爱上海,上海龙凤419,上海419论坛 – Powered by Hedieh Flex!

Menu
in nfxofclr
January 17, 2021

Odds & Ends: Jessica Vosk Announces A Very Coco Christmas EP & More

first_imgTony Nominee Jeremy O. Harris Announces The Golden CollectionSlave Play’s Tony-nominated playwright Jeremy O. Harris has announced The Golden Collection, a series composed of 15 plays by prominent Black playwrights. Featuring Les Blancs by Lorraine Hansberry, The Colored Museum by George C. Wolfe, An Octoroon by Branden Jacobs Jenkins, Sweat by Lynn Nottage, A Collection of Plays (Wedding Band and Trouble in Mind) by Alice Childress, F**king A by Suzan-Lori Parks, We Are Proud to Present a Presentation by Jackie Sibblies Drury, The Mountaintop by Katori Hall, Is God Is by Aleshea Harris, Fires in the Mirror by Anna Deavere Smith, Funnyhouse of a Negro by Adrienne Kennedy, For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide / When the Rainbow Is Enuf by Ntozake Shange, Bootycandy by Robert O’Hara, and Dream on Monkey Mountain by Derek Walcott, the collection is named in honor of Harris’ grandfather Golden Harris, who passed away two weeks before the playwright learned that Slave Play would play Broadway’s Golden Theatre. Slave Play will donate The Golden Collection to libraries and community centers in all 50 states. Click here to purchase your own copy.Billy Porter Will Co-Host Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve 2021Tony winner Billy Porter has his New Year’s Eve plans all set. The stage and screen star will join previously announced hosts Ryan Seacrest and Lucy Hale in Times Square for the end-of-year celebration Dick Clark’s New Year’s Rockin’ Eve with Ryan Seacrest 2021. Due to the ongoing global pandemic, this year’s broadcast is closed to the public. Be sure to watch all the fun on December 31 starting at 8PM ET on ABC.Get a First Look at An Evening with Audra McDonaldTony winner Audra McDonald is headlining New York City Center’s 2020 gala, and now fans can get a first look at the intimate digital presentation filmed live on stage. An Evening with Audra McDonald will feature McDonald singing standards from the Great American Songbook and classics from the golden age of Broadway. Click here to get your tickets to the gala and be sure to watch the sneak peek below! Jessica Vosk (Photo: Michael Hull) Here’s a quick roundup of stories you might have missed recently.Jessica Vosk to Release A Very Coco Christmas EPFormer Wicked star Jessica Vosk wants to help you get into the holiday spirit. The Broadway.com Audience Choice Award winner announced she is releasing a three-song EP titled A Very Coco Christmas. With a release date to be announced, get ready for the festivities by checking out her Instagram post below!center_img View Commentslast_img read more

No Comments
Read More »
in nfxofclr
December 31, 2020

Vermont spends fifth highest in US for public education, New York most and Utah least

first_imgVermont had the fifth highest per pupil public school spending in the country in 2011, but, typical of high-spending states, the third lowest funding coming from the federal government, according to the US Census. School spending went up 4.3 percent in Vermont from 2010. Meanwhile, fiscal year 2011 marked the first decrease in per student public education spending nationally since the US Census Bureau began collecting data on an annual basis in 1977, according to new statistics released today.The 50 states and the District of Columbia spent $10,560 per student in 2011, down 0.4 percent from 2010. The top spenders were New York ($19,076), the District of Columbia ($18,475), Alaska ($16,674), New Jersey ($15,968) and Vermont ($15,925). States spending the least per student were Mississippi ($7,928), Arizona ($7,666), Oklahoma ($7,587), Idaho ($6,824) and Utah ($6,212).Total expenditures by public elementary and secondary school systems totaled $595.1 billion in 2011, down 1.1 percent from 2010. This is the second time total expenditures have shown a year-to-year decrease, the first time being 2010. Today’s findings come from Public Education Finances: 2011 .  These statistics provide figures on revenues, expenditures, debt and assets (cash and security holdings) of the nation’s elementary and secondary public school systems for the 2011 fiscal year. The release includes detailed statistics on spending ‘such as instruction, student transportation, salaries and employee benefits ‘at the national, state and school district levels.Of the $595.1 billion in total expenditures for public school systems, $522.1 billion is comprised of current spending (i.e. operational expenditures, not including long-term debt). Expenditure for instruction amounted to $316.3 billion (60.6 percent) of the total current spending, while costs for support services amounted to $178.7 billion (34.2 percent).  Instructional salaries were the largest expenditure category for public elementary and secondary education, accounting for $208.8 billion in 2011.On the revenue side, public schools received $599.1 billion in total revenue for 2011, an increase of 1.1 percent from 2010.  The largest source of revenue is from state governments at $265.9 billion (44.4 percent of total revenue), followed by local governments at $259.5 billion (43.3 percent) and the federal government providing $73.7 billion (12.3 percent).States that had the highest percentage of their total public school revenue coming from federal funding included Mississippi (22.3 percent of the statewide education revenue), South Dakota (20.3 percent),Louisiana (18.7 percent), Alaska (17.8 percent), Florida (17.8 percent) and New Mexico (17.7 percent).Conversely, states that had the lowest percentage of their total school revenue coming from federal funding were New Jersey (5.1 percent), New Hampshire (6.5 percent), Vermont (7.1 percent), Massachusetts (7.8 percent), Minnesota (7.8 percent) and Connecticut (8.3 percent).Other highlights:Property taxes accounted for 65.6 percent of revenue from local sources for public school systems.Of the 100 largest school systems by enrollment in the U.S., New York City School District($19,770) in New York had the highest current spending per student in 2011, followed by Baltimore City Public Schools in Maryland ($15,483), Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland($15,421), Milwaukee Public School in Wisconsin ($14,244) and Prince George’s County Public Schools in Maryland ($13,775). Eight out of nine states in the Northeast region of the U.S. were ranked among the top 15 in current spending per student in 2011. The remaining state in the northeast, Maine, was ranked 17th. Out of the 16 states with the lowest per student spending, 15 were in the South and West regions. The remaining state, South Dakota, was in the Midwest.The data used in the tabulations came from a census of all 15,345 public school systems. As such, they are not subject to sampling error. Although quality assurance methods were applied to all phases of data collection and processing, the data are subject to nonsampling error, including errors of response and miscoding. For more information, visit the Census Bureau’s website at http://www.census.gov/govs/school/(link is external). WASHINGTON, May 21, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — census.gov (dollars not adjusted for inflation)last_img read more

No Comments
Read More »
in nfxofclr
December 31, 2020

Shumlin will NOT support single-payer health insurance, says tax hike ‘might hurt our economy’

first_imgVermont Business Magazine Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin announced today that tax rates would be too great at this time to move forward with a single-payer health insurance plan. A long-time supporter of moving to a universal, publicly-financed health care system in Vermont, the governor said he would not support such a plan at this time. He detailed his administration’s health care financing report, set to be delivered to the Legislature in January, at a press conference in the State House Wednesday afternoon.The financial models unveiled by the governor would require both a double digit payroll tax on Vermont businesses and an up to 9.5 percent public premium assessment on individual Vermonters’ income to pay for Green Mountain Care, the statewide public health care system proposed in Act 48. The governor acknowledged that given current fiscal realities, such a financing plan would be detrimental to Vermonters, employers and the state’s economy overall. Therefore, he said, despite his steadfast support for a publicly-financed health care system, he reluctantly will not support moving forward with a financing proposal at this time or asking the Legislature to consider or pass it. He ended his prepared remarks by saying, “Our time will come.”The administration is anticipating $100 million shortfall in addressing next year’s budget. The administration already has been cutting spending in the current year as revenues, particularly from the personal income tax, have not met expectations.“I have always made clear that I would ask the state to move forward with public financing only when we are ready and when we can be sure that it will promote prosperity for hard-working Vermonters and businesses, and create job growth,” the Governor said. “Pushing for single payer health care when the time isn’t right and it might hurt our economy would not be good for Vermont and it would not be good for true health care reform. It could set back for years all of our hard work toward the important goal of universal, publicly-financed health care for all. I am not going undermine the hope of achieving critically important health care reforms for this state by pushing prematurely for single payer when it is not the right time for Vermont. In my judgment, now is not the right time to ask our legislature to take the step of passing a financing plan for Green Mountain Care.”The Governor outlined the financing proposal in a meeting with his Business and Consumer Advisory Councils, both of which have provided advice on health care financing to the Governor and his advisors over the past few months. He thanked the councils for their hard work and dedication in working towards a more sensible health care system.Although the Administration explored several different benefits and financing proposals, the preferred proposal outlined by the Governor’s Deputy Director of Health Care Reform Michael Costa today would cover all Vermonters at a 94 actuarial value (AV), meaning it would cover 94% of total health care costs and leave the individual to pay on average the other 6% out of pocket. Lower AV proposals create significant administrative complexity and reduce disposable income for many Vermonters.  Costa explained that paying for that benefit plan would require:·       An 11.5% payroll tax on all Vermont businesses·       A sliding scale income-based public premium on individuals of 0% to 9.5%. The public premium would top out at 9.5% for those making 400% of the federal poverty level ($102,000 for a family of four in 2017) and would be capped so no Vermonter would pay more than $27,500 per year.The Governor stressed that even at these tax figures, the proposal would not include necessary costs for transitioning to Green Mountain Care smaller businesses, many of which do not currently offer insurance. Those transition costs would add at least $500 million to the system, the equivalent of an additional 4 points on the payroll tax or 50% increase in the income tax.“These are simply not tax rates that I can responsibly support or urge the Legislature to pass,” the Governor said. “In my judgment, the potential economic disruption and risks would be too great to small businesses, working families and the state’s economy.”The Governor outlined a number of factors that in recent months have made financing Green Mountain Care more expensive and less practical. These include:·       The amount of federal funds available to Vermont for this transition, which are over $150 million less than had been previously anticipated.·       The state failure to meet the goals set forth for increases in Medicaid provider payments, which adds more than $150 million cumulatively to the amount that needs to be raised through public financing.·       Covering cross border commuters who work for Vermont firms, a policy necessary to prevent complexity and costs for businesses, which adds up to $200 million to the amount that needs to be publicly financed.·       Slower than originally projected economic growth, already resulting in $75 million less in general fund revenue than anticipated in the next two fiscal years. Because of this, every percent of tax raises fewer dollars than had been anticipated, requiring higher tax rates to fund the system.Acknowledging the disappointment he and many others will feel about not moving to a publicly-financed system now, the Governor said, “I will not let up on the gas pedal to improve our health care system in Vermont. We can and must make progress in 2015 to put in place a better, fairer, and less-costly health care system, one that in the future supports a transition to Green Mountain Care so that all Vermonters receive affordable, publicly-financed health care. In order for us to get there, we need to accelerate the hard work we’ve begun on cost containment and a more rational payment and delivery system.”To do that, the Governor outlined a number of proposal he will pursue this legislative session, including:·       Enhancing the Green Mountain Care Board’s role as a central regulator of health care with the goal of lowering health care spending increases to between 3-4% in the long term.·       Continuing to pursue an “all-payer waiver” with the federal government so that Vermont succeeds in being the first state to move from the current quantity based fee-for-service system to one that reimburses providers for quality and outcomes.·       Strengthening Vermont’s commitment to the Blueprint for Health and building on the preliminary results it has shown in bending the cost curve while ensuring quality health care to Vermonters. ·       Restructuring of the function and oversight of Vermont Information Technology Leaders (VITL), the state-created nonprofit that oversees the Vermont Health Information Exchange to push the state toward greater levels of technology utilization and integration.  This would include shifting VITL to the Green Mountain Care Board and giving the Board the authority to approve and monitor VITL’s budget to ensure VITL’s priorities and investments are consistent with the statewide health information technology plan.RELATED STORY:The Graff Report: Peter Shumlin’s not done yet, but maybe single payer should beAdministration backs away from unilateral budget cutsPersonal Income Tax continues to struggle, $3.08 million off targetThe governor concluded that succeeding in these areas would set Vermont on a path to a more sensible, affordable health care system and preserve for another day the vision of universal, publicly-financed health care.“I recognize that it may be hard to put this news in perspective given the scrutiny it has received over the past four years,” the Governor said. “There will be quite a bit of analysis and commentary that comes from my announcement today.  In all of that, I urge us to remember what we have been fighting for and how our work fits into the larger picture. This year – 2014 – is the 80th anniversary of the first federal proposal for Medicare, one of our country’s greatest achievements.  It was first proposed by FDR’s Committee on Economic Security and it took 31 years to become law. Medicaid took 50 years to pass; Social Security took 25 years. The point is that change is difficult to achieve, and worthy causes take time to take root.  A better, fairer, more rational, and more sustainable way to pay for health care is worth fighting for. We must continue our hard work and our successes. Our time will come.”The governor’s speech, as prepared for delivery, is below and the presentation delivered by Michael Costa is in the sidebar.GOVERNOR SHUMLIN’S SPEECH 12.17.2014:”I’ve called you together today because yesterday I received the final financial modeling needed for our Green Mountain Care plan. After meeting with my team last Friday to go over the work they had done, they presented the results yesterday, with their recommendation. We will complete the full financing report we’ve promised and deliver it at the end of the year, but I do not want to delay in sharing the details we now have and my conclusions.All of my political life, I have been deeply committed to universal, publicly financed, single payer health coverage for all Vermonters. And I am proud of the work we did together to pass Act 48 and create Green Mountain Care. I believe moving to a publicly financed system that replaces the unfair and complicated way we now pay for health care is the right thing to do for Vermonters, for Vermont businesses, and for our Vermont economy.The current system is broken in three ways:First, costs have risen at unsustainable rates, eating into Vermonter’s pocketbooks and creating tremendous anxiety about affording health care for ourselves and our families. We spend more than 20% of our dollars on health care, and if costs grow this decade at the same rate they did last decade, that number would double by 2020.Second, the system does not guarantee coverage for all Vermonters even though all Vermonters need and deserve health care as a right and not a privilege.Third, the way we pay for health care now is arbitrary and unfair, asking many Vermonters to pay what they must, not what they can afford.REACTIONVAHHS StatementToday, the Vermont Association of Hospitals and Health Systems praised the Governor’s decision to set aside his plan for a single payer health care plan over concerns about the potential harm to Vermont’s fragile economy. President and CEO Bea Grause said, “Vermont’s not-for-profit hospitals support this decision and look forward to working with the Governor and the Green Mountain Care Board on meaningful health care reforms that provide coverage for all Vermonters and make health insurance more affordable without damaging Vermont’s economy.”Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott:“Today’s announcement that Governor Shumlin is scrapping his single-payer plan is a definitive step in the right direction for Vermonters, Vermont businesses and Vermont’s economy. As I’ve said continually over the last two years, if the Governor’s single-payer plan places another burden on already overtaxed Vermonters, we simply cannot afford it. At the same time, I’ve kept an open mind about the idea, waiting to hear the details. Fortunately we heard them today and I am glad the Governor agrees with many of us: Businesses cannot afford an 11.5 percent payroll tax, individuals cannot afford a 9.5 percent income tax, our State cannot afford a $2.6 billion bill, and Vermont cannot afford to continue down this path of uncertainty. We’ve already spent far too much money exploring this idea, and the discussion has paralyzed our business community.“The Governor made the right decision today, especially in light of the mismanagement of Vermont Health Connect and the need to put our full focus on growing Vermont’s economy. In that vein, I both hope and expect we will all work together to make sure the exchange works, truly lowers the cost of health care, and insures more Vermonters without taxing people out of the State.“The bottom line is that I am thankful the uncertainty is over and we can get back to solving the crisis of affordability, a true challenge for far too many Vermonters.”Healthcare Is a Human Right Campaign:“The Healthcare Is a Human Right (HCHR) Campaign expresses its deep disappointment in the failure of Governor Shumlin to act on the will of the people of Vermont to ensure universal, publicly financed healthcare in our state. This inaction is a slap in the face of many thousands of Vermonters who suffer from poor health and financial hardship in the private insurance market that sells healthcare as a commodity to those who can afford it. The HCHR Campaign reminds the Governor that healthcare is a human right, and that our government has an obligation to ensure that right. Our government also has a responsibility to enact state law, and Act 48, passed in 2011, clearly requires Vermont to take actions to provide healthcare as a public good to all residents by 2017.”We all currently pay for our hodgepodge healthcare system  – we just don’t paid in a way that leads to giving people access to care. Moving to a different financing mechanism has nothing to do with raising new money. Vermont’s businesses currently pay 80% of all private insurance premiums. Most of these businesses are large employers; they pay the lion share of health insurance. Individuals who fall sick also pay a big chunk – through roughly $800 million in out-of-pocket costs. The Governor’s task at hand was to shift private payments to a more equitable, public financing mechanism. His task was not to find new money.”The HCHR Campaign does not believe that the Governor showed sufficient commitment to identifying alternative public financing mechanisms for a service that is already being paid for by all of us. Over the past three years the Administration developed its financing ideas – the same ideas the Governor now claims make public financing impossible – behind closed doors, without public participation or broader input from the many experts in universal healthcare financing, but in close consultation with a select group of businesses. The Governor missed the deadline set by Act 48 to submit a financing plan in early 2013, thus failing to meet its obligations under the law. The proposals the Governor has presented now are not based on the principle of equity. By shielding big businesses from continuing their payments for healthcare at the current level, the governor made his financing plan both inequitable and unviable.  An equitable financing plan would have shown a clear path to sufficient and sustainable funding by maintaining big businesses current payments for healthcare costs and thus avoiding a cost-shift to small businesses and individuals.”The Governor’s misguided decision was a completely unnecessary result of a failed policy calculation that he pursued without democratic input. Without formally repealing Act 48 and without a democratic process of deliberation, the Governor’s unilateral decision is completely inexcusable and unacceptable. A decision of this magnitude requires the voices of the people of Vermont to be heard.”The many thousands of people that are active in the HCHR Campaign will not acquiesce to this undemocratic decision. The people of Vermont do not have the time to wait on a Governor who has consistently broken his promises. The HCHR Campaign will keep on fighting for our right to healthcare, and we call on our legislators to join us in this fight and move forward with an equitable, public financing plan for universal healthcare in our state.”Vermont Chamber of Commerce”Our members were concerned that single-payer could have added significant costs of doing business forcing them to make negative employment decisions. The 11.5 percent payroll tax and 9.5 percent income tax would make the challenge of surviving in the current economic climate nearly impossible,” said Betsy Bishop, President of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce.The Vermont Chamber was part of Partners for Health Care Reform that released the Avelere Report last year, which independently estimated the financing needed for this effort was well above the initial $1.6 billion estimate. Today that number was pegged at $2.6 billion. “This is the right decision for Vermont, for her people, for her businesses, and for the economy as a whole. Now we can focus on the cost containment and choice necessary for continued reform,” said Bishop.The Vermont Chamber has supported the cost containment efforts under way at the Green Mountain Care Board and will continue to urge policymakers to adopt a system that focuses on quality and outcomes. Additionally, the Vermont Chamber will also promote a legislative change for greater choice for businesses.“We believe that businesses should be able to access the exchange voluntarily rather than be mandated to use a system that has yet to work for businesses,” Bishop said.National Federation of Independent Business/Vermont”Governor Shumlin spent years hopeful that the over $2 billion price tag would miraculously be taken care of but small business stood steady in the storm, insisting it would be impossible to fund a single payer healthcare system.” Said NFIB/VT State Director Shawn Shouldice. “Anytime questions were asked regarding coverage or cost, the Shumlin administration avoided a clear answer.”Act 48 was enacted in 2011 by the Vermont legislature. It included a multi-pronged approach to enacting a single payer healthcare system that began with the formation of the Green Mountain Care Board. The board was responsible with providing recommendations to the legislature on how to fund what was destined to be a costly venture.”The board was asked at one point if there was a “plan B” in the event that they could not achieve their goals and assurances were made that they were destined for success.” Continued Shouldice. “All these years later, after wasting time and money, we discover that Vermont’s healthcare system is destined for failure.”According to Shouldice, Governor Shumlin publicly admitted yesterday what small business has said all along, that implementation would be fiscally impossible without placing an overwhelming burden on the backs of small businesses.”Small business is calling for the ill-fated Act 48 to be repealed immediately. The Green Mountain Care Board failed at their attempt to provide the legislature with a funding stream for single payer healthcare that was palatable to the people of Vermont and the only sensible thing left to do is for the bill to be repealed.”VBSRVermont Businesses for Social Responsibility is disappointed in Wednesday’s announcement that the Governor and his administration is abandoning a health care financing plan for “the foreseeable future.” We would have preferred that the Governor release a menu of financing options and used his position to facilitate a debate about the challenges and opportunities for fixing the current broken financing system for health care.  As the Governor acknowledged in his opening remarks, health care costs and the unresolved cost shift threaten to overwhelm our economy.VBSR has spent 25 years advocating for health care reform and that work will not stop. Problems with the equity and financing of health care persist and must be addressed.  Vermont’s business community needs a level-playing field in which all contribute based on ability to pay and all will benefit. We need to remove the link between insurance and employment. That will allow businesses to do what businesses do best – expand operations, create jobs, and increase the wages of hard-working Vermonters.VBSR will continue to work for the reforms our business members and their employees need. We believe that with sufficient will and imagination, we can bend the cost curve and design a financing system that benefits Vermonters and the Vermont economy. We look forward to having that conversation and furthering the goals of health care reform in 2015.That is why we have worked so hard to put Vermont on a better path, focusing on two separate but related goals: one, containing the unsustainable costs of health care; and two, delivering a universal publicly financed system that covers all of us and is not tied to employment. Both are hugely complex tasks that many states, and Governors, have shied away from altogether. The work of our Green Mountain Care Board, our providers and hospitals, and many of us in this room on these efforts has been extraordinary. We’ve made tremendous progress already in moving Vermont, very soon, to a place where health care will be paid for based upon quality, not quantity. We know we can’t afford any health care system without successfully containing costs in the long term, whether we fund it like we do now or in a fairer way through a publicly financed system.For years I have worked with supporters on this fairer way to pay for health care through Green Mountain Care. But as we’ve seen in recent weeks, even many of my friends on this issue now agree that this is not a simple flip of the light switch. The way we pay for health care, how we pay, and who pays are all intertwined, and all affect our economy. I have always made clear that I would ask the state to move forward with public financing only when we are ready and when we can be sure that it will promote prosperity for hard-working Vermonters and businesses, and support job growth.Pushing for single payer health care financing when the time isn’t right and it would likely hurt our economy is not good for Vermont and it would not be good for true health care reform. It could set back for years and years all of our hard work toward the important goal of universal, publicly-financed health care for all. I am not going undermine the hope of achieving critically important health care reforms for this state by pushing prematurely for single payer when it is not the right time for Vermont.In my judgment, now is not the right time to ask our legislature to take the step of passing a financing plan for Green Mountain Care. I want you to see the details of the work we have been doing and the conclusions I’ve come to, based upon that work. Many of you have been deeply involved in working on these issues and thinking through the challenges with us, and I am extremely grateful for your hard and objective work. We are now going to walk you through the financing plan our report will contain in some detail, and then tell you why I have come to this difficult and disappointing conclusion.First, let me tell you the principles I had in mind when reviewing revenue proposals:I had the goal of more equitably paying for health care – all in, all according to ability to pay.I wanted to get business out of the health care hassle while maintaining the basic bargain we have all grown to accept that businesses pay a portion of employee’s costs.On the individual side, I wanted to ensure that everyone pays in a manner fairer than the federal Affordable Care Act and at a level no larger than it would cost them to purchase an actual plan in the market.We also built every plan we considered with the assumption that seniors that have Medicare would continue to have Medicare exactly as they do now, andwould not be asked to pay for Green Mountain Care coverage they do not need.Based upon these principles and the initial data we had available this fall, I asked for a proposal that would include two sources of funding: a payroll tax that would beat the amount paid by businesses that offer health care, and an income-based individual payment on a sliding scale, to ensure that Vermonters paid based on their ability to pay.The cost of any financing plan is based upon the health care benefits that are provided. We considered a variety of benefits packages. All of them covered the services mandated by the Affordable Care Act. I asked our team to model in detail what is commonly referred to as an 80 AV “gold” plan, which covers 80% of the total cost of health care and leaves the insured individual to pay on average the other 20% out of pocket. I also asked for a higher value plan, equivalent to the plan enjoyed by the state employees, one that covers all but 6% of an individual’s total health care costs.Through that work, we came to the conclusion that Green Mountain Care should provide the higher benefit level.Though the higher AV benefits package does cost more, the cost differential is only about 15% more than the less expensive plan and yet offers far greater affordability in out of pocket costs to all Vermonters.We also discovered through data collected from our insurers in the past few months that a relatively high percentage of Vermonters currently enjoy high value plans, making it less likely that a lower value “gold” Green Mountain Care plan would be acceptable to many.A higher benefits package is actually far less complex to administer due to federal rules that would require the state to either offer more generous benefits to lower income Vermonters, or offer subsidies to make up the difference.Most importantly, our economic analysis indicated that an 80 AV plan would leave Vermonters on average with less money in their pockets. That was not acceptable to any of us.So with a preference for the 94-AV benefits: How could Green Mountain Care be paid for? There were a few criteria that I asked the team to follow in doing their work.First, for businesses: I asked for a plan that would provide a transition for our small employers, since many of them do not pay for health care now. Such a plan would allow businesses with less than $1M in total payroll – a substantial number of companies in Vermont – to transition into the plan over 3 years.Second, for individuals paying an income-based public premium: I asked for a plan that would be more affordable to the majority of Vermonters than the Affordable Care Act, taking into account both upfront premium costs and out of pocket health care costs. I asked for the income payment to be progressive but capped at the expected average cost of an equivalent family plan purchased on the individual market in 2017.Third, I asked for a plan that eliminated the current provider tax, since it would not make sense to add the costs of such taxes to a publicly financed system.Finally, I asked for a plan that would allow coverage for out of state workers of Vermont employers so that those employers would not have to both pay for Green Mountain Care and maintain separate health insurance plans for out of state workers, making an already complicated health care system even more complex.I’m going to ask Michael Costa to run you through the options he created trying to meet these criteria, and the results.After reviewing the work that you just saw, it was clear to me that the taxes required to replace health care premiums with a publicly financed plan that would best serve Vermont are, in a word, enormous. 11.5% payroll for every company, and an income tax of up to 9.5% for every Vermonter. And small business owners would be obligated to pay both the payroll tax and income tax.As you can imagine, I asked the team to go back and find any other choices that could work. As Michael just summarized, all of the alternatives the team brought me either failed to meet the key criteria we set out to fulfill or were still unaffordable.The bottom line is that, as we completed the financing modeling in the last several days, it became clear that the risk of economic shock is too high at this time to offer a plan I can responsibly support for passage in the legislature. The policy choices that are necessary – such as a transition plan for small businesses that I believe is absolutely critical – are just not affordable, and lower-cost alternative plans that strip out these features are not acceptable.So the obvious question I asked my team when this incredibly disappointing conclusion came to light is: what changed? Why did we not know this 6 months ago or two years ago? As you just saw from Michael, many things have changed:Since this time last year, the state projection for General Fund growth for FY16 and 17 has been lowered $75 million after two successive downgrades and another one may well lie ahead in January. While we are still growing, we are growing more slowly than we had expected. That means every percent of tax raises fewer total dollars than we had hoped, meaning you have to raise the rate higher to pay for the same costs.The amount of money that would be legally available for drawdown under the federal Affordable Care Act is less than we had hoped. Over the last several months, we have engaged in discussions with the relevant federal agencies regarding the ACA waiver we need to pursue Green Mountain Care. Those discussions have indicated that, while the Administration is supportive of Vermont’s policy and willing to work with us, the amounts that would be available from the feds under the rules is more than $150 million less than our consultants had predicted back in 2013.The slower recovery from the great recession has tightened our state budget and caused us to not meet the goals we had set ourselves for increases in Medicaid provider payments. Raising Medicaid provider payments is critically needed to bring overall taxpayer costs of a publicly financed system down. The net effect of our inability to fully fund the stare share of Medicaid is more than $150M in added costs to the publicly financed system by 2017 than would have existed had we raised payments as originally planned.Since every point of the payroll tax equals about $130 million, just these factors alone would result in more than 2 extra points on the tax rate even in the first year of any publicly-financed system.Even if we had an acceptable financing proposal, there are other things that stand in the way of launching Green Mountain Care as quickly as we had hoped. They include:We need a federal Affordable Care Act waiver to opt out of the federal exchange system, and we would be the first state to pursue it. I met with Health and Human Services Secretary Burwell and spoke with her on this subject as recently as Monday. Even though the federal agencies have been receptive and the work has proceeded, the timing for obtaining the waiver is uncertain.Even more critically, we need to prove to Vermonters that we can actually responsibly plan for and help operate Green Mountain Care. I know that Vermonters have good reason to question the ability of state government to deliver on this after the painful rollout of the exchange.I never thought the process of moving to a universal, publicly financed health care system would be easy, and we all knew it wouldn’t be simple. Making fundamental changes in our health care system – nearly 20 percent of our economy – is a huge undertaking, and one that must be done with care.I very much hope our work together lays the foundation for change in Vermont in the future. I will continue to push forward for health care reform in Vermont. We can and must make progress in 2015 to put in place a better, fairer, and less-costly health care system, one that in the future supports a transition to Green Mountain Care so that all Vermonters receive affordable, publicly-financed health care.In order for us to get there, we need to accelerate the hard work we’ve begun on cost containment and a more rational payment and delivery system. Here is what we can and should do, right now:First, let’s make sure our cost containment is rock solid by strengthening the efforts of the Green Mountain Care Board to change how we pay health care providers, with the goal of lowering health care spending increases to 3 or 4% in the long term. Our Board has been a huge success, already containing costs and moving the state steadily but surely to a new, more rational and fair payment system based on quality not quantity. Getting to that new system is the only way, in my view, to contain costs in the long run. Health care costs are expected to return to over six percent annual growth nationally by 2019, so the Board will have ample opportunity to prove that it is up to the challenge of containing costs. To make sure that happens and that the Board survives as a strong institution for the long haul, I will ask the legislature to enhance the Board’s role as a central regulator of health care so it can treat health care like the public utility that it is and ensure that Vermont has an integrated, efficient health care system.Second, we must continue to pursue an “all-payer waiver” with the federal government so that so that we succeed being the first to move statewide from the current quantity based, fee for service system to one that reimburses providers for quality and outcomes. As a part of this, we should commit to investing in finally fixing the irrational health care payment system that allows government to escape the true cost of health care inflation by shifting it to private payers. This will require us to adequately fund Medicaid. Vermont should stop levying a hidden tax on private insurance plans through the cost shift. Increasing Medicaid payments is a step toward a fairer, more rational payment system.Third, we need to strengthen our commitment to Vermont’s Blueprint for Health, our backbone for primary care in Vermont. We must build on the preliminary results it has shown in bending the cost curve while ensuring quality health care to Vermonters. To do that, I will propose increasing the payments both to the community health teams and to the medical homes that are the backbone of the Blueprint.Finally, I will ask the legislature to support a restructuring of the function and oversight of Vermont Information Technology Leaders (VITL), our state-created nonprofit that oversees the Vermont Health Information Exchange to push the state toward greater levels of technology utilization and integration. We should shift oversight of VITL to the Green Mountain Care Board and give the Board the authority to approve and monitor VITL’s budget to ensure VITL’s priorities and investments are consistent with our statewide health information technology plan.If we do these things we will achieve a significant and meaningful part of the goal we set out for ourselves in Act 48 – real cost containment, a more rational delivery and payment system, and a high quality, integrated health care system for Vermonters. These are huge accomplishments, critical to our economy, to putting more dollars in Vermonter’s pockets, and improving our quality of life.If we succeed, we will also preserve for another day the vision of universal, publicly financed health care paid for based upon everyone’s ability to pay. I recognize that it may be hard to put this news in perspective given the scrutiny it has received over the past four years. One of the great virtues of Vermont is our deep engagement – public servants, press and citizens alike – in really difficult and important policy issues like health care reform. There will be quite a bit of analysis and commentary that comes from my announcement today. In all of that, I urge us to remember what we have been fighting for and how our work fits into the larger picture. This year – 2014 – is the 80th anniversary of the first federal proposal for Medicare, one of our country’s greatest achievements. It was first proposed by FDR’s Committee on Economic Security and it took 31 years to become law. Medicaid took 50 years to pass; Social Security, 25 years. The point is that change is difficult to achieve, and worthy causes take time to take root. A better, fairer, more rational, and more sustainable way to pay for health care is worth fighting for. We must continue our hard work and our successes. Our time will come.”last_img read more

No Comments
Read More »
in nfxofclr
October 18, 2020

Housebuilder investors give thumbs up to autumn statement

first_imgWould you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.last_img

No Comments
Read More »
in nfxofclr
September 30, 2020

Family law

first_img Re SC (children) sub nom SC v HC: CA (Civ Div) (Lords Justice Thorpe, Wall): 28 January 2010 Civil procedure – Committal orders- Disclosure The appellant wife (W) appealed against a committal order made against her on the application of the respondent husband (H). W and H commenced divorce proceedings in Turkey. Proceedings were also started in England in relation to H’s contact with their two children. The children were parties to the proceedings, represented by a guardian who instructed a psychologist to assess the parties and advise the court. The contact proceedings resulted in H being granted indirect contact and the order included a paragraph prohibiting W and H from disclosing documents filed in those proceedings except to certain individuals and the children’s schools. A committal order was later made on the basis that there had been contempt as W had breached the order by disclosing the contents of the psychologist’s report to her Turkish lawyer. W alleged that she had not disclosed the report but had shown the court order to her lawyer and discussed with him the psychologist’s conclusions about H. The judge stated that he did not intend to send W to prison and instead fined her. Held: The earlier order did not include a penal notice and there was no warning on its face that breach was a contempt capable of being punished by imprisonment. As the disclosure paragraph bound W and H, one of whom was a litigant in person, and neither of whom were English, it was important that it should include a penal notice if an alleged breach was to found an application for committal to prison for contempt. Further, contempt would not be established where the breach was of an order which was ambiguous or did not require or forbid the performance of a particular act within a specified timeframe. The person or persons affected had to know with complete precision what they were required to do or abstain from doing, Federal Bank of the Middle East v Hadkinson (Stay of Action) [2000] 1 WLR 1695 CA (Civ Div), D v D (Access: Contempt: Committal) [1991] 2 FLR 34 CA (Civ Div), and Harris v Harris (2001) 2 FLR 895 Fam Div considered. If the judge had wanted to prevent W from disclosing or discussing the contents of the psychologist’s report with a third party, the order should have said so but it did not. It was also not open to the judge to commit W for discussing the content of the report with her Turkish lawyer. A party had to be entitled, in the exercise of legal professional privilege, to discuss any issue with his or her legal advisers, and it was not a contempt of court for a litigant to disclose information arising from or connected with the proceedings with his or her lawyers. As the judge was plainly of the view that he was dealing with a litigious couple, each of whom was prepared unscrupulously to disclose information for their own ends in the Turkish litigation, it would have been thought that the more the Turkish court knew about the English proceedings the better. Modern good international practice would have also called for cooperation and appropriate discussion between the English and Turkish judges. The committal order therefore had to be set aside. Appeal allowed. center_img Dorothy Seddon (instructed by Henry Browne) for the appellant; no appearance or representation for the respondent.last_img read more

No Comments
Read More »
in nfxofclr
September 29, 2020

Election poll: Who’s best for construction?

first_imgThis poll is now closed. The results are shown below.last_img

No Comments
Read More »
in nfxofclr
September 29, 2020

Siemens set for Dubai global logistics

first_imgIn a press release, the company said it will use the site of Expo 2020 Dubai as the future location for this business, after the next World Expo ends in April 2021.The decision of the German company to locate some of its key businesses in the 4.38 sq km Dubai South site will capitalise on the industrial and logistics developments in the emirate.Siemens says the move supports the legacy aspirations of Expo 2020 Dubai, as well as the industrial and logistics developments in the emirate and adds that it sees great growth potential in the Middle East region and in the logistics market globally.The company expects this development to support its Vision 2020 and related logistics businesses, creating new growth opportunities globally.”This strategic decision highlights Dubai’s significance as a major player in global transport and logistics, with some of the world’s biggest airlines and ports operating in and around the emirate. Siemens wants to further expand its operations in order to be close to key customers and markets. The Expo site would be a perfect match, featuring state-of-the-art facilities, infrastructure and technology, coupled with enviable transport connections,” said Siemens’ managing board member and chief technology officer Roland Busch.”We are committed to contributing to Dubai’s economic development goals with the latest innovations in technology. By using digitalisation and leveraging MindSphere, our open, cloud-based Internet of Things (IoT) operating system, we support growth and boost efficiencies in logistics.”The headquarters in Dubai would include Siemens’ competences in its portfolio fields for airports, cargo infrastructure and ports. All levels of value addition would be represented locally, including global management and strategy, innovation, digitalisation software development, sales, assembly and production.Siemens has been operating in the UAE for more than 40 years across its different businesses, and currently directly employs 2,600 highly skilled workers of more than 80 nationalities and enables more than 15,600 jobs in the country. www.siemens.comlast_img read more

No Comments
Read More »
in nfxofclr
September 28, 2020

Government to keep AML ‘consent’ defence

first_imgThe Law Society has welcomed a government decision not to scrap a statutory defence available to solicitors who report suspected money laundering.As the Gazette reported in April the ‘consent’ defence, available to solicitors who report suspicious activity, looked set to be removed as part of government plans to overhaul the UK’s anti-money laundering regime.The proposal has now been withdrawn, a decision which Chancery Lane hailed as an example of how ‘working constructively with professional bodies can produce better legislation’.In a consultation response to its ‘action plan for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist finance’, the government said it ‘does not intend to remove the consent regime at this time, but will continue to explore what actions could be taken to prevent the misuse of the consent regime’.Chancery Lane said the decision to retain the consent regime will be a relief to solicitors who were ‘potentially facing an unjustified removal of legal cover for meeting their obligations to report suspicious activity’.Robert Bourns, president of the Society, said it remains committed to working alongside government to maintain the role of solicitors as a ‘key ally in the fight against money laundering’.‘In our response to the government’s consultation we raised a number of concerns, and it is gratifying to see the government taking these concerns seriously, making positive changes to their proposals to account for them,’ he said.The defence, available under the Proceeds of Crime Act, can see a ‘reporter’ avail themselves of a defence against committing a money laundering offence provided they seek the consent of the UK Financial Intelligence Unit to conduct a transaction or activity about which they have suspicions.The Law Society also raised concerns over proposals for a new unexplained wealth order, which would force an individual to prove that assets had been lawfully obtained.Chancery Lane said these breached the presumption of innocence and required proper judicial scrutiny.The government has said it will now implement these plans using existing powers that have proper judicial oversight, ensuring the rights of individuals are protected.Bourns added: ‘Although there is still work to be done to ensure solicitors’ frontline role in combating money laundering is properly recognised and supported, we thank the government for listening to the concerns we raised and making positive changes to respond to those concerns.’Risk and Compliance annual conference 2017In this popular one-day event, speakers will provide invaluable advice for shaping the future of compliance in your firm and will offer practical guidance to help you cultivate a best practice culture throughout your firm or department.Register early to benefit from the early bird booking discount.last_img read more

No Comments
Read More »
in nfxofclr
September 26, 2020

Renewed call for action in Haiti

first_imgNewsRegional Renewed call for action in Haiti by: – January 14, 2013 7 Views   no discussions Share Sharing is caring! Sharecenter_img Tweet Yvette D. ClarkeNEW YORK, CMC – As Haiti marks the third anniversary of the devastating January 12, 2010 earthquake, Caribbean American Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke has renewed calls for heightened action to help the improved, French-speaking Caribbean country recover quickly.“Despite the many years that have since passed, the people of Haiti are still struggling to rebuild their infrastructure,” Clarke, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants, who represents the 9th Congressional District in Brooklyn, New York, told the Caribbean Media Corporation.“After the 7.0 magnitude earthquake devastated the nation, thousands of people died and millions became homeless,” added Clarke, co-chair of the Congressional Caribbean Caucus. In the coming weeks of the 113th US Congress, Clarke said she will re-introduce the Haitian Emergency Life Protection (HELP) Act, which will allow applicants with family-sponsored petitions that were approved on or before January 12, 2010 to work in the United States and send remittances back home, as they await their green cards.Caribbean Media Corporation Sharelast_img read more

No Comments
Read More »
in nfxofclr
September 25, 2020

Yantian Express Fire: Crew Evacuated Successfully

first_img Author: Baibhav Mishra (Image Courtesy: VesselFinder) On 3 January, a fire broke out in one container on the deck of the Yantian Express and spread to additional containers. Due to bad weather conditions, the fire has not been successfully contained yet and has significantly increased in intensity at times. Despite the ongoing firefighting support from the salvage tug “Smit Nicobar”, the fire has not been extinguished yet.For this reason, a decision was made to evacuate the crew. The complete crew is unharmed and was safely transferred to the “Smit Nicobar” on 5 and 6 January. Further developments of the situation on the Yantian Express are being monitored closely, and the firefighting efforts with the salvage tug are ongoing.At this time, it is not possible to make a precise estimate of any damage to Yantian Express or its cargo. Hapag-Lloyd is in close cooperation with all relevant authorities.The 7,510 TEU Yantian Express, which is 320 meters long and sails under German flag in the East Coast Loop 5 (EC5) service, was built in 2002 and was on its way from Colombo to Halifax via the Suez Canal. At present, the ship is approximately 800 nautical miles off the coast of Canada (Nova Scotia).Sea News, January 7last_img read more

No Comments
Read More »

Previous Posts

Recent Posts
  • Most-Clicked Stars! How Build-A-Bears, Sara Bareilles & Herman the Fish Made 2013 Magical for Cinderella’s Laura Osnes
  • Morgan County
  • Libraries
  • Accommodations
  • Transition Assistance Program (Tap)
Recent Comments
    Archives
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • May 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019
    • October 2019
    • September 2019
    • August 2019
    • July 2019
    • February 2019
    • January 2019
    • December 2018
    • November 2018
    • October 2018
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • July 2018
    • June 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • March 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • September 2017
    • August 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • May 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    Categories
    • bfzuafcn
    • biewgzhy
    • cmcqarpz
    • dnyzmdip
    • ersmwgty
    • fgkuwodg
    • fravqqqc
    • fwaxgmxw
    • iubglxox
    • kgqvsyja
    • ldynkzts
    • lnhnxopi
    • mqypztfx
    • nfxofclr
    • njpbpqop
    • oeabfokq
    • opfnufoz
    • qercargt
    • qzsgeakd
    • rfmqvvug
    • solasehc
    • syqtjixl
    • vyrlxlbd
    • yxjbgrtk
    Meta
    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.org

    Copyright © 2020 爱上海,上海龙凤419,上海419论坛 - Powered by Hedieh Flex!

    Theme created by PWT. Powered by WordPress.org