Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label www.nytimes.com. Show all posts
Showing posts with label www.nytimes.com. Show all posts

Monday, July 21, 2014

Part-Time Schedules, Full-Time Headaches

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.nytimes.com

A worker at an apparel store at Woodbury Common, an outlet mall north of New York City, said that even though some part-time employees clamored for more hours, the store had hired more part-timers and cut many workers’ hours to 10 a week from 20.
As soon as a nurse in Illinois arrived for her scheduled 3-to-11 p.m. shift one Christmas Day, hospital officials told her to go home because the patient “census” was low. They also ordered her to remain on call for the next four hours — all unpaid.
An employee at a specialty store in California said his 25-hour-a-week job with wildly fluctuating hours wasn’t enough to live on. But when he asked the store to schedule him between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. so he could find a second job, the store cut him to 12 hours a week.
These are among the experiences related by New York Times readers in more than 440 responses to an article published in Wednesday’s paper about a fledgling movement in which some states and cities are seeking to limit the harshest effects of increasingly unpredictable and on-call work schedules. Many readers voiced dismay with the volatility of Americans’ work schedules and the inability of many part-timers to cobble together enough hours to support their families.


In a comment that was the most highly recommended by others — 307 of them — a reader going by “pedigrees” wrote that workers were often reviled for not working hard enough or not being educated...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Why Improving Access to Health Care Does Not Save Money

Today's post was shared by The New York Times and comes from www.nytimes.com

One of the oft-repeated arguments in favor of the Affordable Care Act is that it will reduce people’s need for more intensive care by increasing their access to preventive care. For example, people will use the emergency room less often because they will be able to see primary care physicians. Or, they will not develop as many chronic illnesses because they will be properly screened and treated early on. And they will not require significant and invasive care down the line because they will be better managed ahead of time.
Moreover, it is often asserted that these developments will lead to reductions in health care spending. Unfortunately, a growing body of evidence makes the case that this may not be true.
One of the most important facts about health care overhaul, and one that is often overlooked, is that all changes to the health care system involve trade-offs among access, quality and cost. You can improve one of these – maybe two – but it will almost always result in some other aspect getting worse.


You can make the health care system achieve better outcomes. But that will usually cost more or require some change in access. You can make it cheaper, but access or quality may take a hit. And you can expand access, but that will increase cost or result in some change in quality.
The A.C.A. was primarily about access: making it easier for people to get insurance and the care it allows. The law also tries to make changes that may bend the curve of spending...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Sunday, January 12, 2014

No Jobs, No Benefits, and Lousy Pay

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.nytimes.com

There is nothing good to say about the December employment report, which showed that only 74,000 jobs were added last month. But dismal as it was, the report came at an opportune political moment. The new numbers rebut the Republican arguments that jobless benefits need not be renewed, and that the current minimum wage is adequate. At the same time, they underscore the need, only recently raised to the top of the political agenda, to combat poverty and inequality.
The report showed that average monthly job growth in 2013 was 182,000, basically unchanged from 2012. Even the decline in the jobless rate last month, from 7 percent in November to 6.7 percent, was a sign of weakness: It mainly reflects a shrinking labor force — not new hiring — as the share of workers employed or looking for work fell to the lowest level since 1978. That’s a tragic waste of human capital. It would be comforting to ascribe the dwindling labor force mainly to retirements or other long-term changes, but most of the decline is due to weak job opportunities and weak labor demand since the Great Recession.
One result is that the share of jobless workers who have been unemployed for six months or longer has remained stubbornly high. In December, it was nearly 38 percent, still higher by far than at any time before the Great Recession, in records going back to 1948.
And yet, nearly 1.3 million of those long-term unemployed had their federal jobless benefits abruptly cut off at the end...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Rare Cancer Treatments, Cleared by F.D.A. but Not Subject to Scrutiny

Today's post was shared by The New York Times and comes from www.nytimes.com

When federal regulators permitted the sale of an unproved device that uses intense heat to combat cancer, they did so for a compelling reason, to give hope to some women desperately ill with cervical cancer.
Over the next two years, however, the few hospitals that purchased the $500,000 device did not take part in a study of patients that the manufacturer agreed to perform as a part of the machine’s approval. Cancer experts also said they were surprised that the Food and Drug Administration had approved the machine in the first place.
The reason: The group of woman for whom the F.D.A. approved the treatment — those with advanced cervical cancer who are too ill for chemotherapy — is so small. “I see, like, one patient like this a year,” said Dr. Junzo P. Chino, a cancer expert at Duke University.
A look at the F.D.A.’s decision to approve the device, which is called the BSD-2000, opens a window onto a little-known regulation known as the humanitarian device exemption.
The program, even its critics agree, is based on the best intentions. Because companies have little incentive to run costly trials for products used by small groups of patients, the exemption requires a producer only to show that a device is safe and has a “probable” benefit, rather than prove its effectiveness, the usual standard.
The rule, which is similar to one governing drugs for extremely rare diseases, also does not require the F.D.A., companies or...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Sleep Therapy Seen as an Aid for Depression

Will workers' compensation provide benefits for sleep therapy to avoid or treat depression? Today's post was shared by AJ Chavar and comes from www.nytimes.com

Curing insomnia in people with depression could double their chance of a full recovery, scientists are reporting. The findings, based on an insomnia treatment that uses talk therapy rather than drugs, are the first to emerge from a series of closely watched studies of sleep and depression to be released in the coming year.
The new report affirms the results of a smaller pilot study, giving scientists confidence that the effects of the insomnia treatment are real. If the figures continue to hold up, the advance will be the most significant in the treatment of depression since the introduction of Prozac in 1987.
Depression is the most common mental disorder, affecting some 18 million Americans in any given year, according to government figures, and more than half of them also have insomnia.
Experts familiar with the new report said that the results were plausible and that if supported by other studies, they should lead to major changes in treatment.
“It would be an absolute boon to the field,” said Dr. Nada L. Stotland, professor of psychiatry at Rush Medical College in Chicago, who was not connected with the latest research.
“It makes good common sense clinically,” she continued. “If you have a depression, you’re often awake all night, it’s extremely lonely, it’s dark, you’re aware every moment that the world around you is sleeping, every concern you have is magnified.”
The study is the first of four on sleep and...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Calling America: Hello? Hello? Hello? Hello?

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.nytimes.com

SINGAPORE — HAVING lived and worked abroad for many years, I’m sensitive to the changing ways that foreigners look at America. Over the years, I’ve seen an America that was respected, hated, feared and loved. But traveling around China and Singapore last week, I was confronted repeatedly with an attitude toward America that I’ve never heard before: “What’s up with you guys?”
Whether we were feared or loved, America was always the outsized standard by which all others were compared. What we built and what we dreamt were, to many, the definition of the future. Well, today, to many people, we look like the definition of a drunken driver — like a lifelong mentor who has gone on a binge and is no longer predictable. And, as for defining the future, the country that showed the world how to pull together to put a man on the moon and defeat Nazism and Communism, today broadcasts a politics dominated by three phrases: “You can’t do that,” “It’s off the table” and “The president didn’t know.” A Singaporean official who has been going to America for decades expressed shock to me at being in Washington during the government shutdown and how old and emotionally depressed the city felt.
“Few Americans are aware of how much America has lost in this recent episode of bringing the American economy to the edge of a cliff,” said Kishore Mahbubani, the dean of the Lee Kuan Yew...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Sunday, October 20, 2013

The Damage Done

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.nytimes.com

The government is reopening, and we didn’t default on our debt. Happy days are here again, right?
Well, no. For one thing, Congress has only voted in a temporary fix, and we could find ourselves going through it all over again in a few months. You may say that Republicans would be crazy to provoke another confrontation. But they were crazy to provoke this one, so why assume that they’ve learned their lesson?
Beyond that, however, it’s important to recognize that the economic damage from obstruction and extortion didn’t start when the G.O.P. shut down the government. On the contrary, it has been an ongoing process, dating back to the Republican takeover of the House in 2010. And the damage is large: Unemployment in America would be far lower than it is if the House majority hadn’t done so much to undermine recovery.
A useful starting point for assessing the damage done is a widely cited report by the consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers, which estimated that “crisis driven” fiscal policy — which has been the norm since 2010 — has subtracted about 1 percent off the U.S. growth rate for the past three years. This implies cumulative economic losses — the value of goods and services that America could and should have produced, but didn’t — of around $700 billion. The firm also estimated that unemployment is 1.4 percentage points higher than it would have been in the absence of political confrontation,...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Jobs Report Becomes a Casualty of Shutdown

Today's post was shared by The New York Times and comes from www.nytimes.com

On the first Friday morning of almost any other month, from the trading floors of Wall Street to the hushed hallways of the Federal Reserve, all the attention would be focused on two numbers: the latest government estimates for unemployment and job creation.
This Friday, much of the government will be closed. As a result, the economists and statisticians at the Bureau of Labor Statistics will be at home, and everyone from Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed’s chairman, to thousands of traders glued to their Bloomberg screens, will be left without one of the most important clues to the state of the economy.
The mystery is heightened by the question of just how much of an impact the shutdown itself will have. And while the job numbers from last month cannot answer that question, economists almost universally agree that the cost to the economy depends on how long the standoff lasts, and whether the much larger danger of a debt default can be averted.
“If it’s short, it’s barely a blip on the radar,” said Ellen Zentner, senior United States economist at Morgan Stanley. “If a shutdown is prolonged, it’s a whole different story.”
Like many Wall Street economists, Ms. Zentner estimates that each week of the shutdown will shave one-tenth to two-tenths of a percentage point off economic growth in the final quarter of 2013.
That may not sound like much, especially in a $16 trillion economy. And during the last extended shutdown in the mid-1990s...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]