Wednesday, October 30, 2013

My Meds on Medicare Part D if I wasn't super-extremely low income.

Step 3: View Report
You may hit the Doughnut Hole in June.
$448.52
$403.67
$358.82
$313.96
$269.11
$224.26
$179.41
$134.56
$89.70
$44.85
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Explanation of Monthly Drug Costs
Month
Your Cost1
JanuaryMonthly FeeYou Pay
Drug Premium$41.00
DrugCovered
Drug
PhaseFull
Cost
You Pay
Advair Diskus AER 250/50YesDeductible / Initial Cost$274.77$165.38
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCGYesDeductible$7.59$7.59
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCGYesDeductible$5.01$5.01
Nexium CAP 40MGYesDeductible$229.54$229.54
What you’ll spend in January:$448.52
FebruaryMonthly FeeYou Pay
Drug Premium$41.00
DrugCovered
Drug
PhaseFull
Cost
You Pay
Advair Diskus AER 250/50YesInitial Cost$274.77$118.15
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCGYesInitial Cost$7.59$2.00
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCGYesInitial Cost$5.01$2.00
Nexium CAP 40MGYesInitial Cost$229.54$50.50
What you’ll spend in February:$213.65
MarchMonthly FeeYou Pay
Drug Premium$41.00
DrugCovered
Drug
PhaseFull
Cost
You Pay
Advair Diskus AER 250/50YesInitial Cost$274.77$118.15
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCGYesInitial Cost$7.59$2.00
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCGYesInitial Cost$5.01$2.00
Nexium CAP 40MGYesInitial Cost$229.54$50.50
What you’ll spend in March:$213.65
AprilMonthly FeeYou Pay
Drug Premium$41.00
DrugCovered
Drug
PhaseFull
Cost
You Pay
Advair Diskus AER 250/50YesInitial Cost$274.77$118.15
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCGYesInitial Cost$7.59$2.00
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCGYesInitial Cost$5.01$2.00
Nexium CAP 40MGYesInitial Cost$229.54$50.50
What you’ll spend in April:$213.65
MayMonthly FeeYou Pay
Drug Premium$41.00
DrugCovered
Drug
PhaseFull
Cost
You Pay
Advair Diskus AER 250/50YesInitial Cost$274.77$118.15
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCGYesInitial Cost$7.59$2.00
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCGYesInitial Cost$5.01$2.00
Nexium CAP 40MGYesInitial Cost$229.54$50.50
What you’ll spend in May:$213.65
JuneMonthly FeeYou Pay
Drug Premium$41.00
DrugCovered
Drug
PhaseFull
Cost
You Pay
Advair Diskus AER 250/50YesInitial Cost / Gap$274.77$124.06
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCGYesInitial Cost$7.59$2.00
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCGYesInitial Cost$5.01$2.00
Nexium CAP 40MGYesInitial Cost$229.54$50.50
What you’ll spend in June:$219.56
JulyMonthly FeeYou Pay
Drug Premium$41.00
DrugCovered
Drug
PhaseFull
Cost
You Pay
Advair Diskus AER 250/50YesGap$274.77$130.52
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCGYesGap$7.59$6.00
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCGYesGap$5.01$3.96
Nexium CAP 40MGYesGap$229.54$109.03
What you’ll spend in July:$290.51
AugustMonthly FeeYou Pay
Drug Premium$41.00
DrugCovered
Drug
PhaseFull
Cost
You Pay
Advair Diskus AER 250/50YesGap$274.77$130.52
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCGYesGap$7.59$6.00
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCGYesGap$5.01$3.96
Nexium CAP 40MGYesGap$229.54$109.03
What you’ll spend in August:$290.51
SeptemberMonthly FeeYou Pay
Drug Premium$41.00
DrugCovered
Drug
PhaseFull
Cost
You Pay
Advair Diskus AER 250/50YesGap$274.77$130.52
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCGYesGap$7.59$6.00
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCGYesGap$5.01$3.96
Nexium CAP 40MGYesGap$229.54$109.03
What you’ll spend in September:$290.51
OctoberMonthly FeeYou Pay
Drug Premium$41.00
DrugCovered
Drug
PhaseFull
Cost
You Pay
Advair Diskus AER 250/50YesGap$274.77$130.52
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCGYesGap$7.59$6.00
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCGYesGap$5.01$3.96
Nexium CAP 40MGYesGap$229.54$109.03
What you’ll spend in October:$290.51
NovemberMonthly FeeYou Pay
Drug Premium$41.00
DrugCovered
Drug
PhaseFull
Cost
You Pay
Advair Diskus AER 250/50YesGap$274.77$130.52
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCGYesGap$7.59$6.00
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCGYesGap$5.01$3.96
Nexium CAP 40MGYesGap$229.54$109.03
What you’ll spend in November:$290.51
DecemberMonthly FeeYou Pay
Drug Premium$41.00
DrugCovered
Drug
PhaseFull
Cost
You Pay
Advair Diskus AER 250/50YesGap$274.77$130.52
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCGYesGap$7.59$6.00
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCGYesGap$5.01$3.96
Nexium CAP 40MGYesGap$229.54$109.03
What you’ll spend in December:$290.51
Total Estimated Annual Cost for 2013:$6,202.92

1 This number includes the amount you pay for drug copays and drug plan premiums, but not any health coverage premiums your plan may charge.

Your overall annual out-of-pocket cost is based on:
  • Your premium: What you pay each month to your plan for coverage.
  • The amount of your plan's annual deductible (the full cost you pay for your drugs before coverage kicks in) if your plan has one.
  • What you pay toward the cost of your drugs in the initial coverage period. You pay either a copayment (a fixed-dollar amount) or coinsurance (a percentage of the drug's full cost) for each prescription. Your plan pays the rest.
  • Any payments you make for your drugs during the coverage gap (or "doughnut hole"), when you pay the full price that your plan has negotiated with the manufacturers.
  • What you pay (no more than 5 percent of the drug's price) during the catastrophic coverage period (if your costs are high enough to reach the out-of-pocket limit that gets you out of the gap before the end of the year)

Except for your premiums, all the above expenses count toward your out-of-pocket limit for the year. On January 1 of each year, you start counting expenses again.
Your Drug List
Advair Diskus AER 250/50
1 AEPB per month
Tier: 2
Quantity Limits
About this drug
Any options to save money?
levothyroxine sodium TAB 200MCG
30 TABS per month
Tier: 1
About this drug
Any options to save money?
levothyroxine sodium TAB 25MCG
30 TABS per month
Tier: 1
About this drug
Any options to save money?
Nexium CAP 40MG
30 CPDR per month
Tier: 2
Quantity Limits
About this drug
Any options to save money?

Your Pharmacy
These prices are approximate. They reflect the average of what you'd pay at any of your plan's in-network retail pharmacies. Actual costs vary slightly among these pharmacies. Mail-order costs, which are sometimes lower, are not shown. To select a specific pharmacy within your zip code, click here. The pharmacies you find may or may not be in-network. Please contact your plan directly to find out which pharmacies are in-network, including a mail-order pharmacy option.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Poorest of the poor left out of Affordable Care Act’s health insurance expansion

Poorest of the poor left out of Affordable Care Act’s health insurance expansion

  • TODD SUMLIN - tsumlin@charlotteobserver.com
    Charlese Frazier, shown at her Charlotte home Friday, Oct. 11, 2013, is one of 500,000 people who would have qualified for Medicaid if North Carolina had agreed to expand this program under the Affordable Care Act. She is unemployed now and takes care of her elderly father at home.

MORE INFORMATION

Charlese Frazier lost her income and her health insurance in 2011 when she got laid off as a mortgage retention specialist by a Charlotte bank. After looking briefly for another job, she decided to stay home and care for her 84-year-old father, who has dementia, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and prostate cancer.
She doesn’t get unemployment benefits because she’s not looking for work, and she can’t afford to buy her own health insurance.
Last month at a forum about the Affordable Care Act, Frazier, who is divorced and has a 22-year-old daughter, learned she would have been eligible for Medicaid in January if North Carolina had expanded that government program for the poor and disabled.
But North Carolina, like 25 other states, rejected that option. And Frazier became one of the half-million N.C. residents – some of the poorest of the poor – left without insurance despite the national health-system overhaul that was intended to drastically reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
Frazier, 58, earned more than $30,000 a year in her bank job, but because she has no income now, she got hit with a double-whammy. Not only doesn’t she qualify for Medicaid, she also isn’t eligible for government subsidies to buy insurance through the new online marketplace.
“All of this is new to me,” she said. “I’ve worked hard all my life and never had to depend on any type of assistance at all. … I’m taking care of my father 24/7. I just don’t know where to go.”
The Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, requires almost all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine.
It was designed to provide insurance for people who don’t have access to coverage through their employers. It created an online exchange where low- and middle-income earners can buy private insurance with government subsidies.
The law called for the poorest of the uninsured to be covered by expanding Medicaid. Instead of letting the states pick up the tab, the federal government promised to cover all of the cost of the expansion for the first three years and no less than 90 percent in later years.
But last year, when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, it also decreed that states couldn’t be mandated to expand Medicaid.
Every state in the Deep South, except for Arkansas, rejected the Medicaid expansion. Like North Carolina and South Carolina, most of those states are led by Republican governors who are philosophically opposed to the Affordable Care Act.
Because so many states rejected the expansion, two-thirds of poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of low-wage workers who are currently uninsured in the United States are left without insurance, according to an analysis by The New York Times. The government has said people who would have been covered by Medicaid in states that aren’t accepting the expansion will not face fines.
Adam Linker, a policy analyst at the North Carolina Health Access Coalition, a nonprofit that advocates for the poor, has been traveling the state talking about the new law and meeting many of those people who will fall through the cracks.
“They’re always very shocked that they won’t qualify for anything,” Linker said.
Expansion rejected
Republican legislators in North Carolina and the new Republican governor, Pat McCrory, agreed to reject the Medicaid expansion earlier this year, citing concern about the cost of offering Medicaid to a half-million more people.
Medicaid makes up 15 percent of the state’s $20 billion budget. The $3 billion cost to the state in the 2012 fiscal year compares to $2 billion a decade ago. The federal government pays about two-thirds of the cost for current participants, or about $11 billion.
McCrory also expressed concern about whether the federal government would pay its share of the cost to expand in light of the U.S. budget deficit, which has exceeded $1 trillion in each of the past four years.
Medicaid in North Carolina currently covers children younger than 18, some pregnant women, disabled people, select low-income parents and elderly poor.
Advocates for the poor are hoping that state officials change their minds. “You’re going to have more and more people realizing that this was a state-level decision to deny them access to health insurance,” Linker said.
Based on interviews with two leaders of the state House Health and Human Services committee, North Carolina’s decision will not be reversed any time soon.
Rep. Justin Burr, a Republican representing Montgomery and Stanly counties and co-chairman of the committee, said he’s “very skeptical about any future expansion.”
“So much of our state revenue has been eaten away by the Medicaid budget,” he said. “I certainly don’t think we need to expand an entitlement program.”
Rep. Nelson Dollar, a Republican from Wake County, said the current state Medicaid program, which has experienced cost overruns and chronic billing delays, needs fixing “before consideration can be given as to whether you add an additional 500,000 people to the system.”
He added that the people who would be covered under Medicaid expansion are “relatively healthy and not the ones in most need. If somebody has an emergency and they go to the emergency room, they will always get care.”
Linker, from the Health Access Coalition, said insurance companies have repeatedly found that the people who would be covered by the Medicaid expansion are less healthy than those with private insurance. Also, he said it’s a myth that “anyone can stroll into an emergency room and get free, comprehensive care.”
Hospitals are obligated to stabilize patients who are acutely ill or injured, he said, but they can also pursue patients for payment, which can wreak havoc on the finances of the uninsured.
“Expanding Medicaid boosts the bottom line for medical providers and ensures that people can seek appropriate care at the right place at the right time,” Linker said.
A half-million uninsured
In North Carolina, about 1.5 million residents are uninsured, and about half of them will qualify for subsidies to buy insurance through the online exchange.
The other half – about 630,000 – would have qualified for Medicaid under the expansion, according to census figures. That’s because they have household incomes of less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level; that’s $15,856 for a single person and $32,499 for a family of four.
Of those eligible for Medicaid expansion, about 200,000 qualify for premium subsidies on the insurance exchange because they earn between 100 and 138 percent of the poverty level.
But the poorest of the uninsured, who earn less than 100 percent of the poverty level – $11,490 for a single person and $23,550 for a family of four – are not eligible for subsidies. That’s because authors of the Affordable Care Act assumed they would be covered by the Medicaid expansion.
Mostly these people who earn too little to get subsidies are nondisabled adults without children. They are “literally too poor to be eligible,” said Madison Hardee, a lawyer with Legal Services of the Southern Piedmont.
Legal Services is one of three Charlotte agencies that received federal grants to train “navigators” to help consumers use the online insurance marketplace. Because the website hasn’t been working properly since enrollment started Oct. 1, Hardee has been helping clients file paper applications or use North Carolina’s ePASS website to see whether they are eligible for other benefits.
Among those she helped is Lisa Knight, 52, whose household income from her husband’s disability checks is about $15,700 a year.
Uninsured now, Knight has multiple pre-existing conditions, which under the new law can no longer prevent her from getting affordable insurance. She takes medicines for emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, arthritis pain, depression and anxiety. Her prescriptions cost more than $150 a month. Her doctor prescribed another drug called Spiriva for her breathing problems, but it costs $500 a month.
“I have quit taking it because I can’t afford it,” she said.
Based on her household income, Knight would have qualified for the Medicaid expansion. She also qualifies for a subsidy to buy insurance on the exchange because her income is between 100 and 138 percent of the poverty level.
Knight could buy a “silver” plan – the second least expensive plan on the exchange – for a premium of $5,317 a year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation eligibility calculator for North Carolina. She would be eligible for a subsidy that reduces her premium payment to $314 per year, or 2 percent of her income. Her out-of-pocket maximum for other medical expenses can be no more than $2,250, according to the calculator.
Knight is excited about the chance to enroll: “This is what I’ve been waiting for.”
Hospitals want expansion
Hospitals across the Carolinas had expected the Medicaid expansion would provide insurance for millions of patients who now receive medical care without paying for it.
“This was integral to implementation of the Affordable Care Act,” said Joe Piemont, president and chief operating officer of Carolinas HealthCare System.
In exchange for getting more insured patients, hospitals were also slated under the law to take cuts in other areas, such as Medicare reimbursement. But that delicate balance was thrown off when North Carolina didn’t expand Medicaid. That means millions of patients who have been uninsured will remain so. And they’ll continue using hospital emergency departments without the means to pay.
The annual cost to North Carolina’s hospitals of not expanding Medicaid is estimated to be as much as $660 million, based on an analysis conducted for the N.C. Institute of Medicine by the N.C. Division of Medical Assistance.
Carolinas HealthCare estimates it would have received about $50 million a year in new Medicaid revenues for Charlotte-area hospitals alone if the state had expanded Medicaid. The system also owns hospitals outside this region and doctors’ offices across the Carolinas that will be affected.
Bob Seehausen, senior vice president of Novant Health, said the Winston-Salem-based hospital system estimated it would have received $37 million a year in new Medicaid revenues “to cover people we’ve been treating on an uninsured basis.”
Citing the state’s decision to reject Medicaid expansion, Vidant Health System recently announced plans to close its 60-year-old community hospital in Belhaven in eastern North Carolina.
“Many of these institutions operate close to the margin,” Piemont said. “You just wonder how much they can absorb.”
Expanding Medicaid would have given more patients access to routine doctors’ visits, medicines and hospital care so they wouldn’t have to wait until problems develop into emergencies. “We want people to have access to good, regular health care to help them stay healthy instead of having to treat them at the last minute,” Seehausen said.
Don Dalton, spokesman for the North Carolina Hospital Association, said the group is “having some very intense discussions with our members” about how best to persuade state leaders to reverse their decision.
Mecklenburg County commissioners will also weigh in at their meeting Tuesday night. Democratic commissioner Dumont Clarke and two other commissioners have sponsored a resolution asking legislators to reconsider their decision to reject the Medicaid expansion.
“One of my concerns,” Clarke said, “is the adverse impact this will have on our two big hospital systems. We’re really cutting off our noses to spite our faces.”
Free clinics still needed
Providing nearly universal insurance coverage to Americans – the goal of the Affordable Care Act – might have come close to putting free medical clinics out of business. But the Medicaid coverage gap means those clinics are as important as ever.
Amy Carr, executive director of the Matthews Free Medical Clinic, said most of her clinic’s 700 patients are working people with incomes below the poverty level, which means they would have qualified for Medicaid under an expansion, but make too little to get subsidies on the exchange.
“They remain patients at the clinic,” she said. “We’re just doing business as normal.”
The same is true at North Carolina MedAssist, a Charlotte-based nonprofit that provides free prescription medicines for low-income patients.
Of 10,000 served in a year, 72 percent have incomes below the poverty level. “They will not be helped because their income is too low,” said Lori Giang, executive director of MedAssist.
At a Rotary Club meeting last week, Giang said she described this predicament, and “people were amazed.”
Rizzie Baldwin of south Charlotte was also surprised when she began researching the new law’s provisions. Her daughter, Sarah-Hamlin, turned 26 this year and is no longer eligible to stay on her parents’ health insurance.
A hair stylist, Sarah-Hamlin Baldwin works full time, bringing in about $12,000 a year. This year, her parents are paying her $200 monthly insurance premiums plus other medical expenses before she reached the $5,000 deductible.
Next year, because her income is more than 100 percent of the poverty level, she’ll qualify for a subsidy on the health insurance exchange. According to the Kaiser calculator, she could get a $2,947 “silver” plan for $240 a year after the subsidy. The maximum out-of-pocket costs for other medical expenses would be $2,250, according to the calculator.
If the state had expanded Medicaid, the federal government would have paid 100 percent of the cost for the first three years.
“I didn’t know exactly how the new law was going to work, but I thought the whole purpose was to get low-income working people like Sarah-Hamlin insured,” Rizzie Baldwin said. “It is our own state legislature that is leaving our daughter out in the cold. This makes no sense to me.”

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/10/12/4384009/poorest-of-the-poor-left-out-of.html#.UmSDknBBrni#storylink=cpy

NYC - Widow’s Bankruptcy Case Poses Risk to Millions With Rent-Stabilized Leases

Widow’s Bankruptcy Case Poses Risk to Millions With Rent-Stabilized Leases


Mary Veronica Santiago, 79, in her rent-stabilized apartment. A court is weighing whether 
her lease can be treated as an asset.


After her husband died, Mary Veronica Santiago fell behind on her bills and the creditors began to call.

So two years ago, she took refuge in bankruptcy, hoping to have her debts wiped away. But far from providing a fresh start and peace of mind, the Chapter 7 filing thrust Mrs. Santiago, 79, who lives in the East Village, into the center of a case that bankruptcy lawyers say poses a major risk to her and the millions of other New Yorkers who live in rent-stabilized apartments.
The issue, pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, is whether a rent-stabilized lease can be treated as an asset in a personal bankruptcy, just like a car or a piece of land, and used to pay off creditors.
The trustee overseeing Mrs. Santiago’s bankruptcy thinks so. If that position is upheld, bankruptcy lawyers who are closely monitoring the case say it would make it easier for landlords to evict rent-stabilized tenants if they file for bankruptcy, even when, like Mrs. Santiago, they pay their rent. At a time when housing affordability and income inequality have been driving the debate in the mayoral race, the bankruptcy case could add another element of uncertainty to New York City’s efforts to preserve housing for people with low incomes.
Mrs. Santiago has lived for 50 years in a two-bedroom apartment near Tompkins Square Park, in a neighborhood where unregulated apartments rent for thousands more a month than Mrs. Santiago’s rent of $703. Her main income is a Social Security check and, under normal bankruptcy proceedings, her lawyers said, she would have avoided repaying the $23,000 she owes because she had no assets.
“I got scared,” she said, noting that her creditors “threatened that they were going to take me to court.”
But as her case was nearing conclusion, her landlord stepped in with an offer to buy her rent-stabilized lease and produce the funds to pay off her debt. (Mrs. Santiago’s landlord is not among her creditors, but he was notified of the bankruptcy as a matter of course.) The bankruptcy trustee in charge of marshaling her assets accepted the offer and that decision, challenged by Mrs. Santiago’s lawyers, has been upheld by both a bankruptcy court and a Federal District Court.
In New York City, there were 11,500 individual bankruptcy filings in the 12 months ending June 30, federal bankruptcy court figures show. How many of them involved people with rent-stabilized leases is not tracked by the court.
Rent stabilization laws, a defining element of New York real estate for decades, limit rent increases and allow automatic lease renewals and even survivor’s rights to tenants. In recent years, rent-stabilized leases have been deemed assets in some bankruptcy proceedings.
Now, for the first time, a federal appeals court is being asked to weigh in. The widow’s lawyers argue that a rent-stabilized lease is a public assistance benefit, just like Social Security or disability payments, and should be exempt from the bankruptcy estate. Treating it like an asset, the lawyers said in court documents, undermines the intent of rent-stabilization laws in New York designed to protect tenants deemed in need of assistance with housing.
“This is not what bankruptcy is about,” said Kathleen G. Cully, one of Mrs. Santiago two pro bono lawyers. “What’s next? Are they going to start going after food stamps?”
The case, Mary Veronica Santiago-Monteverde v. John S. Pereira, has drawn the interest of bankruptcy experts and legal aid lawyers who see it as a threat to the housing stability of many low-income New Yorkers. Mrs. Santiago’s case was argued before the appeals court last month by Ronald J. Mann, a law professor at Columbia University and a bankruptcy specialist who has argued cases before the United States Supreme Court.
New York’s unique rent laws and expensive real estate market make a rent-stabilized lease particularly prized. In New York City, 44 percent of the rental units are rent-stabilized and an additional 2 percent are governed by the more restrictive rent-control regulations, according to figures from the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University. At least 2.2 million people live in more than a million rent-regulated units in the city, the center said.
Legal aid lawyers who are also watching the Santiago case say the rent laws are essential to help maintain affordable housing in the city — the median income for rent-stabilized tenants is $37,000, compared with $52,260 for market-rate tenants, figures from the city’s Housing and Vacancy Survey show. Some bankruptcy lawyers say they are advising clients with rent-stabilized leases not to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy or risk being left homeless.
“It’s an unfair money-grab,” said David B. Shaev, the New York state chairman of theNational Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. “To remove this foundation, this safety net, it’s unconscionable.”
The trustee in Mrs. Santiago’s case, Mr. Pereira, has an obligation to marshal all assets to get her debt paid, said his lawyer, J. David Dantzler Jr. (The trustees, who are not government employees, receive a commission on the assets they are able to gather.) He said that New York law did not intend for leases to be exempt from bankruptcy estates and that any change to that effect should be left up to the state’s lawmakers.
“This is about a fear of what could happen in the future to other tenants in rent-stabilization apartments,” he said. “Our view is that that’s a question for the New York Legislature, not the courts.”
But no one should think that bankruptcy is a painless process, he said. “If you file for bankruptcy, there are consequences.”
The trustee in Mrs. Santiago’s case has proposed an arrangement in which the landlord would pay her debt, pay the trustee and his lawyer, and allow Mrs. Santiago to live out her years in her apartment at a similar rent under a non-rent-stabilized lease “with no succession rights” that could otherwise have allowed her to pass the apartment on to her 50-year-old son, a personal trainer who lives with her and helps support her.
Her lawyers opposed the proposal.
In the realm of consumer bankruptcies, Mrs. Santiago’s is small. She owes mostly credit card companies, she said in an interview. But after her husband, Hector Santiago, died in 2011 she could not keep up with the payments.
The couple moved into their ground-floor apartment in a five-story brick building on East Seventh Street in 1963. Mr. Santiago was the superintendent of their building and of several others in the neighborhood.
The landlord is a limited-liability company whose owner, James V. Guarino, referred questions to his lawyer. The lawyer, Lawrence M. Gottlieb, said in an e-mail that the company “has no intentions of selling the lease or dispossessing Ms. Santiago or renting out the unit for market rent.”
At home, in the cluttered apartment where her family has celebrated weddings, birthdays and holidays, and where her ill husband died at age 80, Mrs. Santiago said she regretted filing for bankruptcy. Her lawyers have reassured her that she has a good chance of prevailing, but first thing every morning, Mrs. Santiago said, she checks her front door for an eviction notice.
“I’m afraid to find a white paper on my door,” she said with her head down, tearing up as she tugged at the edges of her plastic-covered chair.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Google+ Pages Additional Terms of Service

Google+ Pages Additional Terms of Service

These Additional Terms, the Google Terms of Service and other terms and policies referenced here, will govern your use of Google+ Pages (“Google+ Pages Terms”). Please check from time to time for updates. Your use of Google+ Pages means you have accepted the Google+ Pages Terms and your continued use of Google+ Pages means you are consenting to any updates. If you do not wish to agree to the Google+ Pages Terms, please do not use Google+ Pages.

Authority and Access

Subject to the Google+ Pages Terms, any Google+ user may create a Google+ Page, but only users with authority over the subject matter may own and/or manage the Google+ Page. You may not share login credentials for your Page. You may authorize users who have authority over the subject matter to act as managers or to become the owner of your Page. Any such user must accept these Additional Terms before becoming a manager or owner. If you transfer ownership of your Page you will no longer be able to take certain actions on the Page (for example, deleting a Page). Please see the Google+ Help Center for additional information on multiple managers and transferring ownership of your Google+ Page.

Content

Text, images, or other content posted on Google+ Pages must comply with the Google+ User Content and Conduct Policy, which are incorporated into the Google+ Pages Terms. As with Google+ profiles, your Google+ Page is public to the world. Google+ Pages are a type of Google+ profile, and each Google+ Page created has a separate Google Account associated with it. You may select appropriate restrictions (e.g. age categories) in the Google+ Pages user interface to limit interaction with your Google+ Pages by signed-in Google+ users. Google reserves the right to restrict the content on your Google+ Page at its discretion. Except as otherwise required by the Google+ Pages Terms, you may not include terms, conditions or non-Google provided technical restrictions on Google+ Pages.

Data

Google’s use of the information you provide is described in the Privacy Policy. You may not do anything to determine the identity of a visitor on your Google+ Page without the visitor’s permission. Before collecting any information from a visitor, you must first obtain the visitor’s express, prior consent, be clear that you (and not Google) are collecting the information and you must post a privacy policy that complies with applicable law.

Contests, Applications and Ads

Any contests, sweepstakes, or similar promotion on your Google +Page must also comply with the Google+ Pages Contest and Promotion Policies. You may post links to applications on Google+ Pages so long as the applications comply with the Google+ Platform Development Policies. You may not display third party advertising on your Google+ Page.

Suspension and Termination

Google reserves the right to block or remove Google+ Pages that violate law, third party rights, the Google+ Pages Terms or if you are using Google+ Pages to violate or circumvent terms or policies for other Google products or services. Repeated violations of Google+ Pages Terms, may cause your Google+ account to be suspended or your entire Google account to be terminated, depending on the seriousness of the violation. Google may, without notice, remove your Google+ Pages if they are dormant for more than nine months.

Names

You may choose any name for your Page so long as it complies with our Google+ content policies. Once you have selected a Page name, you may change it up to 3 times in a calendar year. Once your Page has a significant number of followers, we no longer allow a name change.

Local Pages

If you create, own or manage a Google+ Page in the “Local Business or Place” category then in addition to these Additional Terms you also agree to the Google Places for Business Additional Terms in relation to those Google+ Pages.

Google's Terms of Service changes boil down to privacy, security

Google's Terms of Service changes boil down to privacy, security

Summary: The new Terms will go live on Monday, November 11.
google-hq-nyc
Google has announced it will be modifying its Terms of Service soon. There are only a few changes, and while most are subtle, they do affect anyone with a Google account.

Read this

Google must review privacy policy, EU data regulators rule
European regulators have warned that the scope of Google's new consolidated privacy policy is "too large" and users must be given greater control over their data.
In a nutshell, the updates boil down to changes around privacy and security -- notably for mobile devices and social networking.
The full legalese version is already online, as well as a summary. Here's what you need to know.
For starters, users will be able to control whether or not their profile images and names appear in reviews, advertising and other commercial contexts on Google properties. This can be managed through the Shared Endorsements setting.
Google asserted that this could only happen when users take an action (i.e. +1 an item on Google+, etc.), and their images and names are only visible to contacts already designated for sharing.
The Internet giant is also taking a more proactive approach in reminding people to be cautious about their digital identities, especially on mobile devices.
Here's an example:
It’s just good common sense: Don’t use our services if you’re doing something that requires your full attention, like driving, and our services might distract you. And, of course, always follow the law while driving.
On the one hand, it does look like a way for Google to remove itself from any liability in terms of stolen devices and/or passwords. At the same time, users are the ones who need to be held responsible for their own online activity and awareness (or lack thereof), and a spelled-out reminder is a good idea.
The new Terms will go live on Monday, November 11, replacing the existing ToS policy.

Now ANYONE can find you on Facebook

Now ANYONE can find you on Facebook: Outrage as site removes privacy option for users to hide their profile in search results

  • Facebook is retiring the 'Who can look up your timeline by name?' setting
  • It removed the privacy option on accounts that weren't using it last year
  • People who have the feature enabled will soon see the setting disappear

Facebook is facing another backlash from users and privacy campaigners after announcing it is once again changing its privacy settings. 
Up until now Facebook let people hide their profiles in search results using the 'Who can look up your timeline by name?' setting, but the social networking site is retiring this feature with almost immediate effect.
The option was removed from the accounts of people who hadn't enabled it last year, and Facebook has announced it is removing the feature from everyone else's accounts starting from now.
Facebook began removing the 'Who can look up your timeline by name?' feature on accounts which weren't using it last year, but is now retiring it completely.
Facebook began removing the 'Who can look up your timeline by name?' feature on accounts which weren't using it last year, but is now retiring it completely. This means users can no longer remove themselves for search results on the site when people who aren't their friends try to find them

HOW TO CONTROL PRIVACY ON FACEBOOK

Users who still have the old setting will soon see a notice on their homepage warning them the feature is being removed.  
The best way for users to control what people can find about them is to choose an 'audience' for each of the individual things that are shared. 
In the coming weeks, people who share posts publicly on Facebook will also see a notice reminding them those posts can be seen by anyone, including people they may not know. 
They will also be given guidance on how to change the audience for each post. 
To quickly control who can find previous posts, users can go to Privacy Settings page and click 'Limit the audience of posts you’ve shared in the past'.
This means any posts that were previously shared with Friends of Friends or Public will now be shared just to Friends.
Sean Walsh, head of social media and content for Blue Claw told MailOnline: 'In a world where privacy is significant issue for many users, this is a massive step backwards for Facebook and may contribute to even more users quitting the site.'
Twitter user RisaJoyyy tweeted: 'Just realised @facebook changed privacy settings so anyone can message me. I'm so annoyed with their lack of concern for user privacy/safety.
While Nygenxer added the changes highlighted 'yet another privacy setting lost; good news for stalkers. Don't. Use. Facebook.'
The 'Who can look up your Timeline by name?' feature was applied when people searched for someone's profile using Facebook's search bar. 
Depending on the setting chosen, the profile was either completely hidden from everyone who wasn't already a Facebook friend; could only be seen by friends of friends or was only visible to certain groups or networks of people.
According to Facebook's chief privacy officer, Michael Richter: 'The setting was created when Facebook was a simple directory of profiles and it was very limited. 
'It didn’t prevent people from navigating to your Timeline by clicking your name in a story in News Feed, or from a mutual friend’s Timeline.'
He added that following the launch of Facebook's Graph Search last year, which lets people find more specific details about site members, it's important for users to be able to control the privacy of the information shared, rather than how people get to their timeline.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2454109/Facebook-removes-privacy-option-users-hide-profile-search-results.html#ixzz2hReKU9Sx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

New U.S. $100 Dollar Bill came out today. My scanner said this.

Banknotes & Counterfeit Deterrence

Every country has legal restrictions on the reproduction of banknote images. The counterfeiting of currency is a crime, and while restrictions vary from country to country, in some countries, any reproduction of banknote images – even for artistic or advertising uses – is strictly forbidden. Even in countries that allow some limited use of banknote images, there are specific rules and requirements. This website will provide you with information about reproducing banknote images and links to country-specific websites for further guidance.

While the overall economic losses to society from counterfeiting of currency are generally limited, the victims who suffer the most harm are individuals and businesses, because no one reimburses those who accept counterfeit notes. Counterfeit currency can also undermine confidence in the payment system, making the public uncertain about accepting cash for transactions.
The Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group (CBCDG) is responsible for this website. A counterfeit deterrence system (CDS) has been developed by the CBCDG to deter the use of personal computers, digital imaging equipment, and software in the counterfeiting of banknotes. The CDS has been voluntarily adopted by hardware and software manufacturers, and prevents personal computers and digital imaging tools from capturing or reproducing the image of a protected banknote. The technology does not have the capacity to track the use of a personal computer or digital imaging tools.
For information specific to a particular country or the banknote image you want to use, click on the appropriate region on the map or select the relevant country or currency from the list.


***************************************************************************************

KNOW YOUR MONEY

It's the Law

Manufacturing counterfeit United States currency or altering genuine currency to increase its value is a violation of Title 18, Section 471 of the United States Code and is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both. 

Possession of counterfeit United States obligations with fraudulent intent is a violation of Title 18, Section 472 of the United States Code and is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both. 

Anyone who manufactures a counterfeit U.S. coin in any denomination above five cents is subject to the same penalties as all other counterfeiters. Anyone who alters a genuine coin to increase its numismatic value is in violation of Title 18, Section 331 of the United States Code, which is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to five years, or both. 

Forging, altering, or trafficking in United States Government checks, bonds or other obligations is a violation of Title 18, Section 510 of the United States Code and is punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both. 

Printed reproductions, including photographs of paper currency, checks, bonds, postage stamps, revenue stamps, and securities of the United States and foreign governments (except under the conditions previously listed) are violations of Title 18, Section 474 of the United States Code. Violations are punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both.