#princeton advance directive attorney | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mariacallous · 1 year

Text

I got this email from Princeton University Press, and I like to try to share this sort of stuff and I think it might be interesting. And if not, at least I'll have the info somewhere other than my email:

Princeton University Press: Enjoy this edition of Office Hours with Kimberly Kay Hoang

Dear Subscribers,

This month, I am delighted to bring you Office Hours with Kimberly Kay Hoang, author of Spiderweb Capitalism: How Global Elites Exploit Frontier Markets. She has some excellent book recommendations, she offers valuable career advice for graduate students and junior faculty alike, and she shares a story that illuminates how a single conversation can completely change the trajectory of one’s research.

Enjoy!

Meagan Levinson

[email protected]

What are you reading now?

KKH: I am reading two books right now more for leisure.

Permanent Distortion: How Financial Markets Abandoned the Real Economy Forever by Nomi Prins. Over the past couple of years, I’ve been concerned about elite capture of academia and have found much more inspiration in the work by journalists who take a much more critical approach in exposing systems of welfare for the rich. Her concept of quantitative easing exposes how fractured policies crafted by financial institutions has led to the manipulation of central banking policies around the world. The book sheds light on the widening gap between billionaires and millionaires in what she calls permanent distortion. It also seems most relevant right now with news of a debt ceiling crisis.

Privilege and Punishment: How Race and Class Matter in Criminal Court by Matthew Clair. This is an incredibly rich study of criminal defendants and the differential ways in which they are processed in court based on their race and socioeconomic differences. This is a story about how those from working class backgrounds tend to become their own legal advocates in court while those with privilege navigate the courts with a greater level of trust in their attorneys to advocate on their behalf.

Both books make me think more deeply about the idea of impunity and the ways that it intersects with social class and race not just in the United States but globally.

What book has had the most impact on your career?

KKH: To be honest I can’t name just one. I would say the three most influential books for me have been The Managed Heart by Arlie Hochschild, The Purchase of Intimacy by Viviana Zelizer, and Servants of Globalization by Rhacel Parreñas. What connects all three of these books is an analysis of intimacy and the economy. Emotional labor (Hochschild) and intimate labor (Zelizer) are ways of thinking about the links between the private and public spheres. Parreñas really pushed into new fields by thinking about these concepts globally and at the intersection of race, class, and gender more specifically in domestic work, care work, and sex work. These three texts really shape the foundation for my own sociological imagination.

What is your favorite book to teach?

KKH: This changes for me every single year. In fact, I’m in the process of updating my syllabus right now, and I try to teach new books so that my courses provide students with some of the latest works published. I would say right now the book that seems to resonate with students and generate very interesting conversations is Ballad of the Bullet by Forrest Stuart. Being in Chicago and at the University of Chicago, there is a tradition of research on communities on the Southside. This book really advances that work by looking at poor urban youth and the use of social media technologies to capitalize on the public’s imagination of poverty and violence. Many of my students know of the music Stuart studies in the book and appreciate the nuance that he brings to a study of a local community.

Do you have a favorite moment as a researcher, maybe an encounter that unexpectedly changed your way of thinking or the direction of a project?

KKH: Absolutely. As an ethnographer those moments can feel like you’ve stumbled upon a diamond in the rough. For my latest book, Spiderweb Capitalism, I started with a small question about how foreign investors navigate new frontier markets around the world in different ways based on the laws that govern their investment activities abroad. I remember having lunch with a lawyer one afternoon when he asked me if I knew what a special purpose vehicle or holding company was. As he explained them to me, I found myself suddenly thrust into a whole world of offshoring, anonymous paper companies and a web of financial professionals who are connected but purposefully obfuscated from one other. This moment completely changed the trajectory of my research in ways that were both exciting and intimidating. It forced me to imagine a global ethnography that was not bound to a single space or place and instead theorize webs of people and capital that span the globe.

What is the best career advice you ever received?

KKH: Everyone arrives on their own time. Do not compare yourself to others; instead, focus on your own journey. I think that the journey through a PhD program—and, later, tenure—can create this unhealthy navel-gazing that can make us feel inadequate in relation to those around us. But if you keep your head down and focus on the journey of scientific discovery while also finding joy in making sense of complex data, things do eventually fall into place in their own way and on your own individual timeline.

What subject do you wish more sociologists would study and write about?

KKH: I wish that more sociologists would study elites and the systems that enable them to accumulate wealth. At the same time, I wish there were more research on the elite capture of the academy and social sciences more generally. I think that Charlie Eaton’s book, Bankers in the Ivory Tower, really begins to poke at these questions, but I would like to see much more research in this vein. I often think about how social scientists claiming to be objective researchers are, in many ways, either consciously or subconsciously working in a shadowy role of policy implementation that only serves to legitimize institutions of power. To me, this is concerning and dangerous, especially when it comes to proprietary data provided by private companies or governments.

If you could have dinner with two sociologists, living or passed, who would you choose, and why?

KKH: I’ll pick one of each.

Ibn Khaldun, who has passed, is someone I would love to sit down with. I only discovered his book The Muqaddimah within the last couple of years and often wondered why this work is not part of the canon of sociology. I would love to hear him talk more about his theories of the rise and fall of dynasties, power through states and bureaucracies, and the birth of social groups.

I would love to have dinner with Ruha Benjamin. I have her book Viral Justice: How We Grow the World We Want on my nightstand and will read a chapter here and there before bed. It reminds me of this mantra that inspired me as a graduate student: “personal is political”. Viral Justice does this work of forcing us to confront systems of injustice as they relate to mental health and the carceral system while also offering a vision for how we might be inspired to build a more just world. Perhaps this is my way of manifesting this, but I would just love to have a one-on-one dinner with her because I feel that I would not only learn so much but also find inspiration in her idea of collective healing. I think that as sociologists we are very good at identifying problems and systems of injustice and less creative when it comes to finding viable solutions to the problems we care about so deeply. Viral Justice provides a great model that broadens my imagination.

2 notes · View notes

feministstruggle · 1 year

Text

FIST to host Zoom Forum March 25th on Strategies for Winning Back Abortion Rights

Feminists In Struggle continues its series with a forum on abortion rights: "After Dobbs and the continuing threat to women's reproductive rights, how do we develop a strategy to regain and secure the right to abortion nationally?" Tickets on sale now! FEMINIST FORUM: STRATEGIES FOR WINNING BACK WOMEN'S ABORTION RIGHTS Tickets, Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 1:00 PM | Eventbrite Here is our exciting panel of speakers: Andrea Gabay is a grassroots activist who first volunteered in 2020 while living in New York City. She was an active volunteer doing food drives and composting at GrowNYC environmental program to empower New Yorkers to secure a healthy environment. She also supported many marches throughout NYC, including many BLM movements and was involved with Women's March in Manhattan. Andrea brought her activist work back with her to San Diego, where she organized a march/rally in January 2023 as part of the national Women's March. Wendy Murphy , J.D. is an impact litigator specializing in women's and children's civil and constitutional rights. She won landmark Title IX cases against Harvard, Harvard Law, and Princeton between 1992 and 2010 that led to the revolutionary 2011 Dear Colleague letter; and sued the Trump and Biden Administrations in federal court to advance women's rights. She also won landmark cases to improve privacy rights for women crime victims and testimonial rights for disabled crime victims. She is adjunct professor of sexual violence law and law reform at New England Law Boston where she directs the Women's and Children's Advocacy Project under the Center for Law and Social Responsibility. She is well known for her legal advocacy in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. See our ERA-FIST brochure, "Why We Need the ERA" on which Wendy collaborated, and her book, From Suffrage to Inequality. Ann Menasche is a San Diego civil rights attorney, grassroots activist, lesbian, and long-time feminist who is a founding member and co-coordinator of the national radical feminist organization, Feminists in Struggle. She is also co-chair of the Green Alliance for Sex-Based RIghts. She has fought for access to safe legal abortion in the years before Roe and in the decades that followed. In the 1980's she led a landmark case against an anti-abortion center or "fake clinic" for consumer fraud and won. She also helped organize Marches for Women's Lives in San Francisco that drew tens of thousands of people. Ann was recently fired from her civil rights job for asserting that abortion bans harm women as a sex and has filed a wrongful termination law suit against her previous employer as a result. JOIN US FOR THIS IMPORTANT DISCUSSION! Read the full article

#FromSuffragetoInequality #abortionrights #AndreaGabay #AnnMenasche #DearColleagueLetter #Dobbsv.Jackson #EqualRightsAmendment #ERA #FeministsinStruggle #GreenAllianceforSex-BasedRights #MarchforWomen'sLives #TitleIX #WendyMurphy #WhyWeNeedtheERA #Women'sMarch

0 notes

phroyd · 5 years

Link

WASHINGTON — President Trump has rolled back environmental regulations, pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord, brushed aside dire predictions about the effects of climate change, and turned the term “global warming” into a punch line rather than a prognosis.

Now, after two years spent unraveling the policies of his predecessors, Mr. Trump and his political appointees are launching a new assault.

In the next few months, the White House will complete the rollback of the most significant federal effort to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, initiated during the Obama administration. It will expand its efforts to impose Mr. Trump’s hard-line views on other nations, building on his retreat from the Paris accord and his recent refusal to sign a communiqué to protect the rapidly melting Arctic region unless it was stripped of any references to climate change.

And, in what could be Mr. Trump’s most consequential action yet, his administration will seek to undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.

Mr. Trump is less an ideologue than an armchair naysayer about climate change, according to people who know him. He came into office viewing agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency as bastions of what he calls the “deep state,” and his contempt for their past work on the issue is an animating factor in trying to force them to abandon key aspects of the methodology they use to try to understand the causes and consequences of a dangerously warming planet.

As a result, parts of the federal government will no longer fulfill what scientists say is one of the most urgent jobs of climate science studies: reporting on the future effects of a rapidly warming planet and presenting a picture of what the earth could look like by the end of the century if the global economy continues to emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels.

The attack on science is underway throughout the government. In the most recent example, the White House-appointed director of the United States Geological Survey, James Reilly, a former astronaut and petroleum geologist, has ordered that scientific assessments produced by that office use only computer-generated climate models that project the impact of climate change through 2040, rather than through the end of the century, as had been done previously.

Scientists say that would give a misleading picture because the biggest effects of current emissions will be felt after 2040. Models show that the planet will most likely warm at about the same rate through about 2050. From that point until the end of the century, however, the rate of warming differs significantly with an increase or decrease in carbon emissions.The administration’s prime target has been the National Climate Assessment, produced by an interagency task force roughly every four years since 2000. Government scientists used computer-generated models in their most recent report to project that if fossil fuel emissions continue unchecked, the earth’s atmosphere could warm by as much as eight degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That would lead to drastically higher sea levels, more devastating storms and droughts, crop failures, food losses and severe health consequences.

Work on the next report, which is expected to be released in 2021 or 2022, has already begun. But from now on, officials said, such worst-case scenario projections will not automatically be included in the National Climate Assessment or in some other scientific reports produced by the government.

“What we have here is a pretty blatant attempt to politicize the science — to push the science in a direction that’s consistent with their politics,” said Philip B. Duffy, the president of the Woods Hole Research Center, who served on a National Academy of Sciences panel that reviewed the government’s most recent National Climate Assessment. “It reminds me of the Soviet Union.”

In an email, James Hewitt, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency, defended the proposed changes.

“The previous use of inaccurate modeling that focuses on worst-case emissions scenarios, that does not reflect real-world conditions, needs to be thoroughly re-examined and tested if such information is going to serve as the scientific foundation of nationwide decision-making now and in the future,” Mr. Hewitt said.

However, the goal of political appointees in the Trump administration is not just to change the climate assessment’s methodology, which has broad scientific consensus, but also to question its conclusions by creating a new climate review panel. That effort is led by a 79-year-old physicist who had a respected career at Princeton but has become better known in recent years for attacking the science of man-made climate change and for defending the virtues of carbon dioxide — sometimes to an awkward degree.

“The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler,” said the physicist, William Happer, who serves on the National Security Council as the president’s deputy assistant for emerging technologies.

Mr. Happer’s proposed panel is backed by John R. Bolton, the president’s national security adviser, who brought Mr. Happer into the N.S.C. after an earlier effort to recruit him during the transition.

Mr. Happer and Mr. Bolton are both beneficiaries of Robert and Rebekah Mercer, the far-right billionaire and his daughter who have funded efforts to debunk climate science. The Mercers gave money to a super PAC affiliated with Mr. Bolton before he entered government and to an advocacy group headed by Mr. Happer.

Climate scientists are dismissive of Mr. Happer; his former colleagues at Princeton are chagrined. And several White House officials — including Larry Kudlow, the president’s chief economic adviser — have urged Mr. Trump not to adopt Mr. Happer’s proposal, on the grounds that it would be perceived as a White House attack on science.

Even Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House strategist who views Mr. Happer as “the climate hustler’s worst nightmare — a world-class physicist from the nation’s leading institution of advanced learning, who does not suffer fools gladly,” is apprehensive about what Mr. Happer is trying to do.

“The very idea will start a holy war on cable before 2020,” he said. “Better to win now and introduce the study in the second inaugural address.”

But at a White House meeting on May 1, at which the skeptical advisers made their case, Mr. Trump appeared unpersuaded, people familiar with the meeting said. Mr. Happer, they said, is optimistic that the panel will go forward.

The concept is not new. Mr. Trump has pushed to resurrect the idea of a series of military-style exercises, known as “red team, blue team” debates, on the validity of climate science first promoted by Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator who was forced to resign last year amid multiple scandals.

At the time, the idea was shot down by John F. Kelly, then the White House chief of staff. But since Mr. Kelly’s departure, Mr. Trump has talked about using Mr. Happer’s proposed panel as a forum for it.

For Mr. Trump, climate change is often the subject of mockery. “Wouldn’t be bad to have a little of that good old fashioned Global Warming right now!” he posted on Twitter in January when a snowstorm was freezing much of the country.

His views are influenced mainly by friends and donors like Carl Icahn, the New York investor who owns oil refineries, and the oil-and-gas billionaire Harold Hamm — both of whom pushed Mr. Trump to deregulate the energy industry.

Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka made a well-publicized effort to talk him out of leaving the Paris accord in 2017. But after being vanquished by officials including Mr. Bannon, Mr. Pruitt, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II, there is little evidence she has resisted his approach since then.

The president’s advisers amplify his disregard. At the meeting of the eight-nation Arctic Council this month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo dismayed fellow diplomats by describing the rapidly warming region as a land of “opportunity and abundance” because of its untapped reserves of oil, gas, uranium, gold, fish and rare-earth minerals. The melting sea ice, he said, was opening up new shipping routes.

“That is one of the most crude messages one could deliver,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who served as the NATO ambassador under George W. Bush.

At the National Security Council, under Mr. Bolton, officials said they had been instructed to strip references to global warming from speeches and other formal statements. But such political edicts pale in significance to the changes in the methodology of scientific reports.

Mr. Reilly, the head of the Geological Survey, who does not have a background in climate change science, characterized the changes as an attempt to prepare more careful, accurate reports. “We’re looking for answers with our partners and to get statistical significance from what we understand,” he said.

Yet scientists said that by eliminating the projected effects of increased carbon dioxide pollution after 2040, the Geological Survey reports would present an incomplete and falsely optimistic picture of the impact of continuing to burn unlimited amounts of coal, oil and gasoline.

“The scenarios in these reports that show different outcomes are like going to the doctor, who tells you, ‘If you don’t change your bad eating habits, and you don’t start to exercise, you’ll need a quadruple bypass, but if you do change your lifestyle, you’ll have a different outcome,’” said Katharine Hayhoe, the director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University and an author of the National Climate Assessment.

Not all government science agencies are planning such changes. A spokesman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, asked if its scientists would limit the use of climate models, wrote in an email, “No changes are being considered at this time.”

The push to alter the results of at least some climate science reports, several officials said, came after November’s release of the second volume of the National Climate Assessment.

While the Trump administration did not try to rewrite the scientific conclusions of the report, officials sought to play it down — releasing it the day after Thanksgiving — and discredit it, with a White House statement calling it “largely based on the most extreme scenario.”

This summer, the E.P.A. is expected to finalize the legal rollback of two of President Barack Obama’s most consequential policies: regulations to curb planet-warming pollution from vehicles and power plants.CreditGeorge Etheredge for The New York Times

Still, the report could create legal problems for Mr. Trump’s agenda of abolishing regulations. This summer, the E.P.A. is expected to finalize the legal rollback of two of President Barack Obama’s most consequential policies: federal regulations to curb planet-warming pollution from vehicle tailpipes and power plant smokestacks.

Opponents say that when they challenge the moves in court, they intend to point to the climate assessment, asking how the government can justify the reversals when its own agencies have concluded that the pollution will be so harmful.

That is why officials are now discussing how to influence the conclusions of the next National Climate Assessment.

“They’ve started talking about how they can produce a report that doesn’t lead to some silly alarmist predictions about the future,” said Myron Ebell, who heads the energy program at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded research organization, and who led the administration’s transition at the E.P.A.

A key change, he said, would be to emphasize historic temperatures rather than models of future atmospheric temperatures, and to eliminate the “worst-case scenarios” of the effect of increased carbon dioxide pollution — sometimes referred to as “business as usual” scenarios because they imply no efforts to curb emissions.

Scientists said that eliminating the worst-case scenario would give a falsely optimistic picture. “Nobody in the world does climate science like that,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton. “It would be like designing cars without seatbelts or airbags.”

Outside the United States, climate scientists had long given up on the White House being anything but on outlier in policy. But they worry about the loss of the government as a source for reliable climate research.

“It is very unfortunate and potentially even quite damaging that the Trump administration behaves this way,” said Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “There is this arrogance and disrespect for scientific advancement — this very demoralizing lack of respect for your own experts and agencies.”

Phroyd

#trump #donald j #climate change #epa

13 notes · View notes

biofunmy · 5 years

Text

Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science

Now, after two years spent unraveling the policies of his predecessors, Mr. Trump and his political appointees are launching a new assault.

And, in what could be Mr. Trump’s most consequential action yet, his administration will seek to undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.

[Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter.]

The administration’s prime target has been the National Climate Assessment, produced by an interagency task force roughly every four years since 2000. Government scientists used computer-generated models in their most recent report to project that if fossil fuel emissions continue unchecked, the earth’s atmosphere could warm by as much as eight degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That would lead to drastically higher sea levels, more devastating storms and droughts, crop failures, food losses and severe health consequences.

In an email, James Hewitt, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency, defended the proposed changes.

“The very idea will start a holy war on cable before 2020,” he said. “Better to win now and introduce the study in the second inaugural address.”

“That is one of the most crude messages one could deliver,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who served as the NATO ambassador under George W. Bush.

The push to alter the results of at least some climate science reports, several officials said, came after November’s release of the second volume of the National Climate Assessment.

That is why officials are now discussing how to influence the conclusions of the next National Climate Assessment.

Sahred From Source link Science

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2HFgOcD via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

laynebaril1blog-blog · 6 years

Text

HCMG730 full course (all discussion, reflections, case analysis and final assessment)

Click Link Below To Buy:

http://hwcampus.com/shop/hcmg730-full-course/

[email protected]

Week 1 Discussion Question 1

“Because Congress passed ARRA after passing HIPAA, any conflicting provisions between the two statues will be governed by the provisions of ARRA. The two statues can be reconciled because of a provision in ARRA that states any HIPAA statutory provision or regulation remains in effect to the extent that it is consistent with AARA” (McWay, et.al., 2010, p 9).

Discuss two conflicting provision between the two laws not discussed in the book and explain how the conflict would be resolved. Include a brief explanation of ARRA and HIPAA.

Week 1 Discussion Question 2

You are the administrator of an extended care facility and you have received a summons to appear for a deposition regarding a patient slipped and fall lawsuit in your facility.

In reviewing the methods of discovery listed in Table 2.5 [page 34 of the textbook], what documents would you bring to the deposition? Also, how would you [the administrator] personally prepare for the deposition?

Weekly Reflection Week 1

Reflect on the topics discussed this week including your thoughts on the legal system and the court system of the United States.

Remember: this reflection should be a minimum of 300 words in length.

Week 2 Discussion Question 1

As discussed in the textbook, “hearsay is defined as out-of-court statements that are offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted” (McWay, et.al., 2010, p 50). Explain how “hearsay” is defined in relationship to the medical record. Be sure to include how the party seeking to admit the health record must meet the requirements of foundation and trustworthiness.

Week 2 Discussion Question 2

You have just been hired as an administrator for an urgent care clinic. You realize that there is no litigation response plan in place. What steps would you take in developing this plan and what topics would you include? Why?

Weekly Reflection Week 2

Reflect on the topics discussed this week including your thoughts on the "I'm Sorry Statues."

Remember: this reflection should be a minimum of 300 words in length.

Click on the link to submit your Case Analysis.

Case Study Analysis #1-

Analyze the Legal Case Study: Estate of William Behringer v. Medical Center at Princeton

Information to get you started is located in the case study section in the back of the book on page 134. Answer the three questions listed on page 135. (The first question begins with 1: Do you think that an infected …).

Also Summarize and give your analysis of the verdict of the case employing your own opinion. Do you agree with the verdict? Why or why not?

The case analysis must be a minimum of 3 References [with in-text citations], and no more than 4 pages. Remember to re-state each question prior to answering.

Week 3 Discussion Question 1

Clarify the differences and similarities of traditional negligence theory and res ipsa loquitur. Be sure to include at least two examples of each not discussed in the book.

Week 3 Discussion Question 2

Explain how respondeat superior and vicarious liability applies to employees of a health care facility. Include how these doctrines will apply not only to direct care givers but to office personnel and administration as well.

Weekly Reflection Week 3

Reflect on the topics discussed this week including your thoughts on governmental immunity.

Remember: this reflection should be a minimum of 300 words in length.

Click on the link to submit assignment.

Case Study Analysis #2-

Analyze the Legal Case Study: Ybarra v. Spangard

This case is located in the case study section in the back of the book on page 17. Answer the two questions listed on page 18 under the case information (The first questions begins with 1: Which form of negligence…). Also answer the following question: Summarize and give your analysis of the verdict of the case employing your own opinion. Do you agree with the verdict? Why or why not?

The case analysis must be in APA style, a minimum of 3 References [with in-text citations], and no more than 4 pages. Remember to re-state each question prior to answering.

Week 4 Discussion Question 1

Review each of the ethical concepts and theories address in Chapter 5. Decide which concept or theory best fits with your personal point of view. Examine how you have used that concept or theory in the past and decide how you will use it in the future.

Week 4 Discussion Question 2

Explain the use of the following documents- advance directives, living will and durable power of attorney for health care. Refer to appendix E in the textbook which includes examples of these documents. You have been approached by an elderly relative seeking information about her options in planning for future medical care in the event she is unable to communicate her wishes or otherwise direct her care. How would you respond? What options should you provide?

Weekly Reflection Week 4

Reflect on the topics discussed this week including your thoughts on how ethics have influenced the law.

Remember: this reflection should be a minimum of 300 words in length.

Case Study Analysis #3-

Analyze the Legal Case Study: A Question of Futility-Baby K

This case is located in the back of the book in the case analysis section (there is no page number but it is after page 153). Answer questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 listed under the case information (the first questions begins with 2: In a time of scarce resources…).

The case analysis must b a minimum of 3 References [with in-text citations], and no more than 4 pages. Remember to re-state each question prior to answering

Week 5 Discussion Question 1

Choose one of the seven major laws that address fraud and abuse listed in Table 14-1 (DO NOT Choose #6, HIPAA). Explain the major tenants of the law and apply it to a health care situation.

Week 5 Discussion Question 2

Choose one of the four major fraud enforcement programs listed in Table 14-3 and explain the tenants of the program. Apply your chosen fraud enforcement program to a health care situation. Explain how this fraud enforcement program may stop fraud from occurring.

Weekly Reflection Week 5

Reflect on the topics discussed this week including your thoughts on the Whistle-Blowers.

Remember: this reflection should be a minimum of 300 words in length.

Case Study Analysis #4-Analyze the Legal Case Study 2: Moving Beyond Simple Conflict of Interest

This case is located in the case analysis section in the back of the book on page109. Answer the three questions listed after the case information on page 110 (the first question begins with1: How do criminal…). …).Also answer the following question: Summarize and give your analysis of the verdict of the case employing your own opinion. Do you agree with the verdict? Why or why not?

The case analysis must be in APA style, a minimum of 3 References [with in-text citations], and no more than 4 pages and re-state each question prior to answering.

Week 6 Discussion Question 1

“…the employer may hire, fire, promote and demote any employee it chooses as long as there is no employment contract (such as a labor agreement) or federal, state or local law to the contrary” (McWay, et.al., 2010, p 331). Research and discuss if there are any federal, state or local laws which will not allow an “at will” employee to be hired, fired, promoted or demoted for any reason.

Week 6 Discussion Question 2

Davenport Hospital recently experienced negative publicity in the Grand Rapids Michigan community because of some unethical actions taken by three medical coders concerning protected health information. The hospital subsequently took disciplinary action against those employees.

Hospital administration has asked you to serve as part of a task force to address ethical issues in the workplace. The work product your task force produces will be used to prevent recurrence of these unethical actions. What areas would you recommend the task force focus on and why?

Weekly Reflection Week 6

Reflect on the topics discussed this week including your thoughts on Employee rights.

Remember: this reflection should be a minimum of 300 words in length.

Week 7 Discussion Question 1

Read “A Patient’s Bill of Rights” located in Appendix D on pages 379-382 in the textbook. Summarize this document then, choose one of the rights listed and apply that to a health care situation addressed in one of the cases you have reviewed. Be sure to include any laws which may apply to the situation.

Week 7 Discussion Question 2

Read Legal Case Study 2: Referenced from Elliot v. Board of Weld County Commissioners located in the Legal Case Study section in the back of the textbook on page 55.

Do you agree with the verdict against the inmates? Why or why not? Is there a constitutional right to smoke? Does this verdict have any application to patients who want to smoke while admitted to a hospital? Would it matter if the hospital is owned privately, by a corporation, by a religious institution or by a county?

Weekly Reflection Week 7

Reflect on the last seven [7] weeks of this class and post your thoughts. Include any epiphanies as well as any drudgery.

Remember: this reflection should be a minimum of 300 words in length.

Final Assessment [250 Points]

Due Day 1 – Week #7

You are employed in an administrative position at a large health insurance company. The board of directors of the company will be instituting a “get healthy/stay healthy” clause in their health insurance policies. This clause would state that all insurance recipients must complete a health review which will include a complete physical, blood pressure check, cholesterol check, blood glucose check and BMI. The insurance recipient will be rated utilizing a point system on the above criteria.

Any health insurance recipient who scores above a certain number (which may be an indicator of increased probability of health issues) will be required to pay a higher premium (the higher the number, the higher the premium). This higher insurance premium will continue until the health insurance recipient reduces their blood pressure, cholesterol, BMI, etc. and receives a lower rating.

Answer the following questions-

1. Can an insurance company require insurance recipients to pay a different premium for the same coverage? Is this legal? If legal, what law or statues takes precedence? If illegal, which law or statue takes precedence?

1. Can the insurance company require the insurance recipient to undergo required tests? What if the insurance recipient refuses to comply with the testing requirement?

1. Is the insurance company discriminating again the insurance recipients who have heredity or predisposing health risk factors. Why or why not? If so, is this practice ethical?

1. Is the health insurance company legally and/or ethically required to offer assistance for insurance recipients who need to lower their rating? Why? Why not? Support your opinion.

Please follow Scoring Grid [Below] for point distribution!

Final AssessmentScoring Grid:

Points Possible Point Earned Explanation

Introduction and Conclusion 20

Can an insurance company require insurance recipients to pay a different premium for the same coverage? Is this legal? If legal, what law or statues takes precedence? If illegal, which law or statue takes precedence? 50 Answered EACH aspect of the question including legality issues. Defends legality conclusion. Incorporated pertinent laws.

Can the insurance company require the insurance recipient to undergo required tests? What if the insurance recipient refuses to comply with the testing requirement? 50 Answered EACH aspect of the question including medical testing and compliance. Incorporated pertinent laws.

Is the insurance company discriminating again the insurance recipients who have heredity or predisposing health risk factors. Why or why not? If so, is this practice ethical? 50 Answered EACH aspect of the question including discrimination and predisposing risk factors. Incorporated pertinent laws.

Is the health insurance company legally and/or ethically required to offer assistance for insurance recipients who need to lower their rating? Why? Why not? Support your opinion 50 Answered EACH aspect of the question. Explains ethical and legal ramifications of requiring insurance recipient testing Incorporated pertinent laws.

4 References with appropriate in-text citations 10

Grammar, word choice, spelling, punctuation, appropriate page length [5-6],etc. 15

Re-stated questions [to assist instructor in locating answers] 5

TOTAL 250

0 notes

republicstandard · 6 years

Text

The Rot in Academia

“Unlimited tolerance is a paradox. We don’t have to tolerate the intolerant.”-Lindsay Briggs

The hostility toward the notion of individual liberty and freedom of speech is evident everywhere you look these days, perhaps no more apparently than on college campuses. With alarming regularity, from moral panics to “anti-fascist” riots to professors with ties to ISIS, it has been incident after incident illustrating how deeply corrupted academia has become. From the lunacy of a Vanderbilt professor blaming 9/11 on racism, slavery, and the Navajo genocide to a Diablo Valley College professor smashing someone’s head with a bike lock, the modern academy—with its Cult-Marx professoriate, bloated bureaucracies that ensure “compliance” with the ruthless efficiency of the NKVD, and SJW student-activists—is no longer the bastion of open inquiry and debate it was intended to be. George Waldner, president emeritus of York College, stated:

In the last five years, we’ve certainly had an increasing number of free speech confrontations on many campuses across the country. Halloween costumes at Yale, the ‘Trump’ chalkings at Emory University …There have probably been 30 or 40 of these [incidents] in the last five years.

“All I want for Christmas is white genocide.” ~George Ciccarillo-Maher

I would venture it’s been many more than that, especially if you include the on-campus hate crime hoaxes. A university education looks ever-more like a combination of a Soviet re-education camp and a day-care. The student body seems to be regressing to a median age of about five, Marx’s dictums spoon-fed to them by doughy professional axe-grinders, agitators, and grievance-mongers. If sticks and stones break their bones, then words are what really hurt. As Jim Goad wrote in The Redneck Manifesto:

HATE SPEECH is the most Orwellian concept to emerge from the twentieth-century twilight. It is especially deceptive because it hides behind a Happy Face mask. Most people want to be on the side of love, right? Like all dangerous ideas, the notion of hate speech sounds good until dismantled piece by piece. The first problem is with the term’s vagueness. Hate speech, apparently, has become anything they hate. Through relentless exposure to well-meaning, soft-suds imagery, otherwise intelligent people have been brainwashed to believe that “hate” is a satisfactory explanation for any human action. Reducing complex sociopolitical struggles to a matter of “hate” is as simplistic as blaming it on “sin,” but they fall for it.

And boy are they falling for it. The omnipresence of “hate” appears to be the main preoccupation of the professoriate and the administrative commissars, and is certainly one of the central fixtures of campus life. Trinity College professor Johnny Eric Williams took to his Twitter account to use the hashtag #LetThemFuckingDie in reference to white males; similarly, former Drexel professor George Ciccarillo-Maher opined that, “All I want for Christmas is white genocide.” Texas A&M professor Tommy Curry advocated violence against whites as a corrective measure to perceived racism in a podcast interview back in 2012. Now-terminated Essex County College professor Lisa Durden taunted whites on Tucker Carlson when the host pressed her on her support for racially-exclusionary events:

“Boo-hoo-hoo, you white people are just angry you couldn’t use your white privilege card to get invited to the Black Lives Matter all-black Memorial Day celebration.”

University of Delaware anthropology professor Kathy Dettwyler declared on Facebook that Otto Warmbier “got exactly what he deserved” when he was tortured to death by North Korea because he was “typical of a mind-set of a lot of the young, white, rich, clueless males.” According to Boston University professor Saida Grundy, “White masculinity isn’t a problem for America’s colleges, white masculinity is THE problem for America’s colleges.” John Griffin of the Art Institute of Washington believes that Republicans “should be lined up and shot. That’s not hyperbole.” Fresno State professor Randa Jarrar gloated over the death of Barbara Bush on Twitter (sic):

“Barbara Bush was a generous and smart and amazing racist who, along with her husband, raised a war criminal. I’m happy the witch is dead. Can’t wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million iraqis have. Byyyeeeeeeee.”

Kevin Allred, formerly of Rutgers University, had the following to say on Twitter: “Will the Second Amendment be as cool when I buy a gun and start shooting at random white people or no …?” Another Boston University professor, Kyna Hamill, published a paper condemning “Jingle Bells” for its “racist history” as a jingle in blackface. Sarah Bond of the University of Iowa lamented the fact that sculptures from the classical world are now primarily associated with white marble. Princeton University Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor made the deeply revealing and insightful comments during her commencement address at Hampshire College that Donald Trump is a “racist, sexist megalomaniac.”

As Middlebury, Yale, Evergreen State, and Berkeley have shown, the students are just as eager to get in on the action. Lucía Martínez Valdivia, a mixed-race “queer” assistant professor of English at Reed College, had a lecture about Sappho disrupted by students protesting the college’s mandatory humanities class as “white supremacist.” Just when you think the Left cannot get any more preposterous, there you go—protesting a queer, mixed-race woman’s lecture on a queer female poet. The protesters also indicted Aristotle and Plato for good measure. Martínez Valdivia states:

Nuance and careful reasoning are not the tools of the oppressor, meant to deceive and gaslight and undermine and distract. On the contrary: These tools can help prove what those who use them think — or even what they feel — to be true. They make arguments more, not less, convincing, using objective evidence to make a point rather than relying on the persuasive power of a subjective feeling…Ultimately, this is a call for empathy, for stretching our imaginations to try to inhabit and understand positions that aren’t ours and the points of view of people who aren’t us. A grounding in the study of the humanities can help students encounter ideas with care and…realizing — and accepting — that no person, no text, no class, is without flaws. The things we study are, after all, products of human hands.

She’s absolutely correct, but the un-reasoning Left refuses to consider what is actually a very insightful commentary on the nature of creation so fundamental to the arts, and on the beauty and tragedy of a fatally-flawed humanity. This idea that empathy does not need to be divorced from logic and reason—that it is in fact inextricably intertwined and that rationality and critical thinking aren’t “tools of white supremacy” but are instead universally applicable and vital to processing the world and the people in it in all their dimensionality—is increasingly becoming antithetical to the deeply sentimental worldview of the Left wing, where the Western logos itself has become the enemy of emotive, panicked hysteria masquerading as a coherent set of principles. In this infantile worldview of good-and-bad, “hate,” as the Jim Goad quote discusses, is a sufficient explanation for people’s motivations, and for anything that falls outside the ideological confines of Leftist “thought.”

One thing is clear—dissent will not be tolerated. Will Creeley, an attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), expresses concern that the:

“U.S. Supreme Court’s stark warning in Sweezy v. New Hampshire will prove prophetic: ‘Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.’”

Though he is dead wrong about group identity and has of late turned into a bit of a Zionist shill, Dr. Jordan Peterson is a very astute observer of the Cultural Marxism that has taken firm hold of the university campuses in North America and beyond. Peterson refers to the Leftist buzzwords of “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusivity” as the Unholy Trinity, and I might be so presumptuous as to add a fourth: trauma. This is the lynchpin of the push for safe spaces, the conflation of speech with violence, and the drive to dis-invite and de-platform speakers who run afoul of the egalitarians. Nevertheless, these poisonous ideas have seeped deep into the fabric of academia, where they are not only perpetuated and remain unchallenged, but spread into our society’s daily discourse as a direct result of sustained attempts at indoctrination in the academy, and increasingly even earlier in K-12.

The reason things seem to be deteriorating on campus has everything to do with its closed environment, where dissenting opinions are discouraged and forced out, and mutually reinforcing viewpoints are encouraged and advanced. Essentially you then have an echo chamber environment where bad or at least faulty ideas are perpetuated and due to viewpoint uniformity (and hostility to different perspectives) the ideas and suppositions advanced in the academy are never challenged, and in the rare instances where dissenting evidence emerges from the university setting (such as Dr. Richard Lynn’s IQ research), the data is suppressed and the individual responsible is punished or marginalized in some way. Political orientation is a pretty good proxy for worldview; for all of the talk of diversity, in this crucial area it is sorely lacking. From a 2016 survey, we see that liberal professors in New England outnumber conservatives 28-to-1. From a study conducted by UCLA published in 2012, we can see the growing uniformity among the professoriate nation-wide is approaching a totality of the profession:

CHART

By 2014, a mere 10% of professors identified as conservative. They remain largely confined to business and the hard sciences. In a sample of fifty-one of the top sixty liberal arts colleges studied by the National Association of Scholars’ Mitchell Langbert this year, 39% of faculties had zero Republicans, and out of a pool of nearly 8,700 professors, registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans ten-to-one.

As uniform in their beliefs as professors generally are, John Wilson, an editor of the AAUP’s “Academe” blog, believes that it is the administrators who are really the problem as the architects and enforcers of the censorship and speech codes that are so prevalent on college campuses. As one example of the blood-engorged ticks that are collegiate bureaucracies/administrations, the University of Michigan has ninety-three full-time diversity and equity staff, twenty-six of whom earn six figures, while nationally 49% of college classes are taught by adjunct (part-time) professors with no semester-to-semester guarantee of classes and no benefits (to their credit Ann Arbor only has 17% of its classes taught by adjuncts). Jon Marcus from the New England Center for Investigative Reporting illuminates:

The number of non-academic administrative and professional employees at U.S. colleges and universities has more than doubled in the last 25 years, vastly outpacing the growth in the number of students or faculty, according to an analysis of federal figures. The disproportionate increase in the number of university staffers who neither teach nor conduct research has continued unabated in more recent years. From 1987 until 2011-12…universities and colleges collectively added 517,636 administrators and professional employees, or an average of 87 every working day, according to the analysis of federal figures…“There’s just a mind-boggling amount of money per student that’s being spent on administration,” said Andrew Gillen, a senior researcher at the institutes. “It raises a question of priorities.” Universities have added these administrators and professional employees even as they’ve substantially shifted classroom teaching duties from full-time faculty to less-expensive part-time adjunct faculty and teaching assistants…Since 1987, universities have also started or expanded departments devoted to marketing, diversity, disability, sustainability, security, environmental health, recruiting, technology, and fundraising, and added new majors and graduate and athletics programs, satellite campuses, and conference centers… “It’s almost Orwellian,” said [economist Richard] Vedder. “They’ll say, ‘We’ll save money if we centralize.’ Then they hire a provost or associate provost or an assistant business manager in charge of shared services, and then that person hires an assistant, and you end up with more people than you started with.”

All of this should rightly beg the question of what purpose all of this administrative bloat serves. It certainly isn’t to benefit the quality of the education students receive, and it only adds to the onerous costs of attaining a college degree. The aforementioned AAUP is responsible for the 1915 document that still stands as the golden standard of the mission statement of what a university’s actual purpose should be:

To promote inquiry and advance the sum of human knowledge;

To provide general instruction to the students; and

To develop experts for various branches of the public service.

Nowhere is there an imperative to produce “professional activists” or advocate for that most nebulous of terms: social justice. Public service in this context is to contribute to society in a productive and meaningful way, be it as an engineer, a rocket scientist, or a teacher. Instead, students learn the wonders of communism (according to a 2017 survey, 44% of Millennials surveyed preferred to live under a socialist system), whites learn to hate themselves, and everyone else learns to hate them. A recent event at The College of William & Mary sponsored by the ACLU entitled “Students and the First Amendment” was shut down due to Black Lives Matter protesters, who exercised the “heckler’s veto” and asserted, among the usual tripe, that “Liberalism is White Supremacy.” Where else can you go from there? What common ground can there be when the Left is saying its own professed values of pluralism and tolerance are white supremacy?

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2KzaJOd via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine

0 notes

essie71h0557-blog · 6 years

Text

A Seven Character, 4 Letter Term.

Ten Disadvantages Of gel And How You Can Workaround It.

Hi there, and also thanks for visiting the main site for Thought Blister - an annual event that celebrates consecutive craft with all its types, as well as occurs every Nov in partnership along with Leeds International Movie Celebration. She was actually a 2015/16 Cullman Other at the New york city Local library, and a seeing teacher at Princeton University. Halton Food for Thought has this is actually personal military of over 2,000 community volunteers (including 800 pupils) that nicely donate their time to feed kids. Our experts have been satisfied with the cooperation and consideration that Dallas ISD and Big Thought have presented during the organizing phase, and also with the area's general dedication to mental and also social learning," pointed out Last will and testament Miller, head of state of The Wallace Groundwork.

7 Perks From gel That May Improvement Your Point of view.

Always keeping a healthy, vivid relationship regardless of the stresses from entrepreneurship. A lot of Chinese business owners derive and concentrate effectiveness based upon the uniqueness and eccentricities of the Chinese market. Nowadays, individuals could think of entrepreneurship coming from a very early age; however it's not one thing you are actually birthed along with ... certainly not everyone wishes to be an entrepreneur off when they are actually born! Aids (which are actually made primarily to stop decreases in specific business, or to promote work production) just aggravate issues through generating a very rewarding arbitrage possibility for producers which may now sell items effectively (based upon raised retail price) versus a reduced notional developing or even creation price. Youngster's Comic Honor 2014// Reside Occasions// 1330. Institutions along with Trainee Nutrition Programs mention a rise in student achievement, raised participation as well as a reduce in trainee suspensions and banishments. While South Africans appear to express detestation versus Nigerian residents, Nigerians have oftened direct their fury at South African firms. CU faculty members on the board feature David S. Brown, instructor and office chair from government; Daniel Kaffine, associate lecturer of business economics; Susan K. Kent, lecturer and also seat of history; and also Bradley Monton, associate lecturer from theory. That thought-process seems to be to maintain business people and also financiers straightened. The duty of African standard therapists in the control from mental challenges in Africa. There are actually bunches of ways to make an effort being a business person without beginning a firm right now ... I try to invest as a lot opportunity as I may providing speaks in the area, acquiring coffee with business people and speaking to students.

The idea for the Guardian Plant to profit the little ones of Town Oaks arised from James Adams, Big Thought's Programs Manager, which had actually joined the Angel Tree practice prior to. Though Amo approves that there is one thing we could name a mind, he maintained the argument that this is actually the physical body that recognizes as well as really feels rather than the thoughts; this is a thoughtful perspective espoused through one more Ghanaian philosopher, Kwasi Wiredu, 249 years eventually. Divorce attorney utah (C) fotki.com" style="max-width:430px;float:left;padding:10px 10px 10px 0px;border:0px;">The Kenyan academic Ali Mazrui's tip of 'counter-penetration' suggested that Blacks should also inform the West on Black problems to make certain that thinking about the continent is actually less Eurocentric. Last night, the White Property announced this was putting off as well as very likely dealing with the International Business owner Rule This regulation is actually the closest our team have actually concerned a Startup Visa, something I've been actually dealing with with many other people due to the fact that 2009.mouse click the up coming website page, you can contact us at our own page. com/736x/18/ce/30/18ce307cfff1cf9636d7682eba1c718e.jpg" width="279" />

7 Great Ways To Market gel.

Weds 12 Nov, Victoria Venue, Leeds Town Hall, 1330 (125 min), ₤ 8 (₤ 6 deal), satisfy go to for tickets. I presume this is actually an error to look at the personal wealth of business people as a target. Obtain your ticket tomorrow for #LSERichardRogers celebration on 6 September! Sat 14 & Sun 15 Nov, Cinema of Battle, Royal Armouries, free of cost admittance with Saturday/Sunday/Weekend conference pass, Limited area offered, so satisfy get there early, please note: Thought Blister does not control movie web content, grow older restrictions for screening process differ. Sat 15 Nov, Bury Theater, Royal Armouries, 1800 - 1900, every ages, but Thought and feelings Blister carries out certainly not control content, FREE access with a Saturday/weekend convention elapsed. In the historical city from York our company will definitely have comics giants Tim Sale (Batman: The Long Halloween), Richard Starkings (Elephantmen), and Tony Harris (Starman/Ex Machina) for your finalizing and sketching desire. DOCTOR Peter Gleick We know that environment improvement is taking place, as a result of people, as well as a serious danger to a wide variety from concerns off food items development to seaside advancement to ecosystem health and wellness, and also especially to water information. Keywords: A. W. Amo, University of Sankore, Ghana, Africa, past history from Psychology and Viewpoint, Black Psychology, Bio-cultural concept of Individuality Development. He belongs to the Junction Advisors' Team for the Open Ring Principle and Soros Foundations Network Ahtisaari is also Chairman from the Balkan Youngster and Young people Groundwork and also the Global Action Authorities of the International Young people Structure, as well as from the International Panel of the War-Torn Societies Project Until 2003 he was likewise a Member from the Panel from Supervisors from the International Institute for Democracy as well as Electoral Support (CONCEPT).

0 notes

princetontv · 7 years

Video

vimeo

Pro Se Nation, 2.17 from Princeton Community Television on Vimeo.

The Law & End-of-Life Decisions Who really wants to think about death? But the fact is, we need to. In this episode we explore advance directives, Practitioner's Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) and other issues each individual should consider about the kind of medical treatment desired in the face of terminal illness or other life threatening situations.

MaryLynn Schiavi, host and producer welcomes as her guest: Terri Roth Reicher, an attorney and mediator based in Passaic County New Jersey. Ms. Reicher earned an advanced law degree from Seton Hall University School of Law, where she was a member of the first LLM class in Health and Hospital Law. She writes and lectures frequently on issues in Bioethics and serves as a Bioethics Attorney for Chilton Hospital, a member of the Atlantic Health System. She is an an Adjunct Professor of Law at William Paterson University and a leader in the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) community with a private practice specializing in commercial disputes and elder mediations. She is the 2016 recipient of the Jeydel Award for Professionalism, Ethics and Service to the ADR community.

0 notes

indysidhu · 8 months

Text

Conduct a live video interaction with the employee, and create an E-Verify case if the employee is a new hire. Employers who were participating in E-Verify created a case for employees whose documents were examined during COVID-19 flexibilities, For more information about it follow this blog and if you have any need call us at 609-375-0664.

#Real Estate Attorney #Probate Litigation Attorney #Princeton Will Contest Attorney #Princeton Advance Directive Attorney #Medical Real Estate Attorney #Healthcare Real Estate Attorney #Green Card Attorney #Family Immigration Lawyers #Family Immigration Lawyer #Family Immigration Attorney

0 notes

yes-dal456 · 7 years

Text

More Than Half Of U.S. Adults Don't Have A Will, New Survey Reveals

By Nick DiUlio

Let’s face it—end-of-life planning isn’t fun. The topic can seem morose, depressing -- maybe even a little scary. But it’s also a critical aspect of managing your assets and protecting your family, which is why it’s surprising that nearly 6 out of 10 Americans are unprepared for the inevitable.

According to a new Caring.com survey, only 42 percent of U.S. adults currently have estate planning documents such as a will or living trust. For those with children under the age of 18, the figure is even lower, with just 36 percent having an end-of-life plan in place.

“I think many Americans avoid setting up a will because they simply don’t want to think about their death,” says Texas-based financial coach Craig Dacy. “However, setting up a will not only takes care of your loved ones financially, it can save them a lot of emotional stress after you’re gone.”

The study, conducted in January by Princeton Survey Research Associates International, asked 1,003 adults whether they currently have estate-planning documents in case of their death, as well as the reason why not (if applicable).

Forty-seven percent of survey respondents without estate documents said, “I just haven’t gotten around to it.” This is unsurprising to experts, who say an aversion to end-of-life planning is not only rooted in fear but also procrastination.

“This is the ‘I’m going to live forever’ theory. No one literally thinks that, but we all want to believe we are going to live until our 80s or 90s so we don’t think we need a will right now,” says Debbi King, author of “The ABC’s of Personal Finance”. “This isn’t true, of course. We all have an expiration date and no one knows exactly when it will be. The best thing you can do for your loved ones is have a will now.”

See full infographic.

Age and assets are the greatest barriers

As one might expect, older Americans are the most likely demographic to have an estate plan in place. According to the survey, 81 percent of those age 72 or older have a will or living trust. However, that percentage declines significantly with younger people.

A staggering 78 percent of millennials (ages 18-36) do not have a will. Even more surprising is that 64 percent of Generation X (ages 37 to 52) doesn’t have a will, and nearly half of respondents in the 53 to 71-year-old age group (40 percent) said they don’t have one.

The problem, say experts, is twofold. First, younger Americans are generally unconcerned with their own mortality, which perpetuates the misconception that a will isn’t necessary until later in life.

“Young adults don’t expect something bad will happen to them, and if it does, they expect their parents to step in,” says estate-planning veteran Jack Hillis, president of Hillis Financial Services. “Additionally, wills are generally associated with the passing of a grandparent at that stage in life. At the age of 18 you’re thinking about your whole life in front of you, not what would happen if your life ended.”

What’s more, Hillis says baby boomers are aware that they should have a will in place, but planning for a possible tragedy is an uncomfortable process that forces people to answer some tough questions.

“At the age of 50 you still don’t envision the end of your life, so most will continue to put off the process as long as they can,” says Hillis. “And that’s unwise.”

Secondly, younger Americans tend to have fewer assets than their older counterparts, which feeds into the false impression that a will is only needed for those with substantial wealth or complex finances. In fact, the survey found that 29 percent of those without a will said it was because they “don’t have enough assets to leave anyone.”

“It’s so important to have a will regardless of age or assets, because not only does it allow you to make the decisions about what you want but it also makes it much easier on the loved ones you leave behind,” says Jody Giles, author of “Missing Pieces Plan: Providing You and Your Loved Ones Peace of Mind,” which helps people plan for the end of life.

“Even if you don’t have the wealth of Steve Jobs or Prince, what you do have means something to somebody. Regardless of the amount of ‘wealth’ you are passing on, let it be handed over based on your wishes, not your state’s laws.”

Estate planning attorney Matthew Underwood explains that the whole purpose of a will is to tell a court how to distribute your assets in a special proceeding called probate. The purpose of probate is to give a public notice of death and allow creditors to file claims against the estate. Whatever is left after the creditors are paid goes to the beneficiaries. In the absence of a will, the particular state’s laws of succession direct how property gets distributed.

“In other words, if you don’t have a will, the state has one for you,” says Underwood. “Regardless of how old you are or how much wealth you have, would you rather have government officials dictate where your property goes or would you rather decide that for yourself?”

If you have children, a will is critical

One of the survey’s most surprising findings was that just 36 percent of those with children under 18 have an end-of-life plan in place. This is a potentially devastating oversight.

“I can not stress enough the importance of having a will if you have children,” says Giles. “If you have children you need a will, if for no other reason than the sole purpose of naming guardians. Selecting someone to care for our children if something happens to us is not what anyone wants to consider, but it’s imperative that we do. If you don’t nominate guardians in a will, a judge will decide who should take care of your kids after you die.”

The importance of a health care power of attorney

The Caring.com study also asked respondents whether or not they have a health care power of attorney, which appoints a specific individual to make medical decisions for you if you’re incapable of doing so.

A health care power of attorney is more common than a will or living trust, with roughly 53 percent of U.S. adults having granted someone this legal authorization, according to the survey.

However, demographic disparities play a role here as well. While 83 percent of those over 72 have a power of attorney in place, only 41 percent of millennials can say the same. Again, experts say you should not wait until you’re a senior citizen to get yours in order.

“Perhaps even more importantly than a will, everyone over the age of 18 should have a power of attorney,” says Underwood, who points out that once a child turns 18, his or her parents are legally cut off from making some very important decisions.

“I’ve heard stories of kids going off to college or traveling abroad and then getting sick or hurt,” says Underwood. “When the parents call the hospital to find out what’s going on, the doctors won’t even talk to the parents because the student did not have a health care power of attorney.”

You can work with a lawyer to set up a health care power of attorney and an advanced health care directive, a document that sets out your medical preferences.

Is estate planning complicated or expensive?

Broadly speaking, the complexity and cost of setting up a will or living trust depends on how complex your circumstances and assets are. But generally speaking, a qualified lawyer can draft a simple will and power of attorney for less than $1,000.

“For individuals with modest wealth and straightforward wishes, a simple estate plan can be prepared quickly and inexpensively,” says Ashley Case, an Arizona-based tax and estate-planning attorney. “Some factors that tend to complicate an estate plan include multiple marriages, children from different relationships, certain business assets, a higher net-worth, and complex wishes regarding distributions.”

How to Get Started

Understand the basics of estate planning.

Know what to expect from a trusts and estates attorney.

Consider what to include in your will.

Learn how to set up an advanced health care directive.

Find legal help.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from http://ift.tt/2kxDdPi from Blogger http://ift.tt/2kRS7w0

#http://www.topwaytohappy.tk/2017/02/more-than-half-of-us-adults-dont-have.html

0 notes

imreviewblog · 7 years

Text

More Than Half Of U.S. Adults Don't Have A Will, New Survey Reveals

By Nick DiUlio

See full infographic.

Age and assets are the greatest barriers

“At the age of 50 you still don’t envision the end of your life, so most will continue to put off the process as long as they can,” says Hillis. “And that’s unwise.”

If you have children, a will is critical

One of the survey’s most surprising findings was that just 36 percent of those with children under 18 have an end-of-life plan in place. This is a potentially devastating oversight.

The importance of a health care power of attorney

A health care power of attorney is more common than a will or living trust, with roughly 53 percent of U.S. adults having granted someone this legal authorization, according to the survey.

You can work with a lawyer to set up a health care power of attorney and an advanced health care directive, a document that sets out your medical preferences.

Is estate planning complicated or expensive?

How to Get Started

Understand the basics of estate planning.

Know what to expect from a trusts and estates attorney.

Consider what to include in your will.

Learn how to set up an advanced health care directive.

Find legal help.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

from Healthy Living - The Huffington Post http://huff.to/2lrW3XD

#Healthy Living - The Huffington Post

0 notes