ENLACES

[Lo Nuevo] [Madres Solas] [SUTESUAEM] [Previsión Social] [Ciencias Económico Administrativas]
[
Ciencias Sociales] [Ciencias de la Informaci
ón][México Historia y Cultura]
[Materias de Estudio]
[
SPCU] [Diplomado SPC] [Documentos SPC] [Foro Permanente SPC] [Enlaces SPC][PRONAD-SIIA] [Enlaces]
 

[Joseacontrera's Blog] [Propósito] [Viajeros] [Mis Viajes] [Fotos] [Música] [Deportes] [Correo] [Curriculum] [Godaddy]


NOTICIAS
 [México] [Edomex] [Estados] [Emprendedores Tech] [Prensa Educativa] [Universities] [Empleo] [Trabajo y Sindicatos]
[
Latinoamérica] [Estados Unidos] [Unión Europea] [Asia] [África] [Joseacontreras Diario] [Derechos Humanos Diario]



Día Internacional de la Mujer 2011.

Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" ¡Visita la página de Madres Solas Aquí! More »

Entrega de Silla de Ruedas.

Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" Visita la página de Madres Solas Aquí. More »

Compartiendo con nuestras socias y socios de la tercera edad de Molino Abajo, Temoaya, Estado de México.

Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" Visita la página de Madres Solas Aquí. More »

Visita la página de “Código Ayuda A.C.” Aquí

Entrega de Reconocimiento por la AMS a la labor de Gabriela Goldsmith Presidenta de \\\"Código Ayuda A.C.” More »

Día de la Niñez 2011 con nuestras socias y socios de San Lorenzo Tepaltitlán, Toluca, Estado de México.

Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" Visita la página de Madres Solas Aquí. More »

Entrega de Silla de Ruedas.

Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" Visita la página de Madres Solas Aquí. More »

“Yo Me Declaro Defensor” de los Defensores de Derechos Humanos

Participación en la campaña “Yo Me Declaro Defensor” de los Defensores de Derechos Humanos por la Alta Comisionada de los Derechos Humanos de la ONU Navy Pillay. More »

Entrega de Reconocimiento al Lic. Enrique Peña Nieto por su apoyo como gobernador a los grupos vulnerables de nuestra Asociación.

Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" Visita la página de Madres Solas Aquí. More »

Compartiendo con nuestras socias y socios de la tercera edad en Molino Abajo, Temoaya, Estado de México.

Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" ¡Visita la página de Madres Solas Aquí! More »

Compartiendo con nuestras socias y socios de la tercera edad en Molino Abajo, Temoaya, Estado de México.

Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" ¡Visita la página de Madres Solas Aquí! More »

Compartiendo con nuestras socias y socios de la tercera edad en Molino Abajo, Temoaya, Estado de México.

Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" ¡Visita la página de Madres Solas Aquí! More »

Compartiendo con nuestras socias y socios de la tercera edad en Molino Abajo, Temoaya, Estado de México.

Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" ¡Visita la página de Madres Solas Aquí! More »

Thelma Dorantes Autora y Actriz principal de la obra de Teatro \\

Visita de Thelma Dorantes a las oficina de la Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" en Toluca, Estado de México. More »

Thelma Dorantes Autora y Actriz principal de la obra de Teatro \\

Visita de Thelma Dorantes a las oficina de la Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" en Toluca, Estado de México. More »

Thelma Dorantes Autora y Actriz principal de la obra de Teatro \\

Visita de Thelma Dorantes a las oficina de la Asociación de Madres Solteras y Grupos Vulnerables para el Desarrollo Social \\\"Por un Trato más digno Yo Madre Soltera Aquí Estoy A.C.\\\" en Toluca, Estado de México. More »

Premio Nacional del Trabajo 2012.

Entrega a los trabajadores de la Dirección de Organización y Desarrollo Administrativo de la Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México del Premio Nacional del Trabajo 2012 por la Secretaría de Trabajo y Previsión Social del Gobierno de México. More »

 

Bush takes veiled swipe at Trump, slams 'bullying and prejudice'

This NEWS was originally shared on Aulanews United States News

Fuente: Reuters Politics

(Reuters) – Former President George W. Bush on Thursday decried “bullying and prejudice” in a New York speech that appeared to be a sweeping, thinly veiled critique of President Donald Trump.

Bush, 71, used a rare public address to discuss nationalism, racial divisions and Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election, all flashpoints of his fellow Republican’s nine-month White House tenure. He did not mention Trump by name.

“Bullying and prejudice in our public life sets a national tone, provides permission for cruelty and bigotry, and compromises the moral education of children. The only way to pass along civic values is to first live up to them,” Bush said at the Bush Institute’s National Forum on Freedom, Free Markets and Security.

Trump has used nicknames to demean opponents, such as “Crooked Hillary” for Democrat Hillary Clinton and, more recently, “Liddle” Bob Corker for a Republican senator who dared to challenge him.

Bush, president from 2001-2009, emphasized the importance of immigration and international trade, two policy areas that Trump has cracked down on while in office.

“We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism, forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America,” Bush said.

“We see a fading confidence in the value of free markets and international trade, forgetting that conflict, instability, and poverty follow in the wake of protectionism.”

Asked whether the speech was aimed at Trump, a spokesman for Bush said the long-planned remarks echoed themes the 43rd president had discussed for years.

“The themes President Bush spoke about today are really the same themes he has spoken about for the last two decades,” said Bush spokesman Freddy Ford.

Bush touted U.S. alliances abroad, something Trump has called into question, and he denounced white supremacy, which critics accused Trump of failing to do quickly and explicitly earlier this year.

In the speech, Bush described a decline in public confidence in U.S. institutions and a paralysis in the governing class to address pressing needs.

“Discontent deepened and sharpened partisan conflicts. Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication,” Bush said.

Trump was a longtime proponent of a false theory that Democratic former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Obama, Trump’s predecessor, was born in the U.S. state of Hawaii.

Bush said Americans were the heirs of Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. president, as well as civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.

“This means that people of every race, religion, and ethnicity can be fully and equally American,” he said. “It means that bigotry or white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed.”

Reporting by Jeff Mason; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, Tim Ahmann and David Alexander; Editing by Howard Goller

Boeing invests in autonomous flight tech provider Near Earth Autonomy

This NEWS was originally shared on Aulanews United States News

Fuente: Reuters Science News

(Reuters) – Boeing Co said on Thursday it invested in Near Earth Autonomy, a Pittsburgh-based firm that develops technologies enabling autonomous flight such as drones.

In addition to the undisclosed investment, Boeing said the two companies will also explore products and applications for emerging markets such as urban mobility.

It was the first investment in autonomous technologies by Boeing’s venture capital arm, Boeing HorizonX, since it was established in April of this year, Boeing said.

Near Earth Autonomy, a spin-off from the Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute, develops technologies including sensor suites, three dimensional mapping and survey, and collision detection and avoidance that enables aircraft to operate autonomously.

Earlier this month, Boeing said it would buy Aurora Flight Sciences Corp to help it advance the development of autonomous, electric-powered and long-flight-duration aircraft for its commercial and military businesses. (reut.rs/2hPdLQZ)

Manassas, Virginia-based Aurora has designed, produced and flown more than 30 unmanned air vehicles since its inception and has collaborated with Boeing on prototyping of aircraft and structural assemblies for military and commercial applications during the last decade.

Reporting by Ankit Ajmera in Bengaluru; Editing by Bernard Orr

In Trump’s first 100 days, news stories citing his tweets were more likely to be negative

October 18, 2017

President Donald Trump’s prolific Twitter output has become source material for news outlets covering him – and during the early days of his administration, stories that included his tweets stood out from those that did not. They were more likely to have a negative assessment of the administration’s words and actions and to include a challenge by the journalist to something Trump or a member of his administration said, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of more than 3,000 stories across 24 media outlets.

A recent report from the Center found that about one-in-six news stories about the president or the administration (16%) during the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency included one of his tweets. Another element measured in the study was whether statements from the journalist or statements cited in a story gave an overall positive or negative evaluation of the Trump administration’s words or actions – or fell somewhere in between.

This deeper analysis reveals that the stories that included a direct tweet from Trump were more likely than others to have an overall negative assessment of him or his administration – that is, had at least twice as many negative as positive statements. Just over half of stories that had a tweet from Trump (54%) had a negative assessment, 12 percentage points higher than stories that did not contain any of his tweets (42%). (Overall, 44% of all stories studied during the time period studied gave a negative assessment.)

Additionally, stories with at least one of the president’s tweets were more likely to include a direct refutation by the reporter of something the president or a member of his administration said – whether it was a refutation of the tweet itself, a statement related to the issue referenced in the tweet or another statement altogether in the story. Overall, one-in-ten stories included a direct refutation. This jumps to about one-in-five stories with a Trump tweet (21%), more than double the share that did not contain one (8%).

Amid these differences between stories with and without the president’s tweets, there was one notable similarity: A large majority of both those with a tweet and those without one structured their coverage around character and leadership rather than policy. However, those with a tweet were even more likely to focus on the president’s leadership and character (85%) than those that did not (72%).

Note: Read more about the study’s methodology here.

Topics: Federal Government, U.S. Political Figures, News Media Ethics and Practices, Social Media, Donald Trump

  1. is a senior writer/editor focusing on journalism research at Pew Research Center.
  2. Photo of Jeffrey Gottfried
    is a senior researcher focusing on journalism research at Pew Research Center.

SpaceX, Spacecom to launch new satellites after explosion last year

This NEWS was originally shared on Aulanews United States News

Fuente: Reuters Science News

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israel’s Space Communications has signed a deal with Elon Musk’s SpaceX to launch two communication satellites into orbit, after a prior attempt ended in disaster.

The explosion of a Falcon 9 rocket last year at Cape Canaveral in Florida dealt a major blow to the Israeli satellite operator. But Space Communications said on Wednesday the first new satellite, Amos-17, would be sent into orbit in 2019 aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket at no extra cost.

Spacecom said it had agreed to pay SpaceX up to $62 million to launch a second satellite, Amos-8, a year later.

The agreements are welcome news for Spacecom after a couple of years of setbacks beyond the SpaceX explosion. In 2015 it lost contact with one of its satellites and earlier this year its controlling shareholder became the target of a securities investigation.

Amos-17, bought from Boeing Satellite Systems International for $161 million, is aimed at expanding and strengthening Spacecom’s coverage of growing satellite service markets in Africa, the Middle East and Europe.

Launch is scheduled for the second quarter of 2019 and it is set to operate for 19 years.

The Amos-8 launch is expected for the second half of 2020.

Reporting by Ari Rabinovitch; editing by Mark Heinrich

Hardly any federal employees are fired for poor performance. That could be a good sign, report says.

This NEWS was originally shared on Aulanews United States News

Fuente: Washington Federal Eye

The low rate at which federal employees are fired for poor performance doesn’t prove the government accepts it but instead “could actually be a positive sign,” the agency that decides appeals of discipline against federal employees has said.

A report from the Merit Systems Protection Board in effect responds to members of Congress and others who contend that federal managers don’t care, or don’t dare, to take disciplinary action because of civil service protections.

“The number of employees removed for poor performance should not be used as a measure of an agency’s commitment to properly managing the performance of its employees,” said the report issued Tuesday.

In addition to hearing appeals, the MSPB conducts studies of federal workplace issues. In a report based on a survey the agency conducted and other research, MSPB identified three keys to good management of employees’ performance: the work unit having sufficient resources to get the job done; training of supervisors on setting and enforcing expectations; and accurate standards to measure performance.

It said that the more those factors are present, the more likely supervisors are to say they can effectively deal with poor performers, including by helping them improve their work or firing them if necessary — and the less likely they are to say they have poor performers among their employees in the first place.

“This data is one reason why examining removal rates is not a good method for assessing whether an agency is properly managing employee performance. If the agency is successful in preventing poor performance and addressing it when it does occur, removals would become unnecessary. In that way, a small number of performance-based removals could actually be a positive sign,” MSPB said.

“Of course, it could also be indicative of an agency that fails to remove those in need of removal,” it added.

Federal agencies use formal performance rating programs for almost all of their career employees, typically with five levels. The ratings are used in deciding on promotions, merit pay increases, cash awards or, more rarely, discipline. Except in the most severe cases, before being disciplined low-performing employees must be given notice of their shortcomings and the support to help them improve over a defined time.

Of the 2.1 million federal employees in a government database excluding the U.S. Postal Service, intelligence agencies and certain other categories, about 10,000 are fired for either poor performance or misconduct each year. Among the roughly 200,000 who leave each year, the large majority resign, retire or reach the end of a temporary appointment.

That low rate of firing has been cited in proposals to force agencies to take action and to restrict employee rights to appeal through the MSPB or other channels, commonly a long and contentious process. Most of the support  comes from Republicans, although Congress has passed several measures on a bipartisan basis, including a law enacted this year shortening the appeal process for front-line employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs and restricting senior employees there to an in-house process. And last week the House unanimously passed and sent to the White House a bill requiring that agencies discipline officials who retaliate against whistleblowers, including mandatory firing for a second offense.

Individual employees, too, commonly express dissatisfaction with how agencies handle poor performers among their co-workers. In an annual governmentwide survey, one of the highest negatives each year involves whether steps are taken to deal with employees who cannot or will not improve their performance — this year only 34 percent agreed while 42 percent disagreed, with the rest neutral.

Much of the argument that the government doesn’t sufficiently hold its employees accountable has focused on misconduct rather than on performance. The database of removals does not distinguish between the two; in the government system, especially poor performance can be deemed to be misconduct, as well. The firing figures further do not reflect the unknown number of employees who quit to avoid having a firing on their records.

As in a previous report, the MSPB said that firing is just one of the ways to deal with a poor performer, adding that “a performance-based removal action is not even the most common of these.”

In the MSPB’s survey, among supervisors who said they had had a poor performer who is no longer in the organization, 57 percent said the employee resigned, retired or left to work elsewhere; 15 percent said the employee was removed for performance reasons; 13 percent said the employee was removed for conduct reasons; 7 percent said the employee was moved to a different position; and the rest cited other outcomes.

“Because successful performance management can reduce the need to remove an employee, removal data is not a good measure for agency performance management metrics. . . . It is understandable why stakeholders may want an easily calculated proxy for determining if agencies are properly managing the performance of their employees. Unfortunately, removal data cannot accurately serve this function,” the report said.

Hardly any federal employees are fired for poor performance. That could be a good sign, report says.

The low rate at which federal employees are fired for poor performance doesn’t prove the government accepts it but instead “could actually be a positive sign,” the agency that decides appeals of discipline against federal employees has said.

A report from the Merit Systems Protection Board in effect responds to members of Congress and others who contend that federal managers don’t care, or don’t dare, to take disciplinary action because of civil service protections.

“The number of employees removed for poor performance should not be used as a measure of an agency’s commitment to properly managing the performance of its employees,” said the report issued Tuesday.

In addition to hearing appeals, the MSPB conducts studies of federal workplace issues. In a report based on a survey the agency conducted and other research, MSPB identified three keys to good management of employees’ performance: the work unit having sufficient resources to get the job done; training of supervisors on setting and enforcing expectations; and accurate standards to measure performance.

It said that the more those factors are present, the more likely supervisors are to say they can effectively deal with poor performers, including by helping them improve their work or firing them if necessary — and the less likely they are to say they have poor performers among their employees in the first place.

“This data is one reason why examining removal rates is not a good method for assessing whether an agency is properly managing employee performance. If the agency is successful in preventing poor performance and addressing it when it does occur, removals would become unnecessary. In that way, a small number of performance-based removals could actually be a positive sign,” MSPB said.

“Of course, it could also be indicative of an agency that fails to remove those in need of removal,” it added.

Federal agencies use formal performance rating programs for almost all of their career employees, typically with five levels. The ratings are used in deciding on promotions, merit pay increases, cash awards or, more rarely, discipline. Except in the most severe cases, before being disciplined low-performing employees must be given notice of their shortcomings and the support to help them improve over a defined time.

Of the 2.1 million federal employees in a government database excluding the U.S. Postal Service, intelligence agencies and certain other categories, about 10,000 are fired for either poor performance or misconduct each year. Among the roughly 200,000 who leave each year, the large majority resign, retire or reach the end of a temporary appointment.

That low rate of firing has been cited in proposals to force agencies to take action and to restrict employee rights to appeal through the MSPB or other channels, commonly a long and contentious process. Most of the support  comes from Republicans, although Congress has passed several measures on a bipartisan basis, including a law enacted this year shortening the appeal process for front-line employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs and restricting senior employees there to an in-house process. And last week the House unanimously passed and sent to the White House a bill requiring that agencies discipline officials who retaliate against whistleblowers, including mandatory firing for a second offense.

Individual employees, too, commonly express dissatisfaction with how agencies handle poor performers among their co-workers. In an annual governmentwide survey, one of the highest negatives each year involves whether steps are taken to deal with employees who cannot or will not improve their performance — this year only 34 percent agreed while 42 percent disagreed, with the rest neutral.

Much of the argument that the government doesn’t sufficiently hold its employees accountable has focused on misconduct rather than on performance. The database of removals does not distinguish between the two; in the government system, especially poor performance can be deemed to be misconduct, as well. The firing figures further do not reflect the unknown number of employees who quit to avoid having a firing on their records.

As in a previous report, the MSPB said that firing is just one of the ways to deal with a poor performer, adding that “a performance-based removal action is not even the most common of these.”

In the MSPB’s survey, among supervisors who said they had had a poor performer who is no longer in the organization, 57 percent said the employee resigned, retired or left to work elsewhere; 15 percent said the employee was removed for performance reasons; 13 percent said the employee was removed for conduct reasons; 7 percent said the employee was moved to a different position; and the rest cited other outcomes.

“Because successful performance management can reduce the need to remove an employee, removal data is not a good measure for agency performance management metrics. . . . It is understandable why stakeholders may want an easily calculated proxy for determining if agencies are properly managing the performance of their employees. Unfortunately, removal data cannot accurately serve this function,” the report said.

Hardly any federal employees are fired for poor performance. That could be a good sign, report says.

The low rate at which federal employees are fired for poor performance doesn’t prove the government accepts it but instead “could actually be a positive sign,” the agency that decides appeals of discipline against federal employees has said.

A report from the Merit Systems Protection Board in effect responds to members of Congress and others who contend that federal managers don’t care, or don’t dare, to take disciplinary action because of civil service protections.

“The number of employees removed for poor performance should not be used as a measure of an agency’s commitment to properly managing the performance of its employees,” said the report issued Tuesday.

In addition to hearing appeals, the MSPB conducts studies of federal workplace issues. In a report based on a survey the agency conducted and other research, MSPB identified three keys to good management of employees’ performance: the work unit having sufficient resources to get the job done; training of supervisors on setting and enforcing expectations; and accurate standards to measure performance.

It said that the more those factors are present, the more likely supervisors are to say they can effectively deal with poor performers, including by helping them improve their work or firing them if necessary — and the less likely they are to say they have poor performers among their employees in the first place.

“This data is one reason why examining removal rates is not a good method for assessing whether an agency is properly managing employee performance. If the agency is successful in preventing poor performance and addressing it when it does occur, removals would become unnecessary. In that way, a small number of performance-based removals could actually be a positive sign,” MSPB said.

“Of course, it could also be indicative of an agency that fails to remove those in need of removal,” it added.

Federal agencies use formal performance rating programs for almost all of their career employees, typically with five levels. The ratings are used in deciding on promotions, merit pay increases, cash awards or, more rarely, discipline. Except in the most severe cases, before being disciplined low-performing employees must be given notice of their shortcomings and the support to help them improve over a defined time.

Of the 2.1 million federal employees in a government database excluding the U.S. Postal Service, intelligence agencies and certain other categories, about 10,000 are fired for either poor performance or misconduct each year. Among the roughly 200,000 who leave each year, the large majority resign, retire or reach the end of a temporary appointment.

That low rate of firing has been cited in proposals to force agencies to take action and to restrict employee rights to appeal through the MSPB or other channels, commonly a long and contentious process. Most of the support  comes from Republicans, although Congress has passed several measures on a bipartisan basis, including a law enacted this year shortening the appeal process for front-line employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs and restricting senior employees there to an in-house process. And last week the House unanimously passed and sent to the White House a bill requiring that agencies discipline officials who retaliate against whistleblowers, including mandatory firing for a second offense.

Individual employees, too, commonly express dissatisfaction with how agencies handle poor performers among their co-workers. In an annual governmentwide survey, one of the highest negatives each year involves whether steps are taken to deal with employees who cannot or will not improve their performance — this year only 34 percent agreed while 42 percent disagreed, with the rest neutral.

Much of the argument that the government doesn’t sufficiently hold its employees accountable has focused on misconduct rather than on performance. The database of removals does not distinguish between the two; in the government system, especially poor performance can be deemed to be misconduct, as well. The firing figures further do not reflect the unknown number of employees who quit to avoid having a firing on their records.

As in a previous report, the MSPB said that firing is just one of the ways to deal with a poor performer, adding that “a performance-based removal action is not even the most common of these.”

In the MSPB’s survey, among supervisors who said they had had a poor performer who is no longer in the organization, 57 percent said the employee resigned, retired or left to work elsewhere; 15 percent said the employee was removed for performance reasons; 13 percent said the employee was removed for conduct reasons; 7 percent said the employee was moved to a different position; and the rest cited other outcomes.

“Because successful performance management can reduce the need to remove an employee, removal data is not a good measure for agency performance management metrics. . . . It is understandable why stakeholders may want an easily calculated proxy for determining if agencies are properly managing the performance of their employees. Unfortunately, removal data cannot accurately serve this function,” the report said.

GOP health insurance plan for feds part of larger assault on compensation

This NEWS was originally shared on Aulanews United States News

Fuente: Washington Federal Eye


The U.S. flag flies in front of the Capitol Dome in Washington. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

After repeatedly failing in their cynical efforts that would cut millions from health insurance rolls, congressional Republicans now are attacking the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).

Together with President Trump’s earlier budget plan, which would slice and dice federal retirement, Capitol Hill and the White House have mounted a multi-front assault on federal worker compensation.

If a House Budget Resolution proposal becomes law, federal retiree health insurance premiums could rise significantly over time because growth in the government’s subsidy would be limited to the increase in inflation.

“Federal retirees earned their retiree health benefits through years of hard work for this country. Shifting more of the cost of the premiums onto their backs now — when they have already entered retirement — fails to honor the commitments and promises made to them in exchange for their service,” said Richard Thissen, president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.

Linking the government’s subsidy to inflation sounds reasonable, until you realize that health-care costs rise much faster than the general inflation rate.

“As a rough estimate, it would raise annuitant premiums by about 2 percent a year more than they would otherwise rise,” said Walton Francis, a health-care economist and lead author of Checkbook’s annual Guide to Health Plans for Federal Employees. “After 10 years, that would be about a 20 percent increase in costs to annuitants.”

Jacqueline Simon, policy director of the American Federation of Government Employees, predicted FEHBP would be “vastly more expensive for retirees” under the House plan.

Currently, the government pays about 70 percent of federal health insurance premiums, while enrollees pay 30 percent. Under the House plan, that could flip, Simon said, with employees and retirees paying 80 percent of their health insurance costs after 20 years.

“This proposal imposes substantial financial harm,” she added.

The retirees know it.

Linda Kurz, 77, who retired from the Veterans Health Service after 37 years, said the House plan “will probably at least double or triple my premium for standard individual coverage. … All of us need insurance because one never knows what lies ahead. I hope and pray that I don’t need more than occasional doctor visits and the least necessary medication for a long time.

“It will likely make federal recruitment more difficult. It is a shame that federal employees are repeatedly asked to fund reduction of the deficit or to fund the ‘wall’ or tax cuts including for those who earn more than enough.”

Joanne Pedersen, who worked for the Navy Department for more than 30 years, said she “was promised health care for life. It would create a great hardship should my premiums increase.”

Federal employees also were promised a good retirement program. But Trump’s proposal would undercut it by increasing out-of-pocket employee payments and decreasing retirement benefits.

The House plan would further deteriorate federal employee compensation by, in the words of the proposal, “basing Federal employee retirees’ health benefits on length of service. This option would reduce premium subsidies for retirees who had relatively short Federal careers.”

With the inflation and length of service provisions, “these two reforms would bring health benefits for Federal retirees more in line with those offered in the private sector.”

House Republicans think that’s a good thing.

Yes, federal benefits are better than many in the private sector. That comes with Uncle Sam’s desire to be a model employer. Instead of seeking better benefits for all, under the House plan Sam wouldn’t be much better than the bottom feeders.

“Over the past few decades, the share of large employers offering retiree health benefits has dropped fairly dramatically,” said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that analyzes health-care policy. “With fewer and fewer large employers offering retiree health benefits, we’re now seeing a clear decline in the share of seniors with retiree health benefits.”

If they can’t afford to buy insurance to supplement Medicare, one possible result of a decline in retiree health benefits is a decline in health care for seniors who need it the most.

Is that what Sam wants for his annuitants?

Read more:

Federal employees pay more for insurance, but it’s still a good deal

Democratic senators hit Trump’s retirement cuts for feds

Hits on federal retirement advance as bill is introduced to fire feds for ‘no cause at all’

GOP health insurance plan for feds part of larger assault on compensation

This NEWS was originally shared on Aulanews United States News

Fuente: Washington Federal Eye


The U.S. flag flies in front of the Capitol Dome in Washington. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

After repeatedly failing in their cynical efforts that would cut millions from health insurance rolls, congressional Republicans now are attacking the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).

Together with President Trump’s earlier budget plan, which would slice and dice federal retirement, Capitol Hill and the White House have mounted a multi-front assault on federal worker compensation.

If a House Budget Resolution proposal becomes law, federal retiree health insurance premiums could rise significantly over time because growth in the government’s subsidy would be limited to the increase in inflation.

“Federal retirees earned their retiree health benefits through years of hard work for this country. Shifting more of the cost of the premiums onto their backs now — when they have already entered retirement — fails to honor the commitments and promises made to them in exchange for their service,” said Richard Thissen, president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.

Linking the government’s subsidy to inflation sounds reasonable, until you realize that health-care costs rise much faster than the general inflation rate.

“As a rough estimate, it would raise annuitant premiums by about 2 percent a year more than they would otherwise rise,” said Walton Francis, a health-care economist and lead author of Checkbook’s annual Guide to Health Plans for Federal Employees. “After 10 years, that would be about a 20 percent increase in costs to annuitants.”

Jacqueline Simon, policy director of the American Federation of Government Employees, predicted FEHBP would be “vastly more expensive for retirees” under the House plan.

Currently, the government pays about 70 percent of federal health insurance premiums, while enrollees pay 30 percent. Under the House plan, that could flip, Simon said, with employees and retirees paying 80 percent of their health insurance costs after 20 years.

“This proposal imposes substantial financial harm,” she added.

The retirees know it.

Linda Kurz, 77, who retired from the Veterans Health Service after 37 years, said the House plan “will probably at least double or triple my premium for standard individual coverage. … All of us need insurance because one never knows what lies ahead. I hope and pray that I don’t need more than occasional doctor visits and the least necessary medication for a long time.

“It will likely make federal recruitment more difficult. It is a shame that federal employees are repeatedly asked to fund reduction of the deficit or to fund the ‘wall’ or tax cuts including for those who earn more than enough.”

Joanne Pedersen, who worked for the Navy Department for more than 30 years, said she “was promised health care for life. It would create a great hardship should my premiums increase.”

Federal employees also were promised a good retirement program. But Trump’s proposal would undercut it by increasing out-of-pocket employee payments and decreasing retirement benefits.

The House plan would further deteriorate federal employee compensation by, in the words of the proposal, “basing Federal employee retirees’ health benefits on length of service. This option would reduce premium subsidies for retirees who had relatively short Federal careers.”

With the inflation and length of service provisions, “these two reforms would bring health benefits for Federal retirees more in line with those offered in the private sector.”

House Republicans think that’s a good thing.

Yes, federal benefits are better than many in the private sector. That comes with Uncle Sam’s desire to be a model employer. Instead of seeking better benefits for all, under the House plan Sam wouldn’t be much better than the bottom feeders.

“Over the past few decades, the share of large employers offering retiree health benefits has dropped fairly dramatically,” said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that analyzes health-care policy. “With fewer and fewer large employers offering retiree health benefits, we’re now seeing a clear decline in the share of seniors with retiree health benefits.”

If they can’t afford to buy insurance to supplement Medicare, one possible result of a decline in retiree health benefits is a decline in health care for seniors who need it the most.

Is that what Sam wants for his annuitants?

Read more:

Federal employees pay more for insurance, but it’s still a good deal

Democratic senators hit Trump’s retirement cuts for feds

Hits on federal retirement advance as bill is introduced to fire feds for ‘no cause at all’

Senators reach bipartisan deal on short-term Obamacare fix

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Two U.S. senators on Tuesday announced a bipartisan breakthrough to shore up Obamacare, an agreement that would revive federal subsidies for health insurers, and President Donald Trump voiced support for the deal.

The agreement worked out by Republican Senator Lamar Alexander and Democratic Senator Patty Murray would meet some Democratic objectives, including a revival of the subsidies for Obamacare and restoring $106 million in funding for a federal program that helps people enroll in insurance plans.

In exchange, Republicans would get more flexibility for states to offer a wider variety of health insurance plans while maintaining the requirement that sick and healthy people be charged the same rates for coverage.

The Trump administration announced last week it would stop paying billions of dollars to insurers to help low-income Americans pay out-of-pocket medical expenses, part of the Republican president’s effort to dismantle Obamacare, Democratic former President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.

Trump, who campaigned for president last year on a pledge to repeal Obamacare, has repeatedly criticized the 2010 law, the Affordable Care Act.

But, speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump suggested he could get behind the plan for a short-term fix that Alexander and Murray had settled on.

He said it would help get Obamacare through a “very dangerous little period.” But he also said he was still committed to a broader overhaul of the program.

“The solution will be for about a year or two years,” Trump said at a joint news conference with Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras.

Shares of U.S. hospital operators, including Tenet Healthcare Corp and HCA Healthcare Inc, moved higher after news of the deal. Tenet shares were last up 4 percent, while HCA was 2.3 percent higher. Shares of some U.S. health insurers also extended their gains on the day, with Anthem Inc last up 2.5 percent and Centene Corp rising 2.8 percent.

Reporting by Yasmeen Abutaleb, Richard Cowan and Lewis Krauskopf; Writing by Yasmeen Abutaleb and Caren Bohan; Editing by Paul Simao and Jonathan Oatis

A %d blogueros les gusta esto:


ENLACES

[Lo Nuevo] [Madres Solas] [SUTESUAEM] [Previsión Social] [Ciencias Económico Administrativas]
[
Ciencias Sociales] [Ciencias de la Informaci
ón][México Historia y Cultura]
[Materias de Estudio]
[
SPCU] [Diplomado SPC] [Documentos SPC] [Foro Permanente SPC] [Enlaces SPC][PRONAD-SIIA] [Enlaces]
 

[Joseacontrera's Blog] [Propósito] [Viajeros] [Mis Viajes] [Fotos] [Música] [Deportes] [Correo] [Curriculum] [Godaddy]


NOTICIAS
 [México] [Edomex] [Estados] [Emprendedores Tech] [Prensa Educativa] [Universities] [Empleo] [Trabajo y Sindicatos]
[
Latinoamérica] [Estados Unidos] [Unión Europea] [Asia] [África] [Joseacontreras Diario] [Derechos Humanos Diario]