Gender Discount

Something we hear mentioned from time to time, but seems to be accepted... the gender pay gap in America. Since the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the disparity has been reduced by less than a penny a year, from 58 cents on the dollar, to 77 cents (for every dollar a man earns) today.


Women are the co-bread winner, or primary breadwinner in half of American homes... showing how many homes are affected by such a significant "discount" in pay. In a life time, a woman who graduates from college will earn $1.2 million less than her male counterparts. This isn't a trend for the United States, but one the world over. Earlier this year, the World Economic Forum released a new report (click here) showing that occupational gender equality is not a reality, and there is still a lot to do in the way of progress.



The report shows that a lot of women still struggle with moving out of entry and mid-level positions. Some say it deals with motherhood, and leaving the workforce, that it has nothing to do with sexism. But, in the case of female MBA's... from the moment they first enter the workforce, they're making $4600 less per year (click here) than their male counterparts.



It is said that the problem is... simply put... culture... culture... culture. The male dominated office culture, with its defined roles and views of each gender.

Just recently, there was a federal appeals court ruling that said a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart for pay inequality for women was allowed to go to trial (click here). So some people are fighting back. Perhaps lawsuits are the only way to force employers towards true economic equality. We'll see if this forces Wal-Mart's hand. We'll see if other companies are mindful of this, and try to curb disparities to avoid lawsuits and bad publicity themselves. We shall see

10 Major Reforms to American Healthcare

1. Your Kids are Covered

Starting this year, if you have an adult child who cannot get health insurance from his or her employer and is to some degree dependent on you financially, your child can stay on your insurance policy until he or she is 26 years old. Currently, many insurance companies do not allow adult children to remain on their parents' plan once they reach 19 or leave school.

2. You Can't be Dropped

Starting this fall, your health insurance company will no longer be allowed to "drop" you (cancel your policy) if you get sick. In 2009, "rescission" was revealed to be a relatively common cost-cutting practice by several insurance companies. The practice proved to be common enough to spur several lawsuits; for example, in 2008 and 2009, California's largest insurers were made to pay out more than $19 million in fines for dropping policyholders who fell ill.

3. You Can't be Denied Insurance

Starting this year your child (or children) cannot be denied coverage simply because they have a pre-existing health condition. Health insurance companies will also be barred from denying adults applying for coverage if they have a pre-existing condition, but not until 2014.

4. You Can Spend What You Need to

Prior to the new law, health insurance companies set a maximum limit on the monetary amount of benefits that a policyholder could receive. This meant that those who developed expensive or long-lasting medical conditions could run out of coverage. Starting this year, companies will be barred from instituting caps on coverage.

5. You Don't Have to Wait

If you currently have pre-existing conditions that have prevented you from being able to qualify for health insurance for at least six months you will have coverage options before 2014. Starting this fall, you will be able to purchase insurance through a state-run "high-risk pool", which will cap your personal out-of-pocket expenses for healthcare. You will not be required to pay more than $5,950 of your own money for medical expenses; families will not have to pay any more than $11,900.

6. You Must be Insured

Under the new law starting in 2014, you will have to purchase health insurance or risk being fined. If your employer does not offer health insurance as a benefit or if you do not earn enough money to purchase a plan, you may get assistance from the government. The fines for not purchasing insurance will be levied according to a sliding scale based on income. Starting in 2014, the lowest fine would be $95 or 1% of a person's income (whichever is greater) and then increase to a high of $695 or 2.5% of an individual's taxable income by 2016. There will be a maximum cap on fines.

7. You'll Have More Options

Starting in 2014 (when you will be required by law to have health insurance), states will operate new insurance marketplaces - called "exchanges" - that will provide you with more options for buying an individual policy if you can't get, or afford, insurance from your workplace and you earn too much income to qualify for Medicaid. In addition, millions of low- and middle-income families (earning up to $88,200 annually) will be able to qualify for financial assistance from the federal government to purchase insurance through their state exchange.

8. Flexible Spending Accounts Will Become Less Flexible

Three years from now, flexible spending accounts (FSAs) will have lower contribution limits - meaning you won't be able to have as much money deducted from your paycheck pre-tax and deposited into an FSA for medical expenses as is currently allowed. The new maximum amount allowed will be $2,500. In addition, fewer expenses will qualify for FSA spending. For example, you will no longer be able to use your FSA to help defray the cost of over-the-counter drugs.

9. If You Earn More, You'll Pay More

Starting in 2018, if your combined family income exceeds $250,000 you are going to be taking less money home each pay period. That's because you will have more money deducted from your paycheck to go toward increased Medicare payroll taxes. In addition to higher payroll taxes you will also have to pay 3.8% tax on any unearned income, which is currently tax-exempt.

10. Medicare May Cover More or Less of Your Expenses

Starting this year, if Medicare is your primary form of health insurance you will no longer have to pay for preventive care such as an annual physical, screenings for treatable conditions or routine laboratory work. In addition, you will get a $250 check from the federal government to help pay for prescription drugs currently not covered as a result of the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole".

However, if you are a high-income individual or couple (making more than $85,000 individually or $170,000 jointly), your prescription drug subsidy will be reduced. In addition, if you are one of the more than 10 million people currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan you may be facing higher premiums because your insurance company's subsidy from the federal government is going to be dramatically reduced.

Papal Priestly Pedophilia Protection

Pope Benedict XVI has a serious problem... and it seems to be growing. Once seen as an American problem, the media has taken notice of new stories of child sexual abuse in the Catholic church in Western Europe. This isn't about randomly attacking the Catholic church, an organization I openly view with much disdain. This isn't about attacking whoever happens to be the leader of the organization at the time the story breaks.


To be clear... this is about the man, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, BEFORE HE BECAME Pope Benedict XVI... and his PERSONAL role in various cases of alleged child molestation... what he knew... when he knew it... and what he chose to do, or not do... and why. Were decisions made for the good of the rank-and-file Catholic... or for the protection of the institution that is: the Catholic Church? While Cardinal in Germany in 1980, Ratzinger was involved in the decision to send (then accused sex offender) Reverend Peter Hullermann to therapy. He was relieved of priestly duties, but immediately reinstated as he BEGAN his therapy. Pope Benedict claims he was unaware of the reinstatement. Hullermann would later be convicted of child molestation in 1986.


But the most damaging problem is Pope Benedict's time as head of the Vatican's doctrinal and disciplinary office. At the time, Pope Benedict XVI was THE guy in charge of (among other things) investigating allegations against priests and determining whether or not a priest should be "defrocked." So, this entire discussion is about HIS decisions. Not a predecessor. Not a different organization within the Catholic church. The office he led, and while he was leading it. When complaints are made against a priest, they went to his department. In many cases, priests wound up relocated. Just moved from one parish to another, with no information or warning to those new members, even though Cardinal Ratzinger was well-aware of the charges of child molestation raised against the incoming priests. In the example of some of the worst offenders, the "punishments" were leading a retired life of prayer and only being allowed to accept Mass in private. Is this how the Catholic church treats pedophilia? In the Wisconsin deaf children abuse case, the accused priest sent a plea directly to Ratzinger and the investigation was halted. His punishments were restrictions on Mass and being told to stay away from the deaf.


"Go somewhere private and pray." Is this how Catholicism views justice? Or do the rules of justice differ when pertaining to a priest. Have they been in favor or jail? Or do priests who commit the same actions as other men not deserve prison? A regular man sexually assaults one boy... one time... and he's going to do multiple years in prison. A priest... who acknowledges it... with many boys... on many occasions... over decades? The future Pope tells him to go pray?


And finally... what does this say about the position of Pope? how does it affect your view? The Vicar of Christ? He who binds and looses on Earth? He who has "the keys of Peter"? The person who controls the "treasury of the merits of the Saints"... dispensing grace on those who fulfill the Holy Sacraments? Did God appoint a man who sided with repeat sex offenders over children? A man that put the protection of the legacy of the institution of his church... over the safety of his parishioners?