Skip to content

California's Bankrupt Cities: Look East to Wisconsin

Monday, December 9, 2013

In the 11 months since Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker abolished collective bargaining rights for government workers, Wisconsin cities, towns, and school districts have saved millions of dollars. There’s an important lesson here for California as its cities start to go bankrupt. In Wisconsin, writes Steven Malanga for the LA Times, Walker’s changes immediately took hold.

The state’s teachers union, Wisconsinites learned, had used its power to collectively bargain for healthcare benefits to demand that local school districts provide coverage through a nonprofit insurer affiliated with the union. Once the state ended bargaining on healthcare, school boards began competitively bidding out their health insurance.

By the opening of the new school year in September, just two months after the budget bill went into effect, 23 districts had rebid their contracts, saving $16 million, or an average of $211 per student. The MacIver Institute, a Madison-based think tank, estimated that if all the state’s districts were able to negotiate similar deals once their contracts with the union-affiliated insurer expire, schools could save $186 million…

In mid-August 2011, barely a month after the changes went into effect, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the city would save as much as $36 million in its next budget from “healthcare benefit changes it didn’t have to negotiate with unions” as a result of the new state legislation.

Malanga contrasts this with the experience of some troubled California cities:

Californians should understand those fiscal pressures. Average annual pay for a local government employee in the state rose by 60%, to $61,185 (excluding benefits), between 1999 and 2008, according to the Little Hoover Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy. That’s about 70% more than the increase in private sector wages in the state over the same period. Average pay for cops and firefighters climbed 69%, to $89,056, again excluding benefits, in the same period.

Benefit costs have soared even more than wages. The annual cost of funding pensions in California’s 20 largest municipalities has grown from $1.3 billion in 1999 to $5.1 billion last year, according to a study by Stanford University professor Joe Nation. That’s an annual growth rate of better than 11%.

Faced with such increases, municipalities in California haven’t had nearly the flexibility to mend their budgets that officials in Wisconsin have.

In San Jose, where the average cost of employing a city worker, including benefits, has soared to an extraordinary $142,000 annually, Mayor Chuck Reed had to fight long and hard for a ballot measure to reduce pension costs that was passed by voters in June. In the three years before the vote, the city had to lay off about 2,000 employees and cut back on parks, libraries and other services.

In Stockton, which declared bankruptcy in June, for every dollar the city spent on salaries, it spent another dollar on employee benefits. Facing unsustainable employee costs and an intransigent police union that was demanding the city pay retired officers about $300,000 for unused sick and vacation time, Stockton cut a quarter of its public safety forces and still couldn’t meet its obligations.

In the end, math matters and as a general rule, the sooner you make your peace with arithmetic, the less it’s going to hurt. Moderate and mild reforms work pretty well if the reform process starts early enough; wait long enough, though, and the steps needed to get the finances straight become savage and painful. Ask the Greeks. Or ask the citizens — and the municipal employees — of California’s bankrupt cities.

Article source: http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2012/07/22/californias-bankrupt-cities-look-east-to-wisconsin/

Filed in Bankrupt Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

ObamaCare Created Medicaid Time Bomb That Could Quickly …

Monday, December 9, 2013

Etc., etc…..

THE Gunny G BOOKMARKS/One-Click Posts/Articles–CLICK HERE!!!!! (Diigo)**********

*****


eXTReMe Tracker

*****


Site Meter

BECAUSE THERE IS
A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
*****

CLICK BUTTON ABOVE
*****

GREAT SITE!
GREAT ARTICLES!
www.strike-the-root.com/

Click Button Above,Please
*****

MUST READ!
FOR THE THINKING MAN!

Please Click Button Above
*****

THE Gunny G BOOKMARKS/One-Click Posts/Articles–CLICK HERE!!!!! (Diigo)

Article source: http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/obamacare-created-medicaid-time-bomb-that-could-quickly-bankrupt-both-federal-and-state-government-healthcare/

Filed in Bankrupt Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

Obamacare Broken ? Fix It with Medicare for All | The Dissenting …

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Rose Ann DeMoro, Executive Director, California Nurses Association/National Nurses United

Lost amidst the well-chronicled travails of the Affordable Care Act rollout are the long term effects of people struggling to get the health coverage they need without going bankrupt.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because that’s been the main story line of the US healthcare system for several decades. Sadly, little has changed.

Still, with all the ACA’s highly publicized snafus, and less discussed systemic flaws, there’s no reason to welcome the cynical efforts to repeal or defund the law by politicians whose only alternative is more of the same callous, existing market-based healthcare system.

US nurses oppose the rollback and appreciate that several million Americans who are now uninsured may finally get coverage, principally through the expansion of Medicaid, or access to private insurance they’ve been denied because of their prior health status.

At the same time, nurses will never stop campaigning for a fundamental transformation to a more humane single-payer, expanded Medicare for all system not based on ability to pay and obeisance to the policy confines of insurance claims adjustors.

Website delays – the most unwelcome news for computer acolytes since the tech boom crashed – are not the biggest problem with the ACA, as will become increasingly apparent long after the signup headaches are a distant memory.

What prompted the ACA was a rapidly escalating healthcare nightmare, seen in 50 million uninsured, medical bills plunging millions into un-payable debt or bankruptcy, long delays in access to care, and record numbers skipping needed treatment due to cost.

The main culprit was our profit-focused system, with rising profiteering by a massive health care industry, and an increasing number of employers dropping coverage or just dumping more costs onto workers.

The ACA tackles some of the most egregious inequities: lack of access for many of the working poor who will now be eligible for Medicaid or subsidies to offset some of their costs for buying private insurance through the exchanges, a crackdown on several especially notorious insurance abuses, and encouragement of preventive care.

But the law actually further entrenches the insurance-based system through the requirement that uncovered individuals buy private insurance. It’s also chock full of loopholes.

Some consumers who have made it through the website labyrinth have found confusing choices among plans which vary widely in both premium and out of pocket costs even with the subsidies, a pass through of public funds to the private insurers.

The minimum benefits are also somewhat illusory. Insurance companies have decades of experience at gaming the system and warehouses full of experts to design ways to limit coverage options.

The ACA allows insurers to cherry pick healthier enrollees by the way benefit packages are designed, and as a Washington Post article noted on 21 November, consumers are discovering insurers are restricting their choice of doctors and excluding many top ranked hospitals from their approved “network”.

The wide disparity between the healthcare you need, what your policy will cover, and what the insurer will actually pay for remains.

Far less reported is what registered nurses increasingly see – financial incentives within the ACA for hospitals to prematurely push patients out of hospitals to cheaper, less regulated settings or back to their homes. It also encourages shifting more care delivery from nurses and doctors to robots and other technology that undermines individual patient care, and that may work no better than the dysfunctional ACA websites.

Is there an alternative? Most other developed nations have discovered it, a single-payer or national healthcare system.

Without the imperative of prioritizing profits over care, Medicare for all streamlines the administrative waste and complex insurance billing operations endemic to private insurance. That waste is a major reason why the US has more than double the per capita cost of healthcare of other developed nations, yet lower life expectancies than many.

Medicare for all eliminates the multi-tiered health plans that plague both the individual and group insurance markets that are tied to the girth of your wallet not your need for care. Class, gender, and racial disparities in access and quality of care vanish under Medicare for all.

It’s beyond time that we stop vilifying government and perpetuating a corporatized healthcare system that has abandoned so many. We can, with a system of Medicare for all, we can cut healthcare costs and promote a much more humane society.

Published in THE GUARDIAN

About these ads

div { margin-top: 1em; } #google_ads_div_wpcom_below_post_adsafe_ad_container { display: block !important; }
]]>

Article source: http://dissentingdemocrat.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/obamacare-broken-fix-it-with-medicare-for-all/

Filed in Bankrupt Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

DownWithTyranny!: CruzCare– Another GOP Weapon To Keep …

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Yesterday I went to see my doctor, Dr. Vicky. She is the bomb! And she wrote me a prescription for 4 weeks of Doryx (200 mg). The pharmacy said the cost is $786.00/week. With Medicare insurance the price is $25/week. That’s why seniors– at least the ones who are awake– react so badly to reactionaries like Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz who want to “ease out” Medicare and undermine Obamacare.


Also yesterday, when I got back from Dr. Vicky’s office, I spoke with Matt Moore, one of the Democrats intent on taking on Don Young for Alaska’s single, giant at-large House seat. I asked him, as I ask every candidate running for Congress I speak with, to tell me how Obamacare could be better. And, like most of the candidates I discuss this with, Moore told me he favors the Medicare-for-all (AKA- single-payer) approach. I don’t speak with a lot of Republican candidates but virtually all the Democrats prefer single-payer to Obamacare. The idea behind it was a compromise with the GOP, corrupt conservative Democrats like Max Bacucus and Big Insurance, though that hasn’t stopped the GOP or Big Insurance from trying to sabotage it and dragging us back to the bad old days.


Now that hundreds of thousands of people have signed up for insurance through Obamacare– many seeing their families covered for the first time ever– it’s going to be harder for Republicans to keep demonizing it. Mitch McConnell, for example, is in a state where Obamacare is very successful already. McConnell is in a tough reelection battle. Advocating taking away people’s healthcare… probably not a great idea. His primary opponent, Matt Bevin– who really has nothing to lose– is likely to aggressively support CruzCare (the far right’s anti-healthcare grab bag of failed anti-family proposals). That’s going to leave McConnell is a quandary– a very, very big one.



Embracing CruzCare should be about as successful for Republican electeds outside of the Old Confederacy as embracing Cruz’s government shutdown was. Obamacare may not be popular, but fixing it is– and that’s what Democrats in Congress– or at least progressive Democrats in Congress– have always said they want to do. In his deranged speech against Medicare (written for him by the AMA), Ronald Reagan outlined many of the fraudulent right-wing objections to healthcare. Ted Cruz or Mike Lee– or any number of far right Republicans in the House– could easily give that exact same speech today. Americans, on the other hand, love Medicare– just as Reagan admitted he feared they would. Advocating taking it away would be tantamount to political suicide– which is why people like Paul Ryan who want to do just that, are always circumspect– i.e., sneaky– in their approach.


Even conservative Democrats in red states– think Mark Pryor (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA), Mark Begich (AK) and Kay Hagan (NC) particularly– will be attacking Republicans for embracing CruzCare while advocating fixing Obamacare, a position in synch with that of most Americans (as the recent election in Virginia helped prove).


Democratic candidates can make this dynamic work for them at election time– especially the ones running against anti-healthcare Republicans. Take far right Republican Gary Miller in CA-31. Because Steve Israel stumbled badly last year by backing an unpopular empty suit, Miller is one of the last Republicans representing a Democratic district (D+5) in the whole country. Refusing to admit he made a mistake in 2012, Israel is backing his loser candidate, Pete Aguilar, again. Fortunately, Democrats in San Bernardino have a viable alternative this year in Eloise Reyes. And despite Israel’s attempts to sabotage her campaign, she’s pulling ahead of the hapless, bumbling Aguilar and leaving him in the dust as she prepares to take on Miller. Miller, the multimillionaire Arkansas extremist who came to California and voted over 40 times to repeal Obamacare and who would love to repeal Social Security and Medicare as well. Miller is a CruzCare backer. Eloise will make mincemeat out of him. Earlier today, she told us her approach and how drastically it differs from Miller’s:

Our country has never attempted an overhaul of its healthcare system like the one we are implementing through the Affordable Care Act. There will undoubtedly be bumps in the road as the system is refined and corrected, but the ultimate result will be expanded access to quality, affordable coverage, and we are already making progress toward that important goal.


In just the last few months, we have seen a number of state-run exchanges hit the ground running. Here in California, our marketplace is en route to reach its enrollment target for 2014. What that tells us is that there is a real need for affordable healthcare and that the delays seen at the federal level are only a temporary setback in expanding access to coverage to all Americans.


Still, there are ways that the Affordable Care Act must be strengthened.


The Affordable Care Act’s expansion of access to the Medicare and CHIP programs will mean making healthcare a reality for many people who would otherwise go uninsured. In a region like the Inland Empire, which leads the nation in poverty, this feature of the Affordable Care Act is a critical one when it comes to enrolling low-income families. However, it is a feature of the program that is not well-known. That’s why targeted outreach to low-income communities will be critical to ensuring that the Affordable Care Act reaches some of the individuals who need it the most.

That isn’t something Gary Miller and other California Republicans are helping with. In fact, they are still sabotaging health insurance for working families. If you’d like to help Eloise replace Miller in Congress, you can do that here.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Article source: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2013/12/cruzcare-another-gop-weapon-to-keep.html

Filed in Right Wing Attack on Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

Obamacare: If You Like Your Facts … You can …

Thursday, December 5, 2013

<!–

–>


Written By : Larry Elder
December 5, 2013

President Barack Obama recently asserted, “Thanks in part to the Affordable Care Act, also known as ‘Obamacare,’ the cost of health care is now growing at the slowest rate in 50 years.” So, you may be losing your health care coverage, and you may end up paying more — but, hey, rising costs are slowing overall “in part” because of Obamacare.

ADVERTISEMENT


Larry_Elder1

True, as Obama says, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — the agency that administers Medicaid and Medicare — “estimated that … (in) the three years since Obamacare passed, we’ve seen the slowest growth in health care costs on record.”

But is this due “in part” to Obamacare?

About Obama’s claim, the Washington Post said: “The President, in his comment, used the word ‘helped,’ which is sufficiently vague that in theory it could mean any impact, no matter how slight. Yet he also cited this as a reason for not walking away from the law, which suggests he thinks it had more than a modest impact. In fact, some listeners might interpret his statement as suggesting the law has had a significant impact. However, ‘help’ could also simply mean ‘contributed.’” In other words, this is similar to the President’s pre-”stimulus” push. He claimed it would “save or create” 3.5 million jobs — a claim sufficiently slippery and vague so as to escape measurement.

Here, the President wants us to believe that: millions now have subsidized health care insurance; carriers cannot decline based on pre-existing illness; carriers cannot “discriminate” when setting rates; carriers must allow “children” under 26 to remain on their parents’ policies — all of which has been accomplished while “slowing down the rise in costs”?

The Obama-sympathetic ABC News “fact-checked” it. Yes, increases are more modest, as the President claims, “but many independent experts believe the slowdown is largely due to the economy and a contraction of spending during the recession. The role of the Affordable Care Act has been limited and hard to measure, they say. … Experts note that changes under ACA could ultimately increase the growth rate of health care costs initially, since more people will be covered (and paying for) health plans and treatments. The continued economic recovery is expected to contribute, as well, as more Americans have increased income to spend on health care.”

The “fact checker” from the Obama-friendly Washington Post said, “The evidence has become too murky to reach a firm conclusion. Clearly, even economists are unsure why health care inflation has continued to remain low so long.”

The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page was not murky: “These assertions border on nonsense. National spending on health care is projected to reach a record $2.9 trillion in 2013, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This is more than 25 percent above pre-recession spending levels in 2007. Health care expenditures per capita and as a percentage of GDP are also at record highs, expected to top out this year at $9,216 and 18 percent respectively. …

“Annual health spending growth rates began to decline a decade ago. In 2002, health care spending grew by nearly 10 percent in a single year. The growth rate dropped to 7.1 percent in 2004, 6.2 percent in 2007 and bottomed out at 3.9 percent in 2009 — the worst year of the Great Recession, where it has stayed ever since. Obamacare was enacted in 2010.”

Another Obamacare editorial page opponent, Investors Business Daily, said: “Yes, the rate of growth in national health spending has slowed in recent years. … But these have nothing to do with Obamacare. The latest report from the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — the official scorekeeper of health spending — says the spending growth slowdown is ‘unrelated to the (Affordable Care Act).’

“It also reports that Obamacare will add to national spending over the next decade. Other reports have pinned much of the slowdown on the recession and Obama’s lousy recovery that followed it. Plus, Obamacare is now pushing premiums up.

“As Charles Blahous, a former trustee for Social Security and Medicare, puts it, Obama’s latest cost-cutting claims ‘are just as groundless as the ones that misled so many Americans to believe they would be able to keep their previous coverage.’”

It is still the economy, stupid. And this is a pathetic recovery. After the tax hikes, the largest ever “stimulus,” imposition of massive new financial and environmental regulations — and now Obamacare — Obamanomics produced the worst recovery in 80 years, still 2 million jobs short of our peak, while millions more have completely given up looking for work.

Obamacare is less popular than ever. More ominously for Democrats, a recent Gallup poll finds that Obamacare’s unpopularity has caused many Americans to re-think whether “health care coverage” is “the responsibility of the federal government.” In 2006, just seven years ago, 69 percent said it was the responsibility of the federal government. Now, that number has shrunk to 42 percent, with 56 percent saying health care coverage is not a responsibility of the federal government.

How knows? Maybe millions are finally waking up.

Larry Elder is a best-selling author and radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. 

Also see,

The Knockout Game — NYT/NPR Say No Big Deal

<!–

–>

Article source: http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/obamacare-if-you-like-your-facts-you-can-keep-them/

Filed in Right Wing Attack on Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

Daily Kos: Bereft of real ideas, GOP resorts to same old Medicare lie

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Skip to main content

News, Community, Action

  • Profile
  • Diaries (list)
  • Stream

Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 08:13 AM PST

Bereft of real ideas, GOP resorts to same old Medicare lie

by Joan McCarterFollow

  • Email
  • 42 Comments

Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney and U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) wave after Romney introduced Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate during a campaign event at the battleship USS Wisconsin in Norfolk, Virginia nbsp;August 11, 2012.

How bankrupt for ideas are Republicans leading into the 2014 midterms? Bankrupt enough to resurrect the big lie of 2012: That Obamacare is cutting $716 billion from Medicare and that’s going to hurt seniors. This time around, it’s $717 billion, but the aim is the same as always: Trying to scare seniors.

As President Obama and Democrats try to salvage the reputation of the Affordable Care Act, a national Republican group will hit 12 Democrats–all running in Senate elections next year–over changes to Medicare.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee will highlight Wednesday the candidates’ support for the federal health care law, better known as Obamacare, and what Republicans call $717 billion in cuts to the popular entitlement program that guarantees health insurance to seniors.

Here’s the rich part: “But the NRSC will hammer the Democratic candidates in a news release for ‘deceiving seniors (by) using their old and discredited MediScare playbook.’” Right. It’s the Democrats who are trying to deceive and scare seniors when they point out Republicans tried to turn Medicare into a voucher system. It’s the oldest trick in the political playbook. It failed in 2012, but Republicans must figure that it’ll get them enough votes in the midterm elections to drag it out again.

Never mind that the facts haven’t changed. The $717 billion is money saved in the Medicare program by reducing federal payments to insurance companies, hospitals and other providers, not by cutting benefits. Never mind that it’s been fact-checked to death as false. Never mind that Rep. Paul Ryan had the exact same cuts in his touted budget. Never mind reality. Because scaring seniors is always a reliable trick.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 08:13 AM PST.

Also republished by

Daily Kos.

(Load)
(Load)
(Load)
(Load)
(Load)
(Load)
(Load)

(Load)

Close

eeff, Eyesbright, wdrath, OpherGopher, Crashing Vor, JVolvo, bluicebank, millwood, leonard145b, JeffW, Involuntary Exile, J M F, RJH, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, blue aardvark, ratcityreprobate, a2nite, bewareofme, Dodgerdog1, VPofKarma

Diary Recommended By

    eeff, Eyesbright, wdrath, OpherGopher, Crashing Vor, JVolvo, bluicebank, millwood, leonard145b, JeffW, Involuntary Exile, J M F, RJH, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, blue aardvark, ratcityreprobate, a2nite, bewareofme, Dodgerdog1, VPofKarma

(Load)

© Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified

“Kos” and “Daily Kos” are registered trademarks of Kos Media, LLC

Privacy Policy

Article source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/04/1260067/-Bereft-of-real-ideas-GOP-resorts-to-same-old-Medicare-lie

Filed in Bankrupt Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

How Library Foundations are helping Public Libraries stay open …

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Below is a guest post by Walter J. Dillingham, Jr., managing director and business development officer in the Endowments and Foundations practice of Wilmington Trust, a national wealth management company whose offerings include personal trust, wealth planning, fiduciary, asset management, and family office services. You can read the full study including tables on the GuideStar website: http://www.guidestar.org/downloadable-files/2013-public-libraries.pdf.

Like nonprofits, Public libraries have evolved into organizations that provide expanded services to the local community. They go beyond just books and often act as an anchor in the community, providing a full array of educational and social services.

Walter Dillingham

Walter Dillingham

Every year, Queens Borough Public Library has to put on a full court press to maintain its local government funding, which provides about 82% of its operating budget. The Wilmington Trust research report reviewed the public library sector and important trends it faces; it also provided some observations on library foundations. Taking a closer look at the three public libraries in New York City which include New York Public Library (NYPL), Queens Borough Public Library (QBPL), and Brooklyn Public Library (BPL), the research report highlighted their diversified fundraising plans. Library fundraising foundations are an important tool for public libraries, and they should be focused on a diversified fundraising plan that also includes strategies around major gifts, planned giving, legacy societies, and a strategic technology plan.

There are a variety of reasons why these foundations can be beneficial to a public library:

  1. Increasing Trustee Opportunities: a separate foundation creates additional board leadership and volunteer opportunities for trustees, who in turn can be substantial donors.
  2. Maintaining Focus/Control: this is a way to keep the fundraising, operations, and administration in a separate area away from the core operations of the library. It enables the trustees to be focused on fundraising rather than the operations of the library.
  3. Marketing: this allows the library to have a more focused marketing and branding strategy. Many foundations maintain a separate website page to highlight their upcoming special events as well as to communicate about different ways to give.
  4. Donor Choice/Control: separate 501(c)(3) organizations are often set up since donors prefer to give to a separate foundation versus an entity that is controlled by the local government.
  5. Provides a Financial Foundation: libraries can utilize this structure to manage and build their investment portfolios, which are often restricted endowment funds.

The use of library fundraising foundations can be beneficial to public libraries as a way to develop trustee leadership opportunities as well as to have a focused fundraising strategy. Almost 80% of public libraries (a review of the top 100 libraries) use a separate fundraising foundation. These vary in size and scope. QBPL is the only New York City library system to utilize a foundation, while Boston Public Library has three foundation entities that support its fundraising.

The research report reviewed the largest public library systems to assess their use of fundraising foundations. It found that 79% of public libraries use separate foundations and the average number of trustees was 26, with a range of 10 to 50 trustees; the Chicago Public Library Foundation has 50 trustees, which was the largest foundation board. The average foundation total assets were $12.5 million, with the San Diego Public Library Foundation at $40.7 million. The average annual fundraising for the public library foundations was approximately $2 million, with the San Diego Public Library Foundation and the Free Library of Philadelphia Foundation raising approximately $8 million and $6.9 million, respectively.

Public libraries operate as both municipal public libraries and not-for-profit public libraries. A municipal library conducts its business as a department of the local government and is not a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit entity. In New York City, we see the not-for-profit model where each public library is set up as a stand-alone not-for-profit organization. Thus, NYPL, BPL, and QBPL are each separate 501(c)(3) not-for-profit entities, and each of the library boards is com­prised of appointed trustees and board selected trustees.

New York Public Library:

The NYPL was founded in 1895 and has benefited from its long history in one of the wealthiest cities in the world. From its early roots, it was supported by the some of the wealthiest families in the city and has also benefited from the support of corporations and foundations in the city. NYPL also depends heavily on city funding, but it has been able to diversify its funding source with only 57% of its overall budget coming from New York City funding. Besides its successful annual giving program ($32 million) and annual gala, NYPL has had a very strong planned giving program which offers both bequests and a charitable gift annuity option. It also supports a robust Bigelow Legacy Society, which allows it to build and cultivate its planned giving donors.

Brooklyn Public Library:

BPL was founded a year after NYPL and is a very important organization in Brooklyn. BPL does not have the benefit of the demographics of New York City and the long support of those founding families, but has developed a strong operating and fundraising plan. It highlights its volunteering opportunities on its website. BPL has a much higher dependency on city funding, with city funding providing 82% of its total budget. At the same time, it has been able to raise $3 million to $4 million annually over the past few years. It has focused on its annual fund, corporate sponsorships, and special events, such as its annual gala. BPL has a $32 million endowment fund and does mention planned giving on its website; it does not offer charitable gift annuities. It also has a legacy society called Ingersoll. BPL had a separate fundraising foundation but decided to close it in 2007 and merge the trustees together.

Queens Borough Public Library:

Just like the NYPL and BPL, QBPL is a very important organization to the communities in Queens, and it has been around since 1896. QBPL has had a strong and consistent leader in President and CEO Tom Galante, who has been with the library since 1987. Its annual operating budget is about $102 million and it receives 93% of its funding from government sources. This allocation from government is similar to BPL. Queens Borough Public Library has an investment portfolio of about $22 million, according to its latest Form 990s, for which about 31% is restricted funds such as private philanthropy, state/ federal grants, and corporate foundation support.

QBPL reported in its June 30, 2012 annual report summary that it raised $3.7 million, which is a significant increase from the prior year. The library is very proactive with its fundraising plans and is the only library system in New York City to utilize a separate library foundation called Queens Library Foundation. The Foundation is led by Diana Chapin, executive director, and Peter Wayne, who focuses on major gifts and planned giving. Queens Borough Public Library has started a golf event this year and has been creative with its estate planning seminars at some of the library branches.

QBPL has also been strategic with its fundraising technology plans through the use of email updates to its donors. On its website you can learn more about its foundation staff of six (which includes a dedicated staff member for foundation and corporate grants), its E-newsletter, and volunteer opportunities. Diana Chapin commented: “Funders, whether foundations, corporations, or individuals, are often confused about why libraries need private support and believe that libraries are government entities. Having a separate Foundation helps make it clear that the Library is a private corporation and also provides a separate Board whose dedicated mission is to assist in garnering private support, rather than providing guidance in operational and policy matters.”

Libraries like other American nonprofits have to learn how to deal with the new government and cultural changes that are affecting the sector including new responsibilities and new finding sources for funding.

Check the bottom of this post for a top 20 ranking.

THREE IMPORTANT TRENDS

Public libraries are facing three important trends which underscore the need for enhanced fundraising:

  1. Providing services beyond just books, including : educational and social services
  2. Funding issues related to a soft economy
  3. E-Content acquisitions, especially e-books

Over the past decade, the technology in our country has changed rapidly. Libraries face the increasing demand for e-book content. According to the Pew Internet American Life Project, 73% of Americans in the last 12 months say they visited the library to borrow print books, while 17% say they visited to borrow or download an audio book.

Public libraries will also need to diversify their fundraising plans to include a full array of fundraising channels. For example, planned giving and legacy societies are very important areas to develop. Planned giving is a way to increase endowment funds. NYPL has been very successful in building up its endowment through planned giving (bequests) over the years. Such as with other nonprofits, technology is also an important area to consider as many not-for-profits, including public libraries, are assessing how they communicate with their donors through websites, emails, and social media. This should be part of a written strategic technology plan as a component of the fundraising plan.

As we see with public community colleges facing government cutbacks and not-for-profit hospitals being impacted by The Affordable Care Act and Medicaid/ Medicare cutbacks, public libraries will continue to face budget cuts and will have to take a more active role in their fundraising plans. With the softer economy and government cutbacks, these libraries will need to consider other sources such as private philanthropy and government /foundation grants.

_____

How all of this can help your nonprofit:

1-Explore the benefits of a separate foundation. If you have one, explore how other nonprofits market their foundations.

2-Maintain a diversified fundraising plan that utilizes and array of donor channels from annual funds to special events.

3-Enhance your donor communications by maximizing your website and email/social media strategies.

4-Build your planned giving program and start a legacy society that connects to your donors.

 Mr. Dillingham is part of a dedicated endowment and foundation advisory team within the Northeast Region, which also supports the firm’s national effort in the endowment and foundation marketplace. Mr. Dillingham and his team works closely with their not-for-profit clients to help them achieve both their investment and philanthropic objectives. Mr. Dillingham is a Chartered Financial Analyst® (CFA) and has 27 years of financial services industry experience.

 

 

Article source: http://trust.guidestar.org/2013/12/04/how-library-foundations-are-helping-public-libraries/

Filed in Medicare Cutbacks | Tagged | Comments (0)

Letter: Tea party radical would toss Medicare and elderly | The Salt …

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

It’s always fun to see a radical right-wing tea party activist like Cherilyn Eagar complain about Medicare and the “creeping socialism” that it represents (“Slide toward socialized medicine began with Medicare,” Opinion, Nov.24). If Eagar had her way, Medicare would be eliminated tomorrow and Americans could live in a tea party utopia in which old people buy their own health insurance from private carriers or simply live (or die) without medical care.

Medicare is overwhelmingly popular with Americans, who have now had almost 50 years to become acquainted with it. Polls show that over 90 percent of seniors are satisfied with Medicare. Would Eager ignore the majority will and scrap it to further the tea party agenda?


<!– –>

Join the Discussion

Post a Comment

Tens of millions of seniors would never be able to afford health insurance on the open market. (Insurance companies aren’t stupid. Old people get sick more often than younger people, and they respond by making coverage so expensive that many seniors simply can’t afford it. That’s why Medicare was created in the first place.) Ms. Eagar offers no alternatives.

Finally, how much time has Ms. Eagar spent without decent medical care? Her father was a surgeon in Hollywood, Calif. She is now a lobbyist/political activist. What are her plans for those less fortunate?

G. Eric Nielson

Holladay



Copyright 2013 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Article source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57190825-82/medicare-eagar-party-tea.html.csp

Filed in Right Wing Attack on Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

Financing Obama Care and Medicare « The Right Wing: The Good …

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Obama Care provides for insurance exchanges as a method to keep medical costs under control. The exchanges foster a competition between the health insurance companies. Unfortunately, 18 Republican governors have refused to set up state mechanisms in their states which is required for the state exchanges to be put into place.
Consequently, the federal government will have to set up interstate insurance exchanges to proceed with Obama Care for the states that haven’t done it themselves. The Republicans are always complaining about the federal government implementing programs that the states or local entities could implement better. The Republican governors are giving up an opportunity for state insurance exchanges.
Wellness programs are provided under Obama Care to keep health costs down. The law exercises control over health insurance premium increases. Insurance companies must spend at least eighty percent of their premiums on health care costs. The law also provides for computerizing health care records as a way to lower costs.
Another important program is an award program under Medicare that pays medical providers who can save money without cutting quality. The program provides for the creation of accountable care organizations which aid the government in controlling Medicare spending by giving doctors, hospitals, and other health providers an incentive to bill less. The idea is simple: Save cash without compromising quality, and Medicare will give you a cut of the savings. So far the U.S. Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services have approved more than 250 accountable care organizations, assigning more than 4 million beneficiaries to the entities. If a medical provider saves money the cost will be split 60/40 with Medicare. The proceeding text is from my book “The Right Wing, the Good, the Bad, and the Crazy”. The book website is http://www.rightwingdisasters.com. Two videos I produced for U tube are titled “The Right Wing, the Good, the Bad, and the Crazy” and “U.S. Citizens Hide Money In Swiss Banks.” Charles Rider

swiss-bank-account-bank


Article source: http://www.rightwingdisasters.com/financing-obama-care-and-medicare/

Filed in Right Wing Attack on Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)

Take Action: We Want Medicare (for all)

Monday, December 2, 2013

Sunday December 1, 2013, 1:21 pm
Dear America: I hate to say “I told you so.” But I told you so.

I said, waaaaaaay back in 2010, that anyone who wants Medicare coverage should be able to buy it. I was right. And I’m still right.

If you agree, then congratulations — you’re right, too.

Think about it: Has anyone ever complained about being canceled by Medicare? No.

Has anyone ever complained that the Medicare website crashed? No.

Has anyone ever complained that Medicare refused him coverage? No.

Has anyone ever complained that Medicare cut him off when his care got too expensive? No.

Has anyone ever whined that Medicare is socialism? Well, yes. In 1961, Ronald Reagan said that Medicare would bring on a socialist dictatorship. As if.

The real problem that we have is not that some website doesn’t work. The real problem is not that Obamacare somehow is compelling employers to drop health coverage (because it’s not). The real problem is not that some insurance companies are canceling some policies – when has that ever not happened?

Here are the real problems:

A lot of Americans can’t afford health insurance.
In many areas of the country, the health insurance companies and the hospitals are monopolies or duopolies, and they control the market.
The health insurance companies charge as much as they can, they provide as little care as they can get away with, and they call the difference “profit.” They have a conflict of interest with you. They make more money by denying you the care that you need to stay healthy, or even alive.

But there is a solution to these problems. In fact, some Americans have an excellent healthcare system, which is overwhelmingly popular. It provides care from Point Barrow, Alaska, to Key West, Florida, and from sea to shining sea. It’s cheap and efficient – 97% of the cost goes directly into providing care. We’ve invested billions of dollars to make it comprehensive and universal. You may have heard of this healthcare system — it’s called “Medicare.”

And, weirdly, we open it only to seniors and the disabled. It’s as if we were to say that the minimum age to drive on interstate highways were 65 years old. It’s as if we were to say that only seniors could go to public school.

That’s just nuts.

What would it cost for everyone else? I’m glad you asked. According to the experts, for full coverage, including the prescription drug benefit, Medicare would cost barely $100 a month for children, and less than $500 a month for people in their sixties. Which is much less than my coverage costs — and, I would venture to say, probably yours, too (unless you’re on it already).

Which is why, back in 2010, I introduced a simple, four-page bill, the ‘Medicare You Can Buy Into Act.’ The bill allows Americans to buy into Medicare at cost. If you want Medicare, and you pay for it, you’ve got it. Period. End of story.

I signed up more than 80 co-sponsors in the House, in two weeks.

Poll after poll found that a “public option” like this was very popular with the public, too. Politifact did a survey of surveys, and found that in 28 polls, the average result was 57 percent in favor, and 38 percent against – despite massive negative propaganda spewed out by the Chamber of Commerce.

Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act passed without a Medicare buy-in, or any public option. King Lieberman (D-Aetna) vetoed it. That kept private insurance companies exclusively in charge of health coverage for people under 65. We can all see how well that’s turned out. These large and profitable corporations have cancelled policies and raised rates at will. They are demanding the power to continue to discriminate against women, to deny coverage to people with existing illnesses, and to pull the plug – literally – on anyone whose coverage becomes too expensive.

And is it really their fault? “No one can serve two masters.” (Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13.) We are asking the health insurance companies to serve two masters: patients, and profit. They can’t do it. No one can.

But the health insurance companies have demonstrated that they are good at one thing – fooling voters. They spent $2 million against me in 2010 in the Great Democratic Apocalypse, and they got rid of me.

Temporarily. And now, I’m back.

So after I won reelection last year, one of the first bills that I introduced was that same old four-page bill, the ‘Medicare You Can Buy Into Act’ (H.R. 500). Because we need it. Me and you. We need it.

If we open up Medicare to everyone who can pay for it, private insurance premiums will drop, because health insurance companies with local monopolies will face much-needed competition. And, to compete, those companies will have to offer better policies — policies with more comprehensive coverage, with a broader network, and better service.

Now that’s what I call true health care reform. That’s what I’m talking about.

We want a public option. We need a public option. And that public option already exists – we just need to open it up, to all Americans.

Here is our cheer: “I want Medicare. You want Medicare. We all want Medicare.”

Let’s make it happen. Sign the petition today: WeWantMedicare.com.

It is never too late to do the right thing.

L’chaim – To Life,

Rep. Alan Grayson

“The greatest wealth is health.” – Virgil

P.S. Since lobbyists own Washington, D.C., only a movement, a committed corps of can-do citizens, can achieve a public option. If you want to be part of that movement, then you need to demand a public option, and ask your friends, family and co-workers to do the same. Start by sharing this with your friends by e-mail, and on Facebook and Twitter.

send green star
|
flag as inappropriate

Article source: http://www.care2.com/news/member/663679641/3680627

Filed in Right Wing Attack on Medicare | Tagged | Comments (0)