Under Obamacare, Small Business Owner Forced to Get Rid of Health Care Benefits or Face Fine Up to $500K

When Maryland business owner Thomas Kunkel first learned about the Affordable Care Act, he was excited about the prospect of the new health care law.

“From the small business standpoint, it was actually one of the first times I felt like a bit of a social program might actually benefit a small business,” he told The Daily Signal. “Usually it’s the opposite.”

Kunkel owns Full House Marketing and Print in Edgewood, Maryland, and employs 21 full-time workers and up to 10 part-time employees. While he doesn’t provide them with health insurance, Kunkel cuts his workers a monthly check through a Health Reimbursement Agreement.

Obamacare, he said, would allow a lot of his employees with pre-existing conditions conditions to get insurance, especially those who had trouble purchasing coverage in the past.

“That was the biggest positive I saw,” he said.

But Kunkel, who previously worked in the health care industry, anticipated premiums and deductibles were going to rise as insurers worked to adjust to the changes to the health care market.

Under Kunkel’s agreement with workers, he pays a set dollar amount each month, and employees are free to purchase plans on the individual market, putting the money Kunkel provides them toward the cost of their premiums.

“It was actually allowing me to offer a medical insurance benefit to my employees without having to go through all of the challenges of a group plan,” he said of the Health Reimbursement Agreement.

But in September 2013, the IRS and Treasury Department issued guidance prohibiting businesses from using Health Reimbursement Agreements, which help workers pay for health insurance plans purchased on the individual market and other medical expenses. Businesses that integrate Health Reimbursement Agreements with group plans can still offer the benefit.

The Treasury Department said Health Reimbursement Agreements failed to satisfy specific provisions of Obamacare, such as the prohibition on annual limits for health benefits and the requirement that plans must include preventive care.

And for Kunkel, that left him forced to do away with one benefit that helped him retain employees and gave him a competitive edge when hiring.

“Before, I could at least say we don’t offer health care because there are a lot of options available on the individual market, but we do reimburse up to ‘x’ number of dollars a month,” he said. “I could sell that as a better plan than a group plan. But of course now I don’t have that to offer. It makes it tougher to hire and retain and to be competitive.”

‘A Little Betrayed and a Little Misled’

Prior to the Obama administration’s announcement, many small business owner were under the impression the Affordable Care Act would have little to no impact on them, especially because the law’s employer mandate created requirements for businesses with more than 50 employees.

However, small businesses are now faced with having to do away with a vital tool used for their employees or face hefty fines.

Kevin Kuhlman, director of legislative affairs for the National Federation of Independent Businesses, called the Treasury Department’s rule for small businesses a “solution in search of a problem.”

They feel a little betrayed and a little misled,” Kuhlman told The Daily Signal. “It just has reduced flexibility for a lot of small businesses. These businesses with fewer than 50 employees were told 100 times, ‘Oh, you have fewer than 50 employees, the law doesn’t apply to you,’ and then Treasury quietly put out regulations that say you can no longer do this flexible benefit that we’re offering instead.”

“You either have to offer expensive group coverage, which you can’t afford, or you’re completely on your own, and you can’t help your employees,” he continued.

Any business that violates the rule is subject to fines of $100 per day per employee, totaling $36,500 in a year. Businesses face a maximum penalty of $500,000 per year.

In February 2015, the Treasury Department delayed enforcement of the ban on Health Reimbursement Agreements until July 1, 2015. Despite the delay, Kunkel said many small businesses could be surprised with fines for not complying with the rule.

“I think many are not even aware of it still and could be subject to penalties,” Kuhlman said. “This is the first tax season that both employers and employees are filing their taxes. Discrepancies could appear there, and that could invite unwanted audits, which have costs in and of themselves, and then the potential penalties.”

In the wake of the Obama administration’s guidance banning the use of Health Reimbursement Agreements, a number of business groups have come out in opposition of the ban and are calling on Congress to reverse the rule.

In April, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 60 groups representing small businesses across a variety of industries sent a letter to Republican and Democratic leaders on the House Ways and Means Committee urging them to roll back the IRS’s regulation by taking up bipartisan legislation addressing the guidance.

That legislation, called the Small Business Healthcare Relief Act, has more than 90 Republican and Democratic cosponsors in both the House and Senate. It would allow small businesses to continue providing employees with a defined reimbursement for medical expenses and health coverage.

“This arrangement has worked well for small businesses that can’t afford group insurance or don’t have human resources departments to manage a health care plan,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a main sponsor of the legislation, wrote in an upcoming op-ed. “…It all made sense. Then Obamacare pulled the plug on it.”

Earlier this month, senators expressed concerns with the Obama administration’s decision to prohibit small businesses from helping employers through reimbursements.

During a Small Business Committee hearing, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., questioned Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Richard Frank about the administration’s position on tools like Health Reimbursement Agreements and Health Savings Accounts.

“As we look at the big picture, these are tools that we need to look at,” Ayotte said. “We can’t have one side of the federal government doing this, and the other side of the federal government interfering with other really important tools that people use that are very helpful in covering their health care costs.”

Similarly, Small Business Committee Chairman David Vitter, R-La., reinforced concerns small businesses have with the fines that could be levied against them by the IRS for continuing to assist workers through Health Reimbursement Agreements.

“This penalty is a big deal, and it’s a big part of the system, and it’s a big impact on health care,” Vitter said. “It’s there to penalize small businesses who want to do it one way versus the SHOP exchange. This is a big deal.”

Frank said any issues with the administration’s rule regarding Health Reimbursement Accounts were under the purview of the Treasury Department and not the Department of Health and Human Services, but said that his agency is focused specifically on expanding access to care.

“HRAs are not insurance They are other health accounts, and they don’t meet the definition of insurance so one issue is that I think people conflate the two,” he told lawmakers. “There are provisions that if you have insurance and you want to use additional funds through an HRA, that’s permissible. What gets conflated in many corridors is where the line between HRAs and insurance are drawn.”

Ed Haislmaier, senior fellow in health policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, stressed it’s not just the IRS’s rules surrounding Health Reimbursement Agreements that have hurt small businesses.

“What Obamacare has done in terms of small business coverage is, first, various provisions have increased the cost of the coverage through other regulations, including this one, and second, it has limited the available options for small business in terms of plan design and also possibly in same places the number of available insurers,” he told The Daily Signal.

Haislmaier also said that Obamacare is “premised on providing traditional kinds of insurance with traditional financing arrangements,” but added a layer of restrictions in terms of plans.

Taking It Away

After Kunkel learned of the IRS’s new rules regarding Health Reimbursement Agreements, he began exploring options.

Kunkel looked into purchasing plans through the SHOP, or Small Business Health Options Program, exchange. However, insurance brokers warned Kunkel enrolling in the SHOP exchange could prove to be confusing, time-consuming and costly.

He also looked into offering his workers a group plan and selected one through Evergreen Health, Maryland’s co-op.

Though the group plan through Evergreen Health was among the cheapest Kunkel could find, not a single employee decided to enroll, as it was more expensive than individual plans.

Kunkel even raised some of his employees’ pay to help compensate for their lost reimbursements, but that caused some workers purchasing coverage on Obamacare’s exchange to lose subsidies or qualify for less.

“They’re good people. They’re good friends of mine, and most of them have worked for me for years,” Kunkel said of his employees. “It’s always tough when you’re taking something away from them, especially something like health care. You feel compelled to try to help out in some other way.”

Already this year, Kunkel has had two employees leave his company, citing health insurance as a major reasons for leaving.

Now, he’s hoping Congress can provide some much-needed relief for small businesses.

“I’m vying for qualified staff just like everybody else. The fact that I was contributing, I felt I was going above and beyond,” he said. “Then I had to be the person to take it away.”

The post Under Obamacare, Small Business Owner Forced to Get Rid of Health Care Benefits or Face Fine Up to $500K appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Until the people take back the parties, little is going to change.

In response to my article from last week, “I’m just about done with politics,” I got a call from South Carolina talk radio host Vince Coakley from 106.3 WORD to talk about what’s been so frustrating with politics lately. The gist – until the people take back the parties, little is going to change. Here’s […]

Why Obamacare Customers in Some States Might See Higher Rates in 2017

As insurance companies begin submitting their rates for health care coverage next year, consumers are seeing changes in the number of insurers selling plans on Obamacare’s exchanges.

And in some places, fewer choices on the exchanges can mean higher premiums.

So far, three states—Alabama, Alaska, and Wyoming—have just one insurer selling coverage on their Obamacare exchanges. And in Kansas, Insurance Commissioner Ken Selzer has been talking with carriers to convince them to sell coverage in his state. If Selzer isn’t successful in bringing other insurers on to the exchange in his state, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas will be the only option for consumers there.

Since Obamacare took effect in 2013, a number of studies have documented a decline in the number of insurers selling coverage on the exchanges.

A March report from The Heritage Foundation found that from 2015 to 2016, the number of insurers participating in Obamacare’s exchanges fell from 307 to 287. Additionally, prior to the Affordable Care Act’s rollout in 2013, 395 insurers sold individual-market coverage. In 2014, the number of insurance companies selling coverage on the exchanges fell to 253.

When comparing the number of insurers selling plans on the exchanges from 2015 to 2016, 22 states and the District of Columbia saw a decline in the number of carriers selling exchange coverage from 2015 to 2016, according to the report.

Just 10 states, meanwhile, have more insurers on the exchanges.

Additionally, a study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that more than 650 counties nationwide will have one insurance company on the exchanges next year. In states using the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov, 40 percent of counties will see just one or two insurers.

A Provider Monopoly

Insurer companies are in the midst of deciding whether to continue offering coverage on Obamacare’s exchanges, and some big players like Humana and UnitedHealthcare have already announced decisions to pull out of some exchanges.

These changes now have health policy experts warning that such a decline in insurer participation on Obamacare’s exchanges could impact how much consumers pay and how much providers charge.

“The focus has been on rural areas where you already have less insurer competition and are getting down to one or two [carriers],” Ed Haislmaier, a senior fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “I think the effect, paradoxically, is somewhat less. The real issue isn’t the number of insurers. It’s the number of providers.”

In rural areas where there may be only one provider such as a hospital and two or three insurers, the provider could charge what it wants, causing insurers to post similar rates, he said.

“The competition issue in rural areas is more driven by provider monopolies than it is by insurers,” Haislmaier said.

Caroline Pearson, senior vice president of policy at Avalere Health, agreed that in rural areas, specifically, higher premiums from insurers can be tied to increased rates from providers.

“The two are sort of linked,” she told The Daily Signal. “The way that insurers have brought premiums down in some markets is by designing narrower networks where they’re including only a subset of providers with better negotiated rates.”

“In rural areas, there’s a dearth of providers,” she continued. “Plans are beholden to the physicians there, and they don’t have the leverage to drive rates down. I think the monopoly of providers is limiting plans’ ability to keep premiums low.”

Pearson said that though competition has “been effective” at lowering the cost of premiums, consumers can expect to see across-the-board rate increases for a variety of reasons and not just in areas where there is little to no choice of insurer on the exchange.

“People in the exchanges are sicker than insurers were expecting them to be, so it’s costing more to cover them,” she said. “Additionally, the fact that two of the risk mitigation programs [risk corridor and reinsurance] go away in 2017 will also increase rates. Those are the two primary drivers.”

A ‘Guiding Principle’

In a study from the American Journal of Health Economics released last year, Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber and the study’s authors warned that a decline in competition among insurers leads to an increase in premium prices.

Using UnitedHealthcare’s decision not to sell insurance on Obamacare’s exchanges in 2014 as an indicator of how premium prices changed, the study’s authors found that had UnitedHealth decided to enter all markets, the cost for the second-lowest silver premium would’ve decreased by 5.4 percent.

The government calculates subsidies based on the cost of the second-lowest silver plan.

Additionally, had insurers sold coverage in all areas on the state’s exchange, the cost of premiums would’ve declined by 11.1 percent.

Gruber and the study’s authors further found that areas where Obamacare’s co-ops, or consumer operated and oriented plans, sold coverage had lower premiums than those that did not.

The co-ops launched in 26 states with $2.4 billion in startup and solvency loans from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and were intended to boost competition and choice in areas where few existed.

However, since their roll out in 2013, 12 of the 23 co-ops have since closed their doors.

In a speech before a joint session of Congress in September 2009, President Barack Obama warned about how decreased competition among insurers can impact consumers.

“My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That’s how the market works,” Obama told lawmakers. “Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down.”

While consumes in Alabama, Alaska and Wyoming will have just one insurer to select coverage from during next year’s open enrollment period, states have yet to encounter a situation where no insurer will sell on the exchange.

In 2013, before Obamacare’s launch, 34 counties in Mississippi were almost left with no carrier selling on its exchange, according to Vox. However, Humana decided to offer coverage to consumers in those 34 counties—albeit at a price, as premiums in the state were among the highest in the country.

“With only one plan, [insurers] certainly have pricing flexibility to make it work for them financially,” John McDonough, a professor of public health at Harvard University told Vox.

Having no insurers selling on an exchange doesn’t mean a consumer will go without coverage, Haislmaier said. Instead, carriers can and do sell plans off of the exchange.

In Mississippi and South Dakota, for example, Blue Cross and Blue Shield carriers are the largest insurers in those states. Neither, though, sell coverage on the exchanges.

“The key thing here is whether there’s an insurer willing to sell on the exchange,” Haislmaier said. “That’s important because that doesn’t necessarily mean there may not be coverage available off the exchange. But those with subsidies will be affected because they then have to pay full price.”

The post Why Obamacare Customers in Some States Might See Higher Rates in 2017 appeared first on The Daily Signal.

I’m just about done with politics 

A good friend of mine – and an expert in politics – lamented to me about the people’s unwillingness to engage where it matters, “Ted, its like having a cure for cancer and no one wants it.” I have volunteered, organized groups, served on boards, given speeches, held countless meetings, taught courses, spoken with the press, […]

How November’s Elections Could Impact the House’s Obamacare Lawsuit

A federal judge delivered a blow to the Obama administration and the president’s signature health care law Thursday in a lawsuit mounted by the House of Representatives. But the lawsuit’s future could be impacted further by November’s elections.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer sided with the House in a case challenging how the Obama administration has been funding payments to insurers through Obamacare’s cost-sharing subsidies. Collyer, appointed by President George W. Bush, is allowing the program to continue, pending an appeal from the Department of Justice.

House Republicans mounted the lawsuit two years ago and charged that President Barack Obama was going outside the powers granted to him under the Constitution by spending money Congress hadn’t appropriated.

But November’s elections could impact how and if the case proceeds.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said that the lawsuit would effectively end should Democrats win the House in November, regardless of whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled following the Justice Department’s appeal.

“This lawsuit was filed by the House of Representatives because the House voted to authorize the speaker to file the lawsuit. So if Democrats were to win in November and take over the House in January, they very well and, in fact, I think probably would decide to do whatever they could to get the case dismissed and then withdraw the claim,” he told The Daily Signal. He continued:

If for example by then, let’s assume for a second the case has been appealed and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has heard the case and issued a decision reversing the district court, so in favor of the Obama administration, I have no doubt that if Democrats were in control of the House, they would certainly not appeal the case to the Supreme Court because they want that decision in favor of the administration to stand.

Timothy Jost, a law professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law, said he, too, predicts the case will be resolved if there is a shift in power come November.

“I would expect that if Democrats win back the House and win the Senate and win the presidency that they would adopt a permanent appropriation for the cost-sharing reduction payments and put the whole thing to rest,” he said.

Jost doesn’t expect the House’s lawsuit to move further than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is where it will head when the Obama administration files its appeal.

“I expect that it’s going to be reversed on the standing ground,” he said, referring to the question of whether the House could bring the suit in the first place. “[Collyer] saying they had standing is unprecedented and unsupported from prior decisions.”

Von Spakovsky, too, doesn’t expect the case to move beyond the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, though for a different reason.

“This is the court that was successfully packed by the Obama administration, adding new judges to the court to fill unneeded seats,” von Spakovsky said, “so I think that the administration is hoping that these judges will reverse the district court and uphold what the administration has done.”

He further noted that the issue of standing for this case differs significantly from previous cases involving lawmakers.

“The Supreme Court and other courts in the past have not granted legislators standing when it’s a couple of legislators suing because a couple of legislators suing over a bill that the entire legislature passed, yeah, they don’t have standing because they lost a political battle,” he said. “This case is different because it’s not a couple members of the House. It’s the entire House of Representatives suing and claiming the president is violating the Constitution.”

The ruling in the case over payments to insurers for the cost-sharing subsidies is the latest in a long line of lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act.

In her ruling Thursday, Collyer said that the Obama administration didn’t have the authority to spend money for Obamacare’s cost-sharing subsidies that weren’t appropriated by Congress.

“Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one,” she wrote.

The Affordable Care Act instructed the federal government to reimburse insurers billions of dollars for cost-sharing subsidies awarded to low-income consumers who purchased coverage on Obamacare’s exchanges. The subsidies were intended to lower customers’ out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and copays.

Congress authorized the cost-sharing subsidies, but at issue is whether it actually appropriated the billions of dollars paid to insurers through the program.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, payments to insurers for cost-sharing subsidies total $130 billion over 10 years.

The Obama administration argued that the money for the subsidies was already appropriated under a different section of the Affordable Care Act.

House Republicans, though, disagreed. GOP lawmakers contended they never appropriated the money and said the Obama administration was rewriting the law.

Democrats and the White House doubted the House’s lawsuit would progress and claimed in a motion to dismiss that the House lacked standing to bring the suit in the first place.

Collyer ruled in September, though, that they did have standing and allowed the case to proceed.

The post How November’s Elections Could Impact the House’s Obamacare Lawsuit appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Trump/Ryan meeting: How do we unify?

After much anticipation, Paul Ryan and Donald Trump finally met. They released the “joint statement” below, but the money question was posed by Paul Ryan, “The question is … how we unify it all? How do we keep adding and adding and adding voters while not subtracting any voters?” he said “Most Americans do not like […]

Obama Administration Loses Key Obamacare Case

A federal district court in Washington, D.C., ruled Thursday in favor of the U.S. House of Representatives’ challenge to the Obama administration’s implementation of part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The act has been “revised” dozens of times by the administration since its passage in March 2010, leading the House to sue over the administration’s payment out of the U.S. Treasury of subsidies to insurance providers for providing cost-sharing reductions to certain policyholders, even though Congress explicitly refused to appropriate funds for these subsidies.

As D.C. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer explained in an opinion last fall, Section 1402 of the law “requires insurers to reduce the cost of insurance to certain, eligible statutory beneficiaries,” and the “federal government then offsets the added costs to insurance companies by reimbursing them with funds from the Treasury.”

This section stated that cost-sharing offsets must be funded by annual appropriations. But the House has never appropriated funds for Section 1402, so it argued that the administration violated Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution, which provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

Funds Not Appropriated by Congress

Collyer ruled last September that the House had standing to challenge the spending of funds not appropriated by Congress, and Thursday she decided the merits of that claim in a significant loss for the Obama administration.

In the opinion, Collyer goes through a detailed explanation of how the House appropriates moneys for the federal government, from permanent or continuing appropriations to current appropriations that must be reauthorized on an annual basis.

While Congress provided a permanent appropriation for Section 1401, which provides tax credits to individual taxpayers to make their insurance more affordable, Collyer concluded that Section 1402 lacked such an appropriation:

Paying out Section 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution” because Congress “authorized reduced cost sharing but did not appropriate monies for it.

Reaction to the Government’s Argument

Collyer calls the administration’s argument that Congress had appropriated the necessary funds “a most curious and convoluted argument whose mother was undoubtedly necessity.”

Collyer points to the budget request that the administration sent to Congress in 2013 that asked for an annual appropriation for the Section 1402 payments to insurers; thus the administration itself acknowledged that there was no permanent appropriation.

Furthermore, when the Senate Appropriations Committee adopted the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services and Obamacare in 2013, its accompanying report specifically said that it was not including the mandatory appropriation requested by the administration for Section 1402.

The administration argued that the permanent appropriation for the individual tax credits contained in Section 1401 also included Section 1402.

Hiding Elephants in Mouseholes

In a funny comment on this claim, Collyer said that the administration was trying to “squeeze the elephant of Section 1402 reimbursements into the mousehole of Section 1401(d)(1).” However, she cited a Supreme Court decision in which the court said that Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes.”

The administration also claimed that the absence of language appropriating funds “means that Congress felt it unneeded, ostensibly because Section 1402 was already funded permanently.”

But Collyer explained that missing appropriations language in a statute does not allow courts or the administration “license to rewrite the plain text.” In fact, there is substantial case law establishing that an “appropriation must be expressly stated; it cannot be inferred or implied.”

The administration, likewise, relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s wrong-headed ruling, King v. Burwell, imploring the court to consider that “the full context of the [Affordable Care Act] makes the language ambiguous and thus subject to their interpretation.” Unlike in King v. Burwell, which involved treating the federally-run insurance exchange like state exchanges, this case involves “failure to appropriate, not a failure in drafting”:

The relevant question is not whether Congress intended premiums to skyrocket, deficits to explode, or enrollment to plummet—those are not consequences of the statute that Congress wrote in 2010. The relevant question is far narrower: Would it have been ‘nonsensical’ or ‘absurd’ for Congress to authorize a program permanently in 2010 but not appropriate for it permanently at the same time?

The answer, according to Collyer, is clearly no, and there are numerous examples of Congress passing authorizing statutes for various programs and then refusing to appropriate any funds for them.

The administration’s argument that anytime Congress makes a permanent authorization it must be read as a permanent appropriation as well “is assuredly not the law.” And in a sarcastic swipe at the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell, Collyer says in that case, “the statute could not function if interpreted literally; it had to be saved from itself.”

Courts Can’t Rewrite Law

Collyer was not concerned by the “cascading series of nonsensical and undesirable results” that the administration claimed would flow from failing to recognize a permanent appropriation for Section 1402: “Higher premiums, more federal debt, and decreased enrollment are not consequences of the [Affordable Care Act’s] text or structure,” Collyer explained, but rather those “would flow … from Congress’ continuing refusal to appropriate funds.” She concluded, “That is Congress’s prerogative; the Court cannot override it by rewriting [the statute].”

Collyer granted summary judgment to the House of Representatives, enjoining any “further reimbursements [to insurance companies] under Section 1402 until a valid appropriation is in place.” However, she stayed her injunction pending an appeal.

There is no doubt that the administration will file an appeal with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which President Barack Obama successfully packed full of his appointees in 2013.

Impact of November Elections on Lawsuit

It should also be kept in mind that the November election could affect this litigation. A House resolution adopted on July 30, 2014, authorized the speaker of the House to file the lawsuit. The House in the new 114th Congress adopted a second resolution on Jan. 6, 2015, authorizing itself to succeed the 113th House as the plaintiff.

If Democrats win control of the House of Representatives in November, there seems little doubt that they will do whatever is necessary to withdraw this suit and concede victory to the administration and its misinterpretation of the Obamacare law.

The post Obama Administration Loses Key Obamacare Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Book Review: The More of Less, by Joshua Becker

I recently read the book, The More of Less, by Joshua Becker. Here is my review… Joshua Becker is a popular blogger and one of the most enthusiastic voices in the growing “minimalist” community. Josh’s latest book, (Sponsored Link) The More of Less, is for beginners and current devotes of the topic. It sheds light on the […]

One benefit of the Facebook news controversy

No doubt you have heard about the stir caused by Gizmodo’s reporting on Monday that Facebook’s news “curators” had actively worked to suppress conservative news. Facebook has vehemently denied the claims made by “anonymous sources.” An interesting article from Forbes staff writer Kathleen Chaykowski suggests there may actually be a few benefits as a result […]