carlaw said: “Our young people are deprived of the kind of education children in other countries are receiving. “The SNP promised to have an ‘unwavering focus’ on improving standards in schools. But instead, Nicola Sturgeon’s only unwavering performance has been on trying to force through another unwanted and divisive (independence) referendum.” He disclosed that Scotland’s performance in science has dipped by 25 points since the 2006 PISA survey, with only Finland falling by more over that period. Over the same time, the decline in maths results has only been eclipsed by Finland, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. Ms Sturgeon said the most recent Scottish Household Survey showed 86 percent of people with experience of the education system expressed satisfaction. She added: “I do not think that that is job done, but it is an indication of the focus and the progress that we are making and will continue to deliver.” Meanwhile, a YouGov poll for The Times found that 52 percent believe the health service is being handled badly by SNP ministers, while 40 percent think it is being managed well. On education, almost half (48 percent) said they thought the issue was being handled poorly, while only 40 percent thought the reverse. For justice, the figures were 44 percent to 38 percent. The results mean each issue now has net negative ratings, with health on -12, education on -8 and justice on -6. When the questions were last asked in April, positive ratings were returned for all.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1213670/nicola-sturgeon-scotland-schools-education-survey

Fri, 06 Dec 2019 00:01:00 +0000

education

social learning

thedailymirror--2019-01-14--Education spending falls by more than 7 billion since the Tories came to power

thedailymirror

Education spending falls by more than £7 billion since the Tories came to power

Education spending has fallen by more than £7 billion since the Tories came to power. The Mirror has exposed how parents across the country are being sent begging letters to help cover the cost of paper, pens and even toilet roll. Now analysis by the House of Commons Library, reveals how real terms spending on schools and colleges fell from £95.5 billion in 2011-12 to £87.8 billion in 2017-18 - a fall of £7.7 billion in annual spending. Labour ’s Angela Rayner, who commissioned the research, said it would come as no surprise to “teachers who are having to make do with less and parents who are receiving begging letters from schools to cover basic supplies”. As a share of GDP, education spending fell from 5.69% to 4.27%, a decline of 25% in only seven years. It comes days after it was revealed that the number of secondary schools in deficit hit 30.3% last year, up from 8.1% in 2014. The Education Policy Institute said the average debt is £483,569 - and one in 10 have deficits of over 10% of their income. The Prime Minister has said that spending on schools is at a record high this year, and Tory Ministers have repeatedly said that education spending is increasing. But Labour has accused the Tories of misleading the country over education spending and the Statistics Authority has repeatedly written to the Education Secretary to rebuke him for his use of statistics. In a letter published in October, the UKSA raised “serious concerns about the Department for Education’s presentation and use of statistics.” Ms Rayner added: “Despite misleading statements made by the Prime Minister and her Ministers, the Government’s own data shows that they have been slashing education funding throughout their time in office. “It will be a generation of children and adult learners who will pay the price for Tory austerity and the Tories’ failure to invest in our education system. “The next Labour government will end Tory cuts to our schools and increase education spending by £25 billion as part of a National Education Service that works for the many, not the few.” A Department for Education spokesperson said:  "Since 2017, we have given every local authority more money for every pupil in every school. "And the overall 5-16 schools budget was one of two budgets protected in 2010, despite the necessary savings that had to be made due to the deficit. "The core schools and high needs budget is rising from almost £41bn in 2017-18 to a record £43.5bn by 2019-20, but the Education Secretary has been clear that he recognises the pressure schools feel on their budgets. "That is why he has set out his determination to work with the sector to help schools reduce the £10 billion they spend on non-staffing costs. "But let's also look at what's happening in our schools: standards are rising, with 163,000 more six-year-olds now on track to be fluent readers than in 2012, a more rigorous curriculum and qualifications, 1.9 million more children in good or outstanding schools – 86% of schools are now judged to this standard, compared to 68% in 2010 – and a shrinking attainment gap.”

Nicola Bartlett

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/education-spending-falls-more-7-13852586

2019-01-14 00:01:00+00:00

education

social learning

thedcclothesline--2019-01-26--California Dept Of Education Wants To Teach Your Kindergartners That There Are 15 Genders

thedcclothesline

California Dept. Of Education Wants To Teach Your Kindergartners That There Are 15 Genders

Apparently, in the land of fruits and nuts, the California Department of Education believes it knows what is best for your children and wants to teach kindergartners that there are at least 15 different genders.  Not only that, but the curriculum being looked at claims that it is an impossibility to know whether a baby is a boy or a girl or something else… forget that 6,000 years of history has taught us “boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.” Alex Newman from The Freedom Project and The New American was interviewed about California’s plan to indoctrinate young children, and no, parents you can’t opt out of the propaganda that will be fed to your little ones. In a March 29 memo obtained by FreedomProject Media, Orange County Board of Education General Counsel Ronald Wenkart detailed his legal reasoning. As part of the “California Healthy Youth Act,” government schools are required to provide so-called “Comprehensive Sexuality Education.” One section of the “Education Code,” though, allows parents or guardians to excuse their child from “comprehensive sexual health education and HIV education,” Wenkart wrote. Unfortunately, there is a giant loophole in the law that still mandates LGBT indoctrination. Another section of the “Code” explains that the exemption does not apply to “instruction, materials, or programming that discusses gender, gender identity, gender expressions, sexual orientation, discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, relationships, or family and does not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions.” “Therefore,” Wenkart wrote, “parents who disagree with the instructional materials related to gender, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation may not excuse their children from this instruction. However, parents are free to advise their children that they disagree with some or all of the information presented in the instructional program and express their views on these subjects to their children.” So, in short, as long as actual reproduction is not discussed, government schools are free to brainwash children to support homosexuality, transgenderism, and more. Indeed, among other schemes, the California code requires affirmation of homosexuality and gender confusion while prohibiting “outdated gender norms.” In short, biblical morality is now banned at government school. Carly Hoilman reports on the new developments: California elementary school students could soon be the targets of progressive sexual indoctrination if new health guidelines are approved. The guidelines, listed under the California Department of Education’s proposed Health Education Framework, include educational resources that teach children to reject gender stereotypes and embrace a rainbow of possible gender options. One recommended book called “Who Are You?” teaches that there are at least 15 genders, and that it’s impossible to determine whether a baby is a boy, a girl or something else. Fed Up Parents Organize ‘Sex Ed Sit Out’ to Protest ‘Gender-Bending Propaganda’ Taught in Schools “Babies can’t talk, so grown-ups make a guess by looking at their bodies,” an excerpt reads. One chapter in the proposed guidelines offers suggestions on how to explain sexuality with kindergartners. “Discuss gender with kindergarteners by exploring gender stereotypes and asking open-ended questions, such as what are preferred colors, toys, and activities for boys/girls, and then challenging stereotypes if presented,” chapter three reads. “Throughout this discussion, show images of children around the same age who do not conform to typical gender stereotypes. Examples do not have to be exaggerated or overt. Simple differences, such as colors or toy preferences, can demonstrate acceptance of gender non-conformity.” Newman goes on to elaborate more: Then, the teacher should continue to confuse the children. “Throughout this discussion, show images of children around the same age who do not conform to typical gender stereotypes,” the instructions read. “Examples do not have to be exaggerated or overt. Simple differences, such as colors or toy preferences, can demonstrate acceptance of gender non-conformity.” Of course, preaching this sort of madness to vulnerable and impressionable children captive in a government classroom has devastating effects. As The Newman Report documented last year, a study from the University of California, Los Angeles, found that more than one fourth of children in the state between the ages of 12 and 17 are “gender non-conforming.” The new proposed guidelines, which are even more extreme than the previous ones, also call for encouraging middle-school students to fornicate with multiple people at the same time. “Some students may be non-monogamous and the term ‘partner(s)’ may be used to be more inclusive,” reads the material, which aims to normalize perversions that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago. Among the examples offered is “polyamory,” which is defined as “the practice of, desire to, or orientation toward having consensual non-monogamous relationships (i.e. relationships that may include multiple partners).” Another option is “polyfidelity (which involves more than two people being in romantic and/or sexual relationships which is not open to additional partners), amongst many other set-ups.” What exactly any of this perversion has to do with “health” was not made clear — especially since encouraging this sort of promiscuity and fornication leads to all sorts of venereal diseases, some of which can be deadly. Ironically, some of the sex propaganda is taught under the guise of preventing venereal disease. On the gender-bending madness, the American College of Pediatricians has said that encouraging children to believe they can change genders by taking hormones and mutilating their genitals is “child abuse.” In other words, these schools are institutionalizing the abuse of children. That’s exactly right!  And parents that stand for this and willingly submit their little ones to this perversion should be held accountable for child abuse, but they won’t be in a state that sanctions it. This is just another reason why if you have your children in the public indoctrination centers known as public schools, you should protect them by getting them out and teaching them yourself at home, and you can do so for free by clicking here.  Stop making excuses for turning your children over to the state to become little statists, and start becoming a part of the revolution! Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his “more precious than rubies” wife, father of 10 “mighty arrows”, jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. . Follow Tim on Twitter. Also check him out on Gab, Minds, MeWe, Spreely, Mumbl It and Steemit

Tim Brown

https://www.dcclothesline.com/2019/01/26/california-dept-of-education-wants-to-teach-your-kindergartners-that-there-are-15-genders/

2019-01-26 16:52:04+00:00

education

social learning

theguardianuk--2019-05-30--Families rally against special educational needs funding cuts

theguardianuk

Families rally against special educational needs funding cuts

Thousands of families with children who have special educational needs and disabilities have staged protests across England against funding cuts. On Thursday afternoon, children, parents and teachers marched in 28 towns and cities including London, Bristol, Leeds and Birmingham in the first national action of its kind. Organisers of Send National Crisis said about 1,000 people attended a rally in Parliament Square in Westminster. Among the speakers was the campaigner Emma Parker, whose son James has spent 29 months out of school over the past five years because of exclusions and reduced timetables. “We have thousands of children across the UK who are not in schools, who are on reduced timetables and who don’t have access to the schools that they desperately need,” Parker said. Ahead of the rally, James delivered a 13,000-signature petition to Downing Street to call on the government to end the “national crisis” in special educational needs and disability (Send) funding and delivery. Statistics released on Thursday by the Department for Education show the number of children and young people with special educational needs or education, health and care plans in England increased by 34,200 (or 11%) from 2018. An analysis by the National Education Union published in April found that special needs provision in England had lost out on £1.2bn because of shortfalls in funding increases from central government since 2015. Parker said a lack of educational funding for children would mean they were more reliant on taxpayers in the future. “They’re putting monetary value on our children and it’s like what comes first, the money or the children,” she said. The TV presenter Carrie Grant, whose four children all have special needs, spoke to the crowd in front of the Mahatma Gandhi statue in the square. She said her family’s experience of getting the appropriate educational support for three of her children who have complex special needs had “been shocking to say the least”. Grant added: “The world that they [disabled children] face is a world that is just not ready.” Though the government has said legislation introduced in 2014 increased funding for Send pupils, campaigners have said the growing number of children and young people requiring support is outstripping funds. The Local Government Association estimates that English councils face a Send funding gap of more than £500m this year. Melissa Acar, a 19-year-old with a developmental language disorder and cognition and learning disabilities, said she was at the rally in Westminster “to get [her] voice heard”. After achieving seven A*-C GCSEs, Acar was refused admission to her local sixth form because they said they lacked the funding to support her. She challenged the decision at the high court and won, but Acar said the situation left her with “a mental health problem and constant emotional breakdowns”. Lindsey Valkenborgs, 35, who works for the National Deaf Children’s Society, attended the rally with her daughter, Lexie, six, who has been deaf since birth. Lexie receives support from a teaching assistant (TA) in a mainstream school but Valkenborgs is fearful about more funding cuts. “She might lose that support and the only reason she’s doing as well as she is today is because she has a TA and she has that individual support,” she said. Nadhim Zahawi, the children and families minister, said the DFE statistics released on Thursday were “concerning” He said: “Education, health and care plans were introduced to provide personalised and tailored support for those children with more complex needs, but the 11% increase in plans last year is a clear challenge for the SEN and disability system. We will use this data to follow up with local authorities who are not performing well to support and challenge them to improve. “My ambition for children with additional needs is that they have the same opportunities to succeed in life as any other child and I am pleased to see that children with new plans are securing more placements in mainstream schools … While we have increased the total amount allocated to high needs funding to £6.3bn this year, we recognise the pressures in the system and we are working with the sector ahead of the spending review to find a long-term, sustainable solution for high needs funding.”

Amy Walker

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/may/30/families-rally-against-special-educational-needs-funding-cuts

2019-05-30 16:50:31+00:00

education

social learning

thehuffingtonpostuk--2019-01-23--Academy School Failures And Misuse Of Funds Are Damaging Childrens Education Spending Watchdog War

thehuffingtonpostuk

Academy School Failures And Misuse Of Funds Are Damaging Children's Education, Spending Watchdog Warns

Children’s education is being damaged by academy school failures and misuse of funds that includes paying “excessive salaries” to top bosses, a public spending watchdog has warned. Academy trusts are now responsible for educating nearly half of all children in state-funded schools in England but are not sufficiently accountable to parents and local communities, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has found. A succession of high-profile collapses of schools and misuse of public money is harming both pupils’ learning and taxpayers’ pockets, a damning new report by the influential committee says. The PAC has slammed sizeable salaries paid to schools bosses, including an alleged £850,000 payout to one disgraced executive headteacher, and criticised the use of controversial building contracts at some academy schools. The cross-party committee of MPs, which acts as a watchdog on public spending, has now called for greater governance of the academies sector. Meg Hillier MP, chair of the committee, said: “We have seen the troubling consequences of poor governance and oversight of academy trusts. Government must raise its game to ensure the failures of the past are not repeated.” But the Department for Education (DfE) has hit back saying a haul of Oxbridge university offers at academy schools over the last week proves the system is working to improve outcomes for thousands of pupils. Among the PAC’s findings are warnings that parents have to fight to obtain even basic information about their children’s schools. It says academy trusts do not do enough to communicate decisions that affect schools and how they are spending public money. Two high-profile academy chains - Durand Academy Trust and Bright Tribe Trust - are singled out for serious failures in governance and oversight. The report says the previous executive headteacher at Durand Academy Trust was entitled to a lump sum payment of £850,000 despite “catastrophic failures of governance”, which it describes as a “shocking reward for failure”. While the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) is taking steps to control executive pay, the report warns these measures in isolation will not prevent abuse and are “as yet unproven”. Witnesses also told the committee school improvement works funded by public money at The Whitehaven Academy, in west Cumbria, run by Bright Tribe Trust, had not been carried out and the building was in a poor state of repair. The allegations were the subject of a BBC Panorama investigation last year. Parents were forced to use freedom of information requests to Bright Tribe to find out what was happening at the school when information was not forthcoming. The PAC also criticises failings in transparency and governance across the academies sector, saying the accounts of individual academy trusts and for the sector as a whole are not accessible to parents and local people. The committee says it is not clear who parents can turn to if they need to escalate concerns about the running of academy schools and academy trusts. It warns the DfE has few sanctions at its disposal to penalise academy chiefs involved in malpractice. While the DfE can ban individuals from teaching and acting as school governors, the ESFA admits there is nothing to stop censured staff setting up businesses that can trade with the education and training providers it oversees.

Emma Youle

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/academy-schools-damage-education-failing-schools-misuse-of-funds-says-public-accounts-committee_uk_5c472defe4b0a8dbe1754967

2019-01-23 00:01:16+00:00

education

social learning

sottnet--2019-06-02--US Embassy in Honduras set ablaze amid massive protests against education and healthcare privatizati

sottnet

US Embassy in Honduras set ablaze amid massive protests against education and healthcare privatization

Comment Alerts with Push Notifications are here! Logged in users can take advantage of our new Alerts system for Reader Comments. You'll automatically get alerts whenever anyone posts on any articles that you previously commented on. Just click the bell icon in the upper right corner of the screen. You can also visit your Personalize page and enable Web Push Notifications. Finally, don't miss your very own Recent Comments page (click the bell to see the link). Need an account to use these new features? Sign up now!

https://www.sott.net/article/414180-US-Embassy-in-Honduras-set-ablaze-amid-massive-protests-against-education-and-healthcare-privatization

2019-06-02 12:48:11+00:00

health

healthcare policy

sottnet--2019-11-12--Google sucks up & analyzes healthcare data on millions of Americans in secret AI project

sottnet

Google sucks up & analyzes healthcare data on millions of Americans in secret AI project

Google has teamed up with one of the largest health providers in the US to gather detailed medical records on millions of patients across the country without their knowledge, in a secret project the firm tried to keep under wraps.Dubbed "Project Nightingale," the secretive program brought together Google and healthcare giant Ascension in an effort to collect medical records on patients across 21 states, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The data sharing began last year, and has only accelerated in recent months.Google says it hopes to use the data to develop an application employing AI and machine learning to track patients and recommend treatments, and ultimately has its eye on creating a search engine that can aggregate disparate patient data in one place."Wow - this is downright alarming. Do you trust Google with your blood test results, diagnoses, sensitive health information?" asked attorney and Republican National Committee member Harmeet K. Dhillon in a tweet. "Google's secret 'Project Nightingale' gathers personal health data on millions of Americans."The company launched Google Health in 2008, but shuttered it less than four years later after failing to persuade enough users to hand over their medical records willingly, perhaps uncomfortable with the firm having access to such sensitive information. The tech giant has since cut individual consent out of its quest to amass healthcare data, going over the heads of patients to make deals with health providers instead.In September, the company allied with the Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic to provide cloud services and data analytics in a 10-year "strategic partnership," which will give Google access to data on up to 1 million patients at the clinic each year.In another mass data grab earlier this month, the company purchased the maker of the fitness tracking device Fitbit, gobbling up the data of some 28 million active users of the gadget. The data goes beyond simple fitness tracking, such as the number of steps one takes per day, as some users opt to link the device to additional medical or insurance records. While Google vowed to never hand out the Fitbit information to third parties, customers may still have reason to be skeptical about the integrity of their data.The case mirrored a similar mishap across the pond in 2017, in which the UK's National Health Service passed the company data on 1.6 million patients in violation of privacy laws.The data sharing with Ascension is likely permitted under US federal law, however, as the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPA) Act allows hospitals and other healthcare providers to pass data to business partners without informing patients so long as it "help[s] the covered entity carry out its health care functions."

https://www.sott.net/article/423728-Google-sucks-up-analyzes-healthcare-data-on-millions-of-Americans-in-secret-AI-project

Tue, 12 Nov 2019 04:02:21 +0000

health

healthcare policy

sputnik--2019-03-21--Ex-US Envoy to UN Haley Schooled by Finns Angered by Free Healthcare Criticism

sputnik

Ex-US Envoy to UN Haley Schooled by Finns Angered by Free Healthcare Criticism

Former US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has come under international criticism for her comment about Finland's healthcare system, which, she argued, was inferior to that of the US. The incident started when Senator Bernie Sanders, who recently declared he's running for president for a second time, slammed the cost of childbirth in the US. According to the Vermont senator, it's a mind-boggling $12,000 compared to only $60 in Finland. Using this argument as a battering ram, Sanders called to end the US' "profit-driven healthcare system" he called a "disgrace". ​Haley countered by claiming that Finland's healthcare wasn't too popular among its citizens and suggesting it "skimped on healthcare". "It's pretty great, thanks for asking. We skimp on pregnant women's health so much that the infant mortality rate is almost 3 times higher in the US than in Finland. We skimp so much on pregnant women and the newborn that every pregnant person receives a maternity package (or if they choose, cash) filled with clothes and other goodies for the child. For free", podcaster and writer Taru Torikka retorted in a series of tweets. ​Another user compared Nikki Haley with the former Soviet Union in trying to tell people that life in the West is terrible. "Finland has a high performing health system, with remarkable good quality in both primary and hospital care. The country also achieves good health status at relatively low level of health spending", Kai Sauer tweeted. ​He added that the United Nations describes Finland as having the world's third-lowest infant mortality rate, the lowest maternal mortality, the second-lowest total mortality from cancer in the EU. To add salt to the wound, Sauer apologised for his belated answer by claiming that Finland was busy celebrating its rank as the world's happiest country. ​When it comes to under-five mortality rates, Finland has 2.3 deaths per 1,000 live births, according to the United Nations Children's Fund, while the US has 6.6 per 1,000 live births for the same age group. Despite significantly higher health care spending than Finland, the United States has the worst overall child mortality rate compared with 19 other wealthy nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, according to a study published last year in the journal Health Affairs. Also, the maternal mortality rate in the US is 14 per 100,000 women, nearly five times higher than Finland's which is three. A 2018 Global Burden of Disease study found Finland to have one of the best healthcare systems along with the likes of Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland. By contrast, the US was found to have the most expensive healthcare. In Finland, the annual cost-per-patient is around 2,800 euros, while in the US' privately-financed health care system that figure is nearly 6,900 euros per patient.

https://sputniknews.com/viral/201903211073422081-finland-usa-healthcare/

2019-03-21 10:30:00+00:00

health

healthcare policy

sputnik--2019-04-14--Know Your Enemy US Health Insurers Lead Fight Against Universal Healthcare

sputnik

Know Your Enemy: US Health Insurers Lead Fight Against Universal Healthcare

The whistleblower stated that he had taken his story public so that patients in the US would understand what they are up against as they attempt to trim unnecessary financial dealings from what most agree must be a freely-offered right to healthcare for all. "I felt Americans needed to know exactly who it is that's fighting against the idea that healthcare is a right, not a privilege," the anonymous whistleblower told the Washington Post's Jeff Stein. In answering questions about how his for-profit health insurance company was fighting the popular Medicare for All movement, Nelson hinted at crafting carefully strategized backroom dealings while brewing a broad propaganda blitzkrieg. "One of the things you said: ‘We're really quiet' or ‘It seems like we're quiet.' Um, we've done a lot more than you would think," Nelson asserted in response to an employee's question about the company's role regarding Medicare for All, according to a leaked video, mentioned by the Washington Post but not published. "You want to be kind of thoughtful about how you show up and have these kind of conversations, because the last thing you want to do is become the poster child during the presidential campaign," Nelson warned, cited by Washpost.com. In addition, Nelson declared that UnitedHealthcare "opposes Medicare for All because it excludes the private sector, which he said does a better job of delivering healthcare than the government, and said he doubted how a single-payer system could be funded or effectively administered." The CEO's comments were leaked just a few days after Vermont Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-VT) revealed a new Medicare for All healthcare bill, which will extend US healthcare benefits to everyone, including undocumented migrants, Sputnik reported Saturday. The bill, introduced by Sanders last week, did not reference immigrants directly, but clearly stated it would cover all US "residents." The bill has received the support of Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). The bill is intended to be a major step beyond the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), which limits its effect to those who are US citizens, nationals and "lawfully present immigrants." Following the introduction of his bill, Sanders criticized insurance and pharmaceutical companies. "In my view, the current debate over Medicare for All really has nothing to do with healthcare. It's all about greed and profiteering," Sanders said in a recent statement. "It is about whether we maintain a dysfunctional system which allows the top five health insurance companies to make over $20 billion in profits last year," he pointed out. On Friday, Sanders addressed Nelson and UnitedHealthcare in a Twitter message, writing: "Our message to Steve Nelson and UnitedHealthcare is simple: When we are in the White House your greed is going to end. We will end the disgrace of millions of people being denied health care while a single company earns $226 billion and its CEO makes $7.5 million in compensation." ​In a recent statement to the Washington Post, Medicare for All campaigner Tim Faust noted, "When the people begin organizing against private insurance, the lonely insurance executives turn to their only friends: the elected officials beholden to their cash." Medicare for All, a ‘single-payer' plan, envisages the US government paying for any and all expenses related to the physical health and wellbeing of its citizens, similar to most every other developed nation in the world. By eliminating every other money-moving, for-profit or bureaucratic entity from the current US healthcare system, including insurance companies as well as federal and state branches, Medicare-for-All would provide all the necessary baseline healthcare needs for every US citizen, at no charge to the patient. Medicare-for-All would eliminate the need for the thousands of publicly-traded and extremely-profitable private-insurance companies that have managed to insinuate themselves between patients and actual healthcare providers, including doctors, clinics and hospitals, according to Washpost.com. Notably, 17 developed nations including Norway, Japan, the United Kingdom, Kuwait, Sweden, Bahrain, Brunei, Canada, United Arab Emirates, Finland, Slovenia, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus, Spain and Iceland have successfully established single-payer systems.

https://sputniknews.com/society/201904141074127090-us-health-insurers-fight-universal-healthcare/

2019-04-14 19:43:00+00:00

health

healthcare policy

sputnik--2019-08-04--UK Allocates Extra 22Bln to Modernize Hospitals Healthcare System - Prime Minister

sputnik

UK Allocates Extra $2.2Bln to Modernize Hospitals, Healthcare System - Prime Minister

"Today I’m announcing an extra £1.8 billion for the NHS – that means more beds, better care and lives saved", Johnson said, as quoted by his office. These funds will be used to modernize about 20 hospitals. In addition, capital expenditures on the health system as a whole will be increased, the prime minister's office noted. More than a billion pounds of the newly announced funding will be spent in the current fiscal year, it added. Additional funding is above 33.9 billion pounds allocated annually from the NHS budget in accordance with a long-term program approved last year. The news comes almost a week after UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid has announced that additional 2.1 billion pounds ($2.5 billion) were earmarked to prepare the country for a no-deal Brexit. Meanwhile, London has already allocated 6.3 billion pounds for Brexit preparations, including 4.2 billion made available this financial year. In his first speech as prime minister, Boris Johnson vowed to leave the European Union by the 31 October deadline. He also added that while London would work to secure a new and "better" deal with Brussels, preparations for a potential no-deal Brexit would be necessary if "Brussels refuses any further to negotiate". Johnson said in June that the chances for no-deal Brexit were a "million-to-one against". Johnson has been also calling on the European Commission to drop a clause that seeks to avoid a hard Irish border by tying the country to the EU customs union, despite Brussels saying it will not reopen the talks on the Brexit deal. UK citizens voted to leave the European Union in 2016. Brexit was originally scheduled for late March, but UK lawmakers failed to endorse the deal agreed upon by London and Brussels, so the deadline was moved to 31 October. The failure to deliver the withdrawal made Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, to step down. According to US Goldman Sachs investment bank, Brexit reportedly cost the United Kingdom about $785 million per week since the 2016 referendum that sealed the country's fate to exit the European bloc.

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201908051076463104-uk-allocates-extra-22bln-to-modernize-hospitals-healthcare-system---prime-minister/

2019-08-04 23:45:00+00:00

health

healthcare policy

talkingpointsmemo--2019-04-02--Trump Punts Says GOP Will Unveil Healthcare Plan Right After The Election

talkingpointsmemo

Trump Punts, Says GOP Will Unveil Healthcare Plan ‘Right After The Election’

President Donald Trump, perhaps realizing the political cudgel he had handed Democrats with the renewed Obamacare attack, tweeted Monday that Republicans would wait to unveil their healthcare plan alternative until “right after the election.” The punt could also be a result of Republicans not actually having a plan. Reports surfaced Monday that Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) was pitching in on the effort, which did not seem very far along in its development. Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) washed his hands of the issue entirely, clearly unwilling to make a second run at an issue that provided a huge win for the Democrats and humiliation for his caucus last time around. Democrats have hungrily gobbled up the chance to make yet another election about health care, which plays right into the narratives of many 2020 contenders who are focusing on bread and butter issues.

Kate Riga

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-punts-gop-unveil-healthcare-plan-right-after-election

2019-04-02 11:15:35+00:00

health

healthcare policy

tass--2019-03-14--South Korea Russia develop joint healthcare projects

tass

South Korea, Russia develop joint healthcare projects

SEOUL, March 14. /TASS/. The Republic of Korea and Russia are successfully cultivating relations in the field of healthcare, South Korean Health and Welfare Minister Park Neung-hu said in an interview with a TASS correspondent on Thursday. The top health official participated in the opening ceremony of the Medical Korea conference, and the Korea International Medical & Hospital Equipment Show, KIMES, at the COEX Convention and Exhibition Center in Seoul. Park Neung-hu particularly emphasized that after the South Korean and Russian Health Ministries signed a corresponding memorandum, the countries started developing partnerships in many spheres. He was mainly referring to the field of healthcare that uses information technology, as well as medical staff internship programs. The minister said that last year Russian medical workers and pharmaceutical industry representatives visited South Korea for training, while a South Korean delegation paid a visit to Russia later to study the possibilities for running joint business projects. One of these projects is introducing information technology in the Russian Far East Region to provide equal access to healthcare to all citizens. In other media

http://tass.com/society/1048690

2019-03-14 16:11:00+00:00

health

healthcare policy

tass--2019-08-20--Funds allocated for national healthcare project should be spent wisely Putin

tass

Funds allocated for national healthcare project should be spent wisely — Putin

He recalled that 1 trillion 367 billion rubles ($20.5 bln) were allocated for the implementation of this national project, in particular 237.5 billion rubles ($3.6 bln) were granted for the development of primary healthcare. MOSCOW, August 20. /TASS/. The funds allocated for the implementation of the national project Healthcare should be spent wisely, Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting on the modernization of primary healthcare on Tuesday. Male obesity surges in Russia in past 16 years, says Ministry of Health expert "These are significant resources that should be spent wisely and should give a good result," Putin said, noting that there are "many more problems in this area." In particular, he said, we are talking about the availability of medical care for residents of small towns and remote territories. The president noted that earlier, he had discussed problems in primary healthcare at a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova. The main tasks of the National project include reduction of mortality from cardiovascular and oncological diseases, introduction of lean technologies, large-scale prevention and screening, elimination of personnel shortages, the development of the infrastructure of children's hospitals. The national project includes eight federal projects, in particular "Development of the primary healthcare system", "Combating cardiovascular diseases", "Combating oncological diseases", "Development of children's healthcare" and others. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova is in charge of the National Project, and Russian Health Minister Veronica Skvortsova heads it.

https://tass.com/politics/1074315

2019-08-20 20:51:32+00:00

health

healthcare policy

tass--2019-10-31--Putin says allocations for healthcare will grow

tass

Putin says allocations for healthcare will grow

"As far as healthcare financing at large is concerned, certainly, we must and will increase it," the head of state said. "While [healthcare expenses] are 3.7% of GDP in this year, they will be 4.1% of GDP as early as in the next year," Putin said. The consolidated healthcare budget amounts to 2.7 trillion rubles ($42.2 bln) in 2019 and will be 4.5 trillion rubles ($70.4 bln) in 2020, the president said. "This is more than 4% in many countries, that is true, but the tax burden there is also higher," Putin said. "The overall tax burden in Russia is 28.4%, while it is more than 37% in Germany and over 40% in Belgium and France," the Russian leader said. "In other words, they collect from the whole economy, from citizens, and make reallocations there. Are we ready at present to dramatically increase the tax burden and what will be the result? This is a very delicate sphere," Putin noted. "The understanding that healthcare financing should be increased is present. It [financing] will grow," the head of state added.

https://tass.com/economy/1086348

Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:11:18 +0300

health

healthcare policy

tass--2019-11-25--Venturing into the future of healthcare with AI - SonoScape at Medica 2019

tass

Venturing into the future of healthcare with AI - SonoScape at Medica 2019

DUSSELDORF, Germany, Nov. 25, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- SonoScape, as one of the leading providers of medical ultrasound and endoscopy solutions, presented its latest products and technologies in the world's largest medical event Medica: its first echoendoscope EG-UR5 (endoscopic ultrasound), a new 4-LED light source and SFI/VIST technology for endoscopy HD550, and a new ultrasound system, P60. The future of medicine is here at Medica: visitors can see a lightweight medical robot assisting a surgeon to perform minimally invasive, highly precise operations while reducing the strain on medical personnel to the greatest extent possible. SonoScape combines its two strongest know-how in sonography and endoscopy and presents its first echoendoscope EG-UR5. The system comes with SonoScape's high-end endoscopy systems, and is paired with the premium color Doppler ultrasound S60. A true "best of the two worlds", EG-UR5 is a golden key to unlock the modern endoscopic ultrasound area. SonoScape is one of the few global brands and the first from China that has released an endoscopic ultrasound system certified by the EU. SonoScape Endoscopy Division keeps up its incredibly fast pace in product development and introduced a 4-LED light source, HD550. This technology delivers a noticeably upgraded brightness with even more image details under both white light and chromoendoscopy SFI/VIST modes, fulfilling all key factors for a quality optical diagnosis. P60 extends its existing AI features from GI to holistic care for women: from family planning, pregnancy biometry and visualization to breast & pelvic health. With a strong Wis+ platform, P60 is designed to provide more insightful evidence for diagnosis and enhanced efficiency. At a seminar during Medica, professor doctors from Germany and Spain endorsed P60 for its imaging quality and AI functions. This reiterated SonoScape's vision: bringing better health care to the world and improving doctor and patient care experiences through unparalleled commitment to expertise, innovation, and service. Founded in 2002 in Shenzhen, China, SonoScape has committed itself to "Caring for life through innovation" by providing ultrasound and endoscopy solutions and delivering first-rate services. It now has seven R&D centers in Shenzhen, Shanghai, Harbin, Wuhan, Tokyo, Silicon Valley and Seattle. Ranked as the top 10 ultrasound brands globally, SonoScape reinvests 18% of its revenue into R&D annually, with more advanced products to be introduced into the pipeline.

https://tass.com/press-releases/1092509

Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:37:01 +0300

health

healthcare policy

theamericanconservative--2019-10-17--Patient Zero: Democrats’ Healthcare Split Could Prove Fatal

theamericanconservative

Patient Zero: Democrats’ Healthcare Split Could Prove Fatal

Universal healthcare: It’s been the raison d’etre for Democrats seeking the White House for as long as I can remember. First, there was candidate and then-President Bill Clinton’s attempt, the much-maligned, stillborn “HillaryCare.” Based in part on the government controlling health care costs, it was rebuked by Congressional Republicans and then voters in 1994, as the GOP seized the House for the first time in a half-century. Then, as conservatism was on its back at the end of the George W. Bush presidency, there was appetite again for a second try. Horror stories of America’s shambolic system were everywhere in the 2000’s. From Michael Moore’s “Sicko” to songs by Conor Oberst—“Oh, we got no health insurance, no cellular service, no disease, they can cure”—it seemed healthcare, as much as the failing financial system, and the fraught wars abroad, was foremost in everyone’s minds. In the middle part of the naughties, leading Republicans championed an approach they thought would help preserve the market system—most notably RomneyCare, shepherded in by then-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Years later, the Right and Romney himself would reject the approach nationally. But the Romney system relied on the individual mandate—that is, requiring citizens to buy private insurance. The leading Democrats in the 2008 primary—then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, then-Sen. Barack Obama, and 2004 primary runner-up John Edwards—were divided on the matter. Clinton and Edwards favored a mandate, while Obama, often portrayed as furthest left of the trio, actually opposed the mandate. As president, of course, Obama would change his mind and deem it necessary for American healthcare reform. Heading into 2020, as Democrats nominate a post-Obama, post-Clinton standard-bearer for the first time in years, healthcare still weighs heavily on the minds of both voters and party elites. Obamacare, a relatively moderate, technocratic fix, the thinking goes, cost an ocean of political capital for the Left, only to be dynamited by President Obama’s political successor. Obama didn’t even get a prime attraction of his program through—the public option, that is, a real-deal government rival to private insurance. If the Left is going to do healthcare reform, the thinking goes, why not go for gold? Republicans will work to sunder any attempt, anyways. As Mayor Pete Buttigieg said this earlier this year: “If we adopt a platform way out to the left, they’re going to say we’re socialists. If we adopt a more moderate or conservative platform, they’re going to say we’re socialists. So, we might as well just do what we think is right, make the case for it and then let them do what they want.” This dynamic was on full display Tuesday night in Ohio. The hardcore option is so-called “Medicare for All,” most commonly associated with front-runner Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the latter of whom wrote the bill in the Senate, as he reminded us Tuesday night. Warren, whose stock has rocketed in recent weeks, was needled for lack of specificity on how she would pay for the watershed program. Said Sanders: “As someone who wrote the damn bill … I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up. They will go up significantly for the wealthy and for virtually everybody, the tax increase will be substantially less.” Warren’s other rivals pulled fewer punches. “I believe the best and boldest idea here is to not trash Obamacare,” said Sen. Amy Klobachur, a consensus breakout star of the debate. “But to do what Barack Obama wanted to do from the beginning and that’s have a public option that would bring down the cost of the premium, and expand the number of people covered, and take on the pharmaceutical companies. That is what we should be doing.” Klobachur added, clearly directing her aim at Warren: “Instead of kicking 149 million people off their insurance.” The Minnesota senator said the Massachusetts senator’s ambivalence toward repairing Obamacare was evidence that she had bought into “Republican talking points”; Warren said Klobachur’s refusal to embrace a bigger approach also represented bringing a conservative spirit to the problem. The Warren-Klobachur fracas was emblematic of the fight between the increasingly warring camps on America’s Left: between medicare-for-all and the less ambitious public option, which would offer a Medicare-like plan to folks under 65 and is embraced by Klobachur, the label-ambivalent Buttigieg, and former Vice President Joe Biden. The ex-veep, like Sanders, was quick to remind voters of his relevance to this debate, recalling that he backed the public option hard while in the White House. Industry is not sleeping on this dynamic, either. Major insurer Kaiser Permanente has released a survey implicitly favorable to the Biden-Buttigieg-Klobuchar approach, finding only fifty-one percent of people want Medicare-for-all — down from nearly sixty percent last year, before the primary debate kicked out. Kaiser, for its worth, found that 73 percent of people favored a public option. “Biden has cast ‘Medicare for All’ as ‘getting rid of Obamacare’ and Mayor Pete has said you don’t need to gut private health insurance to get to universal coverage,” Washington Examiner senior healthcare reporter Kimberly Leonard told me. The Democratic Party represents the hopes for millions of disenfranchised and struggling Americans. But its fundamental tensions with its Left is that the party is also composed of much of America’s educated elite, who are generally just fine with their healthcare coverage, thank you very much. In 2017, Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey rode the healthcare issue to a ballot box bonanza, after the abortive Trump admin healthcare overhaul. Leading Dem strategists hope to repeat that success again. But for a party that hopes to unite before the summer and above all else—replace Donald Trump—the now open rift on a such a seminal issue is worrying. Curt Mills is senior writer for The American Conservative.

Curt Mills

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/patient-zero-democrats-healthcare-split-could-prove-fatal/

Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:01:21 +0000

health

healthcare policy

theblaze--2019-01-29--Kamala Harris wants to totally eradicate private healthcare Lets eliminate all of that

theblaze

Kamala Harris wants to totally eradicate private healthcare: 'Let's eliminate all of that'

Kamala Harris wants to totally eradicate private healthcare: 'Let's eliminate all of that' The 2020 Democrat wants more than just Medicare expansion

Aaron Colen

https://www.theblaze.com/news/kamala-harris-wants-to-totally-eradicate-private-healthcare-lets-eliminate-all-that

2019-01-29 04:57:05+00:00

health

healthcare policy

theblaze--2019-04-24--Green New Deal advocate rejects any compromise says priorities are jobs guarantees and free healthc

theblaze

Green New Deal advocate rejects any compromise, says priorities are jobs guarantees and free healthcare

Green New Deal advocate rejects any compromise, says priorities are jobs guarantees and free healthcare

Aaron Colen

https://www.theblaze.com/news/green-new-deal-advocate-rejects-any-compromise-says-priorities-are-jobs-guarantees-and-free-healthcare

2019-04-24 23:49:17+00:00

health

healthcare policy

theconservativetreehouse--2019-06-24--President Trump Announces Executive Order on Healthcare Price Transparency

theconservativetreehouse

President Trump Announces Executive Order on Healthcare Price Transparency….

Earlier today President Trump announced a new executive order, constructed to facilitate a regulation change, that will require healthcare providers to inform patients of the cost of their procedures in advance of treatment.  [Lots of Background Here] The President makes the announcement [Video and Transcript Below] [Transcript] – 3:17 P.M. EDT – THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you. Wow. (Applause.) Wow. That’s very nice. Thank you very much everybody. Wow. We must be doing something right lately. (Laughter.) That’s very nice. I appreciate it very much. And welcome to the White House. Great place. No place like it, actually. We’re here to announce new groundbreaking actions that we’re taking to dramatically increase quality, affordability, and fairness to our healthcare system. This landmark initiative continues our campaign to put American patients first. This is a truly big action. People have no idea how big it is. Some people say bigger than healthcare itself. This is something that’s going to be very important. For too long, it’s been virtually impossible for Americans to know the real price and quality of healthcare services and the services they receive. As a result, patients face significant obstacles shopping for the best care at the best price, driving up healthcare costs for everyone. With today’s historic action, we are fundamentally changing the nature of the healthcare marketplace. This is bigger than anything we’ve done in this particular realm. And probably, Alex, it’s not even close, from what they’re telling me. We will empower patients with the information they need to search for the lowest costs and the highest-quality care. In other words, they’ll be able to seek out their doctor, seek out the doctor they want, and they’ll be given vast amounts of information about those doctors. We’re grateful to be joined by Secretary Alex Azar and Administrator Seema Verma. Thank you very much. Alex? Where’s Seema? Hi, Seema. (Applause.) And I also want to recognize and thank a great senator, Chuck Grassley. Chuck, thank you very much. (Applause.) And, by the way, congratulations on ethanol. E15, right? He fought so hard. Oh, he’s tough. When he goes after you, he’s brutal. (Laughter.) But he gets what he wants and then he likes you, right? Anyway, congratulations to the farmers, frankly, Chuck. Right? Great job. Appreciate it. And that’s all year-round. And Mike Braun. Mike, thank you. Thank you, Mike. Great job you’re doing. Representatives Greg Walden — we worked so hard together on Right to Try, Greg. Right? Right to Try. People are loving it. Michael Burgess, Doug Collins, Devin — Devin Nunes. Thank you all. Incredible people. Lieutenant Governors Geoff Duncan and Dan Forest. Thank you, fellas. Thank you. Thank you. You didn’t get a very good seat. I can’t believe it. (Laughter.) That’s not like you. And all of our great state legislators. We have a lot of them with us today, and a lot of great medical people and doctors. For decades, powerful insurance companies, lobbyists, and special interests have denied the public access to the real cost of the healthcare services they provide. It’s that simple. This lack of price transparency has enriched industry giants greatly, costing Americans hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Patients have been billed nearly $800 for saline; more than $6,000 for a drug test, at the simplest methods used, and $6,000 — I’ve seen them; and over $17,000 for stitches to just stitch up a minor wound. Often, prices differ drastically between providers and hospitals for the exact same services. And there’s no consistency. There’s no predictability. And there’s, frankly, no rhyme or reason to what’s been happening for so many years. As a result, Americans, such as Erika Jay, who is here today, find themselves in deeply unfair situations. Erika, please, if you would come up and just explain what happened to you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. (Applause.) MS. JAY: Thank you. Over the last three and a half years, while fighting a stage-three cancer, we visited many healthcare facilities. We saw price variations that just caught us off-guard and really surprised us — took us by surprise — from one facility to the next. And it caused us financial hardship. An example of this is when I had two identical bone biopsy procedures only 11 days apart at facilities that were only 17 miles apart from each other. We learned, when we received the bills for the second procedure, that it cost us more than 330 percent than the first time we had it done. Different facility, identical procedure: drastically different pricing. This is one of many stories our family has. If price transparency had been required, we would have been empowered to find the best pricing for my care, saving thousands of dollars over the last three years. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I’m right here. (Laughter.) MS. JAY: Thank you for this executive order. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. MS. JAY: And thank you for empowering and helping families like mine all over the nation. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. That’s very nice. (Applause.) Thank you. Thanks very much, Erika. We believe the American people have a right to know the price of services before they go to visit the doctor. Therefore, in just a few moments, I will be signing a breakthrough executive order. It will create unprecedented transparency about healthcare prices and provide this information to the American people for the first time ever — first time it’s ever been done. People knew it should have been done years ago, but they never got it done. I wonder why. With this order, hospitals will be required to publish prices that reflect what people actually pay for services in a way that’s clear, straightforward, and accessible to all. And you’ll be able to price it among many different potential providers, and you’ll get great pricing. Prices will come down by numbers that you won’t even believe. You won’t even believe it. More price transparency will mean more competition, and the cost of healthcare will go way, way down. Vanderbilt economist — highly respected — Dr. Larry Van Horn is here with us. Larry was introduced to me by a gentleman who is a great gentleman, great economist: Art Laffer. And Art Laffer just got — as you know, Larry — just got the Presidential Medal of Freedom a couple of days ago. And Art was telling me that he’s the head of a hospital, where he comes from. He’s on the board. And they did this. He said it is beyond anything he’s seen, from an economic standpoint and even a health standpoint. And I said, “Let’s talk about it.” And we discussed it, and it’s something known very well, but a lot of people don’t do it because there won’t be some rich people that will be too happy about this. But the people will be happy about it. So, Larry, could you — (applause) — so, Larry, if you would — one thing, before Larry gets up: One of the other big beneficiaries are really good doctors. The good doctors. And they should be the beneficiaries — not the bad doctors, but the good doctors. And I think all of the doctors in the audience know exactly what I’m talking about. So thank you for being here, because I guarantee you’re all probably very good doctors. So, Larry, if you would, please come up and share a little of your wisdom and what this is all about. Thank you. Thank you very much. (Applause.) DR. VAN HORN: Thank you, Mr. President, for taking this action that will put healthcare information in the hands of the American consumer. This truly will be transformational. For years, I’ve studied the impact of hidden prices and what that’s had — the impact that’s had on markets — healthcare markets — as well as American consumers. My analysis suggests that when cash prices are transparent, upfront, in the market, on average, they’re 39 percent cheaper than the amounts that third-party payers pay for like services. Even when insurance covers the cost, there is, on average, a 300 percent price variation within a market across — for the exact same services. Your healthcare transparency initiative will empower consumers and use free market forces to drive healthcare markets towards lower prices, better outcomes, greater access, and greater value. But this is bigger than healthcare. Lower prices for healthcare leaves more money in Americans’ wallets and in their paychecks for the purchase of all other goods and services that are important parts of their lives. This will be good for America and good for Americans. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Larry. Today’s action is not just about lower prices. It’s also about helping Americans find excellent care. Currently, patients do not have adequate tools to find the doctors who would deliver better health outcomes at an affordable cost. And when they used to talk about Obamacare, “You can keep your doctor,” that turned out to be a lie. Twenty-eight different times it turned out to be a lie. Here, you can keep your doctor, but you can also maybe find somebody other than your doctor at your choice, and that would be based on talent and it would also be based on price. Because of this, you’ll be able to search out for the right doctor. And it really is, in a true sense, the opposite of Obamacare. You get much better pricing, and you’ll get the doctor that you want and maybe you’ll get better than the doctor that you originally thought about. It’s pretty incredible. Low-quality care often means unnecessary services. For example, a bad doctor may routinely perform an expensive spinal surgery for back pain without first trying physical therapy. That’s why my order directs agencies to help inform the public about the quality of doctors and hospitals by leveraging all of this data. By making much better use of this new information, we will save money and save lives, and your care will be much better. It’s incredible. We’re also joined by Dr. Elaina George, a longtime advocate for patients. Elaina, please come up and tell them a little bit about what transparency means. Thank you. (Applause.) DR. GEORGE: I love being a doctor. However, one of the most challenging things has been the inability to be an effective advocate for my patients. I’ve had patients deny themselves care because they don’t know how much a service will cost, or, worse, be stuck with a costly bill that they didn’t expect. I have felt powerless at times because of my inability to help them, especially if I have to send them to a hospital and we can’t find out the price of the service. Price transparency is a solution to this problem. When patients become healthcare consumers, it will drive prices down, quality up, and most importantly, help doctors serve their patients better. Thank you, President Trump, for this executive order. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Elaina. Thank you very much. Great job. Thank you, Elaina. As we fight to increase transparency and lower costs for patients, more than 120 Democrats in Congress support Bernie Sanders’s socialist takeover of American healthcare. It’s very dangerous. The Democrat plan would terminate the private health insurance of over 180 million Americans who are really happy with what they have. Under my administration, we will never let that happen. We believe in giving patients — (applause) — we believe in giving patients choice and freedom in healthcare, ensuring access to the doctors they want, the treatments they need, and the highest standard of medical care anywhere in the world. And this will make it much better than it’s ever been. This is a truly historic day. I don’t know that it will be covered that way by the fake news. (Laughter.) But this is truly a historic day. This is a very big thing that’s happening right now. And it’s pretty much going to blow everything away, Alex, as we discussed. People never thought they’d see us do this. We’re making new affordable health options available to millions of American workers through the association health plans, short-term plans, and health reimbursement arrangements. We’re working with Congress to stop surprise medical billing. And when you hear “surprise” — (applause) — right? And when we hear “surprise medical bill” we’re not talking about a positive surprise. (Laughter.) We’re talking about, you know, not surprise, “Oh, gee. How happy I am.” You’re talking about, like, a disaster. Because no American should be blindsided by bills for medical service they never agreed to in advance. Because people get sick. They don’t really think in terms of, “Let’s sit down and negotiate for 20 minutes.” You want to get better. And then you get hit, and you get hit really hard. And that stops. We’re expanding access to tax-free health savings accounts. To give critically ill patients access to lifesaving cures, we passed Right to Try. We were helped so much by these gentlemen in the front row. What a job you all did, and I really appreciate it. And you, too, Senator. I’ll tell you, that was really great. We think in terms of the House — because I know how hard you fought for it, Greg and Doug. You guys were amazing. But — and Devin, I know you worked on this one very, very hard with everything else you do, but I appreciate it. And very few people would’ve done that. You know, Right to Try is interesting because it’s been — they’ve been trying to get it for 45 years. And they couldn’t do it. And it sounds simple, but it’s not, because everybody had a reason for not wanting it. The insurance companies didn’t want it because of liabilities. The country didn’t want it because they didn’t want to be sued. But now you have terminally ill patients that used to — if they were rich enough, they’d go Asia. They’d go to Europe. They’d go all over the world looking for a cure. And we have the greatest doctors in the world right here; the greatest lab technicians and labs and medical services. We have everything. But it takes a period of time to get a certain potential cure approved. Sometimes 15 years. And, by the way, we brought that down to probably an average of six. But you need time because you don’t want to hurt anybody. But these are patients that are terminally ill and they didn’t want to give them a potential cure because they didn’t want to hurt them, but they’re terminally ill. So we agreed that people would sign a waiver. Nobody is going to be held liable. The drug companies, which didn’t want it because they didn’t want it on their record, we made it a much less part of their record. And we set up different standards where it would be in other parts, which was great for them. And everybody is happy, and many lives have been saved. And I’ll tell you, we had one the other day that was on — so incredible. A young — incredible young woman where they made a medical mistake and it was over for her. They were explaining last rites. And then, all of a sudden, she did this and she’s now healthy. They think she’s going to be actually fine. You might have seen it. It’s been — it was actually an incredible thing. So I’m really happy. I talk about it a lot. Right to Try — something that sounds so simple, and yet for 45 years they’ve been trying to get it approved. And they got it. And just so you feel good, Greg and Doug and everybody — tremendous success. Have you been seeing what’s going on? So many people that were definitely not going to make it are now living, and, in many cases, they’re going to be just fine. So it’s something very — you can all be very proud of that. So for the first time in a long time, we’re doing things that nobody has ever done before, from the standpoint of what we’re here for. We eliminated the Obamacare individual mandate penalty, which was the most unpopular thing in Obamacare, by far. And I had a decision to make: Do we do a good job with Obamacare — the remnant of Obamacare? Or do we do a bad job? If I do a bad job, well, there you can blame Obama and the Democrats. If we do a good job, they’ll get a little bit more credit. But it’s still very faulty. It doesn’t work, and it’s too expensive. And I told our great Secretary Alex Azar, “Don’t do a good job, do a great job. Do what you have to do. Work with the states. Do whatever you have to do to make it as good as possible.” Once we got rid of the individual mandate, it made it better. But Obamacare doesn’t work, but it works at least adequately now. And we had that choice to make. And, politically, it’s probably not a good thing that I did, but it’s the right thing to do for a lot of people. So I want to thank you and I want to thank Seema for doing a fantastic job. I appreciate it. (Applause.) And we spend a lot of time defending Medicare and Social Security, and we’re always going to protect patients with preexisting conditions. People don’t understand that — that we are fighting very, very hard to get it taken care of for preexisting conditions. And if we weren’t, that wouldn’t happen. But the Republicans are very much behind that. Totally behind that. And if we do anything and if you see anything a little unusual, it doesn’t make it because we’re putting in very, very strong — taking care of patients with preexisting conditions. And I would say, Alex, that that is, really, a very strong foundation of what we’re doing and what we’re all about. So it’s very important. Together, we’re taking power away from bureaucrats. We’re taking it away from insurance companies and away from special interests. We’re giving that power back to patients, and we’re giving Americans the right to know. So we have the right to try, and now we have the right to know, and the right to negotiate, and the right to pick your own doctor, and the right to get great prices. And other than that, you know, what can I tell you? (Laughter.) You can’t do better than that. But we’re taking one more giant step toward a healthcare system and a healthcare system that’s really fantastic, and it’s going to be good, and it’s going to work for the people. So I just want to thank everybody for being here. I’m going to go and sign the executive order. And if this is half as big as some people are saying it will be, it will be one of the biggest things ever done in this world, in this industry, in this profession. And I want to especially thank all of the doctors for being here. We have a lot of doctors in this room, and they’re very proud of what they do, and they want to have our system work. And this is something that I think is going to get it to really work efficiently and well. Thank you very much for being here. I’m going to sign the executive order. Thank you. (Applause.)

sundance

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/06/24/president-trump-announces-executive-order-on-healthcare-price-transparency/

2019-06-24 23:41:01+00:00

health

healthcare policy

theconservativetreehouse--2019-11-16--President Trump Delivers Remarks on Healthcare Price Transparency Initiative – Video and Transcript

theconservativetreehouse

President Trump Delivers Remarks on Healthcare Price Transparency Initiative – Video and Transcript

Earlier today President Trump gave remarks and held a brief White House presser on the topic of healthcare pricing transparency. [Video and Transcript Below] [Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, everybody. It’s a great honor. The stock market is up big today. It set a new record. I think it’s the 22nd time this year, and it’s over 100 times for the time that we’re in office. We’ve set over 100. I think it’s substantially more than 100. We’ll get the exact number because I know you wouldn’t want me to have that wrong. They don’t like that. But we’re up over 100 times for the stock market. And that means jobs. That means companies are moving back into the United States that left. We have many, many companies coming back. The employment numbers are at a record. The — or very close. And we just got a new number on African American employment. It’s the best it’s ever been. You could say employment or unemployment — they’re the best numbers they’ve ever been. So we’re very proud of what’s happened with our economy. A few months ago, you were predicting a recession. Perhaps someday there will be a recession, but we have a long way to go. The consumer has never been stronger, and we’re going to make the consumer even stronger yet, with transparency, because they’re going to get much better pricing at hospitals. So I think we can probably add this to the number. You saw median household income — for President Bush, eight years — was $450. For President Obama, for eight years — eight years, think of that — was $975. For President Trump — a little over two and a half years — when they did the final number, it was $5,000. And they add to that $2,000, thanks to Kevin and everybody. Thank you, Kevin. You’re behind me someplace, right? Add $2,000 or $2,500, Kevin. What would you say? REPRESENTATIVE BRADY: Yeah. Right about there, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT: Right there? So let’s add $2,000, and then add $3,000 for regulation, and add something for the energy savings. So you have $10,000. So it’s $400 and $975 — that’s for eight and eight. And then, for two and half years, it’s $10,000. That’s not bad. But the consumer is very powerful, and this is going to make them more powerful. So, welcome, everyone. This afternoon, we celebrate something that I’m very proud of: another major victory in our mission to deliver great healthcare at a price that you can afford. This will have a tremendous impact on prices. A certain gentleman, who is in the room — who will say a couple of words — actually said this is more important than healthcare. And when he said that, my ears really perked up, and I listened. And they were right, and they gave me plenty of examples. And that person recently got the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His name is Art Laffer, and he’s a very talented guy. Where is Art? Is he here? Yes? THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Art. I didn’t see you. I didn’t see you back there. All right, stand up here. A great gentleman. And you brought a man here who’s the king of that world. And — hello. How are you? That’s the guy. And you made that statement to me: “More important than healthcare.” That was a big statement. As soon as I heard that, I said, “That sounds good to me.” It’s transparency. So I signed, as you know, an executive order — historic. And we’re requiring price transparency in healthcare, forcing companies to compete for your business. It’s a very important thing that we’ve done here. I don’t think it’ll be covered by you, but it will be in the years to come. Our goal was to give patients the knowledge they need about the real price of healthcare services. They’ll be able to check them, compare them, go to different locations, so they can shop for the highest-quality care at the lowest cost. And this is about high-quality care. You’re also looking at that. You’re looking at comparisons between talents, which is very important. And then, you’re also looking at cost. And, in some cases, you get the best doctor for the lowest cost. That’s a — that’s a good thing. Today, I’m proud to announce two new actions implementing that order. First, we are finalizing a rule that will compel hospitals to publish prices publicly online for everyone to see and to compare. So you’re able to go online and compare all of the hospitals and the doctors and the prices, and, I assume, get résumés on doctors and see who you like. And the good doctors — like, I assume these two guys are fantastic doctors, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. (Laughter.) And the bad doctors, I guess they have to go and hide someplace. I don’t know. Maybe they don’t do so well. I don’t know. But if they’re not good, we — we are more interested in the good ones. It’s called “rewarding talent.” Second, we’re putting forward a proposed rule to require health insurance providers to disclose their pricing information to consumers. We’re giving American families control of their healthcare decisions. And the freedom to choose that care is right before them on the Internet and elsewhere, but on the Internet. Very, very open. Very transparent. That’s why it’s called transparency. And this has been done on a small basis, on individual hospitals. In fact, Art, you were telling me about that, with your hospital, that you’re on the board of a hospital that did this. I’d like you to actually — before I go further, I’d like you talk about that just for a second. Art Laffer. Art, just mention that, if you could. DR. LAFFER: Yeah. You’ve got to lower it really far. (Laughter.) Sorry about that. Let me, if I can, just say I was the chairman of the board of Centennial Hospital. We had some problems. But when you look at this, this is the biggest revolution I’ve seen in generations. I mean — and as opposed to most revolutions, this revolution saves lives; it doesn’t cost lives. And, in this revolution, it saves money. You don’t have to spend money. And what you’ve seen here before is that we have no transparency whatsoever in medical. It’s like the hermit kingdom of industries. You don’t know what the price is. You don’t know what the outcome is. And you don’t know what the inputs are. What this does is this pulls away the veil and allows people to see exactly what they can and what they do. And if I can say, I think this will lead to a phenomenal change in the U.S. outcome of employment output production. It’s just one of the industries that desperately needs this. I’ll stop about here, but the last one I can remember being involved with was with Lady Thatcher when she privatized coal, steel, and the railroads. I mean, the changes there with Sir Keith Joseph. And this outdoes all of those revolutions, sir. It’s the most amazing of all time. And it takes real leadership to do it and real practitioners to be able to get it through. And Secretary Azar is a great practitioner, and my buddy Larry Ku- — Larry Van Horn is also a great practitioner — as well as Larry Kudlow, by the way. (Laughter.) Thank you, sir. THE PRESIDENT: And I’d like to have Larry maybe say a few words and explain what this is that we’re being — for the public. DR. VAN HORN: Sure, Mr. President. This is a momentous day. Americans, year over year, have been faced with higher and higher healthcare costs, facing higher and higher obligation to pay for those out of their own wallets without information around the price and the quality associated with that. The charges that have been put out are fictitious. Nobody pays the charges. This effort is to make real prices transparent. The net allowed amounts that drive the decision-making for patients every day will now be in their hands. They can make better trade-offs and have, hopefully, more money in their wallets and their paychecks to pay for all of the goods and services they need to live their lives. So this is a very momentous day. And I appreciate the efforts of the administration all the way through in terms of being able to follow through and execute this. THE PRESIDENT: And it we did max, right? We didn’t do a smaller version? MR. VAN HORN: We did it max. THE PRESIDENT: I kept saying — THE PRESIDENT: There are versions of this. I said, “No, I don’t want the C or the D. I want the A-plus.” And we did it the A-plus, so I’m very happy with that. And I think you’re going to see things. It’s kicking in immediately. It’ll kick in as of today, but it’s going to really start going during the course of the year, the following year — this year coming. And you’ll see some results that are going to be actually incredible in terms of costs coming down and, I think, in terms of the quality of the care because you’re picking people that you’d want to be with. This afternoon, we’re grateful to be joined by Secretary Steve Mnuchin — wherever you may be, Steve. Where is Steve? Secretary Gene Scalia. And I hear you’re really doing a job over there. Huh? SECRETARY SCALIA: We’re doing our best. THE PRESIDENT: Labor is doing okay. Your numbers are certainly doing very good. It’s a good time to be Department of Labor. Right? This is a — THE PRESIDENT: Right. Thank you very much. Good. Secretary Alex Azar. Thank you, Alex. Thank you. Thank you, Alex. And Administrator Seema Verma. Thank you very much, Seema. Where’s Seema? This is an unusual group today. They’re spread all over the place. I also want to welcome Representatives Kevin Brady, Michael Burgess, and Greg Walden. They’ve been so fantastic on getting us to a really good position with the taxes. We’re going to be doing a major middle-income tax cut if we take back the House. And we’ll talking about that sometime later. But we’re going to be doing a very major middle-income tax cut, mostly devoted to middle income who have really been big beneficiaries of the tax cut we did, which was the largest in the history of our country. But we’re doing a major tax cut for the middle income, and that’ll be subject, obviously, to take — taking over the House, because Democrats like tax increases, not tax cuts. I also want to thank our state leaders. We have a lot state leaders here today at the highest level, and I want to thank them for being here. And a special thanks again to highly respected economists, Dr. Art Laffer and Dr. Larry Van Horn. And, really, it was those two people that came to my office. We were talking about Art, and we were all congratulating him because he did an incredible job over a lot of years with Ronald Reagan and beyond. And when I said, “The Presidential Medal of Freedom,” which is the highest civilian award you can get, he told me this little story about a certain hospital he was involved with where they did this. And every hospital has had just incredible experience with it. And I said, “Tell me more.” And then we got involved with Larry and Larry Kudlow also, by the way. And we had a little group of four people that talked about it a lot. And I think it’s going to have a tremendous impact. And again, the statement was made: “This is bigger than healthcare.” And I think it will be. I think it’ll be more meaningful, in many ways. You’ll save so much money and you’ll get the care that you want, and you’ll choose the doctor you want, which was not possible despite the many pleas. You know, “You can have your plan and you can have your doctor.” Well, they turned out to be untrue statements about Obamacare. For decades, hospitals, insurance companies, lobbyists, and special interests have hidden prices from consumers so they could drive up costs for you. And you had no idea what was happening. You’d get bills that were unbelievable and you have no idea why. For example, researchers found that for the same MRI at the same hospital, patients were charged anywhere from $248 to $2,500. So, 10 times more, at the same hospital. I assume that would be different doctors within the same hospital. I don’t know if the hospitals are going to like me too much anymore with this, but that’s okay, right? That’s okay. I think the doctors are going to, actually. In the Boston area, the price of delivering a baby can cost anywhere from roughly $4,700 to nearly $16,000. One survey found that within a single metro area, the highest negotiated price for a simple blood test was roughly 40 times more than the lowest price. They were given exactly the same service — in some cases, sent them to the same labs — and were charged 40 times more money. Under the new price transparency rule we are finalizing today — and it will be all finalized — it is finalized; it’ll be put out today — all of that will change. Hospitals will soon be required to publish the price of everything from individual medical supplies to the total cost of common procedures. Next, we will bring much-needed price transparency to insurance companies. I’m sure they’ll be thrilled. This will allow you to see your out-of-pocket costs and other vital price information before you go in for treatment. So you’re going to know what it’s going to be and you’re going to be able to have lots of choices, both in terms of doctors, hospitals, and price. And we’re stopping American patients from just getting, pure and simple — two words, very simple words: ripped off. Because they’ve been ripped off for years. For a lot of years. With us today is Melissa Ural who works for a company that benefits from price transparency. And, Melissa, could you come up and say a few words? THE PRESIDENT: Great. Thank you, Melissa. Thank you very much. MS. URAL: Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Melissa Ural, and I am the vice president of human resources for HB Global. We are an employee-owned mechanical contracting company. Transparent pricing initiative aligns with our ownership model because it allows employees to get the care that they need at the cost that they want. Currently, we are partnering with a broker to work and negotiate prices for surgeries and other procedures at local surgical centers. This allows our employees to know what the procedure or what the cost will look like when they walk through the door. This also allows our employees to get great care at a fraction of the cost, with the same quality and standard of care that they would have gotten, and they won’t receive any surprise bills. Right now, we have some price transparency behind the scenes, but with full price transparency up front, our employees can make the best decisions possible. We wouldn’t expect our employees to go buy a car or a house without knowing the price up front. Why should their healthcare be any different? I want to thank the President for bringing this important initiative to the front. Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Melissa. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Good job, Melissa. We’re also joined by Kara Boeckel, who works for the same company and benefitted when her employer shopped for the best price on a surgery — a surgery that she needed. And I’d like to have Kara come up and please tell us about it. Kara? Please. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. MS. BOECKEL: My name is Kara Boeckel and I work for HB Global, along with Melissa. And in January of this year, I had surgery on my ankle. I’m the sole provider of my two-year-old son, so this impact was huge for his and my day-to-day life. When I initially went to an orthopedic urgent care, I had no idea what I was going to pay, no idea what the costs were going to be. I just know that I needed to get help. I ended up with a bill for over $1,000. This was an unexpected expense that my family now had to endure, and it had a huge impact on us. I would — it was a huge stresser to know that I needed surgery and not know what the cost was going to be and how it was going to impact my life. Thankfully, my company was able to work with a brokerage firm and shop around to know what prices were going to be beforehand. With insurance, the claim my company would have paid was $19,500, and we wouldn’t have known that cost until afterwards. By shopping around beforehand, we knew the claim was going to be $7,800, which is a 60 percent price difference. And it was at zero cost to me. I was even able to get the care out of the same facility that I was going to go to if I would have used my insurance. I want to thank the President for making healthcare more transparent so that others in my situation don’t have to have these unexpected financial surprises and hardships. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Kara. Also with us is Dr. Rick Schultz, Chief Medical Officer at Texas Free Market Surgery. Doctor, I’d like to have you come up and say a few words about what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. Thank you, Dr. Rick. DR. SCHULTZ: Thank you. Well, thank you very much for having us here today. This is a very exciting day. I’d like to take a minute to talk about stewardship. First, I’d like to thank Jesus for allowing me the opportunity and charging me with being a good steward of the opportunity and the abilities to practice orthopedic surgery in Texas for the last 20 years. I’d also like to thank the President for his leadership and stewardship in this effort and the fact that, since he’s been elected, he trusts Americans to be courageous and make smart decisions with their own money and their own healthcare. And he knows that we’re smart enough to make good decisions now. This policy — this transparency will be the fuel for healthcare innovation very similar to what we’re doing with Texas Free Market Surgery and Texas Medical Management. Right now, every day, we take good care of patients at a very fair price, and it’s completely transparent. This is not something in the future; this is something we’re doing today. If you don’t believe me, just check out our website. Finally, I’d really like to challenge the Americans that this is a right that you’re getting back, to know the price of your healthcare. This is going to be a fight. This is very disruptive. The people who are currently making a lot of money off of us are going to fight this tooth and nail. If you aren’t ready to fight for this, then don’t complain when it gets taken away from you. Mr. President, thank you for stepping into the gap, taking the slings and arrows, and helping to get this going. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I think, if I could, I’d like to have Kevin Brady come up just for a second and talk about what we’ve done with the individual mandate and how that’s just a part of our — a small part, but it’s a very big part in terms of healthcare; what we did with respect to our tax cuts and our reforms. And you might want to discuss the individual mandate. Getting rid of it was such a big deal. Thank you. REPRESENTATIVE BRADY: So thank you — thank you, Mr. President. So, first, thank you for being the President who led on letting people keep more of what they earn so they can afford healthcare costs, utility costs, college costs, all of which has seemed to go up. Secondly, thank you for — when we saw the failings of the Affordable Care Act, especially forcing average Texans, average Americans, into buying healthcare they couldn’t use and couldn’t afford, you stepped forward with Congress to eliminate, effectively, that mandate. So — which was another tax cut on the American people. You’ve also created association health plans. Because if you’re in a small business — if you work for a small business or have one, you’ve been left behind under the Affordable Care Act. Your plans that allow our small businesses to join together to afford healthcare the way the big companies do — they’re cutting prices 30 and 40 percent, making healthcare affordable again. Hugely helpful. And then, today, as Art Laffer has pointed out — and you too, Mr. President — look, patients are confused. Families don’t know what things cost. You can’t shop around and don’t understand the price. This, pulling back the curtain on healthcare prices, will help competition occur; give us, as families and patients, choices ahead of time; and will ultimately lower the healthcare costs. And I’ll close with this: It’s easy to have quality care or affordable care. The goal is to have both. Making these prices transparent allow our families and our businesses to have quality care and affordable at the same time. This really is transformational. Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. It all, sort of, fits in. It’s like a puzzle. And I see my friend, Greg. I can’t believe you’re going to be leaving Congress one of these days. I was so disappointed to see that, but you’re fantastic. And we all work together with everybody — all of us. Come on up here, the two of you. I’d like you to discuss Right to Try a little bit. And, I mean, you think about — it’s really a very important part of healthcare. THE PRESIDENT: The ultimate part of healthcare. And for 45 years, they’ve been trying to get it passed and they couldn’t do it. And Greg Walden, the three of us plus a lot, we’ve got it done. THE PRESIDENT: Congressman, thank you very much. THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead. Please. REPRESENTATIVE WALDEN: Well, thank you, Mr. President. We’ve never had a President lean further, farther forward on behalf of patients than President Donald Trump. (Applause.) And we finally got into law — we finally got into law Right to Try. Now you’re going to get in place “Right to Know.” (Laughter.) We should have the right to know what these things cost. This is — I was here with you when you talked about surprise medical billing. And we are very close to legislating on that, Mr. President. And that is a huge win for consumers. This is a huge win for consumers. You’re doing the right thing. And Dr. Mike Burgess, who was my Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health Care, now the top Republican on healthcare, has really been a leader in this effort as well, Mr. President. And your team, working with the Secretaries and Seema and others, have been at the forefront of this. And Americans are benefitting. And the one thing I hear about is what Kevin Brady talked about: We want affordable care, we want innovation, but we have to be able to afford it. And you can’t know what things cost if they won’t tell you. And it’s all hidden back behind the curtain. So, Mr. President, thanks for your leadership and your team’s leadership. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Michael, say a few words, please. REPRESENTATIVE BURGESS: Well, what I hear from constituents all the time — I practiced medicine for 25 years — they’re concerned with the cost and complexity of healthcare. This is a major step — major step — in delivering on that promise for patients. Look, there’s another party in town that just wants to take away all your choices and give you one choice. This President is trying to expand your choices. That’s a better choice. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Michael. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much. So the actions that we’re announcing today are only the latest steps in our campaign to deliver great healthcare for American patients. Our efforts to reduce the price of prescription drugs — and I don’t know if you know that, but this is the first time, Secretary Azar, I think in 51 years, that prices have actually gone down — THE PRESIDENT: — for prescription drugs. So, that’s quite an achievement. And if we had the help of the Democrats, which we don’t — it’s a shame, because we could knock drug prices down so low. We will be giving states the right to go to other countries to buy their drugs, because other countries — because they don’t have these crazy, arcane rules that we could fix so quickly if we had the help of the Democrats. But they want the price of drugs to say high, I suppose. But we brought it down the most in 51 years, and we’re very proud of that. But we can bring them down much more. And one of the things I’m doing is, as an example, Canada will pay much less for drugs because they don’t have to pay for research and development, so their pricing is much cheaper. So we’ll buy — I’m working with Ron DeSantis in Florida and some other governors — great governors. And they’re going to buy from other countries and skip all of the nonsense. And I think, ultimately, what that’s going to do is the drug companies will bring the price of their drugs down, or they’ll buy from other countries. That’s okay, too. The same pill, made in the same factory, made by the same company, sells for 50, 60, and 70 percent less in one country than it does in another. And we’re always the high country. So, I’m going to be giving governors the right, very shortly, to buy — I’ve already given some the right — to buy their — their prescription drugs from other countries. And we avoid — we skirt a lot of — a lot — that probably sounds like a pretty good idea to you. What do you think, huh? THE PRESIDENT: You, as the great economist. So, anyway. So, the actions that we’re announcing today are the latest steps. Our efforts to reduce the price of prescription drugs — we’re going to have some tremendous results. We could do it so simply if we had any kind of help from the Democrats. But they’re doing so many other things, namely one: wasting a lot of time. And very bad for our country, what they’re doing. And they should approve USMCA. By the way, it’s the greatest trade deal ever made. (Applause.) And they should stop playing games. And, you know, Mexico signed it many months ago. Canada keeps calling me: “When is this deal going to happen? Is this deal going to happen?” And it’s sitting on Nancy Pelosi’s desk for about three months, four months. Nervous Nancy — she needs a little nervous energy to get it done because all she has to do is put it up. She’s got plenty of Democrat votes. A lot of Democrats are pushing her, but she doesn’t want to do it because she doesn’t want to have a victory for the American people. And that’s all it is. So either she does it or she doesn’t do it. But Mexico wants to know what’s happening. Canada wants to know what’s happening. They could live without it. Because it’s a great deal for us. They could live without it. And they want to know what’s going on. We eliminated the Obamacare individual mandate penalty, and we’re expanding affordable alternatives which cost up to 60 percent less than Obamacare plans. And it could be even quite a bit higher than that, in some cases. And we will always protect patients with preexisting conditions, and, as I’ve been saying lately, and also patients with preexisting physicians. (Laughter.) I thought that was good. I made it in one speech. I said, “You know, people like that.” But it’s true, because you didn’t have your doctor, you didn’t have your plan. And now you have the plan and you have the doctor. So, it’s pretty good. In everything we do, my administration is fighting for the rights of American consumers, the wellbeing of American patients, and the health of American people. We’re taking on the bureaucrats in more ways than one. You probably notice that, right? We’re taking on a lot bureaucrats. We’re taking on the insurance companies, and we’re taking on the special interests. And that’s one of the difficulties I have in Washington because I’ve taken on a lot of the establishment. And a lot of the politicians are taken care of by the establishment, and they don’t like that I take on the establishment. But I’m taking it on for the consumer, for the American people. And that’s why you see prices going down. And you haven’t seen anything yet. Things are going to happen that will be shocking. But there are people in Washington — as I say, there are people in the swamp that don’t like what I’m doing for that reason. We will not rest until every American has access to the highest quality, most affordable healthcare anywhere in the world. And, again, I want to thank you all. And I’d like to ask Secretary Azar to come up and say a few words. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.) SECRETARY AZAR: Well, thank you very much, Mr. President. And thank you for your leadership. You asked us, as you said earlier, to deliver “A-plus” transparency in healthcare. Well, right now, our system wouldn’t even get a passing grade on transparency. Patients are at the mercy of a shadowy system with no control over their care. But thanks to your leadership and your transparency executive order, we’re changing that. The changes you described, what we’re doing at HHS, will be revolutionary to our healthcare system — perhaps the biggest single change that President Trump has made to Americans’ healthcare experience. More than 70 percent of the most common hospital services are shoppable. We’re delivering American patients the information they need to make the right choices for themselves. That’s crucial to the kind of system that we’re building for American patients with affordable, personalized, patient-centric care that puts you in control and treats you like a human being and not like a number. So thank you, Mr. President, for delivering American patients the affordability that you need, the options and control that you want, and the quality that you deserve. A key leader in this work has been Administrator Verma, who will now say a few words. Seema. (Applause.) First of all, I want to thank the President because people have been talking about price transparency forever. We all know that what’s been going on in the healthcare system has been wrong. It’s not fair that patients don’t know the cost of the services that they’re going to get. But only one man has been willing to stand up to special interests and do what’s right for patients and put them back in control of their healthcare. So, thank you, President Trump. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. ADMINISTRATOR VERMA: Really appreciate it. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.) So, after many, many years, we finally have transparency. It’s going into effect today. It will have a tremendous impact. It will, sort of, go in sections and stages, but it all begins today. And within about 12 months, I think it’ll be fully implemented — and, we can even say, probably a shorter period of time than that. Some of it’s complex and some of it’s very easy. But it’s all very good. It’s — there’s never been anything like this. So the word is “transparency,” and I love transparency in many ways. And this is going to be something that’s going to be — it’s going to be incredible for the consumer, for the patient. I think it’s going to be really good for the good doctors, maybe not so good for other doctors. I think it’s going to be really good for the great hospitals, frankly. And it’s very exciting. And it’s something that again, Art, I want to thank you very much because you really did bring it to my attention and I appreciate it very much. Thank you very much. Q Mr. President, what do you say to Democrats that say you were witness tampering this morning when you made that tweet (inaudible) Ambassador Yovanovitch? THE PRESIDENT: You don’t want to talk about transparency? THE PRESIDENT: You know, I’ll talk about transparency. I like transparency here. And I’m the most transparent President in history. And I’ll tell you about what tampering is. Tampering is when a guy like Shifty Shift [sic] doesn’t let us have lawyers. Tampering is when Schiff doesn’t let us have witnesses, doesn’t let us speak. I’ve been watching today. For the first time, I started watching and it’s really sad when you see people not allowed to ask questions. It’s totally — nobody has ever had such horrible due process. There was no due process. And I think it’s — Q Republicans have been asking questions all day. THE PRESIDENT: — I think it’s considered a joke all over Washington and all over the world. The Republicans are given no due process whatsoever. We’re not allowed to do anything. It’s a disgrace what’s happening. But you know what? The American public understands it. And that’s why the poll numbers are so good. And that’s why other things are so good. What they’re doing in Washington with that hearing — and, by the way, it’s a political process. It’s not a legal process. So if I have somebody saying, I’m allowed to speak up. If somebody says about me, we’re not allowed to have any kind of representation, we’re not allowed to have almost anything. And nobody has seen anything like it. In the history of our country there has never been a disgrace like what’s going on right now. So, you know what? I — I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech, just as other people do. But they’ve taken away the Republicans’ rights. And I watched today, as certain very talented people wanted to ask questions, and they weren’t even allowed to ask questions — Republicans. They weren’t allowed to ask questions. It’s a very sad thing. Q Why did you attack her? Q Sir, with your freedom, were you trying to intimidate Ambassador Yovanovitch? THE PRESIDENT: I just want to have a total — I want freedom of speech. That’s a political process. The Republicans have been treated very badly. And I watched a little bit of it today. I wasn’t able to yesterday because we had the President of Turkey here, and I wasn’t able to watch much. I watched some of it this morning. I thought it was a disgrace. When we have great Republican representatives — people elected by the people — and they’re not allowed to even ask a question, they’re not allowed to make a statement; we’re not allowed to have witnesses; we’re not allowed to have legal counsel, White House Counsel — it’s a disgrace and it’s an embarrassment to our nation. Q Do you believe your tweets and your words can be intimidating, sir? THE PRESIDENT: Yes — go ahead, please. Q Sir, do you believe your tweets and words — Q Sir, do you believe your tweets and words can be intimidating? THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think so at all. Q Mr. President, do you think you’re going to get impeached? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I shouldn’t be. In fact, I thought, last night, it ended. Because last night, I was in Louisiana, where we’re going to hopefully elect a great governor — a Republican governor. And I was getting off the plane, and they handed me a statement that was just made by the Foreign Minister and President of the Ukraine. And Ukraine — they came out loud and clear that there was no linkage whatsoever, not even a little bit. And you saw it. You all saw it. I said, “Oh, well, that ends the impeachment.” And you people don’t even report it. Look, the press is unbelievably dishonest. That was a major statement put out last night by the Foreign Minister of Ukraine and also by the President of Ukraine, and you don’t even report it. It’s a disgrace. Because it’s sad. There was absolutely no linkage. We had a perfect conversation. And I also, because of transparency — whether it’s medical transparency or just transparency, generally — I also put out, today, a statement. And in the statement, we released — and then Congressman Nunes read — a call that I had with the President of Ukraine. And it was a great call. It was a very nice call. Everybody said it was perfect. I always say it was equally as good as the other call. And I put it out today, and nobody even wants to report it. Because it was so good, they don’t want to report it. Look, if we had an honest press in this country, we would be so well served. And you know what? When I look at your approval numbers, they’re the worst they’ve ever been in the history of our country. The media, the approval numbers — they are horrible. And you ought to get yourself back and you ought to put yourself back in a position where people respect the media again. And I know some great journalists, I know some great people in the media, but there aren’t enough of them. There’s a lot of dishonesty. And many of you, I just consider members of the Democrats, and it’s a shame. Okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

sundance

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/15/president-trump-delivers-remarks-on-healthcare-price-transparency-initiative-video-and-transcript/

Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:08:02 +0000

health

healthcare policy

thedailybeast--2019-02-18--Prince Charles Backs Free Yoga To Beat Healthcare Crisis

thedailybeast

Prince Charles Backs Free Yoga To Beat Healthcare Crisis

Prince Charles has long been mocked and criticized as a ‘meddler’ owing to his interventions on behalf of alternative medicine. However, in new remarks which seem deliberately designed to telegraph both his ongoing commitment to alternative medicine and using his position as the next king to promote it, Charles has declared that yoga could help ease the strain on Britain’s National Health service. Charles made the comment in a written address to a conference held by the Yoga in Healthcare Alliance, (YIHA), which describes itself as “a social enterprise that is enabling the U.K. National Health Service to provide yoga to its patients … Our first job is to enable the NHS and yoga teachers to work together effectively.” The NHS already ‘prescribes’ yoga for the treatment of back pain, the YIHA says. According to the Telegraph, the Prince, endorsing their mission, wrote: “For thousands of years, millions of people have experienced yoga’s ability to improve their lives … The development of therapeutic, evidence-based yoga is, I believe, an excellent example of how yoga can contribute to health and healing. “This not only benefits the individual, but also conserves precious and expensive health resources for others where and when they are most needed.” While many (including, one assumes, his new daughter-in-law, Meghan Markle who is a keen practitioner of yoga and whose mother is a yoga teacher) will salute the prince’s intervention, it seems deliberately calculated to reignite the controversy over Charles’ habit of promoting alternative medicine. Charles, who has said he talks to his trees, famously used his inaugural address as president of the British Medical Association (BMA) in 1982 to advocate a radical overhaul of the medical system in favor of alternative therapies leading to a three year enquiry into such therapies. The inquiry reached the view that they were “unscientific.” By 2010, the BMA had hardened its position and said: “Homeopathy is witchcraft.” As The Daily Beast reported in 2015, Charles was accused of abusing his power to silence one of Britain’s leading academic critics of alternative medicine. Professor Edzard Ernst of the University of Exeter said he was treated “like shit” by university officials after he rubbished a report into the efficacy of alternative medicine commissioned by Prince Charles. The report said complementary medicine was cost-effective and should be made available through the National Health Service. Ernst took early retirement and his department was closed down in 2011. Charles’ Duchy Originals company was forced to pull advertising for Duchy Herbals Echina-Relief Tincture and Duchy Herbals Hyperi-Lift Tincture in 2009 because there was no evidence that the remedies had any effect. Charles is probably on safer ground endorsing yoga, as many studies have shown yoga (and of course, other forms of exercise) can help with arthritis and back pain, as well as reducing the risk of high blood pressure, heart disease and depression. Charles said yoga classes had “tremendous social benefits”, adding, “I will watch the development of therapeutic yoga in the U.K. with great interest and very much look forward to hearing about the outcomes from your conference," he wrote to delegates. The Telegraph previously reported that the Prince of Wales’s charity funds yoga, meditation, and “breath-focused stretches” for young prisoners, in a bid to help restore “hope and positivity” behind bars.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thedailybeast/articles/~3/QlvMw4MW-2A/prince-charles-backs-free-yoga-to-beat-healthcare-crisis

2019-02-18 13:18:31+00:00

health

healthcare policy

thedailycaller--2019-02-08--A Solution to Lower Healthcare Costs

thedailycaller

A Solution to Lower Healthcare Costs

If you’ve paid for any healthcare expenses in the years since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, you know that the cost of paying for healthcare expenses continues to rise, leaving many Americans searching for a more affordable way. One solution that is often discovered during this search is known as healthcare sharing. You may be asking “How have I not heard of healthcare sharing? Is this a new thing?” While you may not have heard of it, it is certainly not a new thing. Healthcare sharing ministries have existed in their current state since the Reagan administration, and they present an affordable method of paying for medical expenses that allows members the freedom to choose healthcare that aligns with their personal moral values. Though each healthcare sharing ministry varies in the way it facilitates the payment of medical expenses, the general theory remains the same: healthcare sharing ministry members directly share each other’s medical expenses. The monthly share amount paid by each member also varies by ministry, but as a reference point, one of the largest healthcare sharing ministries, Liberty HealthShare, has monthly share amounts as low as $199 for individuals and $429 for families. Think of everything you could do with all of that extra money! When presented with the idea of such an affordable solution to pay for health care costs, many families think this is simply too good to be true. However, with membership in healthcare sharing ministries on the rise, it’s apparent that these ministries are operating quite effectively. Liberty HealthShare, which shares the same non-profit status as every other healthcare sharing ministry, paid out over $55 million dollars in medical bills during 2016 according to the annual audit posted on its website. These expenses were paid solely from contributions by members, and the remaining funds were carried over into the next year to safeguard against a spike in members’ medical expenses. Through this facilitation of members’ funds, healthcare sharing ministries such as Liberty HealthShare are providing their members with the opportunity to change the way they pay for healthcare. Honestly, isn’t it refreshing to see an organization manage money so efficiently? If you still need more evidence that healthcare sharing ministries are not “too good to be true,” look no further than the sheer volume of people who take personal responsibility for their medical costs by using healthcare sharing ministries. As of the end of 2017, membership in healthcare sharing ministries surpassed the one million mark, which is more than five times as many members than in 2012 when the number was around 175,000. The drastically increased popularity of healthcare sharing ministries can be partly attributed to the exemption members receive from the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Thanks to the religious exemption that healthcare sharing ministries received prior to 1999, members of these ministries are not required to pay a tax penalty for not being a member of an ACA-approved plan. Preventing government interference in healthcare? It’s no wonder so many Americans have joined the movement! It’s a common misconception that healthcare sharing ministries keep prices low by not sharing expensive medical bills, such as hospital stays, emergency room visits, and ambulance transportation. However, these expenses, and any other expense classified as medically necessary, such as doctor visits, vaccinations, chiropractic services, hospice care, and alternative care are all shareable expenses according to Liberty HealthShare’s sharing guidelines. In addition to these eligible expenses, Liberty HealthShare and a number of other healthcare sharing ministries offer member discounts on prescriptions, dental, and vision services. As Americans search for an affordable way to pay for their healthcare, healthcare sharing ministries look poised to continue their growth. More and more people are starting to realize that these ministries are not “too good to be true,” and they actually do provide Americans with an affordable solution to pay for medical expenses. These ministries are subject to annual financial audits and have proven over and over again to have a good track record of paying eligible expenses. With this independent audit validating the effectiveness of these ministries, those who want to control healthcare costs for themselves and their families may want to consider a healthcare sharing ministry as a top option.

Liberty HealthShare

https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/08/a-solution-to-lower-healthcare-costs/

2019-02-08 14:12:53+00:00

health

healthcare policy

thedailycaller--2019-02-12--Kamala Harris Claims There Is Racial Bias In Healthcare Delivery System

thedailycaller

Kamala Harris Claims There Is ‘Racial Bias’ In Healthcare Delivery System

When discussing public health and healthcare reform Monday on a podcast called “The Breakfast Club”, Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris referenced a bill she proposed in August 2018 concerning the high maternal mortality rate of black women, stating that “black women are dying at 3 to 4 times higher rate, in connection with childbirth in America.” She explains this phenomena by claiming “it is literally about racial bias in the healthcare delivery system.” Harris went on to characterize the components of her 2018 bill and how it would solve this problem. “And so I have an initiative, it’s a bill, that says we need to train medical schools and doctors on how to take black women seriously, when they walk through that hospital door. And talk about their illness, and take them seriously and not reject their complaints or thing of them as hysterical,” she explained. (RELATED: Kamala Harris Admits To Smoking Weed—She Even Inhaled) Harris has said that her bill, the “Maternal Care Access and Reducing Emergencies (CARE) Act”, is “a step towards ensuring that all women have access to culturally competent, holistic care and to address the implicit biases in our system.” (RELATED: Kamala Harris Made Her First Campaign Speech All About Race) Here are the objectives of the bill, according to Kamala Harris’ senatorial website:

Matt M. Miller

https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/11/kamala-harris-racial-bias-healthcare-delivery/

2019-02-12 01:32:00+00:00

health

healthcare policy

thedailycaller--2019-03-15--Healthcare By The People For The People

thedailycaller

Healthcare By The People, For The People

As we know, the Preamble to the United States Constitution begins with the line: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union.” This line suggests that the people of the United States of America can and should make laws to govern themselves based on the will of the collective citizenry. However, as we move further and further from the time of our Founding Fathers, power continues to shift away from the will of the American people and toward the will of those in the United States Congress and the corporations that influence those elected to represent us. A perfect example of public policy that does not conform to the will of the American people is the Affordable Care Act. The healthcare bill was signed into law in March 2010 despite only about 40 percent of Americans being in favor of the law at that time. Since the law went into effect in 2010, healthcare prices have skyrocketed, placing a financial burden on many Americans. The will of a couple hundred members of Congress and the President outweighed the will of millions of Americans. So, how would healthcare by the people and for the people truly look? Well, the answer already exists. One healthcare option, known as healthcare sharing, operates outside of Affordable Care Act regulations thanks to an exemption written into the law. The purpose of these organizations is to return to the consumer the power to make healthcare decisions. One healthcare sharing organization that has been very successful in returning power to the consumer is Liberty HealthShare. By utilizing a Statement of Shared Beliefs, which each member agrees to at the time of enrollment, Liberty HealthShare members know exactly which types of medical expenses their money will be shared toward. This is just one aspect of the transparency Liberty HealthShare strives to offer its members. As a non-profit organization, Liberty HealthShare serves not to record profits, but rather to facilitate the sharing of medical expenses across the entire membership base. As non-profit organizations, healthcare sharing organizations are not built to run up massive profits. Instead, they use members’ money only to pay overhead expenses and share members’ medical expenses. The goal of these organizations is to serve the needs of the members, not the needs of a group of wealthy investors, because there are no wealthy investors. The money comes from people just like you who want affordable healthcare and also want to help their fellow Americans afford healthcare for themselves and their families. The “by the people, for the people” approach doesn’t stop with how these healthcare sharing organizations facilitate the payment of members’ medical bills. Many of these organizations, including Liberty HealthShare, utilize medical repricing to keep costs down for their members. This consists of a third-party company reviewing each bill that a Liberty HealthShare member submits and ensuring that the amount the member is billed for is a fair price for the treatment or services they received. If a bill is found to be overcharging the member, the third-party company negotiates with the provider who issued the bill to have the bill reduced. This process ensures that healthcare sharing members are getting the most for their money, allowing them to share in more medical bills from the same amount of money. As a result of these “by the people, for the people” approaches, healthcare sharing organizations are able to offer substantially lower prices than many health insurance plans. For example, Liberty HealthShare offers healthcare plans starting as low as $199 per month for singles and $429 per month for an entire family, regardless of the number of children. These low monthly prices are coupled with a lower cost the member is responsible for each year, to make healthcare sharing a great value. The amount members are responsible for with Liberty HealthShare is $1,000 per year for singles and $2,250 per year for a family. This is the amount of eligible medical expenses a member must pay in a year before their expenses will be shared by their fellow members. If you’re tired of the government’s will being imposed upon you, especially relating to your healthcare, it may be time for you to consider healthcare sharing. These healthcare sharing organizations return freedom and power to the member, by being on the side of the member instead of focusing on profits for wealthy shareholders. It’s truly people coming together to eliminate government involvement and fund their own healthcare. Healthcare “by the people, for the people,” just as the Founding Fathers intended.

Liberty HealthShare

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/14/healthcare-by-the-people-for-the-people/

2019-03-15 01:57:39+00:00

health

healthcare policy

thedailycaller--2019-06-27--Heres The Conservative Path Forward On Healthcare

thedailycaller

Here’s The Conservative Path Forward On Healthcare

Conservative groups are rising to the challenge of crafting a health care plan that embraces individual choice as opposed to the big government plans proposed by Democrats. The right’s efforts on health care last blew up when Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain gave his infamous “thumbs down” to the Senate’s “skinny repeal” of Obamacare, and support for the follow-up Graham-Cassidy bill collapsed. Since their 2017 failures, the Republican Party has been relatively quiet on the issue of health care reform, despite years of bluster about the Affordable Care Act. Their silence gave the Democratic Party the opportunity to control the debate during the 2018 midterm elections, during which voters consistently said that healthcare costs were their top issue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that “healthcare won” in the midterms, suggesting that voters’ focus on the issue helped Democrats retake control of the House. (RELATED: Democrats Credit Health Care For House Win In Midterms) The Democratic Party’s momentum on health care seems ripe to continue into the 2020 presidential election, with a variety of candidates proposing single payer health plans, such as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All.” Such plans would give even greater power to the government to determine insurance coverage and, in the case of Sanders’ plan, could cost trillions of dollars over the next ten years. While Republican lawmakers have offered little in the way of alternatives, national and state conservative think-tanks and private sector stakeholders have been steadily crafting a comprehensive health care plan since September 2017. This “Health Care Consensus Group” of activists and researchers has been meeting almost weekly at The Heritage Foundation for the past 18 months, discussing how conservatives can move forward on healthcare after a series of failures. The result is the “Health Care Choices Proposal,” a detailed plan that skirts repealing and replacing Obamacare and instead tries to make the existing healthcare framework work better for consumers. The proposal would provide block grants to states that can be used much more freely than under the ACA system, including to subsidize the cost of private insurance plans for low-income individuals or other people who have left the insurance market entirely. The proposal would also eliminate onerous federal regulations on what type of coverage insurers must offer and would allow states the ability to create their own programs for citizens. According to economic modeling of the plan by the Center for Health and Economy, the Health Care Choices Proposal would decrease the cost of private insurance plans by up to 32% and would decrease federal spending by $22 billion over eight years. The scoring projects a slight decrease in the number of insured because of a redirection of funding away from Medicaid, but adds that “the decrease in Medicaid enrollment would be mostly offset by increases in enrollment in the individual market.” Rick Santorum, a former Pennsylvania Senator and Republican presidential candidate in 2012 and 2016, is just one of the advocates involved in the new plan. “This is about getting money out of Washington and to the states,” Santorum told The Daily Caller. “My theory is you can’t repeal an entitlement once it’s put into place, but you can make it more effective and efficient and place a budget on it.” Marie Fishpaw, the Director of Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told the Caller that the plan was designed based on what Americans said they wanted in a health care system. Polling conducted by Heritage shows that 76% of Americans oppose plans that would decrease choices in health care providers and treatments, 69% oppose plans that would require an increase in taxes, and 62% oppose eliminating private insurance. When asked what they support, 97% said they want lower costs and higher-quality plans, while 94% said that health care policy “should empower people — not government bureaucrats or insurance companies — to make decisions for their themselves and their own families.” “If you get sick, you want to know you can see a doctor. You also don’t want to pay as much,” Fishpaw explained. “This plan lowers costs, protects people with preexisting conditions, and it puts people in the driver’s seat instead of government or insurance companies.” Fishpaw expressed concerns about Republicans heading into another election cycle without a reasonable alternative to Democrats on the health care question. “You cannot go back into another campaign year and not have an answer on this,” Fishpaw said. “Candidly, I think it’s a shame they don’t have one right now.” President Donald Trump seems to agree with that assertion — in April he insisted that Republicans are working on a new health plan that they would vote on after the 2020 election. The tease opened up the possibility that he plans to campaign for reelection with the promise to deliver on health care. “[Republicans] are developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) [and] deductibles than ObamaCare. In other words it will be far less expensive [and] much more usable than ObamaCare,” Trump said. Santorum said he has “no idea” if Trump’s tweet was referring to the Health Care Choices Proposal, but expressed optimism that the president would embrace something similar. “Trump understands that we need a plan,” Santorum asserted. “The concept [for the Health Care Choices Proposal] was that we knew the president would love it … this would work in concert with what Trump has already done.” Fishpaw noted that a version of the proposal has been included in the president’s budget over the past two years. “This is a very broad working group, including policy makers in federal government as well as throughout the country,” she said. The president has taken other actions to overhaul the healthcare system in the meantime, including an executive order this week on increasing transparency on health care pricing. Trump called the order, which requires hospitals and insurers publish negotiated rates for service, the “opposite of Obamacare.” (RELATED: Trump Calls Latest Health Care EO The ‘Opposite Of Obamacare’) The administration predicts that the new rules will cause health costs to drop significantly. It is still unclear if Congress or the White House will publicly pick up the Health Care Choices Proposal, but Fishpaw pointed out the fundamentally different process embraced by conservatives working on the plan. “It’s unusual in the sense that you often see congressional leaders drafting the bill and pitching it to conservative leaders,” Fishpaw stated. “This is the opposite.”

Amber Athey

https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/27/conservative-path-forward-health-care/

2019-06-27 19:28:43+00:00

health

healthcare policy

thedailyecho--2019-10-17--Future of our healthcare is on the table as consultations launch

thedailyecho

Future of our healthcare is on the table as consultations launch

NHS STAFF from across Hampshire will join forces this week to showcase plans for the future of healthcare in the south. Led by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP), events will be held in Southampton, Portsmouth and on the Isle of Wight. The first drop-in session took place in Basingstoke last week and provided an opportunity for members of the public and staff to find out more about developments in services. The events follow a survey conducted by Healthwatch, a national and regional group of bodies which aim to ensure the needs and ideas of patients and the public are listened to and responded to. Among the topics to be discussed at the events this week will be the current challenges facing healthcare, such as increasing demand and ensuring the numbers of staff being recruited keeps pace with growth. Various clinicians, specialists and support staff will be on-hand to describe plans around mental health, cancer, GP services and digital developments, as well as a dedicated wellbeing area demonstrating a focus on staying well and preventing ill health and the role of volunteers in the NHS. The Southampton event, which was held at Solent University on October 14, featured the work of the Wessex Cancer Alliance, which is chaired by University Hospital Southampton’s chief executive Paula Head and urological surgeon Matt Hayes. Projects currently underway under this alliance include the WesFit clinical trial into prehabilitation before cancer surgery. “We are hosting this event to discuss with local people, staff and community groups how we are responding to the commitments set out in the national NHS long term plan,” said Richard Samuel, lead for the Hampshire and Isle of Wight STP. “We will be describing our local priorities based on the opportunities available to us, the current challenges we face such as increasing demand and the availability of workforce and, crucially, what our population has told us needs to change.”

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/17974583.future-healthcare-table-consultations-launch/?ref=rss

Thu, 17 Oct 2019 05:14:53 +0100

health

healthcare policy

thedailyexpress--2019-01-29--British retirees in EU will LOSE free NHS healthcare in event of no-deal Brexit - Devasta

thedailyexpress

British retirees in EU will LOSE free NHS healthcare in event of no-deal Brexit - ‘Devasta

Retired Britons living in an array of member states such as hotspots Spain and France will no longer have their healthcare covered by the NHS, the Government has said. In a blow to the 190,000 British citizens who have retired in other EU nations such as the South of France, Spanish Costas and Tuscany in Italy. It could also add further strain to the NHS should pensioners feel forced to return to the UK for treatment, the Guardian reports. The UK Government said: “An S1 certificate helps you and your dependents access healthcare in the EU/EEA country where you live. If you have an S1 certificate, it will be valid until 29 March 2019. After this date, the certificate may not be valid, depending on decisions by member states.” Bremain in Spain campaign group chair Sue Wilson that said should Prime Minister Theresa May be unable to get a deal with the EU, it would be “devastating” for retirees. She said: “All along we’ve been told our healthcare is protected. This is a big shock to everyone and our members are really, really scared.” She also called on Mrs May to keep their rights in tact. Ms Wilson added: “We’ve been hearing about EU citizens in Britain getting settled status. Well, we have unsettled status.” Colin Yeo, an immigration lawyer and freedom of movement campaigner, said: “It is another example of how those advocating no deal are playing with the lives of British citizens living in other EU countries. “Many of these politicians and pundits probably haven’t bothered to find out how their policies would actually affect such people.” The news follows an eventful evening for Mrs May that saw Parliament vote on a series of amendments to her Brexit deal. Mrs May had a positive night in the Commons after MPs widely supported Graham Brady's amendment that hands the Government a mandate to renegotiate the Irish backstop. MPs backed the Brady amendment, which called for "alternative arrangements" to the backstop, the insurance mechanism to prevent a hard border on Ireland, passed by 317 votes to 301 in the most significant vote in the Commons tonight. But Brussels was far more interested in a non-binding proposal tabled by Conservative MP Caroline Spelman that begs the Government to take a no-deal Brexit off the table. A spokesman for European Council President Donald Tusk celebrated the “ambition” shown in the House of Commons to block a no-deal Brexit in their response to the chaos in Westminster. But a Downing Street spokesman has said tonight's vote shows that there is a majority to change the withdrawal deal. They said: "Tonight parliament has sent a clear message that there is a way forward to secure this deal if we are able to secure changes in relation to the backstop. "The EU's position remains that they want the United Kingdom to leave with a deal. They want the UK to leave with a deal because it's in their interests as well as those of the UK."

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1079745/brexit-retirees-EU-HNS-healthcare-Sue-Wilson-Colin-Yeo-withdrawal-agreement

2019-01-29 22:18:00+00:00

health

healthcare policy

thedcclothesline--2019-02-04--Democrats Openly Promote Mass Murder Socialized Healthcare and Extreme Taxation

thedcclothesline

Democrats Openly Promote Mass Murder, Socialized Healthcare, and Extreme Taxation

Democrats openly promote mass murder, extreme taxation, and socialized medicine that would literally turn our medical system upside down. Of course this article won’t talk about demanding a “Green New Deal” that would require every homeowner, business, city and state to go to renewable energy. Did they notice that Alaska has 6 months of darkness that makes solar panels worthless? I thought not. First, the mass murder situation. Embattled Virginia Governor Ralph Northam told reporters, in response to the Kathy Tran legislation on abortion introduced in the legislature, that “If a mother is in labor…the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians & mother.” Comforting a child until they die. That’s murder. Period. And with the number of abortions performed each year, that’s mass murder. The whole abortion issue, now being pushed to the max by Democrats because they’re afraid that Roe v Wade will be overturned, has brought 8 states into the last trimester debate over killing babies all the way to birth. And with Northam’s statement, he apparently is happy with watching a child die after the womb. And that man is a pediatrician. “Sen. Bernie Sanders presented a plan Thursday to expand estate taxes on the wealthy, including a new 77 percent rate on billionaires’, as he becomes the latest liberal Democrat to advocate a levy on the rich to combat income inequality. ‘The fairest way to reduce wealth inequality, invest in the disappearing middle class and preserve our democracy is to enact a progressive estate tax on the inherited wealth of multi-millionaires and billionaires,’ Sanders tweeted of his proposal.” Sanders isn’t the only one proposing extreme taxation: Ocasio-Cortez proposed a 70% tax on the rich. Ilhan Omar proposed also a 70%, 80% or 90% tax. “So there are a few things that we could do. One of them is that we could increase the taxes that people are paying who are the extremely wealthy in our communities. Seventy percent, 80 percent, we’ve had it as high as 90 percent.” Ilhan Omar in an interviewreported by the Tennessee Star. AOC once said that having billionaires in America is immoral. Did anyone ask me? No. I’m not for taxing the rich at exorbitant rates. That’s stupid. Most of them are the employers of America. Tax them that high and watch jobs disappear and bread lines become a reality. If you’ve ever had to wait for an appointment to see a surgeon, you would know that the whole “Medicare for All” gig is a loser. When you’re on Medicare, you get to wait sometimes for months to get an appointment (speaking from personal experience). If you remove the private insurance policy and everyone has to wait for a medical appointment, like in Canada and Britain, for example, you’re pardon-the-expression screwed. It takes our state-of-the-art medical system and dumps it into the trash heap of socialized medicine. Remember: doctors under medicare get significantly less money when they have a Medicare patient. What do you think that will do to our healthcare system? Kamala Harris even went so far as to suggest that private insurance companies should be dumped in her “Medicare for All” plan. Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand also promote a total single-payer medical plan.  It’s not about “keep your plan and your doctor if you like them,” it’s about dumping everything and you get the US government only. Not my favorite idea. So let’s just drive the United States in the path of Venezuela. Socialism is NOT the answer for the United States. And neither are these extremists masquerading as lawmakers.

Faye Higbee

https://www.dcclothesline.com/2019/02/04/democrats-openly-promote-mass-murder-socialized-healthcare-and-extreme-taxation/

2019-02-04 16:51:35+00:00

health

healthcare policy

thedcclothesline--2019-12-17--Medicare and Medicaid Destroyed Healthcare

thedcclothesline

Medicare and Medicaid Destroyed Healthcare

In a December 1 article entitled “Yes, Americans are Feeling the Squeeze. It’s Coming from Health Care,” Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson points out that “In the early 1960s, before Medicare and Medicaid, which were enacted in 1965, health spending was about 2 percent of federal outlays. Now it is nearly one-third, at $1.3 trillion.” Samuelson goes on to observe that Unfortunately, Samuelson doesn’t wrap up his article with the obvious conclusion, that the only possible solution to America’s healthcare crisis lies with repealing Medicare and Medicaid and, in a broader context, ending government involvement in healthcare. take our poll - story continues below Before Medicare and Medicaid, the United States had the finest healthcare system in history. Healthcare costs were low and stable, to such an extent that most people didn’t even have major medical insurance. That’s because they didn’t need it. Going to the doctor was like going to the grocery store. How many people have grocery insurance to help them cover soaring grocery costs? Healthcare costs were just as low and stable as grocery store prices, so there was no need for major medical insurance. At the same time, healthcare inventions and innovations were skyrocketing. Doctors loved what they were doing, and, equally important, the poor were being treated by both doctors and hospitals, purely on a voluntary basis. I grew up in Laredo, Texas, which is on the Texas-Mexico border. When I was a kid, we were told that the Census Bureau had named Laredo the poorest city in the United States. Every day, the doctors’ offices in Laredo were filled to capacity, sometimes also with people from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. Doctors knew that a large percentage of them could not pay. Yet I never heard of a single doctor turning anyone away. They were knowingly providing free medical treatment to the poor on a voluntary basis. A modern-day example of this phenomenon was with my dentist here in Virginia. There is no Medicare or Medicaid for dental services. Several years ago, he told me that he and other dentists had gotten together and, on a rotating basis, were providing free dental care to the poor one day a week. Everything changed with the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid. Healthcare costs began soaring. Doctors and hospitals began entering into all sorts of complex and convoluted arrangements to deal with the increasing crisis. Consumers started buying major medical insurance. The federal government embarked on a series of never-ending reforms. Doctors began to hate what they do and started to retire early. The drive toward medical invention and innovation lost its vitality. Today, many consumers are being pushed into bankruptcy owing to enormous medical bills. Medicare and Medicaid ended up destroying the finest healthcare system in history, and the healthcare crisis has become a permanent part of American life. Perhaps worst of all is the mindset of dependency that it has inculcated in the American people, many of whom are convinced that without Medicare and Medicaid people would be dying in the streets. These two socialist programs have contributed to the lack of faith that modern-day Americans have in voluntary charity, free markets, and in freedom. In the process, what so many people simply do not want to confront is that there is only one solution to this never-ending crisis — the repeal of its original cause, the repeal of both Medicare and Medicaid. Most everyone just keeps coming up with minor reforms or looking for some sort of “comprehensive healthcare reform” that will finally make the system work. They’ll never find it, and they are just wasting their time, money, and energy looking. If we learned anything from the twentieth century, it is that socialism is inherently defective. It is incapable of working and it produces crises. And the very worst thing that Americans could do is double down by making their healthcare socialism even larger. When a patient has cancer, the recommended treatment is to remove the cancer if possible. Medicare and Medicaid are cancers of the body politic. It is still possible to remove them through repeal. The longer they are permitted to remain and grow, the bigger the chance that the patient will die. Originally published by the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Jacob G Hornberger

https://www.dcclothesline.com/2019/12/17/medicare-and-medicaid-destroyed-healthcare/

Tue, 17 Dec 2019 23:40:23 +0000

health

healthcare policy

theepochtimes--2019-10-16--Democrats Pile on Warren Over Healthcare Costs During Debate

theepochtimes

Democrats Pile on Warren Over Healthcare Costs During Debate

South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, right, speaks as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) looks on during the Democratic Presidential Debate at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio on Oct. 15, 2019. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images) Democrats Pile on Warren Over Healthcare Costs During Debate Multiple Democratic presidential contenders piled on Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) during the Oct. 15 presidential debate. Warren has refused to say that taxes would go up for the middle class under Medicare for All. She has endorsed a bill written by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has said multiple times his plan would require higher taxes. Asked by a moderator on Tuesday, Warren declined to say taxes would go up; she reiterated that overall costs would go down. “I will not sign a bill into law that does not lower costs for middle-class families,” she said. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg hit back when asked about his prior criticism of Warren as “evasive”: “Well, we heard it tonight. A yes or no question that didn’t get a yes or no answer. This is why people here in the Midwest are so frustrated with Washington in general and Capitol Hill in particular,” he said. “Your signature, senator, is to have a plan for everything, except this.” “No plan has been laid out to explain how a multi-trillion-dollar hole in this Medicare for All plan that Sen. Warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in,” he said. Buttigieg plugged his plan, which he calls Medicare for All who want it. “We take a version of Medicare, we let you access it if you want to, and if you prefer to stay on your private plan, you can do that too,” he said. “Whenever someone hears the term Medicare for All who want it. Understand what that really means: Medicare for All who can afford it,” Warren rejoined. “I don’t think the American people are wrong when they say what they want is a choice. … It’s affordable for everyone because we make sure the subsidies are in place. It’s just better.” Sanders then said that his bill would remove premiums, co-payments, deductibles, and all out-of-pocket expenses. “At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of people will save money on their healthcare bills. But I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up,” he said. He said taxes would be higher for people. Still, the overall costs for many people would be lower than what they are paying now for premiums and other healthcare costs. Warren was asked again to acknowledge Sanders’ admission, but she declined again. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) also called out Warren, alleging the senator hasn’t been honest about the costs of the healthcare program and the way 140 million people would be kicked off of their healthcare plans under Medicare for All. Warren responded by saying that most people go broke because of healthcare costs. “The problem we’ve got right now is the overall cost of healthcare. You can try to spin this any way you want. … I put out nearly 50 plans on how we can fight back and how we can rebuild an America that works. “The difference between a plan and a pipe dream is something we can actually get done,” Klobuchar said.

Zachary Stieber

https://www.theepochtimes.com/democrats-pile-on-warren-over-healthcare-costs-during-debate_3117648.html

Wed, 16 Oct 2019 01:07:17 +0000

health

healthcare policy

theguardian--2019-02-27--Medicare for All House Democrats unveil bill to expand healthcare nationwide

theguardian

Medicare for All: House Democrats unveil bill to expand healthcare nationwide

House Democrats have unveiled details of their ambitious plan to expand a popular, government-run healthcare program to all Americans. The measure marks a fresh sign of the party’s growing support for a once fringe idea that will play a defining role in the 2020 presidential campaign. The Medicare for All Act of 2019, to be formally introduced on Wednesday with 107 co-sponsors, would transform the American healthcare system from one in which millions of Americans are uninsured to one that provides universal coverage. “The state of our healthcare system is absolutely atrocious,” said the Washington congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, who is introducing the bill with Michigan congresswoman Debbie Dingell. “How is it possible that the United States, the richest country in the world, is the only major country that does not guarantee healthcare to our residents?” She added: “Americans are literally dying because they can’t afford insulin or the cancer treatment they need.” The bill would establish a national health insurance program by gradually expanding Medicare – the federal health insurance program for people who are 65 or older – until it covered all Americans. “Everybody in, nobody out,” Jayapal said, describing coverage under the plan, which she said amounted to a “complete transformation of our healthcare system”. The bill does not include details on how the government would pay for the new healthcare system, which some studies have estimated could cost tens of trillions of dollars over the next decade. Jayapal envisions major savings as a result of reducing administrative costs and inefficiencies in the current healthcare system. To pay for the plan, she suggested proposals such as taxing the rich at higher rates and mandated employer contributions. A universal healthcare plan that moves the US closer to the systems in Canada and the UK has long been a dream of the party’s left. A version of the legislation was first introduced in 2003 by the former congressman John Conyers of Michigan, but the idea began to gain traction when Senator Bernie Sanders championed the issue in his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. The year after, a majority of the House Democratic caucus supported Conyers’ bill while one-third of Senate Democrats signed on to Sanders’ version. The plan comes amid a widening debate over how boldly to reform the American healthcare system, pitting progressives clamoring for Medicare for All against moderates pushing for smaller-scale changes. Several Democratic hopefuls have endorsed the idea of a universal healthcare system but are split over the details. The plan has no chance of passing the Republican-controlled Senate. But the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has promised to allow hearings on the bill for the first time, giving progressives a prominent platform to make the case for a single-payer system. Supporters speak about universal healthcare as a moral imperative. They argue that millions cannot afford the rising out-of-pocket costs most are obliged to pay when insurance coverage is less than comprehensive. Some Democrats, conscious that many Americans are wary of losing their current insurance options, are pushing for more incremental changes to the healthcare system, such as allowing people between 50 and 64 to buy into the Medicare system and imposing a cap on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. Polling shows that a growing share of Americans, frustrated with the rising costs of healthcare, support a so-called “single-payer” system, where the payer is the government. Surveys have, however, found that support drops when respondents are asked their view if the program would result in higher taxes or longer waiting times for treatment. But as momentum grows, so, too, does the opposition. Private health insurers, doctors and hospitals are partnering to oppose single-payer proposals, which could significantly affect their bottom line. The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future has been mobilizing members to ramp up support for improving the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as opposed to repealing it, as Republicans attempted to do, or replacing it with a new system. “Medicare for All may be a catchy slogan,” the group tweeted on Tuesday, “but it would do more harm than good for Americans who deserve affordable coverage and high quality care.” Half of Americans have employer-sponsored health insurance. Polling suggests that they, by and large, like their plans and want to keep them. Others receive coverage through a patchwork of public health programs and private insurers. Republicans, meanwhile, are eager to see Democratic 2020 candidates embrace the plan, confident it will help cast the party as too liberal and out of touch with everyday Americans. Under the proposal, Medicare would become the country’s universal insurer. But the bill would also make significant changes to the American healthcare program, by greatly expanding the type of coverage offered and eliminating all deductibles, copays and premiums. According to a summary of the legislation provided by Jayapal’s staff, the program would cover “primary care, hospital and outpatient services, prescription drugs, dental, vision, audiology, women’s reproductive health services, maternity and newborn care, long-term services and supports, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, laboratory and diagnostic services, ambulatory services, and more”. The transition to a Medicare for All system would happen over the course of two years. The authors know the bill has no chance of becoming law as long as Trump occupies the White House, but they hope to lay the groundwork for a future Democratic president. Activists are working with progressive members to help build public support for the plan. “We will be pushing it as far as we can, as hard as we can, as fast as we can,” Jayapal said. “Enough nibbling around the edges. We really need to transform the system.”

Lauren Gambino in Washington

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/26/medicare-for-all-house-democrats-healthcare

2019-02-27 00:11:22+00:00

health

healthcare policy

bbc--2019-07-05--US labour market booms in June

bbc

US labour market booms in June

The US labour market boomed in June, creating many more jobs than expected, according to the latest report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It showed that 224,000 jobs were created in June, many more than the 160,000 that economists had forecast. The figures, a rebound from poor jobs data in May, eased concerns the economy was heading for a recession. The professional and business services sector was the biggest contributor to employment, adding 51,000. Large numbers of jobs were also created in healthcare, transportation and warehousing. Despite the strong job creation in June, wage growth was relatively modest at 0.2%, keeping the annual rate at 3.1%. The jobs data is closely watched by economists who analyse how it might affect interest rate decisions at the US Federal Reserve. Some are betting that the Fed might lower interest rates following its next meeting which starts on 30 July. Last month the Fed indicated that interest rates might head lower due to subdued inflation and the effects of the trade war between the US and China. "These are good numbers, but a rate cut in July is still all but inevitable," said Luke Bartholomew, investment strategist at Aberdeen Standard Investments. "Employment growth remains a bright spot amid a fairly mixed bag of US data and yet markets have come to expect a cut now so will fall out of bed if they don't get one." Andrew Hunter, senior US economist, at Capital Economics also forecasts a rate cut, although not until September. "Employment growth is still trending gradually lower but, with the stock market setting new records and trade talks back on (for now at least), the data support our view that Fed officials are more likely to wait until September before loosening policy," he said. The US has posted some poor manufacturing data recently, prompting concerns that the economy was heading for a downturn. But Doug Duncan, chief economist at Fannie Mae, said the numbers suggest "that what has been seen in the manufacturing sector doesn't appear to indicate we may be heading into a recession... the warning signs people saw in manufacturing might not be so strong".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48884739

2019-07-05 13:48:07+00:00

labour

labour relations

theguardianuk--2019-03-19--UK jobs report to show if Brexit is hurting the labour market - business live

theguardianuk

UK jobs report to show if Brexit is hurting the labour market - business live

Rolling coverage of the latest economic and financial news, including the latest UK unemployment report

Graeme Wearden

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2019/mar/19/uk-unemployment-wages-report-house-prices-economy-brexit-sterling-business-live

2019-03-19 08:17:46+00:00

labour

labour relations

birminghammail--2019-12-23--Workers face Universal Credit Christmas pay cut if employers break this one rule

birminghammail

Workers face Universal Credit Christmas pay cut if employers break this one rule

Universal Credit and other benefits can cause big worries for claimants over the Christmas holidays. There are always extra costs at this time of year - including higher energy bills, festive food and drink, gifts for family and other loved ones. On top of all that, variations with payment dates can cause concern and confusion. Universal Credit replaces six existing benefits and is paid to those who are in work on a low income as well as people who are unemployed. But some claimants could be left with no money if their bosses don’t stick to the official guidance on paying wages at this time of year. The problem arises when claimants are paid early because of the Christmas holidays. That shows as two wages in one month, which then means Universal Credit payments are cut. Claimants are allowed to earn £287 a month if they get help with housing costs, or £503 a month if they don’t get that help. Every amount earned above those levels is subject to deductions of 63p in every £1. Above a certain level of income, the DWP stops paying Universal Credit altogether. That means claimants have to start all over again with claiming the benefit once their income goes down to normal levels. In its latest Employer Bulletin, HM Revenue and Customs gives guidance for company bosses on reporting PAYE information. It is reminding employers not to log early wage payments on the day but to record them on the day they would originally have been paid if Christmas holidays hadn’t got in the way. That prevents it looking like people have been paid twice in a month. The advice says: "In December 2018, we wrote to employers to advise a temporary easement on reporting PAYE information in real time, as we know some employers pay their employees earlier than usual over the Christmas period. "This can be for a number of reasons, for example during the Christmas period the business may close, meaning workers need to be paid earlier than normal. "Following feedback from employers and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) we have received approval to make this easement permanent. "If you do pay early over the Christmas period, please report your normal (or contractual) payday as the payment date on your Full Payment Submission (FPS) and ensure that the FPS is submitted on or before this date. "For example: if you pay on Friday 20 December 2019 but the normal/contractual payment date is Tuesday 31 December 2019, please report the payment date on the FPS as 31 December and ensure the submission is sent on or before 31 December. "Doing this will help to protect your employees’ eligibility for Universal Credit, as reporting the payday as the payment date may affect current and future entitlements. "The overriding PAYE reporting obligation for employers is unaffected by this announcement and remains that you must report payments on or before the date the employee is paid, i.e. payday." The issue has also been highlighted by Advice NI, an independent advice network in Northern Ireland, but it is also affecting claimants in England and Wales. Advice NI has expressed concerns about "a flaw in the Universal Credit (UC) system whereby claimants may be treated as receiving two monthly wages in one assessment period, resulting in a dramatically reduced or even nil Universal Credit award.” Bob Stronge, Advice NI Chief Executive said: “Government says that it’s all about work, making work pay and that Universal Credit will help make sure people are better off in work. However we are highlighting a fundamental flaw which could inflict hardship on claimants and undermine public confidence in Universal Credit. "For example if someone receives their monthly wage on the last Friday of each month then they will have been paid on Friday 29th November and ought to be paid on Friday 27th December. However many people will be paid early for Christmas, some as early as Friday 20th December. "Universal Credit assessment periods run for a calendar month, so for example if a UC claimant has an assessment period which runs from 25th to the 24th, they will in fact find that they have received 2 monthly wages in this assessment period (29th November & 20th December) and so may receive little or no Universal Credit at Christmas. "Whilst there may be months with no wage packet and other months with one wage packet which will lead to an increased Universal Credit award, Advice NI believes this issue will undoubtedly lead to claimants having a lack of certainty about finances and will undoubtedly cause distress and hardship for some at Christmas." Advice NI says it is concerned that neither employers nor employees are fully aware of the HMRC’s latest advice on reporting staff pay. Universal Credit - 7 things you need to know Universal Credit is the biggest change to the welfare system in a generation. But what exactly is it and how does the system work? Here's all you need to below. Follow the links below to find out more. Universal Credit is a new social security benefit that was approved in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and first appeared in 2013. By the end of 2018, it was rolled out to all jobcentres. It replaces six existing benefits, now known as 'legacy benefits'. Find out more by clicking on the link above. 2. Universal Credit calculator - how much you will get The amount you are given is calculated according to various factors. The Government says if you have children, a disability, or you need help paying for your rent, you may be entitled to extra amounts on top of the standard allowance. Find out more by clicking on the link above. 3. Universal Credit eligibility and how to apply Among the qualifying criteria, you must be on a low income or out of work. And it's important to bear in mind your partner’s income and savings will be taken into account, even if they themselves are not applying for the benefit. Find out more about eligibility by clicking on the link above. 4. How often is it paid and how the online account works To get Universal Credit, TWO accounts are needed. One is a Universal Credit online account where your details (such as the date of the next payment) are available to look at, the other is a payment account at a bank or building society where the Government pays in your money. Find out more by clicking on the link above. 5. Universal Credit contact numbers if you need help There are some special helpline numbers to call if you want assistance. They have been changed to freephone numbers so there is no charge for calling. Find out more by clicking on the link above. 6. How to change your payments if you're struggling Claimants need to be aware the first payment doesn't come through until five weeks after a claim - and then every month after that. If you're not used to waiting a whole month for your payment, it can prove difficult. But there is a little-known way around that. Find out more by clicking on the link above 7. What to do if your Universal Credit payments are cut There are occasions where the Department for Work and Pensions imposes sanctions on claimants if they appear to have broken the rules, for instance by not showing up at jobcentre appointments. In such cases, Universal Credit can be cut or stopped altogether. Find out what to do by clicking the link above. Universal Credit officials in Northern Ireland said it was not a flaw in the system, with a Department for Communities spokesman saying: “Where two sets of earnings are received in one month a customer will receive less benefit to reflect this. "However customers will then receive an increase in Universal Credit in those months where no earnings are received. "This is not a system flaw and is part of the design and build of Universal Credit.” BirminghamLive asked the Department for Work and Pensions - which is responsible for Universal Credit in England and Wales - about the issue. A DWP spokesman told us: "Assessment periods are fixed at the point of when a person makes a claim, and if two months’ wages are paid in the same period then either the previous Universal Credit payment or the next one will be higher to reflect this."

newsdesk@birminghamlive.co.uk (David Bentley)

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/universal-credit-christmas-payments-cut-17463584

Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:00:00 +0000

labour

labour relations

conservativehome--2019-07-29--Joe Shalam Modern employers are learning the Bournville lesson better housing for workers benefit

conservativehome

Joe Shalam: Modern employers are learning the Bournville lesson – better housing for workers benefits them, too

Joe Shalam is Head of Financial Inclusion at the Centre for Social Justice. In-work poverty has been described as ‘the problem of our time’. But making progress in tackling it will only be achieved if the true complexity of poverty is taken into account. While income is critically important, raising wages above an arbitrary poverty threshold, as has been prevailing wisdom for many years, simply does not account for range of issues that serve to hold people back. For example, at the Centre for Social Justice we hear increasingly regularly from our alliance of 350 poverty-fighting charities about the ways insecure, cramped or otherwise inadequate housing is undermining people’s ability to address the problems in their lives: be that their family instability, their reliance on alcohol to get through the day, or the barriers they face progressing in work and boosting their earnings. The CSJ’s Housing Commission has therefore called on the Government to dramatically increase the supply of truly affordable homes, so that more people have a stronger foundation from which to escape poverty and thrive. Yet, as the Commission argues in its latest interim report, the Government will not be able to achieve this alone. Business and philanthropy can play a role, too. Looking at history we are reminded of this. One often celebrated example is George Cadbury, whose enterprising family give their name to the Victorian chocolate brand still enjoyed by millions today. Cadbury was no ordinary chocolatier. An enthusiastic social reformer in the Quaker tradition, he and his brother sought to offer workers an alternative to the life they had come to expect in the rapidly industrialising and grimy cities of 19th Century England. So they founded a village, named ‘Bournville’ for its quaint French twang and proximity to the Bourn river, providing garden cottages in sharp contrast to the neighbouring city slums. Still, Cadbury was a businessman. He knew that an inadequately housed workforce was an unhealthy and unhappy workforce. As such, they were also less productive for the company – particularly when stricken by what he described as the ‘evils of modern, more cramped living conditions’. This fact remains as true today as it was then. While we have come a long way since the familiar slums of Dickensian Britain, the housing crisis gripping parts of the country is having a profoundly negative impact on businesses, the wider workforce and their families. The report reveals that half of UK companies with 1,000+ employees say that housing issues are adversely affecting the wellbeing of their staff, compounded by long commutes to work and rising housing costs. The economic consequences of an increasingly overburdened and low-morale workforce are also emerging. We found that a shocking two-in-three companies are concerned about how the affordability of housing is impacting their business. And 43 per cent of employers say that housing issues are having a negative effect on their business’ productivity. Yet the report also reveals that, like Cadbury, employers today are responding to these pressures in innovative and impressive ways. Take Nationwide, for example, who are proceeding with a multi-million pound not-for-profit housing development in Swindon. Drawing inspiration from Bournville, where ‘Ten Shilling Houses’ were offered to the workforce beyond the Cadbury payroll, Nationwide’s Oakfield development aims to provide a high proportion of affordable homes and lease these without giving preferential treatment to employees. Elsewhere, Pret a Manger recently opened the Pret House in Kennington. Building on their long-established homeless trainee scheme, they recognised that even the most supported trainees on the programme were suffering as a result of returning after a day’s work to the chaotic ‘temporary’ accommodation they had been placed in by local councils. As Nicki Fisher, the Pret Foundation’s head of sustainability, told us, ‘If you can imagine, having to get up at 5am after spending a night in a homeless shelter, where they’re often very crowded, very noisy, quite chaotic… we were starting to see a couple of people dropping out because it’s just very difficult to maintain coming to work normally every day’. The Pret House provides a safe and secure home for trainees to return to, thanks to a number of conditional ground rules. We also looked abroad for inspiration. The expansion of technology firms in coastal areas of the US has resulted in the creation of new jobs in cities with limited housing, such as Seattle and San Francisco. This has contributed to steep increases in housing costs. Companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft are responding by investing millions of dollars in affordable housing programmes. In partnership with the Mayor of Seattle, Microsoft alone has pledged $500 million for programmes supplying ‘housing that is within the economic reach of every part of the community, including the many dedicated people that provide the vital services on which we all rely’. Where employers are leading the way in championing housing support, they should be recognised and supported to do more. Schemes like private tenancy deposit loans, on the familiar model of a season ticket loan, are relatively inexpensive for businesses, but can be life changing to those unable to afford the (sometimes eye-wateringly expensive) upfront costs of rented accommodation. The Government should be rewarding the companies that offer this type of support with a new ‘Housing Confident’ accreditation. The Government could also be better at harnessing employers as fuel in the engine of housing supply, by setting up an Innovation Fund in Homes England to support more not-for-profit developments that don’t fit the conventional mould. And it should do more to facilitate ambitious partnerships between both public and private employers to secure new investment in affordable Build-to-Rent developments, with thriving and mixed communities of working families. In short, though there have been profound changes to our society, economy and labour market since Cadbury first set eyes upon the Bourn, the same level ambition is already being displayed by some employers today in seeking to improve the workforce’s housing conditions and address poverty in its true complexity. For all the government can do, we should also aim to unlock the spirit of Bournville and extend the ‘opportunity of a happy family life’ that he believed everyone deserves.

Joe Shalam

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/07/joe-shalam-modern-employers-are-learning-the-bournville-lesson-better-housing-for-workers-benefits-them-too.html

2019-07-29 14:18:39+00:00

labour

labour relations

crooksandliars--2019-09-26--Employers Used Facebook To Keep Women Older Workers From Seeing Job Ads

crooksandliars

Employers Used Facebook To Keep Women, Older Workers From Seeing Job Ads

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox. Two years ago, ProPublica and The New York Times revealed that companies were posting discriminatory job ads on Facebook, using the social network’s targeting tools to keep older workers from seeing employment opportunities. Then we reported companies were using Facebook to exclude women from seeing job ads. Experts told us that it was most likely illegal. And it turns out the federal government now agrees. A group of recent rulings by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found “reasonable cause” to conclude that seven employers violated civil rights protections by excluding women or older workers or both from seeing job ads they posted on Facebook. The agency’s rulings appear to be the first time it has taken on targeted advertising, the core of Facebook’s business. “It answers the question from the EEOC’s perspective,” former agency commissioner Jenny R. Yang said. “If you’re excluding older workers from seeing your ads for jobs it does violate” anti-discrimination laws. The EEOC declined to comment. The decisions stem from complaints filed by the Communications Workers of America, the American Civil Liberties Union and plaintiff’s attorneys after our reporting. The agency made the rulings in July, but they are becoming public now as part of a separate pending class-action suit in federal court accusing companies of age discrimination. The ads are all from 2018 or earlier. Since then, Facebook has agreed in a settlement to make sweeping changes to the way employers, landlords and creditors can target advertising. The changes are scheduled to take effect by the end of the year. A Facebook spokesperson pointed to the company’s recent changes and said, “Helping prevent discrimination in housing, employment or credit ads is an area we believe we lead the advertising industry.” In the latest rulings, the EEOC cited four companies for age discrimination: Capital One, Edwards Jones, Enterprise Holdings and DriveTime Automotive Group. Three companies were cited for discrimination by both age and gender: Nebraska Furniture Mart, Renewal by Andersen LLC and Sandhills Publishing Company. The companies can now work out a settlement with the EEOC or go to court. Most of the companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Nebraska Furniture Mart declined to comment. A spokesperson for financial firm Edwards Jones said, “We strongly disagree with the claim that our firm engaged in discriminatory practices in advertising of job opportunities, recruiting or hiring.” Dozens of other complaints have been filed with the EEOC about discrimination in targeted advertising on Facebook. Most of the allegations are still pending. The EEOC’s batch of decisions are significant, attorney Peter Romer-Friedman of Outten & Golden says, because they are the first time companies besides Facebook have had to defend how they use Facebook’s tools to advertise jobs. His firm also filed a suit against seven real estate companies last week for allegedly discriminating by age in housing ads. We first reported on discriminatory housing ads on Facebook three years ago. The company changed its process for screening housing ads after we retested the system two years ago and showed it was possible to buy dozens of ads that excluded people by gender, race, religion, national origin, age and other categories protected by civil rights laws.

ProPublica

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/09/employers-used-facebook-keep-women-older

2019-09-26 12:26:33+00:00

labour

labour relations

fortune--2019-02-05--Low-Income Workers Are Less Likely to Receive Employer-Funded Insurance

fortune

Low-Income Workers Are Less Likely to Receive Employer-Funded Insurance

Wealthier people are more likely to receive employer-sponsored insurance than low-wage workers. A report from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that just 28% of full-time workers below the federal poverty level received benefits from their employers, as low-income jobs are less likely to offer company subsidized benefits to workers. “Employer health coverage is a part of compensation for workers, and low-wage workers just can’t command that level of compensation,” Larry Levitt, of Kaiser, told Axios. With the costs of health care rising rapidly—and outpacing wages over the past decade—workers are also paying more out of pocket health care costs, Axios reports. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 51% of workers have to meet a deductible of more than $1,000 on their employer-based insurance, up from 34% in 2012. The increase signals a shift toward less coverage to meet the rising costs of health care. Though half of Americans receive health insurance through their jobs, more than 30 million people remain uninsured. Campaigns to nationalize health insurance have become more popular in recent years. Last fall, a Pew Research Center poll found that 60% of Americans believed that ensuring health care coverage is the responsibility of the federal government, including 31% of people who supported “single payer” insurance.

Erin Corbett

http://fortune.com/2019/02/05/low-wage-workers-employer-benefits/

2019-02-05 18:03:10+00:00

labour

labour relations

fortune--2019-08-14--ICE Raids Raise Question What About the Employers That Profit Off Unauthorized Workers

fortune

ICE Raids Raise Question: What About the Employers That Profit Off Unauthorized Workers?

The images of children crying after their parents were arrested in a massive immigration raid in Mississippi revived a longstanding complaint: Unauthorized workers are jailed or deported, while the managers and business owners who profit from their labor often go unprosecuted. Under President Donald Trump, the number of business owners and managers who face criminal charges for employing unauthorized workers has stayed almost the same, even as almost every other enforcement measure has surged. Last week's raids at seven chicken-processing plants were the largest worksite operation conducted under the Trump administration. The operation led to 680 arrests of people in the U.S. illegally, with expected criminal charges to follow for some. But no plant owners or top managers were immediately charged, following the pattern of other recent sweeps. Lawyers and experts agree that investigating managers takes longer and is far more difficult than arresting workers. A key hurdle that predates the Trump administration is that federal law makes it a crime to "knowingly" hire workers who are in the U.S. illegally. "The 'knowingly' term has proved to be a huge defense for employers," said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. "The employer says, 'I'm sorry, I didn't know they were unauthorized.'" In a statement Tuesday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Matthew Albence said that anyone found to have broken the law in the Mississippi case would be held accountable, including "the employers who profit off their crimes." Warrants unsealed after the Mississippi arrests allege that managers at two processing plants participated in fraud. After Trump took office, then-Acting Director Thomas Homan declared that ICE would try to increase all worksite enforcement actions by 400%. ICE succeeded almost across the board in just one government fiscal year. According to statistics the agency released in December, it quadrupled the number of investigations it opened and audits of paperwork submitted by employees to get hired. And it made 2,304 arrests in worksite cases, seven times as many as the previous year. The major exception was for managers. ICE arrested just 72 managers in the 2018 fiscal year, compared with 71 the year before. And 49 managers were convicted of crimes, down from 55 the previous year. Congress first created criminal penalties for employers in 1986. According to researchers at Syracuse University, prosecutions under the law banning employers from knowingly employing unauthorized workers have rarely exceeded 15 a year since then. Between April 2018 and this March, just 11 people were prosecuted in seven cases. Employers can also be charged with other crimes. The former owner of a meat-processing plant raided in Tennessee last year was sentenced in July to 18 months in prison after pleading guilty to tax evasion, wire fraud and employing unauthorized workers. Investigations are still ongoing following several major Trump administration raids. Companies and business owners are also better equipped to fight charges than workers who were already earning low wages and now face detention and deportation. Those workers are sometimes victims of labor-trafficking schemes. They can be critical witnesses to prove businesses knew about their lack of legal status, except they may fear coming forward. Some opponents of the administration blame its immigration crackdown for deterring people from contacting law enforcement. And while both Republicans and Democrats have previously supported enforcement of workplace immigration laws as a way to protect U.S. citizen workers, many businesses are having trouble finding workers due to low unemployment nationally. They quietly rely on unauthorized labor to stay productive, making prosecutions politically unpopular, Chishti said. Trump himself has been accused of employing unauthorized workers at his hotels, golf courses and other businesses. "On paper, there is a lot of enforcement of law, but in reality, people are constantly abusing the law," Chishti said. Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, argued that ramping up penalties for employing unauthorized workers was counterproductive. Instead, he said, the U.S. should better enforce workplace safety standards and prevent wage theft, reducing the incentive for unscrupulous businesses to hire unauthorized workers. "When you make immigrant workers afraid of the federal government, then you are protecting employers who exploit," Saenz said. A common outcome in workplace cases is a settlement where the offending company pays a fine and agrees to adopt measures like checking every new hire in the federal E-Verify program, which examines personal information submitted to an employer in government records for any potential fraud. ICE in August 2018 raided a trailer company in Sumner, Texas. Nearly 160 people were arrested at the company, Load Trail LLC. Load Trail had reached a settlement with ICE just four years earlier. A new criminal investigation is now ongoing, and lawyers for Load Trail say they are close to reaching another settlement. The company said it had relied on staffing companies to provide workers and confirm their legal status. In April, another raid targeted CVE Technology Group , which repairs and refurbishes cellphones, leading to 284 arrests. That investigation is also ongoing. Both companies say their business has fallen and they have had trouble hiring replacement workers. Rick Gump, a lawyer for CVE, said the company lost several major contracts after the raid, causing a roughly 75% decline in business. "The likelihood is a lot of the business that was here in the U.S. has been sent overseas," he said. Get up to speed on your morning commute with Fortune’s CEO Daily newsletter.

McKenna Moore

https://fortune.com/2019/08/14/ice-raids-employers-managers-punishment/

2019-08-14 18:01:55+00:00

labour

labour relations

fusion--2019-10-01--Nail salon workers call out employers for health safety violations

fusion

Nail salon workers call out employers for health & safety violations

Despite new regulations, New York nail salon workers say they continue to deal with poor conditions and low pay. The people who work there are mostly female immigrants who say they’re jeopardizing their safety while trying to earn a living. Blanca Rosa Vilchez explains.

Fusion

https://fusion.tv/video/597233/nail-salon-workers-call-out-employers-for-health-safety-violations/

2019-10-01 21:22:54+00:00

labour

labour relations

hitandrun--2019-08-11--If You Oppose Punishing and Deporting Undocumented Workers You Should also Oppose Punishing Employe

hitandrun

If You Oppose Punishing and Deporting Undocumented Workers, You Should also Oppose Punishing Employers that Hire Them

Last week's ICE raids on undocumented workers in Mississippi—the largest of its kind—has drawn widespread protest for brutally separating parents from their children and deporting migrants whose only sin is escaping poverty and oppression in their homelands by finding job opportunities in the US. The protests are justified. But some critics also complain that ICE targeted workers, without also penalizing their employers. For example, CNN commentator Jake Tapper simultaneously decried the humanitarian effects of the raids, and also criticized an administration official for failing to "hold buisnesses responsible for this."  Such complaints are not new. There is a long history of federal immigration enforcement agencies rarely penalizing employers, and critics complaining that they should do so more often, even as they also lament the harm ICE raids inflict on workers. But if you truly believe that it is wrong to punish and deport undocumented workers, you also have every reason to oppose punishing the employers who hire them. Those who oppose deportation do so, at least in large part, because they believe (correctly, in my view) that these individuals should not be barred from starting a new life in the US and seeking opportunity here. But they cannot do that if they are effectively barred from holding jobs because anyone who hires them will be punished for doing so. Some of the opposition to deportation is driven by the impact on families, most notably children (including many who are US citizens) separated from parents. But children also suffer if their parents are not allowed to work, and therefore cannot earn income to support their families. Imagine that a person named Bob is seeking work to escape poverty and support his family. Congress enacts a bill known as Bob's Law. Under this legislation, Bob is allowed to live wherever he wants, and law enforcement agencies are forbidden to punish him for taking any job that might be offered him. But there's a catch: any business that hires Bob will be severely sanctioned for doing so, even though Bob himself will not be (perhaps they must pay a large fine, or the owner must go to prison, or both). Moreover, Congress earmarks funds for a special Bob's Law Enforcement Budget (BLOB), which can only be spent on prosecuting Bob's Law violators, so that officials will have a strong incentive to actually go after employers who dare hire Bob, as opposed to letting them off the hook. Formally, Bob's Law doesn't constrain Bob in any way. The only people who can be punished are the employers who hire him. But, in reality, the law consigns Bob to a life of poverty and desperation, as he will either have to take shady black market jobs, or subsist on charity or welfare (if he can get it).  Bob's family will also suffer, of course, since he is unlikely to be able to support them with more than a paltry (and highly uncertain) income. Bob's law is purely imaginary. But those who argue that the federal government should refrain from punishing undocumented workers, but rigorously prosecute the employers who hire them, are effectively advocating much the same sort of policy in real life. This regime would not target undocumented workers directly, but in practice it would consign them to much the same sort of miserable existence as Bob would face. A "punish employers only" also prevents undocumented workers from contributing to the economy as much as they otherwise would. Rigorously prosecuting employers who hire them ensures that they will either be unable to find work at all, or will only be able to do so in underground enterprises, where they are likely to be less productive than at legitimate enterprises. Targeting businesses is also likely to harm US-citizen workers, as well as undocumented ones. The types of measures employers would have to adopt to ensure compliance are likely to exclude many citizen workers, or at least put them through bureaucratic nightmares, such as those inflicted by the E-Verify system, mandated by some states. Some might argue that the employers should be punished regardless of consequences, because they have violated the law. But, of course, the same thing can be said for the workers. In the case of the latter, opponents of deportation rightly point out that the laws in question are so deeply unjust that migrants are justified in violating them. Moreover, in a world where we have vastly more violators of federal law than the government can possibly punish, law enforcement should focus its resources on enforcing those laws that have the strongest moral justifications. "Just enforce the law" is not a viable moral theory in a world where many laws on the books are deeply unjust, and it is in any event impossible to punish more than a small fraction of violators. These objections apply to employer sanctions in much the same way as attempts to punish workers. Indeed, efforts to punish the former almost inevitably harm the latter, as well. If you nonetheless do believe that all laws should be enforced to the hilt,  regardless of how unjust, than you cannot also argue that the government should let undocumented workers go, but punish their employers. Both are lawbreakers, after all. Another possible variant of the "punish employers only" theory is that these businesses should be blamed for the poor conditions under which many undocumented workers labor. If employment conditions are your beef, then you should at least advocate limiting enforcement actions only to cases where conditions fall below whatever you believe to be the right minimum standard. There should be no general effort to punish employers of undocumented immigrants, as such. You should also keep in mind that government-mandated employee benefits tend to result in a combination of reduced employment, reduction of salary and/or other employee benefits, or some combination of both. Undocumented workers might prefer worse conditions with higher pay to the opposite combination. At the very least, the more you care about the welfare of these workers, the more you should hesitate to support policies that forcibly reduce the range of options available to them, at least in the absence of strong evidence that those measures will make them better off. Obviously, there are cases where employers use coercion or fraud to abuse undocumented workers. Where that happens, there is good reason to punish them, as is also true of employers who inflict similar abuse on other employees. Unlike in the case of poor working conditions that employees might willingly accept in exchange for higher pay, coercion and fraud are not voluntary transactions, and usually don't leave workers better off than they would be otherwise. But mandatory infliction of sanctions on all employers of undocumented workers actually makes it more difficult to root out such genuine abuses. Workers are unlikely to report abusive employers if doing so will predictably lead to them losing their jobs, because the employers are not allowed to hire them in the first place, and the government will terminate those jobs if it finds out about them. In sum, if you oppose punishment of undocumented workers, you should also oppose punishing their employers. The latter inflicts much the same injustices as the former, including by harming the workers themselves.

Ilya Somin (isomin@gmu.edu)

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/1si2P-jhhn4/

2019-08-11 22:44:21+00:00

labour

labour relations

mercurynews--2019-01-20--H-1B visas The Bay Areas non-tech employers seek foreign workers too

mercurynews

H-1B visas: The Bay Area’s non-tech employers seek foreign workers, too

Mike Evans isn’t the kind of worker most people would associate with an H-1B visa. He’s British. He’s got a Ph.D. in astronomy and worked on the Cassini project. And he’s employed by Mountain View’s SETI Institute. Evans is among hundreds of Bay Area H-1B workers who aren’t employed by Google, Facebook or outsourcers in the tech industry, which is closely associated with a visa that has become a flashpoint in the immigration debate. More than 5,600 Bay Area companies applied for H-1B visas in fiscal year 2018, according to data from the Department of Labor. And though the majority were tech companies seeking engineers, developers and programmers, including more than 70,600 software developers, the department’s data shows that dozens of other local employers sought foreign workers, from soccer coaches and marriage and family therapists to accountants and lawyers. Pixar, in Emeryville, applied for a story artist and a character designer. The Gap, in San Francisco, wanted a couple of fashion designers, a senior designer and a vice president of design for its Old Navy brand. And the San Jose Unified School District sought five special education teachers for preschool, kindergarten and middle school. The data, analyzed by this news organization, shows how the H-1B visa touches nearly every corner of the Bay Area economy. The data comes from applications that companies hoping to hire an H-1B worker must submit to the labor department, with a job title and a proposed wage. Once that’s certified, the company applies to the Department of Homeland Security for the actual visa. In fiscal year 2018, the Department of Labor certified almost 1.2 million H-1B applications nationwide, but it’s not clear how many of those resulted in visas. Some applications were for visa extensions, or to hire workers already in the country on an H-1B visa with a different employer. Other companies abandon the process before getting to Homeland Security, and even those that do aren’t guaranteed one of the 85,000 H-1B visas given out each year. At the Mountain View-based SETI Institute, whose mission includes searching for new planets and exploring the possibility of extraterrestrial life, the H-1B visa is a way to bring in foreign scientists like Evans for highly specialized work. While SETI officials understand that some see the visa as a mechanism for supplanting American workers with cheaper foreign labor, they say that’s far from what they’re doing. “I think we feel very comfortable in the fact that if somebody comes to the institute with a specialized degree and capability, we haven’t hired them at the expense of some other poor astronomer in the U.S. not getting a job,” said Bill Diamond, SETI’s CEO. “There’s just not enough of the kinds of scientists we want to bring in.” Diamond estimated that about 6 percent of the institute’s 70 to 80 astronomers and researchers are on H-1B visas. Evans, who joined SETI late last year, has been in the U.S. for more than nine years, first on an academic J-1 visa and since 2014 on an H-1B. The U.S. was attractive, he said, because it spends so much more money on astronomy than any other country. “If I went back to Europe, it’s possible that I could get a similar job,” he said. “But it’s easier in the U.S. just because there’s much more funding, so there’s more opportunities.” As a nonprofit research institution, SETI is exempt from the 85,000 visa cap. It’s also unique because it only hires astronomers and researchers who already have funding for specific projects, for example through private or government grants. Armine Saroian, SETI’s director of human resources, said the institute is focused on applicants’ qualifications and funding, not their visa status. Evans’ background is on the Cassini mission, a joint program from NASA and two European space agencies that sent a probe to orbit Saturn for more than a decade before it was intentionally crashed into the planet in 2017. Evans had worked on Cassini for 19 years — his entire professional career. At SETI, he’s working on archiving the probe’s observational data. He estimated that maybe five people in the world have the kind of experience he has. “And all five are working in the U.S.,” Evans said. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, computer-related fields accounted for about 70 percent of all H-1B recipients in 2017. Another eight percent work in architecture, engineering and surveying, and slightly less than 6 percent work in administrative specializations, such as accounting. The majority of all H-1B visas are granted to workers from India. San Jose Unified has about a dozen teachers here on H-1B visas, according to a district spokeswoman. In its applications to the Department of Labor last year for five special education teachers, the district said it expected to pay between $55,000 and $97,000. In an email response, a district spokeswoman said the goal was, in part, to hire for high-need STEM and special education positions. Roughly 5 percent of H-1B visas nationwide are to workers in education. Despite their close association with tech companies, researchers say the original intent of the H-1B visa was much broader. Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst with the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute, said H-1Bs are part of a long tradition of making it easier to bring in skilled workers who aren’t being produced within the U.S. “The first exemption for skilled professionals was for professional actors, nurses, ministers, professors and musicians of distinguished merit and ability,” she said. “That was in 1917.” When the H-1B visa was created in 1990, it was healthcare, not technology, that saw it as a way to bring in skilled foreign labor. By 1995, half of all H-1B workers were physical therapists, according to a 2003 study from Ronil Hira, now a professor at Howard University. “It really wasn’t until the late 90s, when the tech industry became more visible as the face of the visa,” Hira said. By 1998, computer specialists were receiving 57 percent of H-1Bs. Both Pierce and Hira said that today, employers like Pixar or The Gap with just a few H-1B employees are at risk of being crowded out by large tech outsourcers such as Cognizant, which received more than 29,900 visas in 2018, or Tata Consultancy, which got about 14,700 visas. Without H-1B visas, Diamond, the SETI CEO, said he wouldn’t have the researchers he needs to do the work the institute was set up to do. He said there’s also a benefit to the exchange of ideas that happens when scientists from around the world work together. “You want to bring as many new sources of knowledge and information and understanding as you can on the kind of work we do,” he said. “To restrict that in any way would be problematic, both to us on a micro-scale, but more broadly to science.”

Leonardo Castañeda

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/20/h-1b-visas-the-bay-areas-non-tech-employers-seek-foreign-workers-too/

2019-01-20 14:30:46+00:00

labour

labour relations

slate--2019-09-02--Why Is It OK for Employers to Constantly Surveil Workers

slate

Why Is It OK for Employers to Constantly Surveil Workers?

Even if you aren’t trying to get pregnant, fertility apps can be useful for helping you remember when your last period was. Users can log their menstrual cycle rather than rack their brains (or write it down in a notebook they might lose or forget about) and get predictions on when their next cycle will begin. They can also track intimate information on their bodies and sexual activity, including weight, mood, and frequency of sex. It’s great. Unless your employer has paid to get a copy of that data. In April, the Washington Post reported that Ovia, a fertility app, allows employers to provide accounts as part of wellness programs and to access an aggregate of the data employees provided. Employers may use this information to inform hiring, promotion, or pay decisions—which violates federal prohibitions. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. It can be especially dangerous in a workplace with few women, in which “de-identified” data provides little protection from discrimination. Ovia is an example of employers seeking more information on their workers and expecting employees to help them via self-surveillance. Yet if you were to tune in to the roiling privacy debate on Capitol Hill, you’d hear little of this. Congress’ debate around passing privacy legislation has largely left out workplace protections. The current debate centers “consumer privacy,” but this distinction falsely creates dual identities with different protections for you the consumer and you the worker. The surveillance of workers and the workplace is far from a modern phenomenon. Like racial minorities, immigrants, and religious minorities, poor and working people have long been disproportionately surveilled by their employers and the government. (This will be the subject of the upcoming Color of Surveillance conference at Georgetown Law on Nov. 7, a project I’m co-organizing.) For example, Henry Ford sent detectives to his factory workers’ homes. Investigators would ask employees questions and examine homes to evaluate their moral standing. Concerned about high employee turnover, Ford wanted his employees to conform to his social and moral expectations. The Pinkerton Detective Agency infiltrated mining communities and unions at the direction of union-busting owners. Detectives gathered information to disrupt organized action and disband unions. From the 1590s to 1800s, English lawmakers monitored the poor who received financial assistance. The “Poor Laws” they enacted required paupers to work in exchange for benefits. The policies also carried mechanisms for social control: Administrators could use absence from church services and drunkenness to reduce or withhold support. According to historian Steve Hindle, one woman lost her pension after refusing to marry the man who impregnated her. The Poor Laws also relied on neighbors to report on one another. But historically, surveillance had limitations. A detective could only keep track of so many workers at one time. It was expensive and resource-intensive. Over time, surveillance has become more sophisticated, more granular, and more invasive. Employers have gone from using human informants to scanning employee emails or monitoring Reddit. In July, a Walmart employee was fired for posting confidential information about a new Walmart program on a subreddit used by other Walmart employees. Members responded by posting pro-union memes (Walmart is notoriously anti-union). But surveillance goes much further than spying on communications. Rather than asking a foreman about employee productivity, an employer can pull up this information from an app—a new form of surveillance made possible with algorithmic managers. In contrast with previous methods of surveillance, algorithmic managers require workers to watch and report on themselves. The artificial manager stores and manages worker input, constantly collecting information. It knows, with precise detail, your location and how much work you’ve completed. Hotels give their housekeepers apps to track workflow. The app knows which room the housekeeper is in because the housekeeper tells it. Housekeepers tell the app how long it took to clean a room. Algorithmic managers also keep track of what orders warehouse workers have fulfilled and how many miles rideshare drivers have traveled. Employees often cannot disable these apps without retaliation—and in some cases, like ride-sharing and food delivery gigs, it would be literally impossible to work without the app. As surveillance increases, workers are losing protections. Collective bargaining could give workers the opportunity to push back against surveillance, but few have this opportunity. At the height of union membership, 1 in every 3 Americans belonged to a union. Today, it’s only 1 in 10. Additionally, the workers most affected by algorithmic managers are dispersed and have particular difficulty organizing collective action. In May, for instance, Uber and Lyft drivers organized a strike to raise objections to the Uber initial public offering. However, without a centralized place to communicate, some drivers learned about the protest during or after the strike. Workers need protections from expanding surveillance and control. Yet, if current congressional debates bear any fruit, the average American will soon have more protection from tech giants and telecommunications companies than from the people who sign their paychecks. The unauthorized or harmful uses of geolocation data affect both consumers and workers. However, only harms to consumers, not workers, are being addressed. After Vice reported that bounty hunters were purchasing consumer geolocation information from cellphone companies (two were allegedly involved in a triple murder earlier this year), Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Geoffrey Starks and Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden called for agency action or policy change to end the sale of this data. Yet employers can directly access their employees’ geolocation data through mobile apps, and there’s no congressional action at hand. Workers should have privacy over their data in the same way consumers do—or else they’ll continue to find themselves coded into a corner. Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society.

Gabrielle M. Rejouis

https://slate.com/technology/2019/09/labor-day-worker-surveillance-privacy-rights.html?via=rss

2019-09-02 11:30:03+00:00

labour

labour relations

sottnet--2019-06-19--Nevada becomes first state to ban employers from testing workers for marijuana use

sottnet

Nevada becomes first state to ban employers from testing workers for marijuana use

In a move that could blaze a small but important trail for workers' rights across the U.S., Nevada has passed a bill telling employers and state agencies that they can no longer refuse to hire workers on the basis of their testing positive for cannabis. It's a long way to come for a state that was once infamous for its notoriously strong prohibitionist laws penalizing those in possession of marijuana.Last week, Governor Steve Sisolak signed AB 132 , which prohibits the denial of employment to cannabis consumers after drug pre-screenings. Advocates are hailing the passage of the bill because it finally clears a major gap in the law between states that have rendered marijuana totally legal for medical or recreational purposes and those U.S. companies that try to block their workers from toking up at all.In Nevada, as in the other several states that have made recreational cannabis legal across the country, employers were still able to turn people away from jobs if they failed the "whizz quiz," or urine-based drug tests. NFL players seeking to recover from the intense physical pressures of football are unable to use cannabis-based remedies, doctors have lost their licenses for using medicinal cannabis, and 48 percent of businesses in otherwise weed-friendly Colorado have "well-defined" rules that allow them to fire employees if marijuana is detected in a worker's test results.According to the Nevada law, which kicks in January:However, a number of provisions in the bill complicate matters. Safety-sensitive positions includingPaul Enos, the chief executive of the Nevada Trucking Association who helped ensure revisions to the law that would allow safety exemptions for certain workers, told the Washington Post:The law has come a long way since it was introduced, with some employers accusing state politicians of allowing workers to blaze it up while on the clock.Lead sponsor of AB 132 and Democratic Assemblywoman Dina Neal said during a hearing for the bill in February:Yet Madisen Saglibene, the executive director of the Nevada and Las Vegas chapters of NORML, worked hard alongside legislators to ensure the bill's passage in the face of opposition from industry representatives and politicians like Ellen Spiegel, chair of the Commerce and Labor committee.Saglibene told VICE that the troubling provisions in the bill were a result of compromises necessary to pass the bill, explaining:But thanks to Neal, who held meetings with all parties interested in the bill, a compromise was finally met. Saglibene said:Gov. Sisolak has also signed Assembly Bill 192, which provides for a process through which individuals can petition to have their criminal records sealed if their conviction was for offenses that were eventually decriminalized, such as for a cannabis conviction.Saglibene remains optimistic about the prospects of the AB 132, which opens the door to similar-and perhaps stronger-legislation across the country. Acknowledging that there is still work ahead, she noted:

https://www.sott.net/article/415260-Nevada-becomes-first-state-to-ban-employers-from-testing-workers-for-marijuana-use

2019-06-19 14:40:14+00:00

labour

labour relations

sputnik--2019-10-19--US Detention Center Worker Alleges Employer Barred Her From Wearing Hijab - Complaint

sputnik

US Detention Center Worker Alleges Employer Barred Her From Wearing Hijab - Complaint

Brown, who works at the New Castle County Detention Center, has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency responsible for dealing with workplace discrimination cases. Two months later, she reapplied for the same position at the detention center, this time forgoing a hijab for the interview, and she was awarded the position. She started working at the detention center in February 2012. In 2014, Brown wore her hijab to work and was told by one of her supervisors she could not wear it for “safety reasons.” Even though Brown agreed to modify her hijab to be detachable to address security concerns, her supervisors did not approve the garment. In August, when Brown had issues with the metal detector at the facility, a supervisor yelled at her, “Now you’re looking like a terrorist” in front of other employees. It is unclear if Brown was wearing a hijab during this incident. "This is a clear example of religious discrimination and the state of Delaware has no basis from preventing Madinah from working with her hijab on," Zanah Ghalawanji, an attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is quoted as saying by Delaware Online. CAIR is representing Brown. "We must carefully balance our strong support of religious freedom with the need to keep youth and staff safe," the statement reads. "In some instances, a person's job may require them to do certain actions, such as the physical restraint of a youth, that makes wearing some religious clothing unsafe."

https://sputniknews.com/society/201910191077090396-us-detention-center-worker-alleges-employer-barred-her-from-wearing-hijab---complaint/

Sat, 19 Oct 2019 01:57:32 +0300

labour

labour relations

thedailyblog--2019-03-28--All employer-assisted migrant workers deserve a chance to have a pathway to residency

thedailyblog

All employer-assisted migrant workers deserve a chance to have a pathway to residency

We are a union of 7000 financial members. We estimate that up to one-quarter of our members could be on a temporary work visa. We cover workers in fast food, hospitality, hotels, call centres and security. We also have members in English Language Schools. Unite Union believes it is necessary to review the entire system of employer-assisted temporary work visas with a view towards its elimination. Bonded temporary labour always results in exploitation, and always depresses wages for permanent residents. Permanent residency shouldn’t be based on elitist criteria so we have doctors driving taxis while the Chinese construction workers we desperately need have no chance of staying beyond a certain period. All current temporary work visa holders, especially those under the current Essential Skills category, should have the right to change employer and gain permanent residency eventually if they desire to. No employer should have the right to apply for an employer-assisted temporary work visa in the future. The vulnerable, precarious status of temporary visa workers under the essential skills system has been used to undermine the wages and conditions of workers in this country. This was true, for example, in the fast food industry when managers were able to transition to permanent residency. This can only be prevented if all workers have full legal rights as workers, including the right to change their jobs. The current discussion document asks for comment on the system carried over from the last government requiring lower-skilled workers to leave after three years. The new proposal will allow partners to come if they have an employer-assisted temporary work visa as well rather than as of right as before. The proposal also restores the right to bring their children. The maintenance of a three-year limit will probably lead to people only coming if they are so poor and desperate that even three years would seem to be worthwhile. But creating a system of indentured labour where businesses are recycling people every three years is just extraordinarily inhumane. The probability that workers brought here will be exploited mercilessly because they are so desperately vulnerable should be obvious. On one level, this new proposal can seem more humane. It will allow two people to make money for the three years they are allowed here and not break up families. But it is still unfair to throw them out after three years when they want to stay and their skills are still needed. They will have invested in creating homes in this country. Their kids will be going to school and made new friends and learned a new language. Just when people begin to get good at the jobs they have, form friendships and relationships, they are told they must leave. What is the purpose or sense in replacing them with another short term visa holder who must start from scratch to learn the job and come up to speed? Temporary work visa holders should be able to renew their visas. But the longer they stay the crueller it becomes to keep them from ever being able to transition to permanent residence. If a system of temporary visas is maintained then a three year limit should be maintained – for remaining temporary. If an employer wants to renew their visa, that should be seen as a qualification for permanent residence, not a chance to throw them out. We support being able to renew their visas – even if on a temporary basis. But our preference is that the desire for the employer and the employee to renew the temporary visa should be enough evidence of the need for the position to be filled permanently and the worker doing the job should have the right to transition to permanent residence as quickly as possible if they so desire. The current system of having a three-year limit will most likely lead to a major drop in numbers coming from some countries we currently get people from either as students or on temporary work visas. There will probably be an increase in those who do come being from other countries where the aspiring migrant worker is so desperate they will be wide open to even worse abuse and exploitation when they get here than currently happens. It will also create enormous incentives to game the system by any means necessary once they are here. The policy will see a jump in the number of people inflating their salaries by refunding the boss in some way to pretend they are an “executive chef” or whatever and now have the salary or skills for a job leading to permanent residency. Canada has just abandoned a similar system for those reasons. They had one based on being able to work four years and then leaving for four years. A parliamentary inquiry recommended that it be abandoned in late 2016. The parliamentary report also recommended eliminating employer specific visas and offering a pathway to residency for less skilled workers. (See Parliamentary Committee Recommends 21 Changes to Temporary Foreign Worker Program ) Adopting the worst features of a failed Canadian programme is not a way forward. Need for an amnesty for those brought here under false pretences There are probably at least a few tens of thousands of workers and students in this country have been brought here under false pretences. Many who came as students have been conned into paying thousands of dollars towards courses that they hoped would open the door to jobs and the chance for permanent residence. The promises have proved to be nothing more than a fraud for most. But it is a fraud perpetrated by the government, seemingly as a way to subsidise tertiary education and reduce the government’s need to fund that sector properly. These students and workers have often had the rules changed on them after they arrived. Many have studied and worked here for up to a decade and made New Zealand their home. In October 2016, the previous government announced their goal was to reduce the overall permanent residence number from 100,000 over two years to 95,000. To achieve that 5% reduction they added 20 points to the skilled work visa number required, increased the English Language requirement, and stopped new parental visas for two years It is actually difficult to change this permanent residence number much from year to year. It is made up of skilled workers who qualify – as well as refugees, family reunification, parents, investors, Pacific quota, Samoan quota, and a dozen more categories. It is certainly difficult to reduce it significantly without impacting on the key variable which is the skilled worker category. To achieve the 5% overall reduction the changes did eliminate significant categories of semi-skilled workers who were able to access residency in the past in these roles. We will leave aside the value judgements being made around the skill of a low-paid nurse aid in aged care versus a high paid advertising executive. The additional requirement that all jobs must meet the new then $49,000 (now adjusted to $52,000) income threshold to qualify for permanent residence lead to an additional significant barrier for those who have come under the old rules. Most workers in many of the categories currently using large numbers of migrant workers would never get paid $49,000. The result was that most current essential skills visa holders in jobs in New Zealand can’t ever qualify for permanent residence. The changes made resulted in thousands of workers who are here as chefs, nurse aids, hospitality and retail workers being stopped from ever getting the chance to access permanent residence. For example, it eliminated 90% of the people working here as chefs from being able to access permanent residence. However, if chefs and other less skilled workers can no longer have the possibility of transitioning to permanent residence there will inevitably be a collapse in the number of these people coming to New Zealand and an exodus of many already here. It was probably the impact of these changes that brought about the absurd situation where there was a significant drop in the numbers qualifying for permanent residency under the skilled workers’ category in 2018. According to a Radio NZ report: “Overall new resident numbers fell from 47,684 to 37,948 in the last financial year and almost three-quarters of the change was down to a decrease in skilled immigrants.” They also reported that “While resident numbers fell, temporary work visas were on the rise, up 4000 to more than 230,000.” That was an extraordinary result from a National government claiming to be a friend of migrants in the build-up to the last election. (Newshub reported on March 13 that the current Minister of Immigration ordered a reduction of residence visas by 600 a month. If that is true he deserves to be sacked. The inevitable misery imposed on thousands of families legally in the country who should be able to access residency will be simply awful.) Thousands of skilled and semi-skilled workers who would have qualified before having the rules changed on them after they had come to work in New Zealand have now missed out on any chance of residency. In the previous government’s plan, they had a proposal for what they had called an “amnesty” for a group of workers on in the South Island as a one-off pathway to residency for around 4,000 temporary migrant workers and their families. In the words of the then Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse:” “Many of these migrants are already well settled in New Zealand and make a valuable contribution to their communities. “It will also enable employers to retain an experienced workforce that has helped meet genuine regional labour market needs. “My National colleagues in the South Island have advocated strongly on behalf their constituents throughout the development of this policy, so I’m pleased the Government has been able to deliver on our commitment to enable this cohort of migrant workers to remain in their communities.” It is obvious that many of these workers will be working on dairy farms run by friends of the National Party who have lobbied their MP’s to keep these workers in the country. But it a sensible and fair proposal but it does not go far enough. Unite believes that we could go even further in our humanitarianism. We believe that as a country we can and should be more generous to the group of people who have come under the old rules and hoped to be able to transition to permanent residence. At the very least, the “amnesty” being allowed for South Island dairy farm workers from the requirement to meet the new points or income thresholds for permanent residence should be extended to the whole country and not restricted to the dairy industry. The situation in aged care is just as desperate for example. How this is done is a practical matter. The following are some suggestions. Creating a register of those already here who want permanent residency We should do a register of those who are here studying and working who would like to be able to apply for permanent residence. Employers who already have staff working in essential skills categories will be offered the chance to offer permanent ongoing employment. Employers should be banned from employing anyone on a temporary visa until the existing pool of those who are here have been employed permanently and gained residency. Workers being offered permanent work would immediately become eligible for permanent residency. Nearly all the problems associated with the abuse and exploitation of migrant workers could be fixed by improving their legal status as permanent residence applicants. We have 150,000 workers here at any one time on a temporary work visa. We have 100,000 fee-paying students. The government issues nearly a quarter of a million temporary work and student visas a year. It is obvious the New Zealand economy needs more labour than can currently be provided by its existing permanent resident population. This problem can’t be fixed by having a massive “temporary” population that is if fact a permanent part of the workforce and that is weakly protected and prone to becoming super-exploited migrant labour. It is correct for the government to insist that employers and industries that want to import migrant labour need to be registered and approved in some way, even if that labour has the right to change “approved” employer and achieve permanent residency over time. These employers need to have a plan to train and develop skills in this country to meet their needs. As a country, we should aim to eliminate the 4% unemployment level as being seen as “normal” or, even worse, as necessary for some reason. Employers should be forced to employ people they would not look at in normal times. This should include young people who have never had a job, adults who have been forced out of the job market for prolonged periods, former prisoners and so on. These people should be given a wraparound programme of work, study, apprenticeships and training that aims for everyone to have work who needs it. Employers and industries that want to import labour should be required to enter a strategic plan with the unions, government and local councils for the education and training services that will be needed to achieve these goals. As part of the strategic plans for their regions and industries, there should be targets for employing and training Kiwis who are permanent residents alongside any labour brought in from abroad. There should be a parallel fair pay agreement in these industries that starts all wages at the living wage. This is also a sign of the proof that is needed to show that the market in this sector or region is so short of labour that the employer is willing to pay above the minimum wage to attract labour. It needs to be an industry-wide agreement so all employer have to pay the same rates so as not to give a competitive advantage to poor employers unwilling to pay a living wage. What is the real problem we have? Over this last few years, there has been a surge in net arrival numbers for the category of people who tick a box saying they are going to stay for a year or longer versus those who say they are going to leave for a year or longer. This is not a particularly scientific number as it measured people’s intentions on a form when they arrived, but it did give a picture of population flows. It had recorded a net gain of over 70,000 a year for the year ended December 2017. It appears this was so unscientific it amounted to little more than a guestimate. By using records of people’s actual movements rather than simply their intentions, the actual number looks like it was at least 10 to 20,000 less than that. The official number now for November year 2018 is a net gain of 43,400. That new measure probably peaked at 53,800 in the 2016 November year. Parties that want to reduce the number of permanent and long-term (PLT) net arrivals to New Zealand from the current number can also support this humanitarian policy being proposed towards those already here. No one would actually notice if 20,000 or 40,000 people actually living and working here happily was given the chance of permanent residence. It wouldn’t necessarily make any difference to the PLT number if future admissions were adjusted down as a consequence. New Zealand usually loses a portion of its residents each year. This has averaged around 20,000 net loss since the mid-1980s. Non-New Zealand residents averaged a net gain of 30,000. The overall net gain each year for most of the past several decades was around 10,000 – modest number by any measure. There have been three main drivers of the increase in net PLT arrivals over departures in recent years. One was a relatively sudden swing around from average net losses of New Zealanders of around 20-30,000 a year over several decades. However, New Zealand resident movements rose to a net loss of around 40,000 in 2012 and then dropped to near zero in 2016. Second, was the government’s desire to boost the so-called export education sector which they did by loosening entry restrictions and allowing the students greater work rights once here. 2012 to 2016 saw student visas grow from 60,000 to 80,000 a year. Third, was an expansion of temporary work visas for relatively unskilled work. The temporary work visa numbers went from 120,000 to 170,000 over the same period. It has little to do with the intake of permanent residents which has been in the 40-50,000 category for over 15 years. This was true also during the period when New Zealand First leader Winston Peters was in government from 1999-2008 despite his reputation for being less friendly to immigration. The failure to distinguish between those being admitted as permanent residents, those who come as students or temporary workers and those who come and go on a permanent or long-term basis, has been one of the means that anti-immigrant sentiment is promoted. The growth the PLT net arrivals has been used by politicians to blame “immigrants” for social problems that exist in society. What the surge in PLT net arrivals was a sign of was the fact the government actually had no overall plan for the country. They appeared to simply want to let the market work whatever miracles it could without consequences being considered. The education sector wants students – let them come. Bosses want cheap labour – let it come. Tourism wants a boost – relax visa controls. The economy needs a boost – remove all controls on foreign capital. This surge in net gains has coincided with a property boom in Auckland in particular. Transport also seems almost permanently gridlocked in Auckland as well. It is easy to blame “uncontrolled” migration as at least in part causing these problems. The fundamental cause of these problems is that property is simply a speculators playground and public transport has been starved of meaningful funding (except for an addiction to motorways) for decades. Migrants are not to blame for either situation. The previous government simply refused to “plan” for the future of Auckland because any form of planning is an example of socialism. They waited for “the market” to perform its miracles. But the market produces property bubbles and motorways for trucks and cars, not public housing and public transport which is what was needed in massive quantities. Total PLT gain is only around 1.0% of the total population. Problems accessing health, education, housing, jobs or the transport gridlock in Auckland are signs of much deeper failures in the economic system and government policy over the decades. By pointing the finger of blame on the migrant, the failures of the capitalist system to deliver decent housing, jobs, health care and public transport can be ignored. Once a country starts down this road, however, it becomes addicted to the fix. Most tertiary institutions and many secondary schools simply could not function without the fix of overseas students and their money. Many minimum wage industries couldn’t function with the fix of cheap and vulnerable labour from overseas. New Zealand has been able to use a privileged position internationally to attract students to study and work in this country. We are a developed, English-speaking country that has had a net migration loss of its own residents over several decades. New Zealand has used the fact that we usually lose one percent of the population each year to Australia and elsewhere to have a category of visas that allowed permanent residence after studying and working in New Zealand. The hope of eventually getting permanent residence was critical to the operation of the system. Around 20% of those who start as students or on a temporary work visa managed to obtain permanent residence eventually. Points were awarded for studying here and getting job offers. Almost half of the skilled worker category of around 20,000 a year who transition to permanent residency were former students. The percentage of former students qualifying was increasing as a percentage of the total while the skill level was declining. The desperation of many to achieve that goal allowed employers and shoddy educational institutions to take advantage of them. That is what makes it a system of exploitation. The export education and temporary work visa system needed the possibility of permanent residence for some to make the system of exploitation work. The government should abandon the institutionalisation an endless cycle of three-year permits that force people to leave for at least a year at the end of each cycle. This is just nuts. Just when people begin to get good at the jobs they have, form friendships and relationships, they are told they must leave. That is a form of indentured servitude. But it is not a solution to just extend that time by another three years, as proposed by the Council of Trade Unions, without their being a pathway to residency. The scandals and horrors we have seen in workplaces and private training establishments over recent years will continue. The number of permanent residence numbers could be increased significantly and still bring down the net PLT flows if that is considered necessary. As a first step, all “temporary” workers who are in New Zealand should have full legal rights – including the right to change jobs. Whatever the number that is being allocated for permanent residence each year, priority should be given to those who are here working and studying and include all levels of skills that are required in the country. Giving them the status of permanent residents will mean they can also stand up and fight for their rights. It is their deliberate employment in a status as dependent workers that allows the abusive forms of exploitation that is too often reported in the media to happen. The government appears to be adopting a policy that simply sees these workers as labour input digits, not human beings. It is time to do abandon the permanent use of “temporary” labour that lacks the full rights that those with permanent residence have.

Mike Treen

https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2019/03/29/all-employer-assisted-migrant-workers-deserve-a-chance-to-have-a-pathway-to-residency/

2019-03-28 17:43:17+00:00

labour

labour relations

thedailymirror--2019-03-14--Real Living Wage campaign reveals its 5000th employer in wallet-boosting move for low-paid worker

thedailymirror

'Real' Living Wage campaign reveals its 5,000th employer in wallet-boosting move for low-paid workers

Some 5,000 employers have signed up to pay their workers the “real” Living Wage, campaigners revealed today. At least 180,000 workers have had a wallet-boosting pay rise from the accredited firms, with over £800million extra put back into workers’ pockets as a result of the campaign. The 5,000 milestone was passed as Manchester University agreed terms with the Living Wage Foundation. Living Wage Foundation director Katherine Chapman said: “We’re delighted to welcome the University of Manchester as the 5,000th member of the movement of employers, organisations and people committed to a real Living Wage. “It shows that businesses continue to recognise the importance of a wage that truly covers the cost of living, and the value this provides for workers and their families, as well as businesses. “By going further than the Government minimum, the University of Manchester is helping to set the bar for others in the region and the sector. “We encourage employers who can afford it to step up and pay a real Living Wage.” The commitment to pay the voluntary rate will see staff, including third-party contractors, receive a minimum hourly wage of £9. The Government’s legal minimum wage is £7.83 for workers aged 25 and over, sinking to £7.38 for those aged between 21 and 24. The number of accredited Living Wage employers has more than doubled since the Government’s higher minimum wage, which it branded the National Living Wage’, was announced in 2016. Manchester University’s vice-chancellor, Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell, said: “The University is a major employer in the city and we take our responsibility to promote good working practises extremely seriously. “Social responsibility is a core goal of our university, and by becoming accredited with the Living Wage Foundation we have a real opportunity to influence policy in a national forum and have conversations about the benefits that good pay and working conditions bring to individuals and wider society.” Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham said: ”It’s great to see an organisation as high-profile as The University of Manchester become the latest Living Wage employer in the city-region. “As good as this news is, there are still too many workers who are paid less than the real Living Wage struggling to keep their heads above water. “In the North West alone, around a quarter of all workers earn below the real Living Wage, with about 265,000 people in Greater Manchester earning too little to live on.” “In one of the world’s richest nations, it should be a source of national shame that so many working people are worrying about putting food on the table, with some forced to use foodbanks.”

Ben Glaze

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/real-living-wage-campaign-reveals-14130885

2019-03-14 00:01:00+00:00

labour

labour relations

theguardianuk--2019-01-15--When escaping an abusive employer is a crime the trap Britain sets for Filipino domestic workers

theguardianuk

When escaping an abusive employer is a crime: the trap Britain sets for Filipino domestic workers

You see them sometimes in the kitchens and nurseries of wealthy people – women, mostly Filipino, rarely introduced by name. They come to the UK with a promise of income and regular hours, working as housekeepers or nannies to send money back home to their own families; but for many of them the reality is shockingly different. There are nearly 19,000 people on overseas domestic visas in the UK, according to a Freedom of Information request from the Home Office seen by the Guardian; and together they make up, like the Windrush generation, a population of migrants under threat. As part of Theresa May’s “hostile environment” policies as home secretary, the UK government changed the law in 2012 so that migrant domestic workers (MDWs) could only come to the UK on a non-renewable six-month “tied visa” – one that bound them to a single, named employer. This means that if their employer is exploitative or abusive, their main means of escape – moving to another employer – is closed to them. Mel, a 36-year-old domestic worker from the Philippines, describes being brought to London in 2009 by a Saudi family. Her contract guaranteed her a £1,500-a-month salary; in fact, she was paid nothing. She worked most days from 6am until at least 1am and slept in the laundry room. After four years, she managed to escape with the help of a Filipino friend who was a member of the Voice of Domestic Workers (VODW), a grassroots self-help group. Since then she has been undocumented, working as a volunteer for VODW, which supports her. “Why should escaping from an abusive employer be a crime?” she asks, but five years after she fled her host family, the law caught up with her. At 7.45am on a cold morning in December, Mel heard a loud knock on her front door. She opened it to find four immigration officers. They arrested her and spirited her away in a white van to Becket House, an immigration reporting centre near Tower Bridge in London, where she was photographed, fingerprinted and invited to return voluntarily to the Philippines. Just going back home is not an option for Mel and the women like her: her earnings would be so meagre that there is no way that she could support her children. The contract that Grace, 45, also from the Philippines, signed with the Kuwaiti family who brought her to the UK was for £1,200 a month, she recalls. She was paid just £220. Like her fellow domestic workers, she sent most of her earnings back home. Grace went abroad to lift her four children out of poverty – “to give food to your kids, pay for school uniform, books, transport – and hospital”. She worked seven days a week – no days off or holidays. What if she got sick? “You needed to get up!” she says. Grace wasn’t allowed out unaccompanied; when, two months after she arrived, her employers went to France on holiday, they locked her in the house alone for a week. A cleaner from a neighbouring house, hearing her sobbing, put a ladder up against the back balcony, enabling her to escape with her possessions in a black sack. Grace is now undocumented and dependent on “good Filipinos giving me odd jobs” to get by. Lucy, 46, weeps as she talks of her three children, aged 27, 18 and 13, whom she hasn’t seen for seven years, as a consequence – she says – of her employer pretending to renew her visa, but never doing so. Her husband back in the Philippines, who had diabetes, urged her to come home but, as she was taking her case to the high court, “I said let’s wait – and then he died. We’d been married for 23 years.” Lucy’s appeal failed. “I went crazy, I was thinking of suicide. Now I’m OK, but it’s so sad.” Lucy is now working “underground”, for an employer who is aware of her situation but pays her a living wage. Before 2012, an MDW could renew their visa over a period of five years and then apply for indefinite leave to remain and ultimately British citizenship. This was the route taken by Marissa Begonia, a VODW founding member and coordinator. After lobbying by VODW, the trade union Unite and Kalayaan, a charity for domestic workers, the government commissioned an independent review of the UK’s domestic visa policies in 2015. Attaching the visa to a specific employer, the review found, increased these women’s vulnerability to exploitation, while living outside the law “increases their vulnerability to further abuse”. The report’s author, James Ewins, recommended an unconditional right for migrant domestic workers to change their employer and the right to apply for an annual extension of their visa for a maximum of two-and-a-half years. The government rejected this recommendation. All it did, in 2016, as part of the Modern Slavery Act, was slightly modify the harsh restrictions it had introduced in 2012. A MDW now could change employer, but only within the six-month original visa period, which could not then be extended. In reality, most workers have to leave – or go underground. In 2011, the UN International Labour Organization introduced the Domestic Workers Convention to improve the living and working rights of domestic workers. It has been ratified by 26 countries – including Ireland, Germany and Italy – but the UK is not among them. Meanwhile, migrant domestic workers in the UK remain mostly unprotected by laws that the rest of us take for granted – they are not covered by health and safety laws, for example, or the Working Time Regulations 1998, and employers often don’t comply with the national minimum wage – as Mel and Grace know only too well. When VODW polled its members, it found that, of the 500 who responded, 76% had experienced verbal or physical abuse, and that they worked on average 91 hours a week. Some had even had their passports confiscated by their employers. Because of the hidden, private nature of the work and because many are unable to speak English, these women are socially isolated. There are few examples of true modern slavery, but these are undoubtedly some of them. “Their status as workers is blurred by the language – like ‘maids’ or ‘domestic servants’ – that’s used to describe them,” says Joyce Jiang, a lecturer at the University of York and researcher into the experiences of immigrant workers. Many of these women have had to leave their own children to look after those of their employers – and because of the intimate nature of the work, they are often seen as “labourers of love” or “part of the family”, which obscures how little they are paid. I asked the Home Office whether it planned to change the rules regarding MDWs, to allow these women, many of whom have lived and worked here for years, the right to stay legally. It pointed me to the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), a framework for identifying and supporting victims of human trafficking that, since 2016, also encompasses slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. The MDWs who go down this route successfully can get a two-year visa, after which they must return home. But it’s an imperfect solution, says Begonia. “You need to have been raped, beaten or starved to death to get it. If you’re not paid for months, is that not abuse or servitude?” Those in abusive workplaces who don’t apply fall back on the services of VODW. Begonia, Grace and the others constitute a remarkable rescue service. They distribute cards written in Tagalog, Hindi and Indonesian offering help and a phone number. When called, they go to a MDW’s home, wait outside and then escort them to safety. “Sometimes they don’t even know the address, so we tell them to look for an envelope that has it. Or if they’re working in a hotel, we tell them to phone reception,” says Begonia. VODW has rescued 80 women in this way. Now, in collaboration with Jiang and the film-maker Tassia Kobylinska of Goldsmiths, University of London, VODW has produced a video and exhibition, My Home Is Not My Home. As part of the project, funded by the University of York, Kobylinska worked with a group of migrant domestic workers, teaching them how to frame images and record audio so that they could document their lives on their phones. The exhibition includes an MDW’s white uniform, a job contract, the clothes that one MDW wore when escaping and letters from their children. “To put these things in a gallery makes them valuable. We hope that this will bring into the public domain what has festered behind closed doors. It can be used in evidence as part of their campaign [to remain here],” says Kobylinska. Begonia herself trod this path. “It was the most difficult and painful decision of my life to leave my children behind when they were one, two and three. I wanted so much to be a normal mother who could look after them physically – but my sister was their mother, really, and not me … what kept me going was the dream that we could one day be together again.” For her, the story has a happy ending. She has become a formidable voice for MDWs – lobbying parliament, speaking at the UN on behalf of VODW, for which she works part-time (she is still a domestic worker the rest of the time). Her three children now live with her and work in the UK. Of the others, Mel has been referred to the NRM. Lucy and Grace, however, remain undocumented. For them, in every sense, the UK is far from home. Some names have been changed. My Home Is Not My Home runs from 16 to 26 January at L’Etrangère, 44a Charlotte Road, London EC2

Anne Karpf

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/15/when-escaping-an-abusive-employer-is-a-the-trap-britain-sets-for-filipino-domestic-workers

2019-01-15 07:00:11+00:00

labour

labour relations

theguardianuk--2019-10-09--The US decision on LGBT workers could turn employers into the gender police | Arwa Mahdawi

theguardianuk

The US decision on LGBT workers could turn employers into the gender police | Arwa Mahdawi

The US supreme court has sex on the brain. It started hearing arguments yesterday in three blockbuster cases concerning LGBT job discrimination. In each case, the judges are basically pondering whether the word “sex” in Title VII – the section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination – extends to sexual orientation and gender identity. At present, Title VII prohibits an employer from firing someone on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex and national origin”. These cases are, to put it mildly, a huge deal – and not just for LGBT people. The ruling will have serious implications for straight people who don’t comply with gender norms. It could allow employers to fire women who don’t wear heels or makeup. It could allow companies to discriminate against men who are not considered manly enough. It could give employers a green light to act as the gender police. In 1989, the supreme court heard the case Price Waterhouse v Hopkins, in which the plaintiff said she had been denied a promotion because her employer thought she was “too macho”. In its ruling, the court said it was illegal to discriminate against someone for failing to conform to gender stereotypes. But this decision could in effect be overturned if the court finds sex protections don’t extend to gay or trans people. After all, as articulated in another case, homosexuality is “the ultimate case of failure to conform” to gender stereotypes. Perhaps you don’t live in the US. Perhaps you think none of this affects you. Well, you are wrong. The wide-ranging implications of the supreme court’s decision in these cases should serve as a reminder that we can’t draw a line between feminism and the fight for gay liberation or trans equality. LGBT rights are human rights – we are all in this together.

Arwa Mahdawi

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/the-us-decision-on-lgbt-workers-could-turn-employers-into-the-gender-police

Wed, 09 Oct 2019 06:00:49 GMT

labour

labour relations

theintercept--2019-10-08--The Trump Administration Is Fighting at the Supreme Court to Let Employers Fire Queer and Trans Work

theintercept

The Trump Administration Is Fighting at the Supreme Court to Let Employers Fire Queer and Trans Workers

concerning the protection of LGBTQ workers went before the Supreme Court for oral arguments on Tuesday. In each, the government is attempting to fundamentally roll back sex discrimination law as it applies to gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, trans, and nonbinary people — but potentially to all workers who might pose a challenge to traditional gender conformity. Yet, as these cases progress, it should be impossible to think of them apart from the threats of harm already facing trans people in this country. Transgender individuals currently experience unemployment at a rate three times higher than that of the cisgender population; for trans people of color, the rate is four times higher. According to a 2015 survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality, 30 percent of transgender people reported being fired, denied a promotion, or experiencing mistreatment in the workplace due to their gender identity in the previous 12 months alone. Thirty percent of transgender people reported being homeless at some point in their lives. The Supreme Court cases, for which oral arguments began Tuesday morning, all concern whether Title VII, a key provision in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in the workplace because of “sex,” covers LGBTQ individuals. One case involves 58-year-old Aimee Stephens, who was fired from her job at a suburban Detroit funeral home after coming out as a trans woman to her employer. In another landmark case, justices heard appeals in separate lawsuits filed by gay men who were fired after their sexual orientation became known to their employers. During Tuesday’s oral arguments, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts already vocalized the sort of reactionary sentiments that are likely to inform their thinking in these cases, which will likely not be decided until next summer. Gorsuch, while noting that there are strong arguments favoring the LGBT workers, wondered whether the justices should take into account “the massive social upheaval” that might follow a ruling in their favor. Meanwhile, Roberts raised concerns about employers with religious objections. The court’s makeup in these cases, as in so many others, bodes ill for justice — despite decades-old legal precedents standing in favor of the plaintiffs. The Title VII statute does not explicitly name discrimination over gender identity and sexual orientation — a legislative issue unlikely to change under the Republican-controlled Senate. Yet LBGTQ individuals have been able to rely on Title VII protections in the courts for over two decades. “Going back to 2000, federal appeals courts have ruled that anti-trans discrimination is a form of sex discrimination that violates federal law, providing a remedy for trans workers fired for who they are,” wrote James Esseks, director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project, in a statement. “These cases will affect more people than the Supreme Court’s decision about the freedom to marry, and they potentially implicate a broader range of contexts in which LGBTQ people may face harm, if the Court green-lights discrimination.” measure, LGBTQ discrimination is discrimination based on sex. “It’s hard to see how firing someone for being LGBTQ doesn’t involve the person’s sex. You can’t even describe being trans or gay without talking about the individuals’ sex,” wrote Esseks. His colleague, ACLU attorney Chase Strangio, who is on the legal team representing Stephens, echoed this point on Chris Hayes’s podcast. “It’s so intuitive,” he said, to situate trans protections in the legal framework of sex discrimination because “you can’t actually describe a trans-ness without thinking about sex as a category.” Whether one understands the categorizations of “sex” as entrenched social constructs or conservatively believes they are essential, biologically determined differences, it is undeniable that firing someone because they are trans or queer is a decision made based on the basis of sex and assumptions made about the way individuals belonging to a presumed given sex are expected to live and behave. This idea of discrimination based on “sex stereotypes” falling under Title VII is hardly new and forms a considerable basis of the plaintiffs’ arguments in the Supreme Court this week. In 1989, the court agreed, as a plurality, that Title VII also protected a cisgender woman who had been fired from her job as an accountant at Price Waterhouse because she didn’t dress and act as women were expected to. The justices jointly wrote that the point of Title VII law was “to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes.” The ways these individuals whose sexual orientation does not align with “sex stereotypes” — that is, straightness — is immediately obvious. To be trans is to definitionally challenge the ur-”sex stereotype” — namely, that we are and must remain the sex that we are assigned at birth. It would be difficult for Trump’s Justice Department to conjure an argument whereby anti-gay and trans discrimination could be found to not relate to sex stereotyping. Which is why the tack the government is taking in the current Supreme Court cases seeks to dismantle the precedent against sex stereotyping discrimination altogether. As the ACLU’s Strangio explained it, the Justice Department’s “argument in the lower court and what their brief suggest to me is that they’re advocating for a world in which employers can fire a woman for being gender-nonconforming as long as they fire a man for being gender-nonconforming as well.” That is, the government’s response to claims of specific discrimination is to make discrimination itself more expansive. If the court rules that discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes is legal, anyone who doesn’t conform to an employer’s view of stereotypical femininity or masculinity could be at risk. But it should not be a condition for caring about LGBTQ workers that cisgender and straight workers could also face discrimination. To understand that the government is fighting for employers to erase and decimate the means of survival for queer, trans, and nonbinary people is enough for us to support the plaintiffs in these cases, and the communities they represent who are already imperiled.

Natasha Lennard

https://theintercept.com/2019/10/08/supreme-court-trans-queer-workplace-discrimination/

Tue, 08 Oct 2019 21:36:28 +0000

labour

labour relations

vox--2019-02-07--Is employer-sponsored insurance really a good deal for workers

vox

Is employer-sponsored insurance really a good deal for workers?

Jessica Salfia knew the pay wasn’t going to be great when she became a teacher in Martinsburg, West Virginia, but she did have really good health coverage. She felt like she could go to see any doctor she wanted. The copay for an emergency room visit was just $15. She had three kids over the years, and health care was one thing Salfia didn’t feel like she had to worry about. “The one thing about being a public schoolteacher was you knew that was taken care of,” Salfia, a teacher of 16 years, tells me. “But in the last four to six years, it’s been death by a thousand cuts.” The state legislature kept cutting taxes, and copays for teachers kept going up — eventually costing Salfia and her family $100 just to show up at the emergency room or urgent care. On top of that, their health plan started to restrict which specialists they could see. Suddenly, some teachers had to travel as far as five or six hours to see a doctor. Salfia’s daughter’s sore throat quickly spiraled into a $650 bill, as the rest of the family got sick. “My husband and I had to sit down and decide what bills we’re gonna pay or what bills we’re not gonna pay,” Salfia says. The West Virginia teachers went on strike over rising health care costs, eventually securing a pay bump and a freeze on insurance premiums. But their plight reveals the cracks, increasingly difficult to ignore, in the bedrock of American health care: employer-sponsored insurance. Half of all Americans get health insurance through their jobs. That’s by design. Doctors and hospitals in the mid-20th century saw a rash of government-run systems being set up in Europe and they lobbied hard to avoid one of their own, vastly preferring private coverage. Employee benefits were exempted from wartime price controls during World War II, giving employers an incentive to offer them at a time when it was nearly impossible to offer raises. Labor unions got on board too, sensing an opportunity to expand the safety net for workers without needing to pass another massive piece of social reform so soon after the New Deal. But employer-sponsored insurance did not deliver a health care utopia. More than 30 million people still lack health coverage. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs for employer-sponsored plans have been rising steadily. “Right now if you look at a lot of the labor disputes that go on, very often they have to do with health care. They have to do with employers saying, hey, you know what, we’re raising deductibles, raise your copayments,” Medicare-for-all proponent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) told Vox in 2017. “What we can say to those workers is they will be better off financially and that their business that they work for will be better off financially.” In a great historical irony, the evident faults of employer-sponsored insurance are helping fuel a new appetite for Medicare-for-all, a single-payer system where everybody gets health coverage from the government. But the work-based system, for all its flaws, could also be the biggest barrier to enacting single-payer. Shifting 160 million people from the coverage they currently get through their jobs to a new government plan is a lot of disruption — and disruption, especially in health care, has historically made a lot of Americans nervous. If Medicare-for-all is ever to become more than a campaign slogan, its proponents must solve that riddle. Medicare-for-all has become incredibly popular among the Democratic base, but the primary problem it will face is that many people are fine with the insurance they have today. They might not love it, but they are familiar with it, and for the people who don’t incur regular medical bills but want to be protected from an emergency, the benefits you receive through work-based insurance are probably sufficient. “It’s a real barrier to doing anything big,” says John Holahan at the Urban Institute, who helped create a proposal explicitly designed not to disrupt work-based insurance. “Most people with employer plans are reasonably happy with them.” When Vox conducted focus groups on single-payer, led by opinion researcher Michael Perry, one recurring concern we heard was from people who mostly like the insurance they have and were worried about losing it under Medicare-for-all. “I wouldn’t like that,” Richard M., a federal official who gets his insurance through his work, said when told he would have to give up his insurance. “I like having an option. And I mean at this stage, I’m working full time, I should have an option.” The polling bears out this sentiment: 83 percent of people with employer-sponsored insurance said in March 2016 that they thought their health insurance was excellent or good, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The status quo is powerful in American health care — while there are problems, people are worried about big changes that could upend the system they rely on today. The recent furor of Sen. Kamala Harris’s call to eliminate private insurance underscored this political challenge. Polling has repeatedly shown that if you tell Americans that a national health insurance program would end private coverage entirely, support drops significantly. Employer health insurance does a few things quite well. It does cover a lot of people. It helps spread risk around — companies, particularly larger ones, are almost by default a useful mix of healthy and sick people, helping to spread costs around, because they were not formed for the purpose of providing health insurance. The price for insurance in the employer market has always been significantly less than buying insurance in the individual market. So its costs are lower, at least compared to what has been the alternative in this country for a long time, and people usually get pretty good benefits. But Sanders and other stalwart single-payer proponents see health care as fundamentally different from other commodities and believe the government should guarantee health coverage. Their proposals would move every American out of private insurance and into a new government plan. (Supplemental private coverage would be permitted under Sanders’s bill, but the government’s benefits would be so generous that it’s hard to imagine much of a private market remaining.) Medicare-for-all supporters argue the current system isn’t really working all that well anyway. Their evidence: Out-of-pocket costs are rising, millions of people are still uninsured, and yet America still somehow spends more money on health care than any developed country. Other Democrats and left-leaning think tanks — cognizant of how deeply ingrained work-based insurance is in our health care ecosystem and of how allergic many Americans are to massive change — have introduced more incremental approaches, like Medicare buy-ins or a supercharged Obamacare that melds with Medicaid. Most of those plans would let private companies continue offering insurance. Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon progressive with stated presidential interests, co-sponsors Sanders’s Medicare-for-all bill — but he has also introduced his own narrower proposal with Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut to give people the option to buy a government plan. “You have folks who will say, ‘Wait a minute, I don’t have a choice,’ and they will provide resistance,” Merkley tells me. “And, of course, the private insurance companies, which would be replaced, will put up massive resistance.” The other argument made in favor of employer-based insurance is that it’s a constant experiment in how to better structure benefits and deliver health care. Hundreds of private companies are (the argument goes) constantly working to figure out how to offer insurance at a lower cost while still providing quality health care to their workers. “A debate we’re constantly having is what’s the right way to cover the services we cover?” Paul Fronstin, who oversees the health insurance program at the Employee Benefits Research Institute, tells me. “My concern about moving away from the employer system is you lose that. Where does the innovation come from?” But other experts are skeptical — they don’t see much evidence yet that employers are actually spending a lot of time or resources on these initiatives. “They haven’t proven that successful at improving health or managing costs,” Caroline Pearson, a senior fellow at NORC-University of Chicago, says. “What they’re investing in hasn’t shown any return yet. Behavior change is really hard. Frankly, we have no idea how to do it well.” Salfia noted that the West Virginia school system tried to set up a wellness program at the same time as it was shrinking doctor networks and increasing copays. Teachers would be rewarded if they exercised or ate healthy or went to the doctor. They just had to wear a tracking device and upload the data to an online platform — in a state where many people still lack access to broadband Internet or cellphone service. “The whole thing was crazy,” she says. The program was eventually dropped. What happened in West Virginia isn’t that different from what’s happening in companies across the country. As health care costs rise, workers over the past decade have been asked to pay more and more money out of their own pockets, as their businesses shift toward less generous benefits. “Our system is a policy disaster. If there weren’t some strong locked-in features of our system, nobody would accept it,” says Jacob Hacker, who studies health policy at Yale University. “It’s a great system when people had something closer to lifetime employment and employers were providing good benefits, but it’s a really crappy system when that’s not true.” New data from the Commonwealth Fund shows that the percentage of workers who do receive insurance through work but are nevertheless considering underinsured — meaning they could still have to spend a significant amount of their own income on medical care in a given year — has nearly tripled this century. You can pick plenty of other metrics to illustrate the deteriorating state of employer-sponsored insurance. For example, the percentage of workers whose plan has a deductible of more than $1,000 has increased significantly, from 34 percent to 51 percent, since 2012, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. “When times are tough, employers start to cut back on the generosity of their benefits,” Fronstin says. “Deductibles go up. People are paying more money out of pocket.” The foundation of our work-based insurance system — that health insurance benefits are tax-free to companies and workers — also makes the problem worse. The economics are pretty straight-forward: Employers save on taxes when they spend money on health care instead of wages. They provide more generous insurance than they would if benefits were taxed and because the benefits are more generous, employees use more health care. “That makes health care more expensive and makes the health care market bigger,” says Austin Frakt, a health economist at Boston University. Health care spending for job-based insurance increased by 44 percent from 2007 to 2016, according to researchers at the Health Care Cost institute. Its growth rate was consistently higher than that of Medicare or Medicaid, the major government insurance programs. Making matters worse, from a progressive economic perspective, the current system favors large employers and higher-income employees. “The higher the tax bracket of the employee, the bigger the subsidy, which accounts for hundreds of billions of dollars each year,” Stanford University’s Victor Fuchs wrote in JAMA recently. “Perversely, most of the tax subsidy is received by employees with above average incomes.” This is the opening for single-payer supporters: While you might be used to the health insurance system we have now, it isn’t nearly as good a deal as you might think it is and a single-payer program would be more equitable. A surprising number of Americans might be persuaded by the argument: Kaiser found in June 2018 that 20 percent of people with work-based insurance said they’d had problems in the past year paying their medical bills. Just because you’re technically covered doesn’t mean you can’t face onerous medical bills. Medicare-for-all offers a coverage guarantee and nearly eliminates out-of-pocket costs. One development to watch is whether businesses themselves come to decide that they might be better off under single-payer. This is an argument that I’ve heard from Medicare-for-all supporters who won House races this year, like Katie Porter in Orange County, California. It’s also an argument that Sanders, the godfather of single-payer, has made. Companies have found it worth their while to offer insurance for the better part of a century. Good benefits help attract good workers. The benefits are tax-free. “They’ve felt there was a lot of value for them to offer it,” says Fronstin. But these days, the cost of covering workers is going up for companies — the average employee contribution rose from $3,300 in 2007 to $5,700 in 2017, but the average employer cost also went up, from $8,800 to $13,000 — and administering health care benefits requires staff, time, and money. Companies are at least starting to ask the question, Fronstin says: “Are we doing better than Medicare-for-all?” “That’s the thing they have to wrestle with,” he adds, “which they’ve never really had to wrestle with before.” One of the promises of Obamacare was that it might loosen the ties between work and health coverage. It hasn’t. Some people see that as a sign of the current model’s strength. “There’s no indication that the employer market is at a breaking point,” Pearson says. When President Obama and Democrats in Congress settled on a health care plan, they largely left big employer plans alone. That was a political calculation, but Democrats still reaped the whirlwind of more than 4 million canceled insurance plans that didn’t meet the new standards they set. Transitioning to single-payer in the near term requires canceling plans for 160 million people. Work-based insurance is so untouchable that, though economists to the right and left agree its tax benefits should be limited, both Democrats and Republicans ended up ducking the issue when it came time to actually pass a health care bill. The ACA’s ‘Cadillac’ tax on high-end insurance plans, a different means to similar ends, has never actually been enforced; Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, repeatedly delayed it. House Republicans caved with just the whiff of industry pressure in 2017, quickly pulling such a provision from their plan. Single-payer supporters see this as another failure of the ACA and the need for more ambitious reforms. They condemn a system that tethers people to their jobs, even if they don’t like them, strictly so they can hold on to their insurance. “You also talk to people who say, ‘You know, I really don’t like my job, I really hate my job, but I go to my job because my wife is ill and I have to make sure that I have good coverage to take care of her.’ Is that a way to run an economy?” Sanders told Vox. “So there are a lot of reasons why I think we need to do what virtually every other country has done, and get private insurance companies out of the essential health care.” There is a foundational question here, one often lost in debates about premiums and health care expenditures and uninsured rates or rates of growth: Should your employer be allowed to decide what kind of health insurance you have? The Trump administration has recently relaxed the ACA’s requirement that all insurance plans cover contraception, allowing even major Fortune 500 firms to refuse to cover birth control over any religious or moral objection. One anti-abortion Christian woman told the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings about how her faith-based health plan, contracted through her church-affiliated employer, refused to pay for her IUD. She and her husband cut back on their student loan payments to cover the $1,200 bill. “I have experienced firsthand what it is like to struggle to afford birth control when someone else’s religious beliefs deny it to you,” Rev. Alicia Baker Wilson told senators earlier this year. Single-payer skeptics talk a lot about freedom and choice, which they say would be lost under Medicare-for-all. Many Americans seem to genuinely share those concerns. But freedom and choice can also be compromised when your employer decides how much you must pay for health care or what kinds of medical services you can get covered. As Jacob Hacker put it, drawing on the language so often deployed by Medicare-for-all supporters: “Our system will not create health care as a right.”

Dylan Scott

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/14/18117917/medicare-for-all-explained-health-insurance-deductibles

2019-02-07 14:45:00+00:00

labour

labour relations

renegadetribune--2019-04-05--Anti-European Jews and Christian Churches are Causing and Fueling the Non-White Immigrant Invasion i

renegadetribune

Anti-European Jews and Christian Churches are Causing and Fueling the Non-White Immigrant Invasion in the United States

Anti-European Jews and anti-European Christian churches are aiding the non-white immigrant invasion into America and the Jewish media is covering for them by not reporting their involvement. South Texas Church groups have been providing direct transport for illegals into the United States. They then send them to Latino communities, if caught they provide them with asylum application paperwork before being forced to let authorities take them, they give them legal counsel and set them on the most time wasting course with the intention that they will then be put into the month long bureaucratic stifled processes of immigration enforcement and ICE. Leading this effort is HIAS. The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. Closely behind HIAS is a conglomeration of Christian church organisations. There is a huge coalition of over 50 US church associations, note that is not 50 churches but 50 entire associations of multiple or hundreds of churches each, equalling tens of thousands of volunteer, advocates and human-traffickers in all but name. Vehicles involved in this ‘illegal smuggling have been seen, some of their vans are marked with ‘TFC’ and operated by ‘the Family Church’ a non-governmental non-profit Christian group operating in South Texas, this however is just the tip of the iceberg. Most of the Christian groups operate in unmarked vehicles numbering in the thousands. They have been transporting illegal migrants from the caravan routes of Guatemala directly. Here is a list of some (but not all) of the key groups that supported Amnesty constantly, from 2009 onwards. There are smaller groups in addition to these main lobbying and legal powerhouses including the ADL, ACLU, HIAS, NAACP plus the less well publicised subversive Christian organisations who are the willing executioners and race-traitors (as a result of their Christian faith) who enthusiastically collaborate with the Jewish attack on European mankind. Groups included in the above link include: Assemblies of God, Brethren In Christ Church, Christian Reformed Church in N. America, Church of the Nazarene, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Missionary Church, the National Council of Churches, the Presbyterian Church, the United Methodist Church. Beyond this list is the huge coalition of over 50 Christian churches. And countless unregistered NGOs, informal Christian volunteer groups and Christian networks. In addition to this there are migrant networks of Latino Catholics in the illegal underground societies which exist parallel to our own, with their own immigration authorities it seems: the aims of which are to import more Latinos like themselves. Christian ministers and organisations are fully in the know about these and refuse to inform ICE of their whereabouts on religious grounds… These are the enemies within that collaborate with the Jewish establishment and Jewish owned Media. And just look at some of the opinions of the smaller, niche Christian media along with the Christian groups given support by the established Jewish media: These nut-jobs literally think that migrants are ‘going to their promised land’ by immigrating to America, that somehow their Jewish Yahweh is causing it (Christians worship the same deity as Jews, sometimes calling it Jehovah instead, or just covering up the fact by saying ‘God’ or ‘the lord’ Yahweh by the way is the same name of the Jew’s pre-Monotheistic God of War, they ‘circumcised’ all their other Gods and Goddesses out of their religion, except their God of war… should tell you something about their intentions). The insane consequences of these Christian’s views is clear to see: White Replacement in direct accordance with Jewish aims. The Jewish media is forced to acknowledge the existence of the huge migrant caravans, but there is a numerically far more significant threat: the hundreds of thousands of individual and small groups that are ‘bussed’ into America and through South Texas in particular by migration-zealots of the Judaized Christian faith. Their Jewish colleagues in HIAS operate a similar enterprise but the complicit and direct, willing, enthusiastic involvement of Christian and particularly of Catholic churches in assisting migration must be exposed.  The Christian right cannot talk about this as it is true that their faith is cucked towards undermining the racial coherence of all nations: “you are to love those who are foreigners,” -(Deuteronomy 10:19) and principles that “you are all one” -(Galatians 3:28) Ensuring that “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” -(Leviticus 19:34) And that their former Jewish-tribal deity: “loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing.” -(Deuteronomy 10:18) Oy vey! It does serve the Jewish anti-European agenda well! From the Pope to the local Church groups, Christianity is racially subversive in all situations, especially where more than one racial group exists in close proximity to another.  Note the whole narrative of Pence of welcoming ‘Christian refugees from Syria’ who are all non-whites. These Christians and what they are doing is never reported on but in fact supported by the Jewish media, whose own tribal groups are leading in this field and to whom this Christian collaboration is a welcome gift to the Jewish agenda of replacing whites. Additionally we then see entire non-white Christian initiatives formed by the Christian migrants the so-called ‘White Christians’ helped migrate into the US. These ‘White Christians’, to whom being white is secondary or non important, care nothing for European Americans’ racial future but only for Christianity detached from any racial loyalties. One of these subsequent Latino organisations is the ‘Kino Border Initiative’, operating on the US-Mexico border and openly providing assistance (encouragement and motivation) to migrants from Mexico and Latin America to cross into the United States. The Kino Border Initiative leadership is entirely non-white. They are supported as colleagues by the established American religious associations, even though their bent is clearly racial, they take advantage of the cucked, self-deceiving, Jew-God worshipping color-blind Christian establishment and the Jewish media just revel in it. They mention these groups more often than they mention HIAS. HIAS is the number one group for facilitating migration into the United States (behind only the federal government). Catholic Church groups have been up with HIAS demanding amnesty for decades in America. Back in 2010 this was proved beyond all doubt. The national US Conference of Catholic Bishops announced their full, canonical support for amnesty. Since way back in 2013 the Catholic Church has continually since then been pressuring the US Congress to pass immigration ‘reform’ i.e. amnesty for these non-white invaders. Since 2014, all the way until 2019 and still in effect right now, the Evangelical Immigration Table has pushed for a full, not just partial but a full amnesty bill. This proves that it is not just Catholics. Many of these groups, alongside HIAS, were responsible for much of the congressional lobbying that caused all of the prior Amnesty bills from the ones passed under Bush Junior to Obama. And we all know that it was this same coalition of Jewish subversives and willing, collaborating Christians who pushed for ‘love and reconciliation’ between Blacks and Whites in Loving V. Virginia (the case that overturned the ban on interracial breeding) and the Jewish pushed, Christian accepted 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (note how Christians always seem to ‘forgive those that tresspass against us’…). The Church benefited directly from an increase in devout, low-IQ, non-questioning Christian devotees from Mexico and wider Latin America… We know that Pope Francis has routinely advocated for white replacement but the argument that ‘oh this is just the current subversive pope’ is nullified when you realise that even the prior Pope urged all Catholic communities in the United States to : This article originally appeared on EnglishNews.org and was republished here with permission.

renegade

http://www.renegadetribune.com/anti-european-jews-and-christian-churches-are-causing-and-fueling-the-non-white-immigrant-invasion-in-the-united-states/

2019-04-05 22:22:39+00:00

religion and belief

religious institutions and state relations

rferl--2019-01-05--Bartholomew Signs Tomos Granting Independence To New Orthodox Church In Ukraine

rferl

Bartholomew Signs 'Tomos' Granting Independence To New Orthodox Church In Ukraine

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has signed a decree granting autocephaly, or independence, to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, ending more than 330 years of Russian religious control in Ukraine. The ceremony on January 5 in Istanbul, which is considered the spiritual headquarters of Orthodox Christianity, was attended by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. The decree, or "tomos," will now be handed over to the head of the new Ukrainian church, Metropolitan Epifaniy, on January 6, completing the two-day spiritual ceremony. Bartholomew said Ukrainians could now enjoy "the sacred gift of emancipation, independence, and self-governance, becoming free from every external reliance and intervention." Poroshenko thanked the patriarch "for the courage to make this historic decision" and said it was "a great day" for Ukrainians. Vladimir Legoida, a Russian Orthodox Church spokesman, denounced the decree as "a document that is the result of irrepressible political and personal ambitions." It had been "signed in violation of the canons and therefore not possessing any canonical force," Legoida said in a statement on January 5. "It is a great honor for me to visit Istanbul, where a long-awaited event will take place tomorrow," Poroshenko wrote on Facebook, referring to the official handover of the decree. Poroshenko predicted that the move will open a "new era in Orthodox history." "We pray for peace and unity," he added. Bartholomew announced the decision to recognize Ukraine's request for an autocephalous church in October. In December, Ukrainian Orthodox leaders agreed on the creation of a new national Orthodox church and elected the 39-year-old Epifaniy to head that church. Russia long opposed such efforts by the Ukrainians for an independent church, which intensified after Russia seized Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in March 2014 and began supporting separatists shortly thereafter in Ukraine's eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. The announcement by Bartholomew, who is considered the leader of the 300-million-strong worldwide Orthodox community, came amid deepening tension over efforts by Ukrainian Orthodox churches to formally break away from Russia’s orbit. It also prompted the Russian Orthodox Church to announce days later that it was ending its relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarchate in protest.

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukrainian-church-to-get-autonomy-this-weekend-in-istanbul/29692716.html

2019-01-05 10:03:13+00:00

religion and belief

religious institutions and state relations

rferl--2019-01-31--Putin Blasts Kyiv For Blatant Interference In Orthodox Church

rferl

Putin Blasts Kyiv For 'Blatant Interference' In Orthodox Church

Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused Ukraine’s government of “blatant interference” in the Orthodox Church in Ukraine after a new national institution split from Moscow’s patronage. Speaking at a Russian Orthodox Church event attended by Patriarch Kirill in Moscow, Putin said on January 31 that the push for the new church was rooted in "the struggle for power" and provoked "animosity and intolerance." “Russian authorities believe that any interference in the affairs of the church is absolutely unacceptable,” Putin said. In early January, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine was granted independence, or autocephaly, ending more than 330 years of Russian religious control in Ukraine. Russia long opposed such efforts by the Ukrainians for an independent church, which intensified after Russia seized Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in March 2014 and began supporting separatists shortly thereafter in parts of Ukraine's eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. “We have always respected the independence of church life, particularly in a sovereign neighboring state. Nevertheless, we reserve the right to respond and do everything possible to protect human rights, including freedom of religion," Putin said. “It is a blatant interference in church life and those who initiated it seem to have learned from the godless people of the last century, who expelled believers from churches and prosecuted the clergy," he added.

https://www.rferl.org/a/putin-blasts-kyiv-for-blatant-interference-in-orthodox-church/29744338.html

2019-01-31 15:59:13+00:00

religion and belief

religious institutions and state relations

rightwingwatch--2019-09-17--ADF Cheers SCOTUS Weakening Church-State Separation Urges Court to OK Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination

rightwingwatch

ADF Cheers SCOTUS Weakening Church-State Separation, Urges Court to OK Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination

The Alliance Defending Freedom, the religious right legal giant pushing a conservative culture war agenda around the world, held a symposium on Monday afternoon at which its lawyers celebrated Supreme Court decisions weakening church-state separation and discussed cases coming before the court in October in which ADF and its allies are urging the court to rule that job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is not prohibited by federal civil rights laws. The symposium was held in the Washington, D.C. office of Jones Day, one of the largest law firms in the U.S, right across the street from the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. The first panel, moderated by New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak, discussed religious conservatives’ recent win in a case involving a huge cross-shaped World War I memorial on public land in Bladensburg, Maryland—and what the decision might mean for the religious right’s efforts to undermine church-state separation by further dismantling the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (People For the American Way’s affiliate PFAW Foundation had joined a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the memorial was unconstitutional.) The panel featured ADF Vice President of U.S. Litigation David Cortman and Jones Day Associate Kaytlin Roholt, who was part of the legal team that worked on the Bladensburg cross case and who served as special counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. A dissenting point of view was provided by Charles Rothfeld, a lawyer at the law firm of Mayor Brown who has argued 31 cases before the Supreme Court. The court’s complicated ruling in the case—with seven separate opinions signed onto by varying groups of justices—allowed the cross to stand given that it had been in place for a century, but reaffirmed how messy First Amendment cases can get. The ruling and the opinions are examined in People For the American Way’s report on the court’s 2018-2019 term, which noted that the court’s decision weakened church-state separation without going as far as the religious right pushed them to. “The damage could have been far worse,” the report notes, “and in their separate opinions, the conservatives made clear their intention to eventually make it so.” At the ADF symposium, Roholt said the ruling, in which seven justices voted to allow the cross to stay, was a sign of how far the court has moved on Establishment Clause cases. ADF’s Cortman agreed, reviewing the shift in language from court rulings in the 1940s and 1950s that talked about the importance of protecting a “high” and “impregnable” wall between church and state, to the Supreme Court back-tracking in the 1980s and 1990s, to the shifts we are seeing from the current court. All the panelists agreed that the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence—and the so-called “Lemon Test” created by the court in 1971—is in tatters. They also agreed that it’s a challenge for the court to come up with a single rule or test that will work for different kinds of Establishment Clause cases. Panelists said that the three-prong Lemon test, sometimes tinkered with and sometimes basically ignored in later cases, has left government officials and lower courts without clear guidance for determining when an action by the government violates the Establishment Clause. The Lemon test asks whether there is a secular purpose for a government action, whether the action has the primary effect of promoting or inhibiting religion, and whether it creates too much entanglement by government with religion. Some religious right groups have urged the court to replace Lemon with a “coercion test” which would define coercion so narrowly that it would allow expansive government involvement with, promotion, and funding of religion unless an action actually compelled people by law into belief, observance or financial support for a particular religion. Loyola Law Professor Jessica Levinson has written that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in the cross case embraced a form of coercion test. Rothfeld, who filed a brief on behalf of legal historians and law professors supporting the cross challengers, argued that there is strong historical evidence that founders like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were deeply suspicious of sectarian expression by government and government officials. He said that the “wishy-washy” and “confusing” outcome in the case was a kind of success, because it meant the conservative court didn’t yet embrace one of the more radical positions promoted by religious right groups. He warned that tests proposed by religious right legal groups to replace Lemon are ahistorical and could lead to an “alarmingly close” association between government and religion—and not just religion in general but particular religions. Moderator Liptak asked the panelists whether, in the wake of the Bladensburg ruling, it would be constitutionally appropriate for a government today to erect a cross-shaped memorial, given the increasing religious diversity of people serving in the U.S. armed forces. Liptak said he spoke to members of the American Legion who were adamantly in favor of protecting the Bladensburg cross but did not think a similar memorial would be appropriate today. Roholt and Cortman argued that such a memorial would be constitutional. During a Q&A portion of the session, a questioner asked whether ADF supports the position taken by Justice Clarence Thomas that the Establishment Clause doesn’t apply to the states—and that Alabama, for example, could declare evangelical Christianity its official religion. Cortman didn’t give a clear answer. He said Thomas is right to say that it was not, as written, meant to apply to the states. He added that while the Court might have been wrong to apply the Establishment Clause to the states under the incorporation doctrine, the court did so and therefore it applies. Pressed by Liptak about whether the court was right to incorporate, Cortman said that was more of a “philosophical question” rather than a legal question. In truth, it is very much a legal question as long as Thomas is pressing his view in his concurring and dissenting opinions, as he did in the Bladensburg cross case. A recent conservative book about Thomas argues that Thomas has laid out a “road map” to return the U.S. to the “Framer’s Constitution,” and that President Trump’s judges are giving him the judicial “troops” to carry it out. According to author Myron Magnet, Thomas “has blazed a trail to liberty that future justices can follow. And he is patient in waiting for the Court to catch up.” The panel also discussed Espinoza v Montana Department of Revenue, a case the Supreme Court will be considering this term. In that case, the legislature created a voucher-like tax-credit scholarship program that allowed businesses and individuals to get a tax credit for giving to nonprofit scholarship organizations. The state’s Department of Revenue, citing a provision in the state constitution banning “direct or indirect” public funding of religious schools, prohibited students from using scholarships to attend religious schools and then the program was eliminated altogether. The state Supreme Court sided with the state. But the U.S Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, which could threaten many state constitutional provisions barring public support for sectarian schools. Right-wing groups are hoping that the court will use the Montana case to expand on its 2017 ruling in Trinity Lutheran, in which the court said the state of Missouri was wrong to deny a church the ability to apply for a state-funded program to help improve the safety of playgrounds. That ruling included a footnote saying it was restricted to the facts of that specific case, but right-wing advocates like the ADF’s Cortman hope the court will use this case to erase that limiting footnote. In June, an education writer at Forbes wrote that the case could “change the face of public education” and noted that a huge array of right-wing and religious conservative groups had been “urging SCOTUS to take this case and run with it.” During Q&A, a questioner asked whether the lawyers on the panel consider marriage equality to be settled law. “It is until it’s not,” said the ADF’s Cortman. Rothfeld said he believes it is, and that he would be “shocked” if Roberts voted to reverse marriage equality. But in fact anti-equality groups are eager for a conservative-dominated Supreme Court to reverse the marriage decision. At the time of the decision, ADF called it “a huge blow to democracy,” and the group’s website says it “remains committed to promoting the truth that marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman.” Cortman said courts are already pushing back against states that have gone “too far, too fast” and are punishing small business owners who run afoul of nondiscrimination laws by refusing to provide wedding-related services to same-sex couples. A second panel at the symposium focused on cases concerning civil rights laws in the upcoming term. ADF and other religious right groups are urging the Supreme Court to rule that job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is not prohibited by federal civil rights laws, specifically Title VII provisions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. The panel focused in particular on a case in which a funeral home cited its gender-specific dress code policy in refusing to accommodate an employee’s gender transition. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which considers discrimination on the basis of gender identity to violate acivil rights prohibitions on sex discrimination, sued the funeral home on behalf of the employee, Aimee Stephens. Religious right groups, joined by the Trump administration, are urging the Supreme Court to side with the employer. ADF’s Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch, who was on the panel, will argue the case for the funeral home owner. Brian Burgess, a partner at Goodwin Law, took the opposing view. When panel moderator Amy Howe, a journalist who covers the Supreme Court, noted that Bursch had been speaking carefully about the case, he said he would not be using any pronouns in his argument to avoid misgendering Stephens but also to avoid embracing the employee’s preferred pronouns because that would get into the merits of the case and whether sex is malleable or objectively fixed. Two other cases that will be argued on the same day—October 8—raise similar questions about whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates laws against sex discrimination. Dozens of organizations have weighed in on both sides of these cases. Freedom for All Americans reported that more than 2,000 organizations and individuals have filed friend of the court briefs in the three cases. People For the American Way Foundation joined the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and other allies in filing an amicus brief in support of Stephens, who was fired from the funeral home. Earlier this month, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights President Vanita Gupta and Lambda Legal Chief Strategy Officer and Legal Director Sharon McGowan took part in a SCOTUSblog symposium and explained why Title VII must cover sexual orientation and gender identity.

Peter Montgomery

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/adf-cheers-scotus-weakening-church-state-separation-urges-court-to-ok-anti-lgbtq-discrimination/

2019-09-17 15:42:26+00:00

religion and belief

religious institutions and state relations

rightwingwatch--2019-09-27--Robert Jeffress Theres No Constitutional Separation of Church and State and Thank God Trump Unders

rightwingwatch

Robert Jeffress: There’s No Constitutional Separation of Church and State and Thank God Trump Understands That

Robert Jeffress, one of President Donald Trump’s most vocal evangelical Christian supporters, told a gospel music gathering in Tennessee this week, “There is no such thing as a separation of church and state in the Constitution.” Jeffress was asked whether the Constitution mandates that public discourse be “totally secular.” Jeffress began his response by saying that the separation of church and state doesn’t exist in the Constitution and that the First Amendment was intended only to prevent the establishment of a state church that could coerce people to worship. As he got rolling, Jeffress became more emphatic and agitated about 20th Century Supreme Court rulings on church-state separation. “We have allowed the secularists, the atheists, the humanists to hijack our Constitution and pervert it into something our forefathers never intended,” he said. As the audience stood and cheered, Jeffress added, “And I’m gonna say this. I’m gonna say this, and it may cost me some book sales, but I’m gonna say it anyway.” “Thank God,” he shouted, “we have a president like Donald J. Trump who understands that.” Jeffress went on to predict Trump’s place in history: I don’t like seeing my friend under attack like he is under right now, but I don’t like the prospect of what’s going to happen in America if we allow the left to seize control of this country again. And I believe one of the great ironies of history is gonna be this: When the historians look back, they are gonna say with great surprise, that it was a secular, billionaire real estate tycoon from New York City who became the most pro-life, pro-religious liberty, and pro-Israel president in history. Video of Jeffress’s remarks were distributed by a public relations firm promoting the National Quartet Convention, which describes itself as “Gospel music’s largest annual event.”

Peter Montgomery

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/robert-jeffress-theres-no-constitutional-separation-of-church-and-state-and-thank-god-trump-understands-that/

2019-09-27 15:59:58+00:00

religion and belief

religious institutions and state relations

russiainsider--2019-01-04--The West Has a Pro-Homosexual Motive in Backing Poroshenkos Outlaw Church

russiainsider

The West Has a Pro-Homosexual Motive in Backing Poroshenko's Outlaw Church

It's not just to weaken ties to Russia, it's to sexually subvert the Ukraine and normalize LGBT in Ukraine, even giving it the Christian stamp of approval In the aftershock of US President Donald Trump’s bombshell decision to pull American troops out of Syria and to draw down US forces in Afghanistan, plus the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis and Brett McGurk, the Special Envoy to the anti-ISIS Coalition [sic: never mind who created ISIS in the first place … ], we are already seeing progress. The Syrian flag has been raised over Manbij as the Kurds scramble for protection from Damascus against threatening Turkish forces. We’re not out of the woods yet though. Given the “orgy of shrieking and caterwauling,” “the horrifying collective scream” emanating from Washington, a pushback from the Deep State and the bipartisan Washington establishment is inevitable and possibly imminent. A false flag chemical attack blamed on the Syrian government but perpetrated by the jihadists (and likely cooked up with assistance from the British MI6) remains a looming danger. Also unpredictable is the next move by Israel, whose jets operating in Lebanese airspace struck targets near Damascus following Trump’s withdrawal order. In turn, Syria and Russia responded by considering extension of air protection to Lebanon and declaring that future Israeli strikes on Syria will prompt counterattacks on targets inside Israel. The danger of escalation should not be underestimated. But the big worry remains Ukraine. Given the more than two-year long Russiagate witch hunt, the most toxic smear against Trump’s Syria withdrawal is that it’s a big “gift” to Russian President Vladimir Putin. As shown by the unanimous western response to the November Kerch Strait incident, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko knows he can do pretty much anything and any Russian response will be blamed on Russia. Poroshenko has a menu of options. He can go back the well at the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait, a tempting possibility if the British (who are at the root of Russiagate and are at least as desperate to prevent a Washington-Moscow détente than Poroshenko is) are dumb enough, or cynical enough (they don’t call them Perfidious Albion for nothing), to risk the lives of sailors of Her Majesty’s Navy on a confrontational stunt where Moscow has an overwhelming preponderance of power. Likewise, Poroshenko could launch an attack on the Donbas. Kiev’s forces recently occupied most of the “gray zone” separating forces at the Minsk agreement ceasefire line. There are also concerns over reports of chemicals stockpiled at Mariupol (hey, if a chemical provocation works in Syria, why not Ukraine?). But the most likely proximate avenue for Poroshenko may be an attack on the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is an autonomous (self-governing) part of the Russian Orthodox Church. Following what some are already calling the Robber Council of Kiev on December 15, which purported to create an “autocephalous” (independent) church headed by “Metropolitan” Epiphany (Dumenko) from a merger of schismatic groups, Poroshenko and the Ukrainian parliament are moving with alacrity to strip the canonical Church of its legal status and turn its property over to Dumenko’s bogus church (which actually isn’t independent at all but is subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople). Lists of monasteries for seizure are being prepared. Canonical clergy are investigated and harassed by the SBU, Ukraine’s successor to the old Soviet KGB. Any resistance or disorders these actions will provoke are already being blamed in advance on – you guessed it – Putin and the canonical Church. Where is the US government, that great proponent of human rights and religious freedom? Cheering it on of course. On the day of the Robber Council, the US Embassy in Kiev tweeted out its congratulations in English and in Ukrainian (not in Russian of course, the language of Untermenschen).  Secretary of State Mike Pompeo placed a personal call to Dumenko as the “newly elected head of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine Metropolitan Epifaniy.” US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch extended her congratulations to Dumenko in person. When the trouble starts, there’s no mystery as to on whose side the US government, or at least the State Department, will come down. One might well ask why? Aside from the obvious impropriety of the United States’ taking sides in a question of the Orthodox Church’s internal governance, why is the State Department so committed to promoting a transparently political power grab by Poroshenko, the schismatics, and the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople? The short answer is that it is strictly geopolitics. From the point of view of the State Department, the Russian Orthodox Church – and hence the canonical autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church – is nothing more than an instrument of the Kremlin’s soft power. According to one person rather new to the relevant issues but nonetheless considered authoritative by the State Department: ‘The Church, for its part, acts as the Russian state's soft power arm, exerting its authority in ways that assist the Kremlin in spreading Russian influence both in Russia's immediate neighborhood as well as around the globe. The Kremlin assists the Church, as well, working to increase its reach. Vladimir Yakunin, one of Putin's inner circle and a devout member of the ROC, facilitated in 2007 the reconciliation of the ROC with the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (which had separated itself from the Moscow Patriarchate early in the Soviet era so as not to be co-opted by the new Bolshevik state), which reconciliation greatly increased [Patriarch of Moscow] Kirill's influence and authority outside of Russia. Putin, praising this event, noted the interrelation of the growth of ROC authority abroad with his own international goals: “The revival of the church unity is a crucial condition for revival of lost unity of the whole 'Russian world', which has always had the Orthodox faith as one of its foundations.”’ But unfortunately there is even more to it than that. The authors of the current US anti-Russia, anti-Orthodox Church policy know, or at least instinctively sense, that the revival of Russia’s Church-State symphonia after a hiatus of eight decades is not just a political alliance of convenience but is the source of deep spiritual, moral, and social strength. This is reflected, for example, in Putin’s warm remarks on the dedication of a Moscow monument to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the acknowledged godfather of Russia’s restoration as a Christian country, on the centenary of the writer’s birth. In Russia’s reborn symphonia, President and Patriarch speak as one: ‘At the height of the Cold War, it was common for American conservatives to label the officially atheist Soviet Union a “godless nation.” ‘More than two decades on, history has come full circle, as the Kremlin and its allies in the Russian Orthodox Church hurl the same allegation at the West. ‘“Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a recent keynote speech. “Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.” [ . . . ] ‘Mr. Putin’s views of the West were echoed this month by Patriarch Kirill I of Moscow, the leader of the Orthodox Church, who accused Western countries of engaging in the “spiritual disarmament” of their people. ‘In particular, Patriarch Kirill criticized laws in several European countries that prevent believers from displaying religious symbols, including crosses on necklaces, at work. ‘“The general political direction of the [Western political] elite bears, without doubt, an anti-Christian and anti-religious character,” the patriarch said in comments aired on state-controlled television. ‘“We have been through an epoch of atheism, and we know what it is to live without God,” Patriarch Kirill said. “We want to shout to the whole world, ‘Stop!’”’ [“Who's 'godless' now? Russia says it's U.S.: Putin seizes on issue of traditional values,” by Marc Bennetts, The Washington Times, January 28, 2014] Such sentiments can hardly sit well with Western elites for whom the same-sex partnerships decried by Putin (and placed by him on a moral level with belief in Satan) are esteemed as a mark of social enlightenment. That’s why an inseparable part of the “European choice” the people of Ukraine supposedly made during the 2014 “Revolution of Dignity” is wholesale acceptance of “European values,” including the kind of “Pride” symbolized by LGBT marches organized over Christian objections in Orthodox cities like Athens, Belgrade, Bucharest, Kiev, Odessa, Podgorica, Sofia, and Tbilisi. (Note that after the march in Odessa in August of this year a priest of the canonical Church targeted by Poroshenko cleansed the street with Holy Water.) It is hard to assess exactly how significant the moral/sexual component of undermining Orthodoxy in Ukraine is, but there is no denying it is a factor. There is a curious consistency between advocacy for non-traditional, post-Christian sexual morality and support for the schismatic pseudo-Church sponsored by Poroshenko and Patriarch Bartholomew. To start with, the relevant US government officials cheering the church schismatics are also up-front and visible in Ukraine in their advocacy of the LGBT agenda. The US Embassy Kiev website displays Pompeo’s declaration on behalf of all Americans that “The United States joins people around the world in celebrating Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) Pride Month, and reaffirms its commitment to protecting and defending the human rights of all, including LGBTI persons.” As of this writing, the press release describing the Secretary’s call to “Metropolitan” Dumenko appears just below the “Pride Month” message. Ambassador Yovanovitch has really gone the extra mile – literally. Not only did she tweet out her Pride message, she also participated in the parade (and took 60 Embassy personnel and family members with her!) proudly marching behind the American flag. Your tax dollars at work! (Must watch video posted by HromadskeUA, an “independent” Ukrainian media outlet reportedly funded by, among others, the US Embassy, the Canadian Embassy, and George Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation, though the cited HromadskeUA financial reports no longer seem to be available.) Both Yovanovitch’s remarks in the video and the posted text draw an explicit connection between the “freedom” of the 2014 regime change and the new sexual morality (Google autotranslation from Ukrainian): The locals were quick to make the same connection. “KyivPride,” a local LGBT advocacy group supported by (surprise, surprise) the US Embassy, the Canadian government, the German embassy, the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and Freedom House were quick to hail creation of the new pseudo-church, no doubt reflecting the deep piety of the group’s members. As posted by OrthoChristian.com, The organization posted a message on several platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, reading: ‘KyivPride congratulates all LGBTI Orthodox believers on the formation of a united and independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church and reminds everyone that love does no harm to others! Also remember that article 35 of the constitution of Ukraine states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of personal philosophy and religion. This right includes the freedom to profess or not to profess any religion.” Human rights above all!’

James George Jatras[field_author_has_account_]

https://russia-insider.com/en/west-has-pro-homosexual-motive-backing-poroshenkos-outlaw-church/ri25781

2019-01-04 13:01:20+00:00

religion and belief

religious institutions and state relations

talkingpointsmemo--2019-03-21--Even A Church Is Dunking On Trump For His McCain Comments

talkingpointsmemo

Even A Church Is Dunking On Trump For His McCain Comments

The National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. clapped back at President Donald Trump Thursday, with a spokesman clarifying that no funerals held there, including the late Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ), require the approval of a President. “Washington National Cathedral was honored to host the funeral service for Senator John McCain. All funerals and memorial services at the Cathedral are organized by the family of the deceased; only a state funeral for a former President involves consultation with government officials,” said Chief Communications Officer Kevin Eckstrom in a statement. “No funeral at the Cathedral requires the approval of the President or any other government official.” Trump took credit for giving McCain the “funeral he wanted” during a speech on Wednesday, proceeding to complain that he wasn’t thanked for the ceremony. The funeral McCain wanted excluded Trump from the proceedings but included former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, a rebuke that, along with McCain’s no vote on the Obamacare skinny repeal, Trump just can’t seem to shake.

Kate Riga

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/national-cathedral-dunking-trump-mccain-comments

2019-03-21 19:09:00+00:00

religion and belief

religious institutions and state relations

themoscowtimes--2019-05-20--Russian Church Leader Calls to End Abortions to Boost Population

themoscowtimes

Russian Church Leader Calls to End Abortions to Boost Population

Russia legalized abortion in 1955 and has the second-highest abortion rate in the world after China. While Russia’s anti-abortion movement has largely failed to change the law, it has gained momentum in recent years, spurred by the rise of the Orthodox Church as a powerful political force. The head of Russia’s Orthodox Church has proposed a national ban on abortion to boost the country's lagging population numbers. “We must first of all remove the topic of abortion to the extent that it exists,” Patriarch Kirill was quoted as saying at a pro-life event in Moscow on Sunday by Interfax. With an estimated 1 million fewer abortions per year, he projected population numbers could reach 156 million in the next decade and 166 million in 20 years. Russia has grappled with a demographic crisis in recent years, with its population declining for the first time in a decade last year to 146.8 million.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/05/20/russian-church-leader-calls-to-end-abortions-to-boost-population-a65647

2019-05-20 09:12:00+00:00

religion and belief

religious institutions and state relations

thetelegraph--2019-01-04--Homosexuality is to blame for sexual abuse not Catholic church claims German cardinal

thetelegraph

Homosexuality is to blame for sexual abuse, not Catholic church, claims German cardinal

A German cardinal on Friday provoked anger and controversy when he claimed the Catholic church was not responsible for sexual abuse by its clerics, and instead sought to pin the blame on homosexuality. “What has happened in the church is no different from what is happening in society as a whole,” Cardinal Walter Brandmüller said. “The real scandal is that the Catholic church hasn’t distinguished itself from the rest of society.” A study commissioned by the German Bishops Conference and published last year found that more than 3,600 children were sexually abused by Catholic clergy in Germany between 1946 and 2014. But Cardinal Brandmüller claimed that only a “vanishingly small number” of clergy had committed abuses. He said the real problem was homosexuality and claimed it is “statistically proven” that there is a link between homosexuality and abuse. Society “forgets or covers up the fact that 80 per cent of cases of sexual assault in the church involved male youths not children,” he told Germany’s DPA news agency in an interview a few days ahead of his 90th birthday. Cardinal Brandmüller’s outburst comes days after the Pope urged Catholic bishops in the US to confront the “sins and crimes” of sexual abuse by the clergy and “the efforts made to deny or conceal them”.

Justin Huggler

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/04/homosexuality-blame-sexual-abuse-not-catholic-church-claims/

2019-01-04 16:50:20+00:00

religion and belief

religious institutions and state relations

thetelegraph--2019-01-08--Smartphones are paving way for the Antichrist says head of Russian church

thetelegraph

Smartphones are paving way for the Antichrist, says head of Russian church

The Russian Orthodox patriarch has warned that the popularity of smartphones is paving the way for the coming of the Antichrist. In an interview on state television for Russian Orthodox Christmas on Monday, Patriarch Kirill warned that the widespread use of gadgets connected to the Internet has opened the possibility for “universal control over humanity”. The “devil acts very wisely” in offering people such a “toy”, he said. "Such control from one place forebodes the coming of the Antichrist,” Patriarch Kirill said. “The Antichrist is the person that will be at the head of the world wide web controlling all of humanity. That means that the structure itself poses a danger. There shouldn't be a single centre, at least not in the foreseeable future, if we don't want to bring on the apocalypse." The patriarch maintained he wasn't categorically against gadgets, but warned that people should be careful not to “fall into slavery to what's in your hands”. “You should remain free inside and not fall under any addiction, not to alcohol, not to narcotics, not to gadgets,” he said. The Russian Orthodox church has been trying to attract young believers, in part through the web. At a press conference featuring B-movie action star Steven Seagal in October, church officials announced they would create a council for youth affairs with a strong digital presence.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/08/smartphones-paving-way-antichrist-says-russian-church-leader/

2019-01-08 18:08:22+00:00

religion and belief

religious institutions and state relations

thetelegraph--2019-01-13--Rome authorities and Catholic church in unholy row over coins in Trevi Fountain

thetelegraph

Rome authorities and Catholic church in unholy row over coins in Trevi Fountain

Throw a coin over your shoulder into Rome's Trevi Fountain, the legend says, and it will bring you good fortune and you will one day return to the Eternal City. It is an essential tradition for millions of tourists. But few will have suspected their loose change would also spark a bitter row between Rome's secular authorities and the Catholic Church. Traditionally, the €1.5 million (£1.3 million) of coins scooped out of the stunning Baroque fountain each year are actually destined for the Catholic charity, Caritas, to help the city’s poor and homeless. Now Rome’s Mayor, Virginia Raggi, says the €4,000 (£3,600) worth of coins tossed into the fountain every day belong to her administration. From April 1 the donations will no longer be paid to Caritas, but are to be used by Rome City Council for the maintenance of cultural sites and social welfare projects. The proposed changes, reportedly approved by the council at the end of December, have provoked a backlash from the Catholic Church. Avvenire, the daily paper produced by the Italian Bishops Conference, launched a scathing attack on the council in its Saturday edition, describing the city’s bureaucracy as “the enemy of the poor” in a front-page article headlined “money taken from the poorest”.

Josephine McKenna

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/13/rome-authorities-catholic-church-unholy-row-coins-trevi-fountain/

2019-01-13 17:23:35+00:00

religion and belief

religious institutions and state relations

thetelegraph--2019-01-13--Villagers facing financial ruin after handing over 500000 to failed church musical

thetelegraph

Villagers facing financial ruin after handing over £500,000 to failed church musical

Villagers have lost hundreds of thousands of pounds in savings after a musical organised by their church and set for star-studded arena tour collapsed. Members of the congregation of the International Church said that they were told that by donating they were "giving to God" but some now face losing their homes after the Christian musical's arena tour was cancelled. Heaven on Earth, based on the story of Adam and Eve, grew from the "dream" of a local church into a glitzy  production starring Kerry Ellis and Hugh Maynard and featuring tenor Russell Watson as the voice of God. But just three weeks before the start of a six-month nationwide tour which included shows at Manchester and Wembley arenas the show went bust with debts of £2.6million. It is believed to be one of the largest ever debts in relation to a collapsed theatre production. Among those who have lost out are around 30 people in the Nottinghamshire village of Mansfield Woodhouse, who are owed roughly £500,000 between them. Some are said to have remortgaged their homes to help the independent church fund the production. Yessika Oakley, 34,  told the BBC that her family donated thousands towards the project as the church were asking for large sums of money to fund the production.

Hayley Dixon

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/13/village-congregation-loses-thousands-church-musical-fails/

2019-01-13 15:54:00+00:00

religion and belief

religious institutions and state relations

themanchestereveningnews--2019-01-19--How do Google Maps and Waze calculate your journey times so accurately

themanchestereveningnews

How do Google Maps and Waze calculate your journey times so accurately?

Gone are the days of picking up a map to help navigate your journeys. Even the traditional sat nav is becoming somewhat dated. Instead many of us reach straight for our phones thanks to the likes of Google Maps and navigation platform Waze. But it isn't just about navigation anymore, it's about using technology to work out the fastest route. But just how do they figure it all out? Let's start with Google Maps. Since 2011, the American technology company has used its routing algorithms which have knowledge of current and historical traffic to select the fastest route and avoid traffic. Google collects data from users of its free Google Maps app to calculate accurate traffic speeds. If you're wondering how they are able to do this, it's because all iPhones with Google Maps open - and Android phones that have location services turned on - send anonymous data back to Google. This is then pieced together and sent back. Of course, the more built up the area, the more accurate the results will be as there are likely to be more drivers regularly using that road. Waze essentially does the same but adds this to crowdsourced feedback from its users . As with Google Maps, the app is able to provide drivers with the best route by analyzing real-time information. This includes speeds other Wazers are driving, reports made on traffic, construction and potholes that will affect the flow of traffic, as well as information on road closures. Again, like Google, the more Waze users drive through a certain stretch of road the more accurate the average speed becomes. When Waze calculates a drive, it too takes into account historic and current average speeds for all sections of the route options for a given journey. But additionally, users can share information on road conditions with the community by reporting on traffic, accidents, police traps, blocked roads and weather conditions. Waze says it collects this information and immediately analyzes it in order to further optimise the route.

Jessica Sansome

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-google-maps-waze-calculate-15693255

2019-01-19 08:43:36+00:00

science and technology

mathematics

humansarefree--2019-01-24--What Is The Matrix And How Do We Exit From It

humansarefree

What Is The Matrix And How Do We Exit From It?

Who are we? What is the matrix? Tools and tactics of the matrix overlay Some of their tactics to drive consciousness into a lower frequency where societies can be controlled are: “They do not even realize that there is something outside of where they exist. You have been controlled like sheep in a pen by those who think they own you — from the government to the World Management Team to those in space. You have been deprived of knowledge by frequency control.” ~ Barbara Marciniak, “The ultimate tyranny in a society is not control by martial law. It is control by the psychological manipulation of consciousness, through which reality is defined so that those who exist within it do not even realize that they are in prison.“They do not even realize that there is something outside of where they exist. You have been controlled like sheep in a pen by those who think they own you — from the government to the World Management Team to those in space. You have been deprived of knowledge by frequency control.” ~ Barbara Marciniak, Bringers of the Dawn How To Exit The Matrix Things you can do to accelerate personal and planetary ascension to exit the matrix Life shows you what is inside

Alexander Light (noreply@blogger.com)

http://humansarefree.com/2019/01/what-is-matrix-and-how-do-we-exit-from.html

2019-01-24 03:00:00+00:00

science and technology

mathematics

bbc--2019-01-07--India scientists dismiss Einstein theories

bbc

India scientists dismiss Einstein theories

Scientists in India have hit out at speakers at a major conference for making irrational claims, including that ancient Hindus invented stem cell research. Some academics at the annual Indian Science Congress dismissed the findings of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Hindu mythology and religion-based theories have increasingly become part of the Indian Science Congress agenda. But experts said remarks at this year's summit were especially ludicrous. The 106th Indian Science Congress, which was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, runs from 3-7 January. The head of a southern Indian university cited an old Hindu text as proof that stem cell research was discovered in India thousands of years ago. G Nageshwar Rao, vice chancellor of Andhra University, also said a demon king from the Hindu religious epic, Ramayana, had 24 types of aircraft and a network of landing strips in modern day Sri Lanka. Another scientist from a university in the southern state of Tamil Nadu told conference attendees that Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein were both wrong and that gravitational waves should be renamed "Narendra Modi Waves". Dr KJ Krishnan reportedly said Newton failed to "understand gravitational repulsive forces" and Einstein's theories were "misleading". Critics said that while ancient texts should be read and enjoyed - it was nonsense to suggest they represented science. The Indian Scientific Congress Association expressed "serious concern" at the remarks. "We don't subscribe to their views and distance ourselves from their comments. This is unfortunate," Premendu P Mathur, general secretary of Indian Scientific Congress Association, told the AFP news agency. "There is a serious concern about such kind of utterances by responsible people." On the one hand, it has a rich tradition of outstanding scientists - the Higgs boson particle, for example, is named partly after an Indian physicist and Einstein's contemporary, Satyendra Nath Bose. Particle physicist Ashoke Sen, meanwhile, is the recipient of Fundamental Physics Prize, the world's most lucrative academic award. But it also has a long tradition of replacing science with myths, leading to a fringe culture of pseudoscience. Many believe under Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist BJP party, pseudoscience has moved from the fringe to the mainstream. Mr Modi himself set the tone in 2014 with his outlandish claim that cosmetic surgery was practised in India thousands of years ago. Many of his ministers followed suit with similar claims. India's top science summit also started inviting academics with Hindu nationalist leanings who have made equally bizarre claims. Such claims usually hark back to an imagined glorious Hindu past to bolster religious nationalism. The BJP and its hard line allies have for a long time mixed mythology and religion to bolster political Hinduism and nationalism. Adding science to the mix, say critics, will only help propagate quack science and erode scientific temper. Also, as economist Kaushik Basu says: "For a nation to progress it is important for people to spend time on science, mathematics and literature instead of spending time showing that 5,000 years ago their ancestors did science, mathematics and literature." Other claims made by Indian politicians and scientists:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-46778879

2019-01-07 11:38:56+00:00

science and technology

scientific institution

bbc--2019-04-15--Israeli scientists print 3D heart using human tissue

bbc

Israeli scientists ‘print 3D heart using human tissue’

Israeli scientists say they have created the world’s first 3D-printed heart using human tissue. Professor Tal Dvir, who led the project, says the miniature organ was made with a patient's own cells, describing it as a "major medical breakthrough". His team at Israel's Tel Aviv University plans to transplant the hearts into animals in a move they hope will advance possibilities for human transplants. He claims that larger human hearts could be produced using the same technology. Parts of this video contain no commentary

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-47940619

2019-04-15 17:01:03+00:00

science and technology

scientific institution

bbc--2019-10-09--Nobel chemistry prize: Lithium-ion battery scientists honoured

bbc

Nobel chemistry prize: Lithium-ion battery scientists honoured

Three scientists have been awarded the 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the development of lithium-ion batteries. John B Goodenough, M Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino share the prize for their work on these rechargeable devices, which are used for portable electronics. At the age of 97, Prof Goodenough is the oldest ever Nobel laureate. Professor of chemistry Olof Ramström said lithium-ion batteries had "enabled the mobile world". The trio will share the prize money of nine million kronor (£738,000). The lithium-ion battery is a lightweight, rechargeable and powerful battery that is used in everything from mobile phones to laptops to electric cars. The Nobel Committee said: "Lithium-ion batteries are used globally to power the portable electronics that we use to communicate, work, study, listen to music and search for knowledge." Committee member Sara Snogerup Linse, from Lund University, said: "We have gained access to a technical revolution. The laureates developed lightweight batteries of high enough [electrical] potential to be useful in many applications. Göran K Hansson, secretary-general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, where this year's awards were announced, said their development enabled "a more sustainable world". In addition to their use in electric vehicles, the rechargeable devices could also store significant amounts of energy from renewable sources, such as solar and wind power. The foundation of the lithium-ion battery was laid during the oil crisis of the 1970s. M Stanley Whittingham, 77, who was born in Nottingham, UK, worked to develop energy technologies that did not rely on fossil fuels. He discovered an energy-rich material called titanium disulphide, which he used to make a cathode - the positive terminal - in a lithium battery. Whittingham, who is now based at Binghampton University in Vestal, US, made the anode, the battery's negative terminal, from metallic lithium. This has a strong preference for releasing electrons, making it very suitable for use in batteries. This resulting device was able to release just over two volts, but the metallic lithium made it explosive. John B Goodenough, who is American but was born in Germany, predicted that the cathode could be improved if it was made from a metal oxide, rather than a sulphide. In 1980, after searching for the ideal material, Goodenough, who is a professor at the University of Texas, Austin, used cobalt oxide to boost the lithium battery's potential to four volts. With Goodenough's cathode as a basis, Akira Yoshino, 71, created the first commercially-viable lithium-ion battery in 1985. Yoshino, who was born in Osaka, Japan, works for the Asahi Kasei Corporation and Meijo University. Prof Ramström, a Nobel committee member from the University of Massachusetts, Lowell in the US, commented: "This battery is such a very, very good battery. It's high-powered with high energy efficiency, so it has found applications almost everywhere." Bonnie Charpentier, president of the American Chemical Society (ACS) commented: "In the face of increasing threats from extreme climate change, today's announcement shines a welcome bright light on the portability of energy that has enabled unprecedented advances in communication, transportation and other tools to support critical aspects of life around the world." Previous winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 - Discoveries about enzymes earned Frances Arnold, George P Smith and Gregory Winter the prize 2017 - Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank and Richard Henderson were awarded the prize for improving images of biological molecules 2016 - Jean-Pierre Sauvage, Fraser Stoddart and Bernard Feringa shared the prize for the making machines on a molecular scale. 2015 - Discoveries in DNA repair earned Tomas Lindahl and Paul Modrich and Aziz Sancar the award. 2014 - Eric Betzig, Stefan Hell and William Moerner were awarded the prize for improving the resolution of optical microscopes. 2013 - Michael Levitt, Martin Karplus and Arieh Warshel shared the prize, for devising computer simulations of chemical processes. 2012 - Work that revealed how protein receptors pass signals between living cells and the environment won the prize for Robert Lefkowitz and Brian Kobilka.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49962133

Wed, 09 Oct 2019 09:50:09 GMT

science and technology

scientific institution

bbcuk--2019-01-04--Edinburgh scientists discover mammoth secret in ivory DNA

bbcuk

Edinburgh scientists discover mammoth secret in ivory DNA

Scientists based at Edinburgh Zoo are cooperating to create a genetics laboratory in Cambodia to fight the illegal ivory trade. While trying to save elephants, they have found ivory from another animal that is now extinct. In the WildGenes laboratory of the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, Dr Alex Ball is drilling what sounds like a giant tooth. Which is in effect what it is: an ornately carved elephant tusk. The lab is working with three partners in a project funded by the UK government's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Together they are building Cambodia's scientific capacity to preserve its wildlife and combat the ivory trade which passes through it. Dr Ball's team has helped establish the first conservation genetics laboratory in Cambodia. The country lies on an important route for smuggling ivory from Africa and Asia. Which continent the tusks have been stolen from can have legal implications. "Elephants are being decimated in their thousands across Africa," Dr Ball says. "One of the key things about Cambodia is that we have hardly any information about the ivory trade." DNA from tusks is unlocking those secrets. "We can basically break down that dentine and calcium and get those cells out the ivory - and then identify the individual that grew that tusk," he added. The WildGenes laboratory is the only zoo-based animal genetics lab in the UK and one of only a handful in Europe. The head of conservation and science at the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, Dr Helen Senn, says it plays an important role. She continued: "Often endangered species are quite genetically unusual and unique and they haven't been worked on before. "They're not interesting to medicine or agricultural science. "So we have to develop novel methods to - for example - study pygmy hippos or scimitar-horned oryx." But in the work on Cambodian ivory samples the researchers have uncovered something even more exotic: DNA from woolly mammoths. Mammoths are not covered by international agreements on endangered species for the unfortunate but unavoidable reason that they have already been extinct for around 10,000 years. It is relatively easy to spot the difference between elephant and mammoth tusks. But once the ivory has been carved into trinkets it is far harder. "To our surprise, within a tropical country like Cambodia, we found mammoth samples within the ivory trinkets that are being sold," says Dr Ball. "So this has basically come from the Arctic tundra, dug out the ground. "And the shop owners are calling it elephant ivory but we've found out it's actually mammoth." Cambodia has between 250 and 500 wild Asian elephants of its own. It is difficult to assess how well or otherwise they are is faring - or even how big the population is - as they tend to stay deep within the jungle. DNA sampling can provide an insight here too, although drilling tusks is not an option on live elephants. Instead the conservationists have to seek out faecal samples - DNA from elephant dung identifies individual elephants and so builds a picture of the total population. African elephants are classed as vulnerable, the Asian species is endangered. The trade in their ivory goes hand in hand with smuggling other illegal products like rhino horn and pangolin scales. That is why the partners are developing more genetic tools to help Cambodia identify other kinds of contraband before it is too late.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-46649010

2019-01-04 00:48:56+00:00

science and technology

scientific institution

bbcuk--2019-03-19--UK scientists join race for lab-grown meat

bbcuk

UK scientists join race for lab-grown meat

British scientists have joined the race to produce meat grown in the lab rather than reared on the hoof. Scientists at the University of Bath have grown animal cells on blades of grass, in a step towards cultured meat. If the process can be reproduced on an industrial scale, meat lovers might one day be tucking into a slaughter-free supply of "bacon". The researchers say the UK can move the field forward through its expertise in medicine and engineering. Lab-based meat products are not yet on sale, though a US company, Just, has said its chicken nuggets, grown from cells taken from the feather of chicken that is still alive, will soon be in a few restaurants. Chemical engineer Dr Marianne Ellis, of the University of Bath, sees cultured meat as "an alternative protein source to feed the world". Cultured pig cells are being grown in her laboratory, which could one day lead to bacon raised entirely off the hoof. In the future, you would take a biopsy from a pig, isolate stem (master) cells, grow more cells, then put them into a bioreactor to massively expand them, says postgraduate student Nick Shorten of Aberystwyth University. "And the pig's still alive and happy and you get lots of bacon at the end." To replicate the taste and texture of bacon will take years of research. For structure, the cells must be grown on a scaffold. At Bath, they're experimenting with something that's entirely natural - grass. They're growing rodent cells, which are cheap and easy to use, on scaffolds of grass, as a proof of principle. "The idea was to essentially, rather than feeding a cow grass and then us eating the meat - why don't we, in quotation marks, 'feed our cells grass'," says Scott Allan, a postgraduate student in chemical engineering. "We use it as a scaffold for them to grow on - and we then have an edible scaffold that can be incorporated into the final product." The end product would be pure muscle tissue - basically, lean mince, rather than something with the taste and texture of a chop or steak, which means adding fat cells and connective cells to give it "a bit more taste". For cultured meat to be available widely in the future, cells will need to be grown on a very large scale in a commercial facility. "What we're doing here is looking to design bioreactors, and the bioprocess around the bioreactors, to grow muscle cells on a large scale that is economical and safe and high quality, so we can supply the muscle cells as cultured meats to as many people as want it," says Dr Ellis. She envisages taking "primary cells" from a living or recently slaughtered animal, or using a population of "immortalised" cells, that will keep on dividing. "Which means that you don't kill any animals; you have this immortal cell that can be used forever." Slaughter-free meat is clearly a big selling point. Cultured meat might also be of interest to meat lovers who are concerned about the environmental problems that come with livestock production. Richard Parr is managing director for Europe of The Good Food Institute, a non-profit group that promotes alternatives to the products of conventional agriculture. He says cell-based meat has the potential to use much less land and water, produce less carbon dioxide, spare billions of animals from immense pain and suffering, and help fight anti-microbial resistance and food contamination. "It's also a massive commercial opportunity, which companies, universities and governments should seize the opportunity to support and invest in," he argues. According to Marianne Ellis, most analysis seems to suggest a significant reduction in greenhouse gases, land use and water use for cultured meat, while the implications for energy use are less clear. One recent study found lab-grown meat could actually be worse for the climate than conventional meat - although the research did not look at water and land use. "Cultured meat might be one of these promising alternatives to reduce agricultural emissions but until we get more production data we can't automatically assume that for the time being," says the author of the paper, John Lynch of the University of Oxford. The researchers at Bath see a future where cultured meat exists alongside traditional agriculture. Illtud Dunsford, co-founder with Marianne Ellis of the biotech start-up Cellular Agriculture, comes from a long line of farmers in Wales and is an advocate of traditional agriculture, but says there will be a need in the future to manage farmland for nature, with cattle playing a role, albeit in much smaller numbers. "In my little farm in West Wales, ideally what I'd like to see is that we kept a range of very, very traditional native breeds of livestock on a very, very small scale to an exceptionally high welfare standard. "The by-product from their use as a land management tool - whether that's in clearing land or restoring grasslands - would be the harvesting of cells for the culturing of cell-based meats." Lab-grown meat is not expected to be available widely for at least five years. It remains to be seen whether people will want to eat it, but surveys in the UK suggest 20% would eat it, 40% wouldn't and the rest are undecided, with younger generations, urbanites and wealthier people more open to the idea. Chris Bryant, a psychologist at the University of Bath, says the three major concerns are to do with price, taste, and naturalness and the related issue of safety. The third is most difficult to address, he says, based on "the naturalistic fallacy", where people reason that natural things are good and unnatural things are bad. Ultimately, then, it will be consumers who will be the judge of the success or failure of lab-grown meat.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47611026

2019-03-19 01:28:56+00:00

science and technology

scientific institution

chicagotribune--2019-12-11--The world’s coral reefs are dying. Shedd scientists in the Bahamas are searching for a chance for th

chicagotribune

The world’s coral reefs are dying. Shedd scientists in the Bahamas are searching for a chance for their survival.

“Almost every year we’re reporting coral bleaching whereas before it would have been once every five years, every 10 years,” she says. “More and more after each bleaching event, you are seeing areas where the majority of the coral cover has gone. Then it gets dominated by algae. Reefs where you had towers of elkhorn coral and staghorn coral, where you used to have these mushroom forests, have basically become rubble. Once they die, there’s nothing really continuing to grow. When hurricanes come they flatten it out a bit. It becomes this downward spiral.”

Steve Johnson

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/museums/ct-ent-shedd-aquarium-coral-reef-research-climate-change-1215-20191211-lmp6g4sbqrcu7flckl7baaosrm-story.html

Wed, 11 Dec 2019 03:00:58 PST

science and technology

scientific institution

eveningstandard--2019-01-04--Galaxy to slam into Milky Way and could cause black hole scientists say

eveningstandard

Galaxy to slam into Milky Way and could cause black hole, scientists say

A nearby galaxy is set to slam into the Milky Way creating a huge black hole, scientists have said. Astronomers have warned this may knock our solar system into a cosmic void. The Durham University scientists said the knock would hurl our solar system into a space that would make it either too hot or too cold for life to survive. Researchers said the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) could hit the Milky Way and directly trigger a secondary chain of events, dislodging other stars from their galaxy. The grim discovery means life on Earth could end – but it is not set to happen for another 2.5 billion years. Scientists came upon the discovery by running computer simulations on the movement of the LMC. Rather than circling at a safe distance, or breaking free of the Milky Way’s gravitational pull, it was found the LMC is set to hit. Currently, the LMC is estimated to be about 163,000 light years from the Milky Way and speeding away at about 250 miles per second. However simulations suggest the LMC will eventually slow down and turn back towards us. This galactic collision would happen much sooner than the predicted impact between the Milky Way and another neighbour, Andromeda, which scientists say will hit our galaxy in eight billion years. Lead researcher Dr Marius Cautun, a postdoctoral fellow in our Institute for Computational Cosmology, said: “There is a small chance that we might not escape unscathed from the collision between the two galaxies, which could knock us out of the Milky Way and into space.”

Olivia Tobin

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/galaxy-to-slam-into-milky-way-and-could-cause-black-hole-scientists-say-a4030296.html

2019-01-04 12:15:53+00:00

science and technology

scientific institution

eveningstandard--2019-01-25--Near-record rise in carbon dioxide levels predicted in 2019 Met Office scientists warn

eveningstandard

Near-record rise in carbon dioxide levels predicted in 2019, Met Office scientists warn

Met Office scientists predict 2019 will see one of the largest rises on record of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Each year natural “sinks” such as forests or grasslands absorb excess carbon produced by human activities. But when there is hotter weather in the Pacific, like this year, they cannot absorb as much as plants grow less, experts said. The Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii has collected data on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since 1958. Since recordings began, there has been a 30 per cent increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Professor Richard Betts of the Met Office Hadley Centre said: "This year we expect these carbon sinks to be relatively weak, so the impact of record high human-caused emissions will be larger than last year." Average concentrations of carbon dioxide are forecast to be 411 parts per million (ppm) in 2019, reaching a peak of 414 ppm in May before dropping back to 408 ppm in September and rising again at the end of the year. This compares to around 315 ppm when measurements began at Mauna Loa in 1958, and around 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution based on ice core samples.

Sean Morrison

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/nearrecord-rise-in-carbon-dioxide-levels-predicted-in-2019-met-office-scientists-warn-a4048391.html

2019-01-25 04:57:00+00:00

science and technology

scientific institution

eveningstandard--2019-02-05--Magnetic north pole moving so fast it could disrupt phone and military maps scientists say

eveningstandard

Magnetic north pole moving so fast it could disrupt phone and military maps, scientists say

Scientists have intervened to stop smartphone maps and military navigation systems being disrupted by “erratic” movement of the earth’s magnetic north pole. The area, which is where a compass’ north point is guided to, moves around unlike the geographic North Pole. In recent years it has been shifting at a rate of around 34 miles per year. Its location is used as part of the World Magnetic Model to help both civilian and more sophisticated mapping systems and its movement can therefore potentially throw users off course. The World Magnetic Model is usually updated every five years, having last been changed in 2015, but experts behind it have stated it has needed to be changed earlier to keep travel plans accurate. The new version should have come in 2020 but instead one has been issued this year. A statement said: “Due to unplanned variations in the Arctic region, scientists have released a new model to more accurately represent the change of the magnetic field between 2015 and now. "This out-of-cycle update before next year’s official release of WMM2020 will ensure safe navigation for military applications, commercial airlines, search and rescue operations, and others operating around the North Pole." It added the north polar region is experiencing “erratic changes”. The World Magnetic Model is developed by the United States’ National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the United Kingdom’s Defence Geographic Centre. It is used by the US Department of Defence, the UK Ministry of Defence, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), for referencing systems using the geomagnetic field.

Jacob Jarvis

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/magnetic-north-pole-moving-so-fast-it-could-disrupt-phone-and-military-maps-a4058336.html

2019-02-05 17:45:14+00:00

science and technology

scientific institution

eveningstandard--2019-02-13--Kew Gardens scientists test DNA of wood in fight against illegal logging

eveningstandard

Kew Gardens scientists test DNA of wood in fight against illegal logging

Scientists at Kew Gardens are leading the fight against the illegal logging industry by helping to create wood DNA tests. The Royal Botanic Gardens, which has one of the largest collections of wood samples in the world, has teamed up with the Forest Stewardship Council and US Forest Service for the project. They are building a DNA database of trees that could help authorities determine if wood being sold on the market was taken from protected areas. Interpol estimates that illegal logging is worth between £23 billion and £76 billion annually, with up to 30 per cent of all internationally traded timber thought to be illegally sourced. Kew Gardens and the FSC, which runs the global forest certification system, will pioneer new identification technologies, including DNA and isotope testing. These allow scientists to determine the species of timber using only a small piece of the wood — and also to “geolocate” where it has come from. The FSC’s Chief Information Officer & Director of IT, Michael Marus, said Kew’s input was “crucial” in developing the techniques, and that its expertise in testing, storing and maintaining wood samples would be vital as the project expands. He said: “Their scientific expertise is quite incredible. It is a unique opportunity to develop a library of georeferenced wood samples that will be made available to qualified labs across the world.” A pilot scheme launched by the FSC in the US in 2017 is being expanded after evidence from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) showed that in Latin America illegally logged wood was being shipped alongside FSC-certified timber. The new project aims to collect over 200 samples from up to five commonly traded wood species in FSC-certified forests of Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and Peru in the next year. Ultimately, it is hoped the work will expand to all 1,500 FSC-certified forests. Dr Peter Gasson, Kew’s research leader on wood and timber, said it has about 42,000 named wood samples, but: “There are plenty of gaps in our collection, and the FSC is well-placed to help us fill some of them with georeferenced samples from their worldwide concessions.”

BENEDICT MOORE-BRIDGER

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/kew-gardens-scientists-test-dna-of-wood-in-fight-against-illegal-logging-a4065396.html

2019-02-13 10:22:00+00:00

science and technology

scientific institution

france24--2019-05-01--Australian scientists find antidote for deadly box jellyfish sting

france24

Australian scientists find antidote for deadly box jellyfish sting

Australian researchers believe they have found an antidote to a sting from the world's most venomous creature, the much-feared box jellyfish. Researchers at the University of Sydney had been investigating how the venom is so deadly that one box jellyfish can kill 60 people. The team noticed the venom needs cholesterol to kill human cells and decided to test whether existing drugs could stop it. "Since there are lots of drugs available that target cholesterol" the team tried one out, said lead author Raymond Lau. "It worked," he said. "It's a molecular antidote." Running tests using human cells and mice, the team found it could stop tissue scarring and pain associated with the sting as long as the medicine was injected within 15 minutes. Stings from box jellyfish -- which can be smaller than a fingernail or up to three metres long depending on the species -- can cause acute muscular pain, violent vomiting, feelings of "impending doom", hair that stands on end, strokes, heart failure and death within minutes. So far they have only tested the sting from the larger, more deadly species. "We know the drug will stop the necrosis, skin scarring and the pain completely when applied to the skin," said Associate Professor Neely. "We don't know yet if it will stop a heart attack. That will need more research, and we are applying for funding to continue this work." The team hopes that eventually a topical cream or spray can be developed to prevent stings that are thought to kill dozens of people each year and hospitalise thousands more.

NEWS WIRES

https://www.france24.com/en/20190501-australian-scientists-find-antidote-deadly-box-jellyfish-sting

2019-05-01 10:24:50+00:00

science and technology

scientific institution

humansarefree--2019-11-08--Google in Court Documents: Free Speech is “Disastrous” for Society

humansarefree

Google in Court Documents: Free Speech is “Disastrous” for Society

U.S. should appoint third-party judicial commission to review censorship cases

Alexander Light (noreply@blogger.com)

http://humansarefree.com/2019/11/google-in-court-documents-free-speech.html

2019-11-08T04:00:00.000+02:00

politics

non-governmental organisation

activistpost--2019-01-16--Does Society Realize It Is Being Initiated

activistpost

Does Society Realize It Is Being Initiated?

Melissa and Aaron Dykes cover the progression of previously occult ideas now being openly normalized throughout all forms of media. What is being summoned? And what are we being initiated to en masse? Aaron & Melissa Dykes are the founders of TruthstreamMedia.com, Subscribe to them on YouTube, like on Facebook, follow on Twitter, support on Patreon. Watch their mini-documentary Obsolete here and their full-length documentary THE MINDS OF MEN here.

Activist Post

https://www.activistpost.com/2019/01/society-initiated.html

2019-01-16 19:16:27+00:00

society

social condition

activistpost--2019-06-04--32 Tips For Navigating A Society That Is Full Of Propaganda And Manipulation

activistpost

32 Tips For Navigating A Society That Is Full Of Propaganda And Manipulation

For as long as there has been human language, humans have been using it to manipulate one another. The fact that it is possible to skillfully weave a collection of symbolic mouth noises together in such a way as to extract favors, concessions, votes and consent from other humans has made manipulation so common that it now pervades our society from top to bottom, from personal relationships between two people to international relationships between government agencies and the public. This has made it very difficult to figure out what’s going on, both in our lives and in the world. Here are thirty-two suggestions for navigating this complex manipulation-laden landscape, whether it be for navigating the manipulations you may encounter in your small-scale personal interactions, or the large-scale manipulations which impact the entire world: 1 – Understand the fact that humans are storytelling animals, and that whoever controls the stories controls the humans. Mental narrative dominates human consciousness; thought is essentially one continuous, churning monologue about the self and what it reckons is going on in its world, and that monologue is composed entirely of mental stories. These stories can and will be manipulated, on an individual scale by people we encounter and on a mass scale by skillful propagandists. We base our actions on our mental assessments of what’s going on in the world, and those mental assessments can be manipulated by narrative control. 2 – Be humble and open enough to know that you can be fooled. Your cognitive wiring is susceptible to the same hacks as everyone else, and manipulators of all sorts are always looking to exploit those vulnerabilities. It’s not shameful to be deceived, it’s shameful to deceive people. Don’t let shame and cognitive dissonance keep you compartmentalized away from considering the possibility that you’ve been duped in some way. 3 – Watch people’s behavior and ignore the stories they tell about their behavior. This applies to people in your life, to politicians, and to governments. Narratives can be easily manipulated and distorted in many different ways, while behavior itself, when examined with as much objectivity as possible, cannot be. Pay attention to behavior in this way and eventually you’ll start noticing a large gap between what some people’s actions say and what their words say. Those people are the manipulators. Distrust them. 4 – Be suspicious of people who keep telling you what they are and how they are, because they’re trying to manipulate your narrative about them. Be doubly suspicious of people who keep telling you what you are and how you are, because they’re trying to manipulate your narrative about you. 5 – Learn to see how trust and sympathy are used by manipulators to trick people into subscribing to their narratives about what’s going on. Every manipulator uses trust and/or sympathy as a primer for their manipulations, because if you don’t have trust or sympathy for them, you’re not going to mentally subscribe to their stories. This is true of mass media outlets, it’s true of State Department press releases which implore you to have sympathy for the people of Nation X, and it’s true of family members and coworkers. Once you’ve spotted a manipulator, your task is to kill off all of your sympathy for them and your trust in them, no matter how hard they start playing the victim to suck you back in. 6 – Be suspicious of anyone who refuses to articulate themselves clearly. Word salading is a tactic notoriously used by abusive narcissists, because it keeps the victim confused and unable to figure out what’s going on. If they can’t get a clear handle on what the manipulative abuser is saying, they can’t form their own solid position in relation to it, and the abuser knows this. Insist on lucid communication, and if it’s refused to you, remove trust and sympathy. Apply this to people in your life, to government officials, and to 8chan propaganda constructs. 7 – Familiarize yourself with cognitive biases, the glitches in human cognition which cause us to perceive things in a way that is not rational. Pay special attention to confirmation bias, the backfire effect, and the illusory truth effect. Humans have an annoying tendency to seek out cognitive ease in their information-gathering and avoid cognitive dissonance, rather than seeking out what’s true regardless of whether it brings us cognitive ease or dissonance. This means we tend to choose what we believe based on whether believing it is psychologically comfortable, rather than whether it’s solidly backed by facts and evidence. This is a weakness in our cognitive wiring, and manipulators can and do exploit it constantly. And, again, be humble enough to know that this means you. 8 – Trust your own understanding above anyone else’s. It might not be perfect, but it’s a damn sight better than letting your understanding be controlled by narrative managers and dopey partisan groupthink, or by literally anyone else in a narrative landscape that is saturated with propaganda and manipulation. You won’t get everything right, but betting on your own understanding is the very safest bet on the table. It can be intimidating to stand alone and sort out the true from the false by yourself on an instance-by-instance basis, but the alternative is giving someone else authority over your understanding of the world. Abdicating your responsibility to come to a clear understanding of what’s going on in your world is a shameful, cowardly thing to do. Be brave enough to insist that you are right until such time as you yourself come to your own understanding that you were wrong. 9 – Understand that propaganda is the single most overlooked and under-appreciated aspect of our society. Everyone’s constantly talking about what’s wrong with the world, but hardly any of those discussions are centered around the fact that the public been manipulated into supporting the creation and continuation of those problems by mass media propaganda. The fact that powerful people are constantly manipulating the way we think, act and vote should be at the forefront of everyone’s awareness, not relegated to occasional discussions in fringe circles. 10 – Respect the fact that the science of modern propaganda has been in research and development for over a century. Think of all the military advancements that have been made in the last century to get an idea of how sophisticated this science must now be. They are far, far ahead of us in terms of research and understanding of the methods of manipulating the human psyche toward ends which benefit the powerful. If you ever doubt that the narrative managers could be advanced and cunning enough to pull off a given manipulation, you can lay that particular doubt to rest. Don’t underestimate them. 11 – Understand that Western mass media propaganda rarely consists of full, outright lies. At most, such outlets will credulously publish the things that are told to them by government agencies which lie all the time. More often, the deception comes in the form of distortions, half-truths, and omissions. Pay more attention to discrepancies in things that are covered versus things that aren’t, and to what they’re not saying. 12 – Put effort into developing a good news-sense, a sense for what’s newsworthy and what’s not. This takes time and practice, but it lets you see which newsworthy stories are going unreported by the mass media and which non-stories are being overblown to shape an establishment-friendly narrative. When you’ve got that nailed down, you’ll notice “Why are they acting like this is a news story?” and “Why is nobody reporting this??” stories all the time. 13 – Be patient and compassionate with yourself when it comes to developing your narrative navigating skills. Like literally any skill set, you’ll suck at it for a while. If you learn you’ve been wrong about something, just take in the new information, adjust appropriately, and keep plugging away. Don’t expect to have mastered this thing before you’ve had time to master it. Like anything else, if you put in the hours you’ll get good at it. 14 – Find reliable news reporters who have a good sense for navigating the narrative matrix, and keep track of them to orient yourself and stay on top of what’s going on. Use individual reporters, not outlets; no outlet is 100 percent solid, but some reporters are pretty close on some specific subjects. Click this hyperlink for an article on one way to do build a customized and reliable news stream. Click this hyperlink for a list of all my favorite news reporters on Twitter right now. 15 – Don’t let paranoia be your primary or only tool for navigating the narrative matrix. Some people’s only means of understanding the world is to become intensely suspicious of everything and everyone, which is about as useful as a compass which tells you that every direction is north. Spend time in conspiracy and media criticism circles and you’ll run into many such people. Rejecting everything as false leaves you with nothing as true. Find positive tools for learning what’s true. 16 – Hold your worldview loosely enough that you can change it at any time in the light of new information, but not so loosely that it can be slapped out of your head by someone telling you what to think in a confident, authoritative tone. As Carl Sagan once said, “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” 17 – Speaking of confident, authoritative tones, be suspicious of confident, authoritative tones. It’s amazing how much traction people can get with a narrative just by posturing as though they know that what they’re saying is true, whether they’re an MSNBC pundit or a popular conspiracy YouTuber. So many people are just plain faking it, because it works. You run into this all the time in debates on online political forums; people come at you with a supremely confident posture, but if you push them to present their knowledge on the subject and the strength of their arguments, there’s not actually anything there. They’re just accustomed to people assuming they know what they’re talking about and leaving their claims unchallenged, and it completely throws them off when someone doesn’t buy their feigned confidence shtick. 18 – Be aware that sociopaths exist. There are people who, to varying degrees, do not care what happens to others, and these are the types of people who will use manipulation to get their way whenever it serves them. If you don’t care about truth or other people beyond the extent to which you can use them, then there’s no disincentive to manipulating. 19 – Be aware of projection, and be aware of the fact that it cuts both ways: unhealthy people tend to project their wickedness onto others, while healthy people tend to project their goodness. Don’t let your goodness trick you into thinking there aren’t monsters who will deceive and manipulate you, and don’t let sociopaths project their own sinister motives onto you by telling you how rotten you are. This mixes a lot of good people up, especially in their personal lives. Not everyone is good, and not everyone is truthful. See this clearly. 20 – Be suspicious of those who excessively advocate civility, rules and politeness. Manipulators thrive on rules and civility, because they know how to manipulate them. Someone who’s willing to color outside the lines and get angry at someone noxious even when they’re acting within the rules makes a manipulator very uncomfortable. Often times those telling you to calm down and behave yourself when you are rightfully upset are manipulators who have a vested interest in getting you to adhere to the rules set they’ve learned to operate within. 21 – Meditation, mindfulness, self-inquiry and other practices are powerful tools which can help you understand your own inner processes, which in turn helps you understand how manipulators can manipulate you, and how they manipulate others. Just be sure that you are using them for this purpose, not for escapism as most “spiritual” types do. You’re trying to become fully aware of what makes you tick mentally, emotionally and energetically; you’re not trying to become some vapid spiritual bliss bunny. The goal isn’t to feel better, the goal is to get better at feeling. Better at consciously experiencing your own inner world. 22 – Be relentlessly honest with yourself about your own inner narratives and the various ways you engage in manipulation. You can’t navigate your way through the narrative control matrix if you aren’t clear on your own role in it. Look inside and consciously take an inventory. 23 – Understand that truth doesn’t generally move in a way that is pleasing to the ego, i.e. in a way Hollywood scripts are written to appeal to. Any narrative that points to a Hollywood ending where the bad guy gets karate kicked into lava and the hero gets the girl is manufactured. Russiagate and QAnon are both perfect examples of an egoically pleasing narrative with the promise of a Hollywood ending, either by Trump and his cohorts being dragged off in chains or by the “white hats” overcoming the Deep State and throwing all the Democrats and Never-Trumpers in prison for pedophilia. Ain’t gonna happen, folks. 24 – Try to view the world with fresh eyes rather than with your tired old grown-up eyes which have taught you to see all this as normal. Hold an image in your mind of what a perfectly healthy and harmonious world would look like; the sharp contrast between this image and the world we have now allows you see through the campaign of the propagandists to normalize things like war, poverty, ecocide, and impotent electoral systems which keep seeing the same government behavior regardless of who people vote for. None of this is normal. 25 – Know that the truth has no political party, and neither do the social engineers. All political parties are used to manipulate the masses in various ways, and nuggets of truth can and do emerge from any of them. Thinking along partisan lines is guaranteed to give you a distorted view. Ignore the imaginary lines between the parties. You may be certain that your rulers do. 26 – Remain always aware of this simple dynamic: the people who become billionaires are generally the ones who are sociopathic enough to do whatever it takes to get ahead. This class has been able to buy up near-total narrative control via media ownership/influence, corporate lobbying, think tank funding, and campaign finance, and are thus able to manipulate the public into consenting to agendas which benefit nobody but plutocrats and their lackeys. This explains pretty much every major problem that we are facing right now. The Legal Narrative Funnel That’s Being Used To Extradite Assange How warped interpretations of technicalities in Ecuadorian, British and American law allow for a journalist to be imprisoned for telling the truth while keeping the illusion of democracy.https://t.co/OaBVDeuyax 27 – Understand that nations are pure narrative constructs; they only exist to the extent that people agree to pretend that they do. The narrative managers know this, and they exploit the fact that most of us don’t. Take Julian Assange, perfect example: he was pried out of the embassy and imprisoned by an extremely obvious collaboration between the US, UK, Sweden, Ecuador, and Australia, yet they each pretended that they were acting as separate, sovereign nations completely independently of one another. Sweden pretended it was deeply concerned about rape allegations, the UK pretended it was deeply concerned about a bail violation, Ecuador pretended it was deeply concerned about skateboarding and embassy cat hygiene, the US pretended it was deeply concerned about the particulars of the way Assange helped Chelsea Manning cover her tracks, Australia pretended it was too deeply concerned about honoring the sovereign affairs of these other countries to intervene on behalf of its citizen, and it all converged in a way that just so happened to look exactly the same as imprisoning a journalist for publishing facts. You see this same dynamic constantly, whether it’s with military interventions, trade deals, or narrative-shaping campaigns against non-aligned governments. 28 – Understand that war is the glue which holds the US-centralized empire together. Without the carrot of military/economic alliance and the stick of military/economic violence, the US-centralized empire would cease to exist. This is why war propaganda is constant and sometimes so forced that glaring plot holes become exposed; it’s so important that they need to force it through, even if they can’t get the narrative matrix around it constructed just right. If they ceased manufacturing consent for the empire’s relentless warmongering, people would lose all trust in government and media institutions, and those institutions would lose the ability to propagandize the public effectively. Without the ability to propagandize the public effectively, our rulers cannot rule. 29 – Remember that when it comes to foreign policy, the neocons are always wrong. They’ve been so remarkably consistent in this for so long that whenever there’s a question about any narrative involving hostilities between the US-centralized power alliance and any other nation, you can just look at what Bill Kristol, Max Boot and John Bolton are saying about it and believe the exact opposite. They’re actually a very helpful navigation tool in this way. 30 – Notice how the manipulators like to split the population in two and then get them arguing over how they should serve the establishment. Arguing over whether it’s better to vote Democrat or Republican, arguing over whether it’s better to increase hostilities with Iran and Venezuela or with Syria and Russia, over whether you should support the US president or the FBI, arguing over how internet censorship should happen and whom should be censored rather than if censorship should happen in the first place. The longer they can keep us arguing over the best way to lick the imperial boot, the longer they keep us from talking about whether we want to lick it at all. 31 – Watch out for appeals to emotion. It’s much easier to manipulate someone by appealing to their feely bits rather than their capacity for rational analysis, which is why any time they want to manufacture support for military interventionism you see pictures of dead children on news screens everywhere rather than a logical argument for the advantages of using military violence based on a thorough presentation of facts and evidence. You see the same strategy used in the guilt trips they lay on third-party voters; it’s all emotional hyperbole that crumbles under any fact-based analysis, but they use it because it works. They go after your heart strings to circumvent your head. 32 – Pay attention to how much propaganda goes into maintaining the propaganda machine itself. This is done this because propaganda is just that central to the maintenance of dominant power structures. Much effort is spent building trust in establishment narrative management outlets while sowing distrust in sources of dissent. You’ll see entire propaganda campaigns built around accomplishing solely this. The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone has my unconditional permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on Minds and Twitter. Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.

Activist Post

https://www.activistpost.com/2019/06/32-tips-for-navigating-a-society-that-is-full-of-propaganda-and-manipulation.html

2019-06-04 00:50:07+00:00

society

social condition