Author Archives: MaryannHickey

Here’s What Happens When You Photoshop All the Men Out of Politics

by MaryannHickey Posted on October 14, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The current pace at which women are elected to office in the United States and abroad is incredibly slow. A recent study cited in the Nation found that gender equality in American politics won’t be seen for another 500 years— a demoralizing trend that’s also evident in most major industries, from Silicon Valley to Hollywood.

For anyone who believes that women’s underrepresentation in politics and industry is a progressive myth, a new video created by Elle UK proves otherwise. Using the power of Photoshop, the project wipes out all the men in politics, entertainment, and more to show just how few women actually have a seat at the table. Watch below:

Originally from – 

Here’s What Happens When You Photoshop All the Men Out of Politics

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, ProPublica, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What Happens When You Photoshop All the Men Out of Politics

It’s a Miracle! Spending Bill Contains Virgin Birth Provision.

by MaryannHickey Posted on December 10, 2014

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Our new $1 trillion spending bill1 contains a provision that allows donors to give ten times more money to political parties than in the past. This may or may not be a good thing. Jonathan Bernstein, for example, tells us that some experts on campaign finance consider formal party organizations (as opposed to independent Super PACs) to be “a force for pragmatism and against extremism.” So more money flowing in that direction might be a net benefit.

Fair enough. But check out the third paragraph of the Washington Post’s writeup:

Neither party’s leaders in Congress would claim responsibility for inserting the new provision, which was tucked into the final pages of the more than 1,600-page spending bill on Tuesday evening.

The bare minimum we should expect in an alleged democracy is to know where our laws come from and who sponsored them. Instead, our two major parties, which are normally at each others’ throats like rabid dogs, regularly connive to produce the legislative version of a virgin birth whenever the subject is something that benefits politicians themselves. This happens again and again, and it’s ridiculous. If Mitch McConnell is truly dedicated to a transparent Senate, how about putting a stop to this nonsense when he takes over next year?

1In case you’ve been vacationing on Mars, this bill is affectionately known as the Cromnibus, a mashup of CR (continuing resolution) and omnibus. That’s because it’s an omnibus spending bill that funds lots of agencies in one swoop, but for one particular agency it’s merely a short-term continuing resolution. That one agency is Homeland Security, and they get only a CR for now because Republicans consider this a kind of revenge against President Obama for his recent executive order on immigration. Welcome to kindergarten.

Source:

It’s a Miracle! Spending Bill Contains Virgin Birth Provision.

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s a Miracle! Spending Bill Contains Virgin Birth Provision.

How to Discriminate Against Pre-Existing Conditions in Two Easy Tiers

by MaryannHickey Posted on September 18, 2014

Mother Jones

Via ProPublica, here’s an editorial published yesterday in the American Journal of Managed Care:

For many years, most insurers had formularies that consisted of only 3 tiers: Tier 1 was for generic drugs (lowest co-pay), Tier 2 was for branded drugs that were designated “preferred” (higher co- pay), and Tier 3 was for “nonpreferred” branded drugs (highest co-pay)….Now, however, a number of insurers have split their all-generics tier into a bottom tier consisting of “preferred” generics, and a second tier consisting of “non-preferred” generics.

Hmmm. What’s going on here? In some cases, this new non-preferred tier is reserved for higher-priced medicines. That’s pretty easy to understand: insurers are trying to motivate their patients to choose cheaper drugs when they’re available. That’s the same reason copays are lower for generics compared to brand name drugs.

But it turns out that sometimes all the generic drugs for a particular disease are non-preferred and therefore have high copays. What are insurance companies trying to motivate in these cases? Charles Ornstein takes a guess:

The editorial comes several months after two advocacy groups filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department of Health and Human Services claiming that several Florida health plans sold in the Affordable Care Act marketplace discriminated against H.I.V. patients by charging them more for drugs.

Specifically, the complaint contended that the plans placed all of their H.I.V. medications, including generics, in their highest of five cost tiers, meaning that patients had to pay 40 percent of the cost after paying a deductible. The complaint is pending.

“It seems that the plans are trying to find this wiggle room to design their benefits to prevent people who have high health needs from enrolling,” said Wayne Turner, a staff lawyer at the National Health Law Program, which filed the complaint alongside the AIDS Institute of Tampa, Fla.

If all your HIV drugs are expensive, then people with HIV will look for another plan. Technically, you’re not discriminating against anyone with a pre-existing condition, but you’re sure giving them a reason to shop around someplace else, aren’t you?

At the moment, this practice appears to be confined to just a few insurers and a few classes of drugs. But if it catches on, it will prompt everyone to follow suit. After all, you can hardly afford to be the insurance company of choice for chronically sick people, can you? This is worth keeping an eye on.

Taken from: 

How to Discriminate Against Pre-Existing Conditions in Two Easy Tiers

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, ProPublica, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to Discriminate Against Pre-Existing Conditions in Two Easy Tiers