How to Hire With a Vaccine Mandate in Place

Asking prospective employees about their vaccination status can be awkward–and possibly lead to legally sticky situations. Some prospective employees will appreciate it if your company is mandating Covid-19 vaccinations. While surgical-grade facemasks have proven somewhat effective at preventing the spread of Covid-19, a vaccine is currently the only true way to protect yourself and others from getting sick.

Others are less convinced. And if your company is in a hiring bind, as many are these days, you might need to codify and justify your safety policies. Here’s a primer on how to hire with a vaccine mandate in place.

Be transparent.

Nicolas Holand–founder of GooseSmurfs, a gaming company based in Indianapolis–has needed to hire nine new workers since July, when he added the vaccine to his company’s job requirements. He wants to avoid compromising the safety of his existing 46 employees.

“We also emphasize that this is a good thing for the candidates who may soon work in the workplace,” says Holand, noting that employees who are vaccinated are at a lower risk of contracting Covid-19 than those who remain unvaccinated. “They are more protected and resistant to any potential infection of Covid and therefore their workdays won’t be affected,” he adds.

While Holand says that so far, all of the candidates he’s hired has agreed to GooseSmurfs’s vaccination policy and most of them already had their full dose. The founder suspects he’s had a smoother time with the process because the company has been transparent and direct with its requirements on the job post itself. He says most candidates who were hesitant about the mandate likely didn’t apply. “Overall, being straightforward about the policy made the hiring process easier and seamless,” he says.

Make the vaccine a condition of employment.

When people take a job, they do so with an understanding of a job’s requirements. As an employer, you don’t want to violate that contractual agreement because it could lead to turnover. That’s why it’s crucial to outline any vaccine policies with candidates before they accept the position, says John Hooker, professor of business ethics and social responsibility at Carnegie Mellon University.

Additionally, if you have a policy in which some workers are required to be vaccinated, such as those in the office, and others are not, that rationale should be clear upfront. “It’s critical to have these kind of [policies] run across the entire company, as opposed to allowing them for some people and not for others,” says Hooker.

And if you do require a vaccine for some and not others, Hooker suggests making your reasoning known: “There must be a reason for that distinction and it shouldn’t be arbitrary.” Employees are less likely to push back on policies when they understand the rationale behind them, he says.

Don’t ask about a prospective worker’s vaccination status.

If you have a mandate in place, you likely want to know whether you will have to accommodate a new employee who isn’t vaccinated. While it’s fine to ask about a person’s vaccination status, you can’t make your hiring decision based on that person’s status alone. If a candidate is turned down for a job, and is told it is because he or she won’t receive the vaccine, they can file a discrimination lawsuit.

It is illegal both under federal and state laws to discriminate against an employee based on his or her medical condition with regard to employment decisions. It is, however, difficult for applicants to prove that a company didn’t hire them because of a health condition, says Jared Pope, HR law specialist CEO of Work Shield, a Dallas-based HR software company.

If you do decide to pass on candidates after having a conversation about their vaccination status, be cordial. Thank them for applying and let them know that you’ll keep them in mind should a position open up that would be a better fit.

An even better idea? Don’t ask at all. Talk about the company’s policy regarding vaccines during the interview process. Let the candidate know if any exceptions can be made if they choose to move forward. “Questions about the workplace can be asked and answered in an interview, and are not discriminatory or illegal in nature,” says Pope. Down the line, you can require proof of vaccination, he adds.

By Brit Morse, Assistant editor, Inc.@britnmorse

Source: https://www.inc.com/

Related Contents:

HHS – National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO)

Interior Applauds Inclusion of Insular Areas through Operation Warp Speed to Receive COVID-19 Vaccines

Asia Minute: Palau Administers Vaccines to Keep Country Free of COVID

F.D.A. Advisory Panel Gives Green Light to Pfizer Vaccine

Vaccine passports: How to prove you’ve gotten your COVID-19 shots for travel and avoid scams

Will the Excelsior Pass, New York’s Vaccine Passport, Catch On

America Needs to Win the Coronavirus Vaccine Race

FDA Sets Goals That May Put Vaccine Out of Reach Before Election

Exclusive: Pfizer CEO Discusses Submitting the First COVID-19 Vaccine Clearance Request to the FDA

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Interim Recommendation for Use of Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine

Covid-19 vaccine authorization is a ‘monumental moment’, expert says

“The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Interim Recommendation for Use of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine

Moderna Applies for Emergency F.D.A. Approval for Its Coronavirus Vaccine

Detroit mayor declines Johnson & Johnson allotment, saying the other vaccines are better

The perks of getting the COVID vaccine go beyond health

Vaccines door-to-door: Immunization push goes granular as delta variant

looms

Protecting the City from Delta: all City workers will be required to be fully vaccinated or double-masked if not fully vaccinated

IDs Aren’t The Only Fake Documents College Students Want — Now It’s Vaccine Cards Too

New California Rule Allows 75% Capacity For Movie Theaters In Yellow Tier

Here’s How You Can Show Proof of Vaccination in New York City

Florida Legislation Bans Businesses from Requiring COVID-19 Vaccine Passports

117 employees sue Houston Methodist hospital for requiring COVID-19 vaccine

Justice Amy Coney Barrett denies request to block Indiana University’s vaccine mandate

Investors, Don’t Depend on Stocks and Bonds To Hedge Each Other

There’s nothing more beautiful to a professional investor than a negative correlation between stocks and bonds. When stocks have a bad month, bonds have a good month, and vice versa. Since their zigs and zags offset each other, the value of the combined portfolio is less volatile. The customers are pleased. And that’s how it’s been for most of the last two decades.

But for almost a year now, Bloomberg market reporters have been detecting anxiety from the pros that the era of negative correlation may be over or ending, replaced by an era of positive correlation in which stock and bond prices move together, amplifying volatility instead of dampening it. “Bonds Have Never Been So Useless as a Hedge to Stocks Since 1999,” read the headline on one article this May.

Yet hope springs eternal. The headline on a July 7 article was, “Bonds Are Hinting They’ll Hedge Stocks Again as Growth Bets Ease.”

In the big picture and over long periods, it’s obvious and necessary that stock and bond returns are positively correlated. After all, they’re competing investments. Each generates a stream of income: dividends for (most) stocks, coupon payments for bonds. If stocks get very expensive, investors will shift money into bonds as a cheaper alternative until that rebalancing makes bonds more or less equally expensive. Likewise, when one of the two asset classes gets cheap it will tend to drag down the other.

When the pros talk about negative correlation they’re referring to shorter periods—say, a month or two–over which stocks and bonds can indeed move in different directions. Lately two giant money managers have produced explanations for why stocks and bonds move apart or together. They’re worth understanding even if your assets under management are in the thousands rather than billions or trillions.

Bridgewater Associates, the world’s biggest hedge fund, based in Westport, Conn., says that how stocks and bonds play with each other has to do with economic conditions and policy. “There will naturally be times when they’re negatively correlated and naturally be times when they’re positively correlated, and those come from the underlying environment itself,” senior portfolio strategist, Jeff Gardner says in an edited transcript of a recent in-house interview.

According to Gardner, inflation was the most important factor in the markets for decades—both when it rose in the 1960s and 1970s and when it fell in the 1980s and 1990s. Inflation affects stocks and bonds similarly, although it’s worse for bonds with their fixed payments than for stocks. That’s why correlation was positive during that long period.

For the past 20 years or so, inflation has been so low and steady that it’s been a non-factor in the markets. So investors have paid more attention to economic growth prospects. Strong growth is great for stocks but doesn’t do anything for bonds. That, says Gardner, is the main reason that stocks and bonds have moved in different directions.

PGIM Inc., the main asset management business of insurer Prudential Financial Inc., has $1.5 trillion under management. In a report issued in May, it puts numbers on the disappointment the pros feel when stocks and bonds start to move in sync. Let’s say a portfolio is 60% stocks and 40% bonds and has a stock-bond correlation of -0.3, which is about average for the last 20 years. Volatility is around 7%.

Now let’s say the correlation goes to zero—not positive yet, but not negative anymore, either. To keep volatility from rising, the portfolio manager would have to reduce the allocation to stocks to around 52%, which would lower the portfolio’s returns. If the stock-bond correlation reached a positive 0.3, then keeping volatility from rising would require reducing the stock allocation to only 40%, hitting returns even harder.

PGIM’s list of factors that affect correlations is longer than Bridgewater’s but consistent with it. The report by vice president Junying Shen and managing director Noah Weisberger says correlations between stocks and bonds tend to be negative when there’s sustainable fiscal policy, independent and rules-based monetary policy, and shifts up or down in the demand side of the economy (consumption).

The correlation is likely to be positive, they say, when there’s unsustainable fiscal policy, discretionary monetary policy, monetary-fiscal policy coordination, and shifts in the supply side of the economy (output). One last thought: It’s a good idea to spread your money between stocks and bonds even if they don’t hedge each other.

The capital asset pricing model developed by William Sharpe in the 1960s says everyone should have the same portfolio, consisting of every asset available, and adjust their risk by how much they borrow. True, not everyone agrees. John Rekenthaler, a vice president for research at Morningstar Inc., wrote a fun article in 2017 about the different strategies of Sharpe and fellow Nobel laureate Harry Markowitz.

Source: Investors, Don’t Depend on Stocks and Bonds to Hedge Each Other – Bloomberg

.

Related Contents:

Medieval Banking- Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries

The Earliest Securities Markets

How Venice Rigged The First, and Worst, Global Financial Collapse

A Brief History of the Stock Market

Avg Daily Trading Volume

A Brief History of Loans: Business Lending Through the Ages

The 5,000-year history of interest rates shows just how historically low US rates still are right now

Taxation in the Ancient World

Bonds Part VI: An Overview of Medieval Venetian Finance

Market capitalization of listed domestic companies

All of the World’s Stock Exchanges by Size

What’s the Difference Between Direct and Indirect Shares

Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2007 to 2010: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances

Social Interaction and Stock-Market Participation

Dutch history student finds world’s oldest share

How Private Governance Made the Modern World Possible

The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets

A Financial Revolution in the Habsburg Netherlands

Why The Market Doesn’t Care Where You Think It Should Go

Market volatility regulations

Risk management with interdependent choice

Can Health Insurance Companies Charge the Unvaccinated Higher Premiums? What About Life Insurers? 5 Questions Answered

Given the average cost of a COVID-19 hospitalization in 2020 ran about US$42,200 per patient, will the unvaccinated be asked to bear more of the cost of treatment, in terms of insurance, as well?

We asked economists Kosali Simon and Sharon Tennyson to explain the rules governing how health and life insurers can discriminate among customers based on vaccination status and other health-related reasons.

1. Can insurers charge the unvaccinated more?

This is a really interesting question and depends on the type of insurance.

Life insurance companies have the freedom to charge different premiums based on risk factors that predict mortality. Purchasing a life insurance policy often entails a health status check or medical exam, and asking for vaccination status is not banned.

Health insurers are a different story. A slew of state and federal regulations in the last three decades have heavily restricted their ability to use health factors in issuing or pricing polices. In 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act began prohibiting the use of health status in any group health insurance policy. And the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2014, prevents insurers from pricing plans according to health – with one exception: smoking status.

2. Are premiums or coverage being affected yet?

Fortune recently reported that while several of the biggest U.S. life insurance companies aren’t yet asking customers for their vaccination status, a few insurers told the magazine they are doing so for people at high risk. It wasn’t clear from the article whether this is affecting premiums.

A recent study comparing life insurance policies from 2014 through February 2021 found that premiums and coverage didn’t change a lot during the pandemic. The study did find some evidence that policy terms for the oldest individuals and those with high-risk health conditions did worsen.

The authors of the study suggested that the rapid development of vaccines may be why life insurance markets haven’t yet shown a dramatic response to COVID-19, but their work does not distinguish the vaccinated from the unvaccinated.

It’s important to note that no matter what, premiums and coverage on existing life insurance plans won’t change, so a death due to COVID-19 will definitely be covered. In general, denial of life insurance claims is rare and occurs only for specific documented reasons.

3. So smokers may pay higher premiums?

In life insurance, smokers definitely pay higher premiums, as do people who are obese.

ValuePenguin, a unit of LendingTree that provides research and analysis, found that smokers typically pay over three times more for life insurance than non-smokers.

The site also found that obesity increases premiums by about 150% – or more if the person also has medical conditions associated with being overweight.

As for health insurance pricing, the Affordable Care Act allows insurers to increase premiums by up to 50% for smokers. The difference between what smokers and non-smokers pay may actually be higher because the former can’t use a key government subsidy to pay for the smoker surcharge.

The ACA makes no similar exception for obesity.

4. How about discounts for the vaccinated?

There is a tool health insurers – including self-insured employers – have to lower premiums to those who are vaccinated: wellness incentives.

Just as insurers and companies offer discounts for things like trying to lose weight or stop smoking, they are also permitted to reduce the health insurance premiums that vaccinated employees pay.

In 2019, the average maximum incentive offered by employers for workers to participate in wellness activities was $783 per year.

Some employers are already incentivizing COVID-19 vaccinations this way. For example, Missouri State University offers a $20-a-month discount on health insurance premiums for employees who got a COVID-19 jab. Others are considering similar discounts.

And so, even though insurers can’t charge the unvaccinated higher premiums, people who refuse to get a shot can end up paying more than their vaccinated colleagues.

5. Do insurers consider other vaccine or flu shots in rates?

To the best of our knowledge, insurers haven’t specifically used vaccination status or getting a flu shot in setting premiums.

As part of having access to your medical records, life insurers might get to know whether you received vaccinations, but there are no systems in place to verify each year whether you got your flu shot. Health insurers can’t ask about vaccine status for the reasons listed above.

Employers can offer incentives to get a flu shot through their wellness programs.

[Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter.]The Conversation

Kosali Simon, Professor of Health Economics, Indiana University and Sharon Tennyson, Professor of Public Policy and Economics, Cornell University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

By:

Source: Can Health Insurance Companies Charge the Unvaccinated Higher Premiums? What About Life Insurers? 5 Questions Answered – HealthyWomen

.

Related Links:

Apple Aims to Push More Patient Data to Doctors. But Who Can Gauge Its Impact on Health?

Why We Missed Hugs

Female Scientists Set Back by the Pandemic May Never Make up Lost Time

5 Tips From a Play Therapist to Help Kids Express Themselves and

My Wife Has Severe Heart Disease

Clinically Speaking: Questions to Ask Your HCP About Cardiovascular Disease

Think You Know What ADHD Is? Think Again.

5 Best Apps to Cultivate a Meditation Habit

Getting Caught Up on Back-to-School Vaccines

Herd Immunity: What It Is and What It Has to Do With Your Child

Tips for a Safe and Healthy Return to School

Bitcoin Beach: The Cryptocurrency Experiment In El Salvador’s El Zonte

Last week, El Salvador’s legislature voted to become the first country in the world to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender. While the U.S. dollar will still be El Salvador’s official currency, all businesses in the country will have to start accepting Bitcoin barring extenuating circumstances (like lack of technological resources), and citizens will be able to pay their taxes and debts with the cryptocurrency.

The government is hoping that this futuristic economic policy will attract investment from cryptocurrency businesses, provide transformative financial resources for the 70 percent of El Salvadorans who are unbanked, and facilitate remittances, which amount to about 20 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. And, true to the madcap spirit of the Bitcoin community, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has already directed a state-owned geothermal electric firm to start constructing Bitcoin mining facilities that will be powered by heat from the country’s volcanoes.

At the same time, critics have pointed out that the plan is very light on details and that Bitcoin is notoriously difficult to use as a day-to-day currency partly due to its volatility. In addition, there’s a good chance that a large swath of businesses in the country won’t even be able to feasibly accept the cryptocurrency; El Salvador has lowest rates of internet penetration in Latin America. Bukele, however, has been pointing to a small Salvadoran beach town called El Zonte where residents have been using Bitcoin for nearly two years as evidence that the cryptocurrency could help power the economy nationwide.

El Zonte is a village on the Pacific coast that has a population of about 3,000 people and is popular for surfing and fishing. While a beach town might sound affluent, El Zonte is not: According to Reuters, “El Zonte is visibly poor, with dirt roads and a faulty drainage system,” In 2019, an anonymous donor in the U.S. reportedly began sending Bitcoin to nonprofits in the area with the aim of finding ways to build a sustainable cryptocurrency ecosystem in the community.

Then nonprofit workers in El Zonte, in consultation with the donor, launched Bitcoin Beach, an initiative that injected the cryptocurrency into the local economy, set people up with digital wallets, and helped businesses set up systems to accept Bitcoin payments. Residents use a Venmo-like app payment system for exchanging Bitcoin, which was developed by a tech company in California called Galoy Money. Using the app, people can see which businesses accept Bitcoin and look one another up by username.

“This was just the perfect laboratory,” said Chris Hunter, co-founder of Galoy, of El Zonte. Hunter says El Zonte was a prime location for test-driving a Bitcoin payment system because of the lack of regulatory and tax burdens, the fact that most merchants and people don’t have credit cards, and dollarization of El Salvador’s economy. (El Salvador is one of around a dozen countries and territories that use the U.S. dollar as their official currency.)

He admits, though, that trying to get cryptocurrency systems up and running for an entire country is going to be exponentially more difficult than doing so for a 3,000-person village, and expressed skepticism that the government will meet its goal of getting the infrastructure in place by early September. “To support millions of people not just holding Bitcoin but spending it too, it’s certainly technically feasible. But to figure that out in 90 days is a pretty tight timeline,” Hunter said.

Although there has been some success in integrating Bitcoin into El Zonte’s economy—about 90 percent of families in the town have made a crypto transaction, according to Bitcoin Beach, to pay for things like groceries, utilities, and medical care—the project has not been without its obstacles. Reports indicate that some residents have struggled to access the payment system because of limited data plans and lack of access to more advanced smartphones.

Hunter claims that most people in the town seem to have lower-end Android phones that can support Bitcoin transactions, though he admits developers did run into some issues with getting the lower-resolution cameras on the devices to detect QR codes at local businesses. He also said that the local cell network in El Zonte is good enough for transactions.

But the reasons why crypto investors were drawn to El Zonte do not hold true throughout the country. Only 45 percent of the population in El Salvador has internet access.  It remains to be seen how exactly the national government thinks it will improve connectivity, particularly in rural areas, and get powerful enough devices into peoples’ hands to support a bitcoin economy. Bukele has floated the idea of building a network of satellites to improve coverage, but that obviously would take quite a while to implement.

Volatility remains a concern as well. In May, Bitcoin prices took a 30 percent dive after China implemented new digital currency restrictions and Tesla announced that it would no longer be accepting the cryptocurrency as payment. Around that time, Hunter says there was a corresponding decrease in the number of Bitcoin transactions in El Zonte. By all appearances, people were waiting for the value to go up again before using it.

Steve Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University and director of the Cato institute’s Troubled Currencies Project, worries that average consumers and business owners won’t want to constantly engage in this sort of speculation when deciding whether to use their money. “Businesses tend to unload Bitcoin as fast as they can because of the fluctuating exchange rate. If you receive it in the morning, it could easily be down 5 or 10 percent by the close of business,” said Hanke. “Are you running a business in which you’re speculating in Bitcoin, or are you running a business where you’re selling clothes or shoes?”

Bukele has said that the government will set up a $150 million fund so that people can immediately cash out their Bitcoin for dollars, thus shielding them from some of the volatility. The details of this part of the plan are also scant, however, and Hanke notes that there’s a danger in El Salvador establishing itself as a country with permissive financial regulations that’s willing to exchange dollars for Bitcoin at any time.

For criminals who are in possession of large amounts of Bitcoin, El Salvador could be an attractive place to cash out. In the worst-case scenario, Hanke says, “You could essentially have Bitcoin holders who want greenbacks that are in a position to basically vacuum up all of the greenbacks that exist in El Salvador, and the place would collapse without it.”

By Aaron Mak

Source: Bitcoin Beach: The cryptocurrency experiment in El Salvador’s El Zonte

.

More Contents:

If You’re Still Working at 65, How To Avoid Costly Medicare Mistakes

Key Points
  • You could face lifelong late-enrollment penalties if you don’t sign up for Medicare when you’re supposed to.
  • The rules for enrollment when you already have insurance through your job depend partly on whether your employer is large or small.
  • It’s important to know that once you sign up for Medicare, even if only for Part A (hospital coverage), you can no longer contribute to a health savings account.

Workers who are nearing age 65 and have health insurance through their job may want to consider how Medicare could factor into their medical coverage.

While not everyone must sign up for Medicare at that age of eligibility, many are required to enroll — or otherwise face lifelong late-enrollment penalties.

“The biggest mistake … is to assume that you don’t need Medicare and to miss enrolling in it when you should have,” said Danielle Roberts, co-founder of insurance firm Boomer Benefits.

Roughly 10 million workers are in the 65-and-older crowd, or 17.9% of that age group, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The general rule for Medicare signup is that unless you meet an exception, you get a seven-month enrollment window that starts three months before your 65th birthday month and ends three months after it. Having qualifying insurance through your employer is one of those exceptions. Here’s what to know.

The basics

Original, or basic, Medicare consists of Part A (hospital coverage) and Part B (outpatient care coverage).

Part A has no premium as long as you have at least a 10-year work history of contributing to the program through payroll (or self-employment) taxes. Part B comes with a standard monthly premium of $148.50 for 2021, although higher-income beneficiaries pay more through monthly adjustments (see chart below).

Some 43% of individuals choose to get their Parts A and B benefits delivered through an Advantage Plan (Part C), which typically includes prescription drugs (Part D) and may or may not have a premium.

The remaining beneficiaries stick with basic Medicare and may pair it with a so-called Medigap policy and a stand-alone Part D plan. Be aware that higher-income beneficiaries pay more for drug coverage, as well (see chart below).

Remember that late-enrollment penalties last a lifetime. For Part B, that surcharge is 10% for each 12-month period you could have had it but didn’t sign up. For Part D, the penalty is 1% of the base premium ($33.06 in 2021) multiplied by the number of full, uncovered months you didn’t have Part D or creditable coverage.Working at a large company

The general rule for workers at companies with at least 20 employees is that you can delay signing up for Medicare until you lose your group insurance (i.e., you retire).

Many people with large group health insurance delay Part B but sign up for Part A because it’s free. “It doesn’t hurt you to have it,” Roberts said. However, she said, if you happen to have a health savings account paired with a high-deductible health plan through your employer, be aware that you cannot make contributions once you enroll in Medicare, even if only Part A.

Also, if you stay with your current coverage and delay all or parts of Medicare, make sure the plan is considered qualifying coverage for both Parts B and D. If you’re uncertain whether you need to sign up, it’s worth checking with your human resources department or your insurance carrier.

“I find it is always good to just confirm,” said Elizabeth Gavino, founder of Lewin & Gavino and an independent broker and general agent for Medicare plans. Some 65-year-olds with younger spouses also might want to keep their group plan. Unlike your company’s option, spouses must qualify on their own for Medicare — either by reaching age 65 or having a disability if younger than that — regardless of your own eligibility.If your employer is small

If you have health insurance through a company with fewer than 20 employees, you should sign up for Medicare at 65 regardless of whether you stay on the employer plan. If you do choose to remain on it, Medicare is your primary insurance. However, it may be more cost-effective in this situation to drop the employer coverage and pick up Medigap and a Part D plan — or, alternatively, an Advantage Plan — instead of keeping the work plan as secondary insurance.

Often, workers at small companies pay more in premiums than employees at larger firms. The average premium for single coverage through employer-sponsored health insurance is $7,470, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. However, employees contribute an average of $1,243 — or about 17% — with their company covering the remainder.

At small firms, the employee’s share might be far higher. For example, 28% are in a plan that requires them to contribute more than half of the premium for family coverage, compared with 4% of covered workers at large firms. Original Medicare consists of Part A (hospital coverage) and Part B (outpatient care coverage). Excluding limited exceptions, there is no coverage related to dental, vision or hearing, which can lead to beneficiaries forgoing care.

“It would be a significant improvement [to provide coverage] for people who often go without needed care because they can’t afford it and for people who pay a lot for the care they need,” said Tricia Neuman, executive director for the Kaiser Family Foundation’s program on Medicare policy. Some beneficiaries get limited coverage for dental, vision and hearing if they choose to get their Parts A and B benefits delivered through an Advantage Plan (Part C), which often include those extras. About 40% of beneficiaries are enrolled in Advantage Plans.

However, Lipschutz said, the extra coverage generally is not comprehensive. On the other hand, if expanded benefits — no matter how generous — were required under original Medicare, they’d become standard in an Advantage Plan.

Source: If you’re still working at 65, how to avoid costly Medicare mistakes

.

More Contents:

SPAC deals face mounting lawsuits and regulation risks: CNBC After Hours

4 Ways to Revolutionize Risk Management

In an uncertain climate where risk is rife, the call for a more holistic approach to risk management has never been greater.

Despite new risks having emerged amid the volatile global environment, existing risks such as cybercrime and climate change haven’t gone away. Compounding this are new regulations on the horizon, such as those recommended in the Brydon Review in the U.K., where it’s likely we’ll see increased scrutiny over risk management, compliance and internal controls in the coming months.

The rapid pace of change in the past year has undoubtedly created significant short-term challenges for organizations worldwide, but only now are the long-term consequences beginning to manifest themselves.

Arguably, Covid-19 has highlighted deficiencies in risk management that otherwise might never have been brought to light. What’s clear is that those who have taken a more dynamic and frequent approach to their risk practices have been better able to future-proof their business and tackle the ongoing turbulence initiated by the pandemic.

Here are some ways organizations can enhance their performance in four of today’s key risk areas, while maintaining rigorous compliance and agility:

Innovation risk,..

As innovation rises, so too do risks. Yet conversely, the risk of not innovating can be just as high. This places a considerable onus on risk managers to help their organizations strike the right balance between risk and reward.

Due to the nature of innovation, propositions are often in a constant state of development, rendering point-in-time engagement from risk executives impractical. For risk management to be effective, it must be embedded throughout the development process, with continuous interaction between risk and innovation teams. Furthermore, risk controls should be an integral part of product design, especially in the face of regulations such as GDPR, which maintains “privacy by design” as one of its leading principles.

Innovation risks undoubtedly alter the risk profile of an organization and potentially fuel other technology-related risks such as cybercrime and fraud—creating another strong case for implementing new risk controls and a wider discipline of digital conduct.

One prime example of innovation risk managed well is offered by e-commerce giant JD.com, whose radical advances in mitigation technology and robotics have increased the retailer’s stock price by 97% in the past year.

Cybersecurity risk

At the same time that organizations are expanding their digital footprints, cyber threats are growing exponentially in their sophistication. Although this has largely made traditional risk management frameworks unworkable, a data-driven approach can help businesses to better quantify cyber risk and sense check their cyber-response capabilities.

Data can be derived from multiple sources including audit findings, threat intelligence tools, asset life cycles and defect management to help build a real-time picture of risk, while providing key insights to the security team and senior leaders for more informed decision-making.

That said, a cyber-risk framework is only as good as an organization’s first line of defense: its valued employees. An all-hands-on-deck style is the surest way to instill a culture of cybersecurity accountability at all levels of the business, supported through training courses and robust policies to raise awareness of today’s ever-evolving cyber risks.

By identifying and addressing vulnerabilities before they become an issue, risk professionals can reduce the likelihood of their organization being a sitting target and thus protect their end clients as they continue their digitalization journey.

ESG risk

Rising expectations from stakeholders in recent years have indicated that high environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance can lead to improved profitability and business opportunities.

Microsoft is one such case in point, becoming the first company in its sector to target a “carbon negative” status by 2030. Since creating a $1 billion fund to reduce emissions and carbon usage, Microsoft received the highest ESG rating (AAA) from MSCI ESG Research in 2019.

A failure to incorporate ESG—covering a wide set of issues—into enterprise risk management practices could see businesses lagging behind their peers, particularly if they do not make the connection between ESG and materiality.

While laws and regulations mandating disclosure are a key driver for putting forth a robust ESG strategy, businesses should adopt an approach that transcends simply meeting compliance requirements. A critical starting point is to develop a purposeful culture around ESG that is exemplified at the top and instilled throughout the organization.

Board oversight is also crucial to the effective integration of ESG risk management and subsequent long-term sustainability. Senior leaders should work closely with risk teams to monitor ESG performance against the company’s goals, making activities such as megatrend analysis, media monitoring and regular ESG materiality assessments a core part of the wider ERM framework.

Continue Reading About risk management

Regulatory risk

With the regulatory landscape changing rapidly, businesses that rely on antiquated, reactive ways of managing compliance risks could open themselves up to a host of negative repercussions, from both a financial and reputational standpoint.

However, an integrated compliance framework facilitated by technology can not only enable companies to be more risk-intelligent, but can also help keep compliance standards in check, ensuring that policies are adhered to at all levels of the organization.

Coupled with a best-practice strategy for managing regulatory compliance risk, today’s advances in automation and regtech can provide a 360-degree view of compliance while delivering meaningful insights and highlighting gaps in processes or deviation from policy.

Moreover, as authorities place increased focus on the quality and completeness of regulatory data, businesses will need to show that they have systematic controls and tools in place to provide accurate regulatory and compliance reporting. By putting transparency at the heart of regulatory risk management through digital means, organizations can have the confidence that their regulatory obligations are being met, mitigating the chance of them falling afoul of noncompliance.

With a focus on high-level risks as well as the more granular impact of risk across the board, businesses will not only benefit from a competitive advantage in future, but also greater resilience and compliance in times of extreme disruption. Are you ready for a risk management revolution?

Discover Ideagen’s market-leading Pentana Compliance solution and how it can help to protect your financial services organization from regulatory risk.

Gordon McKeown

Gordon McKeown, Head of ARC Product, Ideagen

This article originally appeared on Business Reporter. Image credits: Header image: iStock 1181145608. Headshot: Courtesy of Ideagen.

Source: 4 Ways to Revolutionize Risk Management

.

More Contents:

Improving Both Sides of the Digital Banking Experience

The Pull of Data Gravity
Customers Make it Clear: Time to Adopt Green Packaging

Covid-19 and Wildfires Spell Big Business for the Air Purifier Industry

Third Hottest July Ever Shows How Even Modest Global Warming Looks

Biden Sets U.S. Goal for Clean Cars to Be Half of 2030 Sales

Traffic Crashes Are Getting Worse. Car Ads Are Part Of the Problem.

More People Live in Flood Zones Than Previously Thought

The Plexes of Montreal Make Room for Change

Suburbs of Surveillance

Americans Are Willing to Take Pay Cuts to Never Go Into the Office Again

London Home Buyers Are Heading for the Suburbs in Record Numbers

Ex-Wife’s Property, Utah Ranch: How Wealthy Secure High Bails

Think You Know Your Bitcoin From Dogecoin? Test Your Crypto Knowledge

Tokyo Olympics Kicks Off in the Shadow of Covid

Bitcoin’s Back to $40,000: The Week in Crypto

Billionaires Are Giving Away Their Money. Here’s Where It’s Going

Covid Shows Just How Badly We Need to Close the Digital Divide

The Woman Who Did Facebook’s Racial Audit Is About to Be Really Busy

Eskom Is Seeking $2.3 Billion From Development Institutions

Marvel Calls on Asian Superheroes to Repeat Black Panther Success

New SEC Boss Wants More Crypto Oversight to Protect Investors

It’s become a parlor game in Washington, on Wall Street, and in Silicon Valley to figure out where U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler stands on cryptocurrencies. Industry lobbyists tune in when he testifies before Congress. Lawyers parse his speeches. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. wealth advisers recently boasted in a research report about looking for clues in 29 hours of the Blockchain and Money course he developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

That’s an arduous but perhaps not novel undertaking, since videos of the classes have garnered millions of views online, something that amazes even Gensler. In his first extensive interview about the digital money craze, Gensler signaled that his deep interest in the subject doesn’t mean he’s simpatico with the hands-off oversight approach that many enthusiasts would like to see.

Policymakers have struggled with how to respond to the mostly unregulated $1.6 trillion market, which has seen explosive growth and wild price swings. Gensler is contemplating a robust oversight regime, centered on establishing safeguards for the millions of investors who’ve been stocking their portfolios with tokens. “While I’m neutral on the technology, even intrigued—I spent three years teaching it, leaning into it—I’m not neutral about investor protection,” says Gensler, who on Tuesday will give a speech about crypto at the Aspen Security Forum.

“If somebody wants to speculate, that’s their choice, but we have a role as a nation to protect those investors against fraud.” Gensler has asked Congress to pass a law that could give the agency the legal authority to monitor crypto exchanges, but he says the SEC’s powers are already broad. There’s been much discussion over the years about which kinds of digital assets fall under the SEC’s purview.

Some such as Bitcoin that act like currencies are considered commodities, not securities. But there are thousands of other coins, and Gensler believes most are unregistered securities that must comply with SEC rules. Broadly he noted that technology has sparked economic progress throughout human history, and he sees a similar boost from digital assets. That may only come, however, with strong and thoughtful regulation.

As an analogy, he says the automobile industry didn’t fully take off until governments laid out driving rules. Speed limits and traffic lights provided public safety but also helped cars become mainstream. “It’s only with bringing things inside—and sort of clearly within our public policy goals—that a technology has a chance of broader adoption,” he says.

Hester Peirce, a Republican commissioner on the SEC known for her advocacy of light-touch regulation of digital assets, says she’s eager to work with Gensler. “A lot people just want more clarity,” she says. “I come from a perspective that people should have the maximum freedom to engage in transactions they want to engage in voluntarily. Society needs to have that discussion about what is the right regulatory framework.”

Gensler didn’t give a timeline for any SEC action. He has a to-do list that includes 49 non-crypto policy reviews that could slow progress on cryptocurrencies. Many are high-profile and time-consuming efforts, like responding to the GameStop Corp. trading frenzy and the blow-up of the Archegos family office. The SEC is also working to impose new rules that would require companies to disclose carbon emissions and other environmental risks, a Biden administration priority.

Nor would Gensler comment on the potential for approving a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund, a decision that many in the crypto world are eagerly awaiting, because it would provide an easy on-ramp for investors. A Bitcoin ETF would invest in the cryptocurrency and then trade its shares on the stock market. So far the SEC has balked at permitting such funds, citing concerns about the risk of fraud and manipulation in the Bitcoin market.

Gensler has spoken positively about the ETFs during his days at MIT, giving advocates hope that he’s a supporter. Peirce says it’s “high time” the SEC approved a crypto ETF. Behind the scenes, Gensler has pushed the agency’s staff members to take a look at an array of potential policy changes. He says there are at least seven SEC initiatives looking at different crypto issues: initial coin offerings, trading venues, lending platforms, decentralized finance, stable value coins, custody, and ETFs and other coin funds. “I’ve asked the staff to use all of our authorities anywhere we can,” he says.

Gensler says he thinks regulating crypto exchanges is perhaps the easiest way for the government to get a quick handle on digital token trading. But he’s also concerned about new ways people are getting into crypto, such as peer-to-peer lending on so-called decentralized finance, or DeFi, platforms. If firms are advertising a specific interest-rate return on a crypto asset, Gensler says, that could bring the loans under SEC oversight. Platforms that pool digital assets could be seen as akin to mutual funds, potentially allowing the SEC to regulate them.

Gensler was chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) during the Obama administration, where he was responsible for bringing federal oversight to the huge market for derivatives known as swaps after the financial crisis. Patrick McCarty, who teaches a class on cryptocurrencies at Georgetown University’s law school, says Gensler’s understanding of digital assets means he will give the industry a “fair hearing,” though he will likely disappoint many proponents.

“When the crypto people say they want legal certainty, they don’t mean that—they want to be unregulated,” McCarty says. “That’s never been Gary’s point of view.” Christine Trent Parker, who focuses on crypto assets as a law partner at Reed Smith in New York, says that although new SEC rules would bring more certainty to the industry, they also could divide the policing of the market more starkly—with the CFTC focused on markets linked to virtual currencies such as Bitcoin and the SEC handling much of the rest.

“Right now the lines are fuzzy because we have speeches and enforcement and court orders,” instead of bright-line regulation, she says. “If the SEC has sort of a broad framework that pulls in all of the other digital assets, then you have this bifurcated marketplace.” Others have argued that new token developers need some regulatory flexibility to encourage innovation.

Gensler also sits on the Treasury-led Financial Stability Oversight Council and the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, which recently held a meeting on the impact of stablecoins. These are crypto tokens that are supposed to be backed by traditional currencies such as the U.S. dollar, and they’ve become a huge part of the crypto trading system. Regulators worry about what could happen if some stablecoin didn’t turn out to be worth what it was supposed to be—prompting an exodus akin to a run on a bank or a money-market fund.

Gensler’s views on the panels carry weight, people who follow the issue note, because unlike, say, the Treasury secretary or Federal Reserve chairman, he has real crypto cred. His understanding of blockchain and digital assets comes largely from the several years he spent at MIT. Along with creating the cryptocurrency course, he’s been a frequent guest at industry conferences—sometimes speaking 30 to 50 times a year—mixing with deep thinkers and entrepreneurs.

He quotes writings of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, from memory and knew some of the core developers of the digital currency. The 63-year-old former Goldman Sachs partner traveled an unlikely path to becoming one of the government’s foremost cryptocurrency experts. It started in 2017, when as chief financial officer of Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign he had the lonely job of closing up shop, paying off the final bills, and deciding what to do with the abandoned computers and office supplies.

Like many of his shell-shocked former colleagues, Gensler was looking for something to do—and somewhere to sit out Donald Trump’s presidency. The answer came from economist Simon Johnson, an MIT professor who encouraged Gensler to come to Cambridge, Mass., and teach. Looking to nurture a long-held interest in the intersection of technology and finance, Gensler jumped at the opportunity.

Although he didn’t know much about digital tokens, he connected with people who were part of the university’s burgeoning Digital Currency Initiative and even audited a course in crypto programming. When he suggested MIT teach more about finance and digital money, he was given the job. Little did he know that in a few years he’d have a chance to put his academic studies to real-world use. “Life sometimes is a bit of serendipity,’’ he says.

By: Robert Schmidt

Source: Will Government Regulate Crypto? SEC Chair Gary Gensler on Bitcoin and Oversight – Bloomberg

.

Related Contents:

Macau Gaming Revenue Recovery Slows Amid Travel Restrictions

U.S. Debt Ceiling Suspension Ends, Congress Unclear on Next Step

Grounded Pilots Swamp Aviation Recruiters in Fight for Jobs

Florida Breaks Record; Biden Struggles on Delta: Virus Update

Wildly Diverging Estimates Seen for U.S. August High-Grade Credit Supply 

Massive Stimulus Looks Here to Stay as BOE to Echo Fed: Eco Week

Treasury Traders Eye Supply-Demand Risks With Yields Near Lows

Program That Pays Big Insurers Billions Funneled to Homeless Care

Kenya Resumes China Debt Repayment With $761 Million Remittance

Anti-Vax App Squares Off With Google, Apple Over Misinformation

Crypto Investors Get Ready for More Taxes — but Clearer Rules

Biden’s Struggles on Delta Overshadow Infrastructure Victory

More Job Ads Disclose Wages as U.S. Employers Grow Desperate

Cathie Wood Is Just a Start as Stock Pickers Storm the ETF World

Tree-Planting Pledges Fall Short of Climate Change Goals

From Miners to Big Oil, the Great Commodity Cash Machine is Back

Climate Goals at Risk If Only Rich Countries Adopt Electric Cars

Why Wall Street Is Afraid of Government-Backed Digital Dollar

Imagine Imagine logging on to your own account with the U.S. Federal Reserve. With your laptop or phone, you could zap cash anywhere instantly. There’d be no middlemen, no fees, no waiting for deposits or payments to clear.

That vision sums up the appeal of the digital dollar, the dream of futurists and the bane of bankers. It’s not the Bitcoin bros and other cryptocurrency fans pushing the disruptive idea but America’s financial and political elite. Fed Chair Jerome Powell promises fresh research and a set of policy questions for Congress to ponder this summer. J. Christopher Giancarlo, a former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, is rallying support through the nonprofit Digital Dollar Project, a partnership with consulting giant Accenture Plc. To perpetuate American values such as free enterprise and the rule of law, “we should modernize the dollar,” he recently told a U.S. Senate banking subcommittee.

For now the dollar remains the premier global reserve currency and preferred legal tender for international trade and financial transactions. But a new flavor of cryptocurrency could pose a threat to that dominance, which is part of the reason the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston has been working with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on developing prototypes for a digital-dollar platform.

Other governments, notably China’s, are ahead in digitizing their currencies. In these nations, regulators worry that the possibilities for fraud are multiplying as more individuals embrace cryptocurrency. Steven Mnuchin, former President Donald Trump’s treasury secretary, said he saw no immediate need for a digital dollar. His successor, Janet Yellen, has expressed interest in studying it. Support for a virtual greenback cuts across party lines in Congress, which will have a say on whether it becomes reality.

At a hearing in June, Senators Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, and John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, signaled openness to the idea. Warren and other Democrats stressed the potential of the digital dollar to offer free services to low-income families who now pay high banking fees or are shut out of the system altogether.

Kennedy and fellow Republicans see a financial equivalent of the space race that pitted the U.S. against the Soviet Union—a battle for prestige, power, and first-mover advantage. This time the adversary is China, which announced this month that more than 10 million citizens are now eligible to participate in ongoing trials.

The strongest opposition to a virtual dollar will come from U.S. banks. They rely on $17 trillion in deposits to fund much of their core business, profiting from the difference between what they pay in interest to account holders and what they charge for loans. Banks also earn billions of dollars annually from overdraft, ATM, and account maintenance fees. By creating a digital currency, the Federal Reserve would in effect be competing with banks for customers.

In a recent blog post, Greg Baer, president of the Bank Policy Institute, which represents the industry, warned that homebuyers, businesses, and other customers would find it harder and more expensive to borrow money if the Fed were to infringe on the private sector’s historical central role in finance. “The Federal Reserve would gain extraordinary power,” wrote Baer, a former assistant treasury secretary in the Clinton administration.

Some economists warn that a digital dollar could destabilize the banking system. The federal government offers bank depositors $250,0000 in insurance, a program that’s successfully prevented bank runs since the Great Depression. But in a 2008-style financial panic, depositors might with a single click pull all their savings out of banks and convert them into direct obligations of the U.S. government.

“In a crisis, this may actually make matters worse,” says Eswar Prasad, a professor at Cornell University and the author of a book on digital currencies that will be published in September. Whether a virtual dollar is even necessary remains up for debate. For large companies, cross-border interbank payments are already fast, limiting the appeal of digital currencies. Early adopters of Bitcoin may have won an investment windfall as its value soared, but its volatility makes it a poor substitute for a reliable government-backed currency such as the dollar.

Yet there’s a new kind of crypto, called stablecoin, that could pose a threat to the dollar’s dominance. Similar to the other digital currencies, it’s essentially a string of code tracked and authenticated via an online ledger. But it has a crucial difference from Bitcoin and its ilk: Its value is pegged to a sovereign currency like the dollar, so it offers stability as well as privacy.

In June 2019, Facebook Inc. announced it was developing a stablecoin called Libra ( since renamed Diem). The social media giant’s 2.85 billion active users worldwide represent a huge test market. “That was a game changer,” Prasad says. “That served as a catalyst for a lot of central banks.”

Regulators also have concerns about consumer protection. Stablecoin is only as stable as the network of private participants who manage it on the web. Should something go wrong, holders could find themselves empty-handed. That prospect places pressure on governments to come up with their own alternatives.

Although the Fed has been studying the idea of a digital dollar since at least 2017, crucial details, including what role private institutions will play, remain unresolved. In the Bahamas, the only country with a central bank digital currency, authorized financial institutions are allowed to offer e-wallets for handling sand dollars, the virtual counterpart to the Bahamian dollar.

If depositors flocked to the virtual dollar, banks would need to find another way to fund their loans. Advocates of a digital dollar float the possibility of the Fed lending to banks so they could write loans. To help banks preserve deposits, the government could also set a ceiling on how much digital currency citizens can hold. In the Bahamas the amount is capped at $8,000.

Lev Menand, an Obama administration treasury adviser, cautions against such compromises, saying the priority should be offering unfettered access to a central bank digital currency, or CBDC. Menand, who now lectures at Columbia Law School, says that because this idea would likely require the passage of legislation, Congress faces a big decision: to create “a robust CBDC or a skim milk sort of product that has been watered down as a favor to big banks.”

By: Christopher Condon

Source: Cryptocurrency: Why Wall Street Is Afraid of Government-Backed Digital Dollar – Bloomberg

.

Critics:

Wall Street is warming up to the idea that the next big disruptive force on the horizon is central bank digital currencies, even though the Federal Reserve likely remains a few years away from developing its own.

Led by countries as large as China and as small as the Bahamas, digital money is drawing stronger interest as the future of an increasingly cashless society. A digital dollar would resemble cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin or ethereum in some limited respects, but differ in important ways.

Rather than be a tradable asset with wildly fluctuating prices and limited use, the central bank digital currency would function more like dollars and have widespread acceptance. It also would be fully regulated and under a central authority.

Myriad questions remain before an institution as large as the Fed will wade in. But the momentum is building around the world. As the Fed and other central banks work through those logistical issues, Wall Street is growing in anticipation over what the future will hold.

“The race towards Digital Money 2.0 is on,” Citigroup said in a report. “Some have framed it as a new Space Race or Digital Currency Cold War. In our view, it doesn’t have to be a zero sum game — there’s a lot of room for the overall digital pie to grow.”

There, however, has been at least the semblance of a race, and China is perceived as taking the early lead. With the launch of a digital yuan last year, some fear that the edge China has ultimately could undermine the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. Though China said that is not its objective, a Bank of America report notes that issuing digital dollars would let the U.S. currency “remain highly competitive … relative to other currencies.”

References:

Does Getting The COVID-19 Vaccine Affect Your Life Insurance Policy

You can’t always believe what you read on social media, especially when it comes to medical information amid the coronavirus pandemic.

A May 2021 Instagram post went viral claiming that a user’s family was denied a life insurance benefit because the deceased had gotten the “experimental” COVID-19 vaccine. But the vaccines made by Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have all received emergency use authorizations. The post has been flagged as a false claim, and it shows no supporting evidence.

In fact, life insurers cannot deny a death benefit because the deceased is vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI). “The fact is that life insurers do not consider whether or not a policyholder has received a COVID vaccine when deciding whether to pay a claim. Life insurance policy contracts are very clear on how policies work, and what cause, if any, might lead to the denial of a benefit. A vaccine for COVID-19 is not one of them,” Paul Graham, ACLI senior vice president said.

People who are hesitant to get vaccinated because they don’t want to lose insurance benefits can rest assured that the COVID-19 vaccine won’t have an effect on death benefit payouts.

In fact, now is a good time to take a look at your life insurance coverage to make sure your loved ones will be taken care of in the event of your death. You can compare life insurance policies on Credible to make sure you’re getting a fair quote for a comprehensive plan.

“The fact is that life insurers do not consider whether or not a policyholder has received a COVID vaccine when deciding whether to pay a claim. Life insurance policy contracts are very clear on how policies work, and what cause, if any, might lead to the denial of a benefit. A vaccine for COVID-19 is not one of them.”

– Paul Graham, ACLI senior vice president

WANT CHEAP LIFE INSURANCE? CONSIDER THESE STRATEGIES

3 legitimate reasons why insurers can deny a death benefit claim

While life insurers can’t deny a death benefit because of your vaccination status, there are reasons why a death claim can be rightfully denied.

  1. The deceased died within 2 years of taking out the policy. In most states, the insurance company can investigate the policyholder’s medical records to see if there were any misrepresentations on their policy.
  2. The deceased had an Accidental Death & Dismemberment (AD&D) policy. This type of life insurance policy doesn’t cover medical-related deaths or deaths by suicide.
  3. The deceased was not paying premiums. The insurance company may not be obligated to pay out the death benefit if the policyholder was not paying their premiums and the policy was terminated.

It’s important to understand the specifics of your life insurance policy so that your beneficiaries aren’t caught off-guard in the event of your death. Check your policy agreement to learn more. If you’re not satisfied with your level of coverage, you can shop for a new life insurance policy on Credible.

If you die from COVID-19 complications, will your beneficiaries get a death benefit?

Yes, insurance companies will pay out for deaths from coronavirus-related circumstances. However, the insurer may not pay the death benefit if the policy premiums were in nonpayment, as mentioned above.

Getting vaccinated against COVID-19 is an effective way to protect yourself from the adverse health effects stemming from COVID-19, including death.

DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH LIFE INSURANCE COVERAGE?

Will getting a COVID-19 vaccine make you ineligible for life insurance?

We already know that being vaccinated against COVID-19 isn’t a reason for a life insurance company to deny a death benefit. Insurers also cannot prevent you from taking out a policy because you’ve received the COVID-19 vaccine.

In a statement released March 15, 2021, the Life Insurance Council of New York confirmed that “receiving a COVID-19 vaccination has absolutely no bearing on a life insurer’s decision to pay a claim or issue new coverage.”

Regardless of your vaccination status, you can shop for life insurance on Credible’s online marketplace.

CONSIDERING BUYING TERM LIFE INSURANCE? 4 QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF

Source: Does getting the COVID-19 vaccine affect your life insurance policy? | Fox Business

.

Critics:

Life insurance (or life assurance, especially in the Commonwealth of Nations) is a contract between an insurance policy holder and an insurer or assurer, where the insurer promises to pay a designated beneficiary a sum of money upon the death of an insured person (often the policy holder). Depending on the contract, other events such as terminal illness or critical illness can also trigger payment. The policy holder typically pays a premium, either regularly or as one lump sum. The benefits may include other expenses, such as funeral expenses.

Life policies are legal contracts and the terms of each contract describe the limitations of the insured events. Often, specific exclusions written into the contract limit the liability of the insurer; common examples include claims relating to suicide, fraud, war, riot, and civil commotion. Difficulties may arise where an event is not clearly defined, for example: the insured knowingly incurred a risk by consenting to an experimental medical procedure or by taking medication resulting in injury or death.

Life-based contracts tend to fall into two major categories:

  • Protection policies: designed to provide a benefit, typically a lump-sum payment, in the event of a specified occurrence. A common form—more common in years past[when?]—of a protection-policy design is term insurance.
  • Investment policies: the main objective of these policies is to facilitate the growth of capital by regular or single premiums. Common forms (in the United States) are whole life, universal life, and variable life policies.

References

China’s Slowing V-Shaped Economic Recovery Sends Global Warning

China’s V-shaped economic rebound from the Covid-19 pandemic is slowing, sending a warning to the rest of world about how durable their own recoveries will prove to be.

The changing outlook was underscored Friday when the People’s Bank of China cut the amount of cash most banks must hold in reserve in order to boost lending. While the PBOC said the move isn’t a renewed stimulus push, the breadth of the 50 basis-point cut to most banks reserve ratio requirement came as a surprise.

Data on Thursday is expected to show growth eased in the second quarter to 8% from the record gain of 18.3% in the first quarter, according to a Bloomberg poll of economists. Key readings of retail sales, industrial production and fixed asset investment are all set to moderate too.

The PBOC’s swift move to lower banks’ RRR is one way of making sure the recovery plateaus from here, rather then stumbles.

The economy was always expected to descend from the heights hit during its initial rebound and as last year’s low base effect washes out. But economists say the softening has come sooner than expected, and could now ripple across the world.

“There is no doubt that the impact of a slowing China on the global economy will be bigger than it was five years ago,” said Rob Subbaraman, head of global markets research at Nomura Holdings Inc. “China’s ‘first-in, first-out’ status from Covid-19 could also influence market expectations that if China’s economy is cooling now, others will soon follow.”

Group of 20 finance ministers meeting in Venice on Saturday signaled alarm over threats that could derail a fragile global recovery, saying new variants of the coronavirus and an uneven pace of vaccination could undermine a brightening outlook for the world economy. China’s state media also cited several analysts Monday saying domestic growth will slow in the second half because of an uncertain global recovery.

China’s slowing recovery also reinforces the view that factory inflation has likely peaked and commodity prices could moderate further.

“China’s growth slowdown should mean near-term disinflation pressures globally, particularly on demand for industrial metals and capital goods,” said Wei Yao, chief economist for the Asia Pacific at Societe Generale SA.

The changing outlook reflects the advanced stage of China’s recovery as growth stabilizes, according to Bloomberg Economics.

What Bloomberg Economics Says…

“Looking through the data distortions, the recovery is maturing, not stumbling. Activity and trade data for June will likely paint a similar picture — a slower, but still-solid expansion.”

— The Asia Economist Team

For the full report, click here.

Domestically, the big puzzle continues to be why retail sales are still soft given the virus remains under control. It’s likely that sales slowed again in June, according to Bloomberg Economics, as sentiment was weighed by controls to contain sporadic outbreaks of the virus.

Even with the PBOC’s support for small and mid-sized businesses, there’s no sign of a broad reversal in the disciplined stimulus approach authorities have taken since the crisis began.

The RRR cut was partially to “manage expectations” ahead of the second-quarter economic data this week, said Bruce Pang, head of macro and strategy research at China Renaissance Securities Hong Kong.

“It also provides more policy room going forward, as the momentum of the economic recovery has surely slowed.”

— With assistance by Enda Curran, Yujing Liu, and Bihan Chen

Source: China’s Slowing V-Shaped Economic Recovery Sends Global Warning – Bloomberg

.

Critics:

The Chinese economic reform or reform and opening-up; known in the West as the Opening of China is the program of economic reforms termed “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” and “socialist market economy” in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Led by Deng Xiaoping, often credited as the “General Architect”, the reforms were launched by reformists within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on December 18, 1978 during the “Boluan Fanzheng” period.

The reforms went into stagnation after the military crackdown on 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, but were revived after Deng Xiaoping’s Southern Tour in 1992. In 2010, China overtook Japan as the world’s second-largest economy.

Before the reforms, the Chinese economy was dominated by state ownership and central planning. From 1950 to 1973, Chinese real GDP per capita grew at a rate of 2.9% per year on average,[citation needed] albeit with major fluctuations stemming from the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

This placed it near the middle of the Asian nations during the same period, with neighboring capitalist countries such as Japan, South Korea and rival Chiang Kai-shek‘s Republic of China outstripping the PRC’s rate of growth. Starting in 1970, the economy entered into a period of stagnation, and after the death of CCP Chairman Mao Zedong, the Communist Party leadership turned to market-oriented reforms to salvage the failing economy.

Citation: