Monday, August 4, 2014


News Clips For The Day


Oh. My. Geep. Meet the half goat, half sheep who is all cuteness – NBC
Emily Wickwire TODAY Show
Aug. 1, 2014

What do you get when you cross a goat and a sheep? The answer is standing on all fours at an Arizona petting zoo. 

Butterfly, who is a cross between a pygmy goat and a sheep, otherwise known as a "geep," was born on Sunday at My Petting Zoo in Scottsdale, causing quite a stir not only in Arizona but across the country. 

Priscilla Motola, the owner of the petting zoo, was caught off guard by the new arrival, although not necessarily because of the unique breed.

"We were not aware that she was even pregnant," Motola said of the mother sheep in an interview with TODAY.com. "We noticed she got a little bigger, but we thought she was just eating more." 

Motola said she and her three children went to feed the animals on Sunday evening when her 8-year-old son found what he thought was a newborn goat. Motola was confused because all of her female goats that had been expecting had already given birth. 

"That's when we looked at the mama sheep and saw she had just delivered," Motola said. 

Butterfly, who was given her name because of her various block spots, has the feet and face of her goat father, Michael, but the fuzzy wool and longer tail of her sheep mother, Momma. 

"I haven't heard about anyone else having it in Arizona," Motola said about the rare breed, adding that Butterfly seems to be following after her father's hoof prints so far.

"She's a little more like a goat," Motola said. "She's just running and jumping left and right." 

As for Momma and Michael's cross-species romance, Motola said the animals did a good job keeping it under wraps. "We had no idea they had a relationship with each other," she said. 

After Motola announced Butterfly's birth on Facebook on Sunday, the little lady has been getting attention from not only Scottsdale, but throughout the country thanks to social media. 

Though the petting zoo is currently closed due to Arizona's hot summer weather, Butterfly and the rest of the zoo's animals will be open to visitors by appointment once the temperatures cool off. 

"She's just a baby. We just want to give her some time," Motola said. "I just never expected something like this to happen." 




I suggest readers go to the website referenced above to see the picture of this little goat-like critter. It is so cute. The owners of My Petting Zoo in Scottsdale describe it as acting like a goat. “'She's just running and jumping left and right.'" Butterfly will be unable to produce babies if she is like most hybrids. They are healthy and may be larger than their parents (called “hybrid vigor”). When I looked up animal hybrids on the net I found a large number of species mentioned which have produced young together. Apparently their sexual hormones are attractive to the cross species enough to cause them to mate, especially in a situation like this in which the female sheep had no male sheep to breed with. Cattle with yaks have been crossbred for years in Mongolia, used both for milk and for plowing or beasts of burden. Lions and tigers cross, all horse relatives will cross, and a large number of other examples. See “animal hybrids” on Google for more examples and their uses.





Social Security's new report has a clear message – CBS
By STEVE VERNON MONEYWATCH August 4, 2014, 5:30 AM

"Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run program costs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers." That's the clear message in the opening lines of the 2014 annual reports of the Social Security and Medicare boards of trustees.

The program in most jeopardy is Disability Insurance (DI), which is part of Social Security. The trustee report estimates the DI trust fund will be depleted late in 2016. Considering both Social Security retirement and disability benefits, the report estimates that the combined trust fund will be depleted in 2033.

This doesn't mean Social Security benefits will stop altogether in 2033. If these trust funds are depleted, according to current law, Social Security benefits must be reduced to the level that's supported by the amount of FICA taxes being collected from workers at that time. The trustee report estimates that tax income will be sufficient to cover about three-quarters of all scheduled benefits at that time.

But there's no doubt that benefit reductions of about 25 percent will be very disruptive to retirees because Social Security benefits are the largest source of income for most of them.

The trustees also report that the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund will be depleted in 2030. At that time, dedicated revenues, which cover hospital and inpatient expenses, will pay about 85 percent of projected HI costs.

Part B of Medicare covers physician and outpatient expenses. General government revenues pay for about three-quarters of Part B, while premiums collected from current retirees pay for the rest. The trustees project that Part B costs will increase from 1.9 percent of GDP in 2013 to about 3.3 percent by 2035. The trustees also project that total Medicare costs, including both hospital and Part B outpatient services, will increase from 3.5 percent of GDP in 2013 to 5.3 percent of GDP by 2035.

The long-term deficit of Social Security's retirement and disability benefits is about 2.88 percent of taxable payroll. This means some combination of tax increases and benefit reductions with a total value of 2.88 percent of pay would put the program into financial balance. The long-term deficit of the HI program is about 0.87 percent of payroll.
While the dollar numbers of the deficit are staggeringly large, when expressed as a percentage of payroll, it seems that finding benefit reductions and tax increases in the magnitude of 2.88 and 0.87 percent of pay should be possible.

In 2013, the combined cost of the Social Security and Medicare programs equaled 8.4 percent of U.S. GDP. The trustees project this total cost will increase to 11.5 percent of GDP by 2035 and 13 percent by 2088. Once again, while the dollar amounts are very large, it seems that some combination of tax increases and benefit reductions with a total value of 3.1 to 4.6 percent of national output should be possible.

The Social Security projections depend on a number of demographic and economic assumptions about the future that may -- or may not -- turn out to be accurate. The projected Social Security and Medicare shortfalls are large enough that long-term funding challenges are likely, even under future scenarios that are more favorable than the assumptions the actuaries used.

Therefore, we shouldn't just hope and wish that the funding problems will somehow go away. It's dangerous to think that the projections are just a bunch of meaningless numbers.

But exactly why should we believe the board of trustees? Because they're smart people who take their job seriously.

Of the six trustees, four serve as a result of their position in the federal government: the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human services, and the commissioner of Social Security. The president appoints other two trustees with Senate confirmation. They are Charles P. Blahous, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Robert Reischauer, president emeritus of the Urban Institute.

Actuaries who work in the Social Security Administration do the work of preparing these projections. I've met a few of them, and I've found them to be very intelligent people who know their subject very well. They're dedicated public servants who are keenly interested in the long-term viability of Social Security.

Citizens and lawmakers alike would do well to pay attention to the clear messages from the trustees report. The conclusion of the report's cover letter says it well:

"Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare."

Lawmakers, are you listening?


http://www.ssa.gov/planners/maxtax.htm

Official Social Security Website
Benefits Planner: Maximum Taxable Earnings (1937 - 2014)

When you have wages or self-employment income that is covered by Social Security, you pay Social Security taxes each year up to a maximum amount that is set by law. That amount has changed frequently over the years.

For 2013, the maximum amount of taxable earnings was $113,700. In 2014, the maximum amount of taxable earnings is $117,000.

The maximum earnings for each year since Social Security taxes were first collected in 1937 are shown below. If you:

earned more than the maximum in any year but had only one job, the amount we use will be just the maximum amount.

had more than one job, the total that is recorded may be more than the maximum. However, we only use the maximum amount to calculate your benefit estimates.

Note: When you have more than one job in a year, each of your employers must withhold Social Security taxes from your wages without regard to what the other employers may have withheld. You may then end up with total Social Security taxes withheld that exceed the maximum.


http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/204996-scrapping-the-social-security-payroll-tax-cap


Scrapping the Social Security payroll tax cap
By Nicole Woo
May 08, 2014, 12:00 pm

Last month, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) announced plans to introduce a bill to increase the annual cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security.  He proposed to pay for it by raising the Social Security payroll tax rate of the wealthiest Americans -- those who make more than $250,000 per year -- closer to the rate already paid by middle and working class American workers.

Many people don’t know that any income above $117,000 per year is not taxed by Social Security (this limit on the amount of earnings subject to the tax is adjusted annually to keep up with inflation). That means that someone who makes twice the cap this year – $234,000 – pays the tax on only half of his or her wages. And those lucky enough to make at least $1.2 million per year are taxed by Social Security on less than one-tenth of their income.

In other words, workers who make $117,000 or less per year – the vast majority, as a recent analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows -- pay a higher Social Security payroll tax rate than the 5.6 percent who make more.

Merkley will be joining Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who also have introduced bills to apply the Social Security payroll tax to wages above $250,000. These bills are similar to a proposal by Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. The Social Security Administration’s Chief Actuary estimates that the payroll tax cap sections of these proposals would reduce the program’s long-term budget shortfall by about 80 percent.

Others have proposed increasing or phasing out the Social Security payroll tax cap entirely, a concept popularly coined as “Scrap the Cap.” Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska), as well as Reps. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) and Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), have introduced bills that would phase out the cap over five to ten years. The phase-outs of the cap in these proposals are estimated to eliminate 70 to 80 percent of the long-range shortfall.

While every one of these senators and representatives earn over $117,000 annually, Census Bureau data shows that only about 1 in 18 workers would pay more if the cap were scrapped, and only the top 1.4 percent (1 in 71 workers) would be affected if the tax were applied to earnings over $250,000.

It gets even more interesting when you look at different states and slices of the population.  In the home states of Merkley, Harkin and Sanders (Oregon, Iowa, and Vermont), the top 4.2 percent, 3.5 percent and 4.0 percent of workers, respectively, would pay more if the Social Security payroll cap were phased out.

Even fewer women workers would be affected if the cap were abolished: only about 1 in 36 (2.8 percent) of them would pay more, and the top half of one percent would be affected if the tax were applied to earnings over $250,000.  Similarly, only about 1 in 50 black or Latino workers would pay more if the cap were lifted entirely, and about 1 in 200 would be affected if earnings above $250,000 were subject to the tax.

As the retirement security of working Americans continues to be an important topic of debate, these proposals -- to strengthen Social Security by having the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax rate as the rest of us – deserve the utmost consideration.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/204996-scrapping-the-social-security-payroll-tax-cap#ixzz39RBO13Ww 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook





“The program in most jeopardy is Disability Insurance (DI), which is part of Social Security. The trustee report estimates the DI trust fund will be depleted late in 2016. Considering both Social Security retirement and disability benefits, the report estimates that the combined trust fund will be depleted in 2033. This doesn't mean Social Security benefits will stop altogether in 2033. If these trust funds are depleted, according to current law, Social Security benefits must be reduced to the level that's supported by the amount of FICA taxes being collected from workers at that time. The trustee report estimates that tax income will be sufficient to cover about three-quarters of all scheduled benefits at that time.” See the blog on scrapping the cap.

Scrap the gap” advocates Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) , and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), all “have introduced bills to apply the Social Security payroll tax to wages above $250,000.”... Others have proposed increasing or phasing out the Social Security payroll tax cap entirely, a concept popularly coined as “Scrap the Cap.” Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska), as well as Reps. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) and Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), have introduced bills that would phase out the cap over five to ten years.... only the top 1.4 percent (1 in 71 workers) would be affected if the tax were applied to earnings over $250,000.” If wages over 250,000 were taxed equally with those paid by the middle class and the poor, the shortfall in the Social Security fund would be cut by 80%. Perhaps if the tax rates were then increased by a small amount on all workers wages, the Social Security fund would be fully funded. Something needs to be done, given the longer life span in the US and the increased numbers who are drawing Social Security due to population growth and the “Baby Boom.”

The Social Security system is a very good thing, as most Americans don't have half a million dollars in savings to pay for their retirement, and even at that amount of savings they would have to reduce their expenditures. I am making a very modest amount on Social Security and a tiny pension, but I can make it with my budget. If the monthly payments were reduced, my rent at my subsidized housing would also go down, and I would probably still be okay with no unnecessary expenditures except a movie and a restaurant meal once a month. If my car breaks down I will simply stop driving and start using the city bus system. That will save me $65 or so a month on car insurance. Many people are not so lucky, as the less money they have made in wages over their lives, the less Social Security will pay, and many of them have serious chronic illnesses like diabetes. It is time we stopped the rich from having a free ride on the Social Security taxes. They don't need that financial break, and can afford to pay more toward the nation's expenses. After all, they will get to claim a social security pension to add to their stocks and bonds.




Hundreds of Ukrainian troops cross into Russia
CBS/AP August 4, 2014, 8:17 AM

MOSCOW -- More than 400 Ukrainian soldiers have crossed the border into Russia and deserted the Kiev government, news agency Interfax quoted a border security official as saying Monday. Ukraine confirmed the crossing but said the soldiers were forced into Russian territory by rebel fire.

Vasily Malayev, head of the Federal Security Service's border patrol in the Rostov region, told Interfax that 438 Ukrainian soldiers had reached Russia on Monday. He said the Russian side had opened a safe corridor for the soldiers into Russia.

The Ukrainian military confirmed that part of a brigade had most likely crossed into Russian territory, although it disputed Russia's version of events and would not say how many soldiers had crossed the border.

A spokesman for the Ukrainian military operation in the east, Olenek Dmitrashkovsky, said troops from the army's 72nd brigade were penned into their position and came under a sustained barrage of rocket attacks from separatist forces. Rebel fighters fired for four hours from multiple heavy weapons, including tanks, mortars, artillery and Grad missile launchers, Dmitrashkovsky said, and eventually the brigade was forced to divide up into two sections to break out.

"One was meant to break out and join forces with a support unit. The other unit had the task of providing fire cover," Dmitrashkovsky said. "In doing that they fired their weapons until no ammunition remained, after which they abandoned their position and reached a place near a border crossing on Russian territory."

Dmitrashkovsky said it was too early to confirm how many soldiers had crossed into Russia.

"We do not have such information. The Russians are capable of claiming anything they want," he said.

Earlier Monday, Interfax reported that Russia's air force began military drills in central and western regions of the country, a move that could spark further fears that Moscow is ready to flex its military muscle in Ukraine. Russian media -- all of which operate under tight government scrutiny -- said the scale of the exercise would be unprecedented.

The drills will start Monday and last through Friday, air force chief Igor Klimov was reported as saying, and will involve more than 100 fighter jets and helicopters. Among the weapons being used in the drills, according to Russian news outlets, were surface-to-air missiles.

Russia's Ministry of Defense could not be reached for comment.

Washington -- and much of the international community -- accuses the pro-Russian separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 using a Buk surface-to-air missile system, possibly provided by Moscow. Russia has denied any role in the plane's downing, and insists it does not support the rebels.

The separatists in eastern Ukraine have been battling the Kiev government since April, a conflict that has claimed at least 1,129 civilian casualties, according to a U.N. Estimate.

Diplomatic efforts to end the conflict have stalled, and while clashes continued nearby, investigators using sniffer dogs were able to recover more human remains and personal belongings at the Flight 17 crash site on Saturday, the head of an international recovery mission said.

Speaking from the Ukrainian capital Kiev, Pieter-Jaap Aalbersberg said 70 Dutch and Australian investigators were able to reach the site for the second consecutive day.

Aalbersberg did not give details of the remains recovered. His team is searching for decomposing remains of approximately 80 victims spread over an area of 8 square miles - a process expected to take weeks.

He thanked the warring sides for allowing the mission to proceed, after being delayed most of the week by fighting.

"This is of great importance to the international police officers, the experts and, especially, the victims' families," he said.




“MOSCOW -- More than 400 Ukrainian soldiers have crossed the border into Russia and deserted the Kiev government, news agency Interfax quoted a border security official as saying Monday. Ukraine confirmed the crossing but said the soldiers were forced into Russian territory by rebel fire.... The Ukrainian military confirmed that part of a brigade had most likely crossed into Russian territory, although it disputed Russia's version of events and would not say how many soldiers had crossed the border..... A spokesman for the Ukrainian military operation in the east, Olenek Dmitrashkovsky, said troops from the army's 72nd brigade were penned into their position and came under a sustained barrage of rocket attacks.... Dmitrashkovsky said, and eventually the brigade was forced to divide up into two sections to break out.” Kiev acknowledges that one group had “most likely crossed into Russian territory.” Meanwhile the Russians are conducting military exercises on the border at an “unprecedented scale,” including firing surface to air missiles. “Russia's Ministry of Defense could not be reached for comment.”

I don't know how many troops Kiev has, but 400 is a lot to lose. If they did simply desert, rather than being “forced” across the border, that doesn't speak well for Ukraine's future. If they are now prisoners of war, that will make further Ukrainian assaults on the rebels more risky, as their soldiers may be under threat. I do hope the Kiev government doesn't collapse. They have put up a good fight for their autonomy until now, and I don't want to see a repetition of the Cold War in territory that had won its freedom.




How brown fat benefits your health
By AGATA BLASZCZAK-BOXE CBS NEWS August 4, 2014

Body fat certainly has a bad reputation, but it turns out that not all fat is equal. There's growing evidence that brown fat can actually be beneficial for your health and weight, and the more of it you have, the better.

In the latest study, published last week in the journal Diabetes, researchers found that people with higher levels of brown fat may have a reduced risk for obesity and diabetes. Brown fat, also known as brown adipose tissue, appears to improve insulin sensitivity, while also helping to control blood sugar and increase fat-burning metabolism.

So what exactly is brown fat, and why are we suddenly hearing so much about it?

Brown fat, which owes its name to the high density of iron-containing mitochondria in the cells, has only become a hot research topic in the past few years. It was previously thought that brown fat was prevalent in newborns and then disappeared as they grew up. But in a 2009 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that brown fat can indeed still be found in adults. Younger people tend to have more of it than older adults. The same study determined that brown fat appeared to be more abundant in slim people and in women.

In infants, brown fat in the upper body plays a key role in helping babies stay warm and protecting them from hypothermia. In adults, remaining brown fat is located in small amounts on the side of the neck, in the upper back, along the spine and in the dip between the collarbone and the shoulder.

Since its discovery in adults, additional studies have suggested its heat-regulating function can help burn calories and contribute to weight loss.

Unlike white fat, which expands as a result of consuming more calories than we burn off, brown fat plays a different role in the body.

While white fat is mainly used to store energy, brown fat keeps the body warm by burning calories once it is activated. Even better, brown fat seems to primarily "pick" those calories that come from fat and sugar, Labros Sidossis, a professor of internal medicine in the division of geriatric medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, told CBS News. This in turn may be particularly helpful in fighting health issues such as diabetes and being overweight.

"If you can activate it [brown fat], it can help you burn calories," Sidossis said.

So what do you need to do to activate this internal calorie furnace? Not much, in terms of physical effort. Since the main function of brown fat is to keep the keep the body warm, the best way to put it to work is to simply expose the body to colder temperatures than it's used to. It starts to work even if temperatures are just slightly lower, around 70 degrees Fahrenheit, Sidossis said.

Once it is activated, brown fat can burn up to 300 calories in 24 hours, he said. A study published last winter found that shivering in cold temperatures for 10 to 15 minutes could have the same hormonal effect as an hour of moderate exercise.

And there is more good news: you can not only activate your brown fat, but you can actually grow it. If you keep exposing yourself to colder temperatures for a few weeks, the amount of this "good" fat in your body can expand, Sidossis said.

The amount of brown fat in an average adult is relatively scarce, ranging from 20 grams to 120 or 130 grams, Sidossis said, adding that not every adult has it, either. Obese and elderly people are less likely to have brown fat, he said.

Brown fat may potentially have additional health benefits. Some animal studies have suggested that it may also help help lower high blood pressure, but that has not been confirmed in studies on humans yet, Sidossis said.

Researchers are now hoping to develop medications that would trigger the activation of brown fat for a certain period of time so that people can get all the benefits without having to get exposed to colder temperatures, he said.





“Brown fat, which owes its name to the high density of iron-containing mitochondria in the cells, has only become a hot research topic in the past few years. It was previously thought that brown fat was prevalent in newborns and then disappeared as they grew up. But in a 2009 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that brown fat can indeed still be found in adults. Younger people tend to have more of it than older adults. The same study determined that brown fat appeared to be more abundant in slim people and in women.... its heat-regulating function can help burn calories and contribute to weight loss.”

“So what do you need to do to activate this internal calorie furnace? Not much, in terms of physical effort. Since the main function of brown fat is to keep the keep the body warm, the best way to put it to work is to simply expose the body to colder temperatures than it's used to. It starts to work even if temperatures are just slightly lower, around 70 degrees Fahrenheit, Sidossis said.... A study published last winter found that shivering in cold temperatures for 10 to 15 minutes could have the same hormonal effect as an hour of moderate exercise.... you can actually grow it. If you keep exposing yourself to colder temperatures for a few weeks, the amount of this "good" fat in your body can expand, Sidossis said.... Some animal studies have suggested that it may also help help lower high blood pressure, but that has not been confirmed in studies on humans yet, Sidossis said.

I'm going to keep my AC on all the summer, as I have been, but also put off wearing a jacket until I can't tolerate the temperature as autumn comes on this year. I've always been very uncomfortable in chilly air, and tried to avoid shivering. This article says that shivering helps the brown fat to grow. I wonder if certain foods contribute to the growth of brown fat. Encouraging brown fat looks like an easy way to be healthier, as the blood pressure may be lowered and the tendency to develop diabetes goes down. This is an interesting article – I had never heard of brown fat before today. This is why I read the news!






Florida lawmakers to meet on redrawing congressional districts
CBS/AP August 3, 2014, 10:14 PM

TALLAHASSEE, Fla.- Confronted with a judge's ruling to swiftly redraw the state's congressional districts, Florida's House speaker disclosed extraordinary plans late Sunday to convene a rare summer special session to devise a new map.

The speaker, Will Weatherford, sent out an email to legislators advising that they will hold a special session starting Thursday to address the "limited concerns" raised by a Florida judge over the state's current congressional boundaries. The special session is expected to last up to a week.

The decision to hold a special session was triggered by a ruling by a circuit court judge, Terry Lewis. Lewis, who had ruled in early July that the current congressional map was illegal, ordered legislators on Friday to draw up a new map by Aug. 15.

Voters in 2010 passed a so-called "Fair Districts" amendment that says legislators cannot draw up districts to favor incumbents or a political party. A coalition of groups, including the League of Women Voters, has contended that the Republican consultants used a "shadow" process to draw districts that benefited Republicans.

Lewis agreed in July and ruled that the consultants had helped make a "mockery" of the process. He ruled that two of the state's 27 districts were drawn to benefit the GOP. Lewis also stated that once a new map is drawn, he will then consider whether to order a special election for the redrawn districts. Legislative lawyers have argued, however, that Lewis lacks the authority to order a special election for members of Congress.

In his emailed statement, Weatherford made it clear that while the Legislature will work up a new map in the summer session, it will fight any ruling ordering a special election. He noted that voters have already cast ballots for the Aug. 26 primary and that the NAACP has already stated that voters could be "irreparably harmed" if the state used a special election to elect members of Congress.

"We continue to maintain our strong objection to any attempt to disrupt the current election process," Weatherford wrote.

The decision to hold a special session so close to elections is out of the routine. Some legislators are currently in the middle of campaigning for their party primaries. Lawmakers are also barred from raising money during special sessions.

Despite the ruling, legislative leaders opted not to appeal. But they asked Lewis to delay implementing on a new map until after this year's elections in order to avoid confusion at the polls. But Lewis stated Friday that right now he could not agree to that. He wrote that to do so would be telling voters "they have been deprived of the equal right of having a say in who represents their interests in Congress for two years."
Lewis, however, left open the possibility that further evidence could prompt him to change his mind.

During a special session, legislators will have to redraw the two districts cited by Lewis: A sprawling district that stretches from Jacksonville to Orlando represented by U.S. Rep. Corinne Brown and a central Florida district that is home to U.S. Rep. Dan Webster. Any efforts to redraw these two districts would likely result in changes to other districts in central Florida.




“The decision to hold a special session was triggered by a ruling by a circuit court judge, Terry Lewis. Lewis, who had ruled in early July that the current congressional map was illegal, ordered legislators on Friday to draw up a new map by Aug. 15.... A coalition of groups, including the League of Women Voters, has contended that the Republican consultants used a "shadow" process to draw districts that benefited Republicans....Lewis also stated that once a new map is drawn, he will then consider whether to order a special election for the redrawn districts. Legislative lawyers have argued, however, that Lewis lacks the authority to order a special election for members of Congress....During a special session, legislators will have to redraw the two districts cited by Lewis: A sprawling district that stretches from Jacksonville to Orlando represented by U.S. Rep. Corinne Brown and a central Florida district that is home to U.S. Rep. Dan Webster. Any efforts to redraw these two districts would likely result in changes to other districts in central Florida.”

This kind of scheme by the Republicans, and I'm sure by the Democrats in some cases as well, has been occurring all over the country for as long as I can remember. I just checked Wikipedia. The term gerrymander first came into being in 1812 for this same kind of unfair redrawing of boundaries by a particular party to benefit themselves. In Florida and other states the Republicans try to keep blacks and Hispanics from voting in various ways, such as the recent trend of requiring a picture ID to vote. Apparently a certain higher number of minority voters don't have easy access to a driver's license. Many poor people don't drive cars, so they have to go to the Drivers License Bureau for a non-driver's ID, for which they have to furnish positive proof of ID, such as a birth certificate. The Republicans assume that restricting voting by the poor and minorities will favor them at the polls. They claim, of course, that they are trying to prevent voter fraud among illegal immigrants. One year there was a news story about a city that blocked off certain roads that led to the polling places in a Democratic area. It's dirty, but politics is war, and “all's fair in love and war.” In this case the court caught the Republican rascals and have mandated this change in the districts to a balanced and fair representation. Thank goodness for Judge Terry Lewis's sharp eyes.





Two Doctors Weigh Whether To Accept Obamacare Plans – NPR
by JEFF COHEN
August 03, 2014

On a recent afternoon at his office in Hartford, Conn., Dr. Doug Gerard examines a patient complaining of joint pain. He checks her out, asks her a few questions about her symptoms and then orders a few tests before sending her on her way.

For a typical quick visit like this, Gerard could get reimbursed $100 or more from a private insurer. For the same visit, Medicare pays less — about $80. And now, with the new private plans under the Affordable Care Act, Gerard says he would get something in between, but closer to the lower Medicare rates.

That's not something he's willing to put up with.

"I cannot accept a plan [in which] potentially commercial-type reimbursement rates were now going to be reimbursed at Medicare rates. You have to maintain a certain mix in private practice between the low reimbursers and the high reimbursers to be able to keep the lights on," he says.

Three insurers offered plans on Connecticut's ACA marketplace in 2014 and Gerard is only accepting one. He won't say which, but he will say it pays the highest rate.

"I don't think most physicians know what they're being reimbursed," he says. "Only when they start seeing some of those rates come through will they realize how low the rates are they agreed to."

Gerard's decision to reject two plans is something officials in Connecticut are concerned about. If reimbursement rates to doctors stays low in Obamacare plans, more doctors could reject those plans. And that could mean that people will get access to insurance, but they may not get access to a lot of doctors.

That worries Kevin Counihan, who runs Connecticut's health insurance marketplace.

"I think it could lead potentially to this kind of distinction that there is these different tiers of quality of care," he explains.

His agency recently approved rules geared at getting more providers into plans on the exchange. The goal is to make sure that everyone gets good care regardless of their income — and that consumers recognize it.

"The [perception that there are] different tiers of quality of care means somehow that the people think that just because my income is below 400 percent of the federal poverty level, I'm going to get inadequate care or lesser care than someone making above 400 percent," says Counihan. "That's been something, at least in our state, that we're trying to work against. And the carriers are, as well."

NPR asked all three of the insurers on Connecticut's exchange to comment. Two declined but one agreed. Ken Lalime is the CEO of Healthy CT — an insurance co-op. He says insurers face a real challenge figuring out how to pay doctors enough but also keep consumer premiums low.

"Every time you increase payments to providers, you have to offset that with increased reimbursement from the consumer. So there's this balance between how much do you want to cost to provide that service ... and how much you can pass along in your premium rates. So it's a balancing act," he says.

Healthy CT may have missed the balance — just 3 percent of the exchange's consumers bought their insurance 2014. Lalime says he also thinks low reimbursement rates are forcing some doctors to decide against accepting insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Dr. Bob Russo is sure of it. He's a radiologist and he's also the president-elect of the Connecticut State Medical Society. He says that the low rates and administrative burdens that come along with the ACA could make it a financial loser.

"You get what you pay for," he says. "If you can't convince [doctors] that they're not losing money doing their job, it's a problem. And they haven't been able to convince people of that."

He, like Counihan, worries about creating a tiered health care system. Think about Medicaid, he says. Before a recent rise in rates, it paid doctors even less than Medicare, so many stopped accepting Medicaid patients.

"There's no question that Medicaid, under its old rates, wasn't working," he says. "So, have we just invented a new Medicaid that kind of slid the scale up a little more to make access a little more?"

The experience of these doctors is a good reminder that the Affordable Care Act is more than a thought exercise in health care — it's happening now. Open enrollment for 2015 begins in just over three months.


http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/27/doctors-salaries-who-earns-the-most-and-the-least/

Time
Doctors’ Salaries: Who Earns the Most and the Least?
By Alexandra Sifferlin @acsifferlin April 27, 2012

Doctors are still high earners, although few consider themselves “rich,” finds a recent survey by Medscape, a physician-focused information service from WebMD.

Using a third-party online collection website, Medscape surveyed 24,216 physicians across 25 specialties from Feb. 1 to 17, 2012. Doctors’ earnings ranged from about $156,000 a year for pediatricians to about $315,000 for radiologists and orthopedic surgeons. The highest earners — orthopedic surgeons and radiologists — were the same as last year, followed by cardiologists who earned $314,000 and anesthesiologists who made $309,000.

The lowest earning doctors are the family guys. Pediatricians and family practitioners make about $156,000 and $158,000, respectively. Internists and psychiatrists rank a notch above, at about $165,00 and $170,000, respectively.

Despite their sizable salaries, only about 11% of doctors considered themselves rich, which the survey authors attribute to physicians’ high debts and expenses. About 51% of all physicians and 46% of primary care physicians said they thought they were compensated fairly. When asked if they would choose a career in medicine if they had it to do all over again, 54% of physicians surveyed said yes — down from 69% the previous year.




“For a typical quick visit like this, Gerard could get reimbursed $100 or more from a private insurer. For the same visit, Medicare pays less — about $80. And now, with the new private plans under the Affordable Care Act, Gerard says he would get something in between, but closer to the lower Medicare rates. That's not something he's willing to put up with.... If reimbursement rates to doctors stays low in Obamacare plans, more doctors could reject those plans. And that could mean that people will get access to insurance, but they may not get access to a lot of doctors.... That worries Kevin Counihan, who runs Connecticut's health insurance marketplace.... NPR asked all three of the insurers on Connecticut's exchange to comment. Two declined but one agreed. Ken Lalime is the CEO of Healthy CT — an insurance co-op. He says insurers face a real challenge figuring out how to pay doctors enough but also keep consumer premiums low.... Think about Medicaid, he says. Before a recent rise in rates, it paid doctors even less than Medicare, so many stopped accepting Medicaid patients.”

Doctors do have to pay malpractice insurance, buy new technology, pay rent and other overhead costs and they can only include a certain number of patients into the span of a day to pay for it all. Their load of student debt is probably astronomical. Still, physicians tend to bring in a minimum of $156,000 a year. They can send their kids to private prep schools, afford the best health insurance for their own families, join a Country Club, own at least two houses and three cars, and even run for office. A number of (primarily Republican) people in state and Federal governments are doctors. Nonetheless, it's their ballgame, because no law requires a physician to accept Affordable Care patients. This could become a real problem over the next few years as more patients can't get good care. If I see any more news about this I will clip it.





Africa's Leaders Aim To Change Perception Of The Continent – NPR
by GREGORY WARNER
August 03, 2014

Scores of African leaders gather in Washington this week at an unprecedented summit organized by President Obama.

Africa rarely gets a break — in the news headlines, anyway. But as the spread of the deadly Ebola virus continues to dominate the news cycle, there's a very different story about Africa that threatens to be forgotten.

One way to start that story is with the nearly $1 billion worth of deals to be announced this week between the United States and Africa, at a historic U.S. summit that will bring President Obama together with the leaders of more than 40 African nations.

The deals themselves are beside the point — "a bit of a pageant," says Jonathan Berman, author of Success in Africa, a book of interviews with African CEOs.

"Those deals are either developed beforehand or they're not yet fully baked. So that's not really what a summit does," Berman says. "What I think a summit can do, and what I think this summit in particular can do, is change a narrative ... change perceptions."

Seeing Growth, Meeting Counterparts

Berman says that the narrative about Africa needs to change from one of "war, disease and poverty to one of hope, aspiration and opportunity." And perceptions need to be updated to reflect a continent that contains six of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world, and is home to an increasingly educated middle class hungry for Western goods.

Berman says American businesses have not, for the most part, taken advantage of investment opportunities on the African continent. China's volume of trade with Africa is 2.7 times that of the U.S.

He blames old stereotypes, in part, for holding the U.S. back. "Businesspeople are not that much different from other people," he says. "They're informed by the ecosystem around them ... by what they heard growing up."

Growing up, many heard the constant calls to feed the starving children in Ethiopia. But Ethiopia's growth rate, according to the World Bank, has now exceeded China's. So Berman says this summit has a corrective aim: to enable meetings between American CEOs and African CEOs and leaders.

Those meetings matter because ultimately, Berman says, an executive needs to go beyond the numbers and ask: "With whom am I going to do business?"

That very question was recently posed not to a business executive, but to a human rights activist named Tutu Alicante, in exile from Equatorial Guinea. It's a country where oil riches have resulted in the highest GDP per capita in all of Africa, while real wealth is stuck in the hands of a few.

The actual poverty rate in the nation, which Tutu calls a "perfect kleptocracy," is over 75 percent; meanwhile, the family of President Teodoro Obiang controls all the oil revenues.

President Obiang is not only invited to the White House summit, but is the featured guest at a separate forum this week with the Corporate Council on Africa — a forum intended to drum up more investment in the country. Alicante says that's the precisely wrong way to bring change to Africa.

"In South Africa [in the '70s and '80s] it took companies boycotting the apartheid regime in order for that regime to change," Alicante says. "It wasn't investing further into the apartheid regime that got them to change."

'Not Meant To Be Solved On American Soil'

The U.S.-Africa Summit has been criticized by international groups for not inviting more human rights groups and government reformers.

Chris Byaruhanga works for the international anti-poverty group ActionAid. He's been honored by the White House's Young African Leaders Initiative for his work in his native Uganda, for trying to bring transparency to oil deals. He reports on deals that seem to line official pockets instead of helping ordinary Ugandans.

Byaruhanga has been called a saboteur by his own government. But surprisingly, he does not want his president to miss this opportunity to come to Washington, D.C., to this summit and make deals. (President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda is indeed one of the honored guests.)

"I want investment to come to Africa so badly," Byaruhanga says. "I have three children that I want to work in Uganda when they come of age."

But Byaruhanga says that keeping African governments accountable is his job and the job of other young middle-class, educated Africans, more than the job of American corporations.

"Our concern with government is not even meant to be solved on American soil," he says. "So let them come and sign these deals. But when you come back home, tell us what you've done, and allow us to make some input."

Byarunhanga is trying to change another old perception about the continent, that Africa always seems to need help from the West. His new narrative: Africans can help themselves.




“Berman says that the narrative about Africa needs to change from one of "war, disease and poverty to one of hope, aspiration and opportunity." And perceptions need to be updated to reflect a continent that contains six of the 10 fastest-growing economies in the world, and is home to an increasingly educated middle class hungry for Western goods. Berman says American businesses have not, for the most part, taken advantage of investment opportunities on the African continent. China's volume of trade with Africa is 2.7 times that of the U.S.... Growing up, many heard the constant calls to feed the starving children in Ethiopia. But Ethiopia's growth rate, according to the World Bank, has now exceeded China's. So Berman says this summit has a corrective aim: to enable meetings between American CEOs and African CEOs and leaders.”

"'With whom am I going to do business?' That very question was recently posed not to a business executive, but to a human rights activist named Tutu Alicante, in exile from Equatorial Guinea.... The actual poverty rate in the nation, which Tutu calls a "perfect kleptocracy," is over 75 percent; meanwhile, the family of President Teodoro Obiang controls all the oil revenues.... President Obiang is not only invited to the White House summit, but is the featured guest... “

The U.S.-Africa Summit has been criticized by international groups for not inviting more human rights groups and government reformers.... Chris Byaruhanga works for the international anti-poverty group ActionAid.... He reports on deals that seem to line official pockets instead of helping ordinary Ugandans.... 'Our concern with government is not even meant to be solved on American soil,' he says. 'So let them come and sign these deals. But when you come back home, tell us what you've done, and allow us to make some input.'"

The poverty rate in one nation was given in this article – 75%. That is startling. I wonder what the situations in other countries are. Chris Byaruhanga argues for a part in the process of making business deals for the common people. It's clear that more representative democracy is needed so that the citizens get more of the money that “trickles down” from the wealthy. Still, the increased growth rate in the six rapidly growing economies is encouraging. According to the article there are increasing numbers of educated middle class people who are “hungry for American goods.” This article calls Obama's summit “unprecedented,” so maybe it will stimulate our economy and theirs as well, as together those who attend work to develop more trade and less poverty in Africa.