IHT Rendezvous: Hints of Taiwan Leading the Way on Same-Sex Marriage in Asia

BEIJING — Will Taiwan become the first place in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage in 2013?

Perhaps, judging from recent developments on the island, where the legislature has held its first hearings on the issue, a move that signifies “a major step towards becoming the first Asian territory to approve marriage equality,” the Shanghai-based Web site Shanghaiist reported, citing Gay Star News.

In another sign that change may be on the way for Taiwan, senior judges recently asked for advice from the country’s constitutional court, the Grand Justices, on whether to legalize same-sex marriages after two men from Taiwan, Nelson Chan and his long-term partner, Kao Chih-wei, filed an administrative lawsuit last year following the rejection by a local registration office in Taipei of their application to marry.

As The Taipei Times reported late last month, the Taipei High Administrative Court had been expected to hand down a decision on Mr. Chen and Mr. Kao’s case, “but instead said it was seeking a constitutional interpretation while holding further debates before making a judgment.”

To Mr. Chen, that was a victory. “I think this is a good decision. I’m happy to see it,” he told The Taipei Times. “I am confident and hopeful of the outcome of the constitutional interpretation, because the world is changing. I hope Taiwan would be the first Asian country to recognize same-sex marriages through a judicial ruling.”

The moves come as more states in the United States have legalized gay marriage – Maine and Maryland becoming the latest, with Maryland’s new law taking effect Jan. 1. Same-sex marriage is now legal in nine states and Washington, D.C.

One of the most socially and politically progressive societies in Asia, “Taiwan is moving closer to allowing same-sex marriage,” predicted Gay Star News, though it pointed out that top judges in Taiwan had said that the proposed changes did not go far enough and that legislation needed to be rewritten and expanded before that could happen – and that it would not be a simple matter.

Current proposals for change affect only the articles of the Civil Code that pertain to marriage in gendered language, and propose “altering the words from ‘male’ and ‘female’ to gender-neutral language,” Gay Star News reported.

It quoted a senior judge, Hsu Li-ying, from the Supreme Court’s Juvenile and Family Department (the court is known in Taiwan’s complex political-legal system as the Judicial Yuan) as saying that the new legislation might “need to be more comprehensive.”

The deputy justice minister, Chen Ming-tang, said it was not just the Civil Code that would have to change, but also laws regarding parentage, taxes and health insurance. That means the Justice Ministry could not do it alone, the report said.

Others believed the road ahead will be long and same-sex marriage difficult to achieve, with the decision to seek advice from the constitutional court a way of avoiding making a decision.

Taiwan has a flourishing civil society and a gay community that has long been pressuring the government to legalize gay marriage. Many believe it is a matter of time. Taiwan hosts Asia’s biggest gay pride parade, with the one held last October drawing more than 50,000 participants from across the region.

Taiwan even has its own gay god – the Taoist Rabbit God, to whom homosexuals can pray for love and good fortune (there is a small temple to the Rabbit God near Taipei). As The Taipei Times reports, the rabbit deity is based on the real-life figure of Hu Tianbao, an official in 18th-century Qing dynasty China.

And last year, two women in Taiwan were “married” in a Buddhist ceremony by a Buddhist master, Shih Chao-hwei, who is also a professor at Hsuan Chuang University. Homosexuality is not prohibited in Buddhism, the professor said: “It’s difficult enough to maintain a relationship,” the professor said in a telephone interview with The Taipei Times. “How could you be so stingy as to begrudge a couple for wanting to get married, regardless of their sexual orientation?”

A poll in September by The United Daily News found that 55 percent of those surveyed approved of gay marriage laws, with only 37 percent against. But the poll also found that 61 percent could not accept their children being gay, with only 37 percent saying they could.

Read More..

10 Vintage Photographs of Snowflakes

Photo courtesy of Flickr, Smithsonian Institution.

Click here to view this gallery.

[More from Mashable: 5 YouTube Videos to Help Winterize Your Home]

If for some reason you didn’t believe no two snowflakes were alike, here’s your proof.

In 1885, Wilson A. Bentley successfully photographed over 5,000 snowflakes by attaching a camera to a microscope (and in turn honing the field of Photomicrography). His photographs supported his and others’ beliefs that all snowflakes were unique.

[More from Mashable: 20+ Online Resources for Planning a Winter Getaway]

Bentley become fascinated with snow as a child on a Vermont farm. He later spent time experimenting with ways to view individual snowflakes and their crystalline structure, which eventually came in handy when he had to be quick enough to capture a flake in a picture before it melted.

These photographs quickly became popular with dozens of scientists who studied Bentley’s work and published the images in several scientific magazines. In 1903, Bentley sent about 500 of his photographs to the Smithsonian, hoping they would be of interest to Secretary Samuel P. Langley.

The Smithsonian now has his vintage pics on display, undeniably proveing that snow is just so, so pretty.

Gallery photos courtesy of Flickr, Smithsonian Institution. Thumbnail photo courtesy of Flickr, AMagill.

This story originally published on Mashable here.

Tech News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: 10 Vintage Photographs of Snowflakes
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/10-vintage-photographs-of-snowflakes/
Link To Post : 10 Vintage Photographs of Snowflakes
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

AP Sources: Syracuse's Marrone to take over Bills

ORCHARD PARK, N.Y. (AP) — The Buffalo Bills have reached an agreement to hire Syracuse's Doug Marrone as their next coach, two people familiar with talks told The Associated Press on Sunday.

Marrone will replace Chan Gailey, who was fired last Monday, a day after the Bills closed their second consecutive season with a 6-10 record. The 48-year-old Marrone went 25-25 in four seasons at Syracuse.

One person told the AP that the deal is done. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because there has not been an official announcement. A second person confirmed that the Bills were set on hiring Marrone, who was identified as the team's leading candidate Saturday night.

ESPN.com, citing league sources, first reported early Sunday that Marrone would be the Bills' next coach. Messages left with Syracuse officials and Marrone's agent, Jimmy Sexton, have not been returned.

Syracuse was 26-57 over a seven-year period before Marrone took over at his alma mater. The Orange finished this season 8-5, winning six of their last seven games, including a 38-14 win over West Virginia in the Pinstripe Bowl.

Now, he's set for another challenge two hours down the New York State Thruway.

Marrone takes over a Bills team that has not had a winning record since 2004, when it finished 9-7, and has missed the playoffs for 13 straight seasons. That's the NFL's longest active streak.

The Syracuse job was Marrone's first as a head coach. He has seven years of NFL experience. Marrone spent 2006-08 as the New Orleans Saints' offensive coordinator and was the New York Jets' offensive line coach from 2002-05.

The Bills' decision to go with Marrone came on a day they were scheduled to interview Broncos offensive coordinator Mike McCoy. The meeting, however, was postponed by McCoy, according to a person familiar with the coach's plans. The person said McCoy asked that the Bills reschedule the meeting because he was already interviewing for several other coaching vacancies this weekend.

The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the Bills and McCoy have not revealed their plans.

As the AFC's top seed, the Broncos are off until opening the playoffs Jan. 12. They allotted time for interested teams to interview McCoy in Denver this weekend. McCoy is a candidate for jobs in Philadelphia, Arizona and Chicago.

The Bills opened their coaching search Tuesday, when newly promoted President Russ Brandon and several executives traveled to Arizona, where they interviewed candidates. They met with former Cardinals coach Ken Whisenhunt and current Cardinals defensive coordinator Ray Horton. The Bills also interviewed Oregon coach Chip Kelly and former Bears coach Lovie Smith.

On Friday, the Bills confirmed they had interviewed Marrone, but they did not reveal when or where that meeting took place.

Marrone had also interviewed with the Cleveland Browns for their vacancy.

___

Online: http://pro32.ap.org/poll and http://twitter.com/AP_NFL

Read More..

Despite New Health Law, Some See Sharp Rise in Premiums

Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.

Bob Chamberlin/Los Angeles Times

Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner, said some insurance companies could raise rates as much as they did before the law was enacted.

Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.

In California, Aetna is proposing rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent for some of those policy holders, according to the insurers’ filings with the state for 2013. These rate requests are all the more striking after a 39 percent rise sought by Anthem Blue Cross in 2010 helped give impetus to the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, which was passed the same year and will not be fully in effect until 2014.

 In other states, like Florida and Ohio, insurers have been able to raise rates by at least 20 percent for some policy holders. The rate increases can amount to several hundred dollars a month.

The proposed increases compare with about 4 percent for families with employer-based policies.

Under the health care law, regulators are now required to review any request for a rate increase of 10 percent or more; the requests are posted on a federal Web site, healthcare.gov, along with regulators’ evaluations.

The review process not only reveals the sharp disparity in the rates themselves, it also demonstrates the striking difference between places like New York, one of the 37 states where legislatures have given regulators some authority to deny or roll back rates deemed excessive, and California, which is among the states that do not have that ability.

New York, for example, recently used its sweeping powers to hold rate increases for 2013 in the individual and small group markets to under 10 percent. California can review rate requests for technical errors but cannot deny rate increases.

The double-digit requests in some states are being made despite evidence that overall health care costs appear to have slowed in recent years, increasing in the single digits annually as many people put off treatment because of the weak economy. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that costs may increase just 7.5 percent next year, well below the rate increases being sought by some insurers. But the companies counter that medical costs for some policy holders are rising much faster than the average, suggesting they are in a sicker population. Federal regulators contend that premiums would be higher still without the law, which also sets limits on profits and administrative costs and provides for rebates if insurers exceed those limits.

Critics, like Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner and one of two health plan regulators in that state, said that without a federal provision giving all regulators the ability to deny excessive rate increases, some insurance companies can raise rates as much as they did before the law was enacted.

“This is business as usual,” Mr. Jones said. “It’s a huge loophole in the Affordable Care Act,” he said.

While Mr. Jones has not yet weighed in on the insurers’ most recent requests, he is pushing for a state law that will give him that authority. Without legislative action, the state can only question the basis for the high rates, sometimes resulting in the insurer withdrawing or modifying the proposed rate increase.

The California insurers say they have no choice but to raise premiums if their underlying medical costs have increased. “We need these rates to even come reasonably close to covering the expenses of this population,” said Tom Epstein, a spokesman for Blue Shield of California. The insurer is requesting a range of increases, which average about 12 percent for 2013.

Although rates paid by employers are more closely tracked than rates for individuals and small businesses, policy experts say the law has probably kept at least some rates lower than they otherwise would have been.

“There’s no question that review of rates makes a difference, that it results in lower rates paid by consumers and small businesses,” said Larry Levitt, an executive at the Kaiser Family Foundation, which estimated in an October report that rate review was responsible for lowering premiums for one out of every five filings.

Federal officials say the law has resulted in significant savings. “The health care law includes new tools to hold insurers accountable for premium hikes and give rebates to consumers,” said Brian Cook, a spokesman for Medicare, which is helping to oversee the insurance reforms.

“Insurers have already paid $1.1 billion in rebates, and rate review programs have helped save consumers an additional $1 billion in lower premiums,” he said. If insurers collect premiums and do not spend at least 80 cents out of every dollar on care for their customers, the law requires them to refund the excess.

As a result of the review process, federal officials say, rates were reduced, on average, by nearly three percentage points, according to a report issued last September.

Read More..

Despite New Health Law, Some See Sharp Rise in Premiums

Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.

Bob Chamberlin/Los Angeles Times

Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner, said some insurance companies could raise rates as much as they did before the law was enacted.

Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.

In California, Aetna is proposing rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent for some of those policy holders, according to the insurers’ filings with the state for 2013. These rate requests are all the more striking after a 39 percent rise sought by Anthem Blue Cross in 2010 helped give impetus to the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, which was passed the same year and will not be fully in effect until 2014.

 In other states, like Florida and Ohio, insurers have been able to raise rates by at least 20 percent for some policy holders. The rate increases can amount to several hundred dollars a month.

The proposed increases compare with about 4 percent for families with employer-based policies.

Under the health care law, regulators are now required to review any request for a rate increase of 10 percent or more; the requests are posted on a federal Web site, healthcare.gov, along with regulators’ evaluations.

The review process not only reveals the sharp disparity in the rates themselves, it also demonstrates the striking difference between places like New York, one of the 37 states where legislatures have given regulators some authority to deny or roll back rates deemed excessive, and California, which is among the states that do not have that ability.

New York, for example, recently used its sweeping powers to hold rate increases for 2013 in the individual and small group markets to under 10 percent. California can review rate requests for technical errors but cannot deny rate increases.

The double-digit requests in some states are being made despite evidence that overall health care costs appear to have slowed in recent years, increasing in the single digits annually as many people put off treatment because of the weak economy. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that costs may increase just 7.5 percent next year, well below the rate increases being sought by some insurers. But the companies counter that medical costs for some policy holders are rising much faster than the average, suggesting they are in a sicker population. Federal regulators contend that premiums would be higher still without the law, which also sets limits on profits and administrative costs and provides for rebates if insurers exceed those limits.

Critics, like Dave Jones, the California insurance commissioner and one of two health plan regulators in that state, said that without a federal provision giving all regulators the ability to deny excessive rate increases, some insurance companies can raise rates as much as they did before the law was enacted.

“This is business as usual,” Mr. Jones said. “It’s a huge loophole in the Affordable Care Act,” he said.

While Mr. Jones has not yet weighed in on the insurers’ most recent requests, he is pushing for a state law that will give him that authority. Without legislative action, the state can only question the basis for the high rates, sometimes resulting in the insurer withdrawing or modifying the proposed rate increase.

The California insurers say they have no choice but to raise premiums if their underlying medical costs have increased. “We need these rates to even come reasonably close to covering the expenses of this population,” said Tom Epstein, a spokesman for Blue Shield of California. The insurer is requesting a range of increases, which average about 12 percent for 2013.

Although rates paid by employers are more closely tracked than rates for individuals and small businesses, policy experts say the law has probably kept at least some rates lower than they otherwise would have been.

“There’s no question that review of rates makes a difference, that it results in lower rates paid by consumers and small businesses,” said Larry Levitt, an executive at the Kaiser Family Foundation, which estimated in an October report that rate review was responsible for lowering premiums for one out of every five filings.

Federal officials say the law has resulted in significant savings. “The health care law includes new tools to hold insurers accountable for premium hikes and give rebates to consumers,” said Brian Cook, a spokesman for Medicare, which is helping to oversee the insurance reforms.

“Insurers have already paid $1.1 billion in rebates, and rate review programs have helped save consumers an additional $1 billion in lower premiums,” he said. If insurers collect premiums and do not spend at least 80 cents out of every dollar on care for their customers, the law requires them to refund the excess.

As a result of the review process, federal officials say, rates were reduced, on average, by nearly three percentage points, according to a report issued last September.

Read More..

India Takes Aim at Poverty With Cash Transfer Program

Manish Swarup/Associated Press

Poor and homeless people waited for food on Tuesday at a New Delhi temple.

NEW DELHI — India has more poor people than any nation on earth, but many of its antipoverty programs end up feeding the rich more than the needy. A new program hopes to change that.

On Jan. 1, India eliminated a raft of bureaucratic middlemen by depositing government pension and scholarship payments directly into the bank accounts of about 245,000 people in 20 of the nation’s hundreds of districts, in a bid to prevent corrupt state and local officials from diverting much of the money to their own pockets. Hundreds of thousands more people will be added to the program in the coming months.

In a country of 1.2 billion, the numbers so far are modest, but some officials and economists see the start of direct payments as revolutionary — a program intended not only to curb corruption but also to serve as a vehicle for lifting countless millions out of poverty altogether.

The nation’s finance minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, described the cash transfer program to Indian news media as a “pioneering and pathbreaking reform” that is a “game changer for governance.” He acknowledged that the initial rollout had been modest because of “practical difficulties, some quite unforeseen.” He promised that those problems would be resolved before the end of 2013, when the program is to be extended in phases to other parts of the country.

Some critics, however, said the program was intended more to buy votes among the poor than to overcome poverty. And some said that in a country where hundreds of millions have no access to banks, never mind personal bank accounts, direct electronic money transfers are only one aspect of a much broader effort necessary to build a real safety net for India’s vast population.

“An impression has been created that the government is about to launch an ambitious scheme of direct cash transfers to poor families,” Jean Drèze, an honorary professor at the Delhi School of Economics, wrote in an e-mail. “This is quite misleading. What the government is actually planning is an experiment to change the modalities of existing transfers — nothing more, nothing less.”

The program is based on models in Mexico and Brazil in which poor families receive stipends in exchange for meeting certain social goals, like keeping their children in school or getting regular medical checkups. International aid organizations have praised these efforts in several places; in Brazil alone, nearly 50 million people participate.

But one of India’s biggest hurdles is simply figuring out how to distinguish its 1.2 billion citizens. The country is now in the midst of another ambitious project to undertake retinal and fingerprint scans in every village and city in the hope of giving hundreds of millions who have no official identification a card with a 12-digit number that would, among other things, give them access to the modern financial world. After three years of operation, the program has issued unique numbers to 220 million people.

Bindu Ananth, the president of IFMR Trust, a financial charity, said that getting people bank accounts can be surprisingly beneficial because the poor often pay stiff fees to cash checks or get small loans, fees that are substantially reduced for account holders.

“I think this is one of the biggest things to happen to India’s financial system in a decade,” Ms. Ananth said.

Only about a third of Indian households have bank accounts. Getting a significant portion of the remaining households included in the nation’s financial system will take an enormous amount of additional effort and expense, at least part of which will fall on the government to bear, economists said.

“There are two things this cash transfer program is supposed to do: prevent leakage from corruption, and bring everybody into the system,” said Surendra L. Rao, a former director general of the National Council of Applied Economic Research. “And I don’t see either happening anytime soon.”

The great promise of the cash transfer program — as well as its greatest point of contention — would come if it tackled India’s expensive and inefficient system for handing out food and subsidized fuel through nearly 50,000 government shops.

India spends almost $14 billion annually on this system, or nearly 1 percent of its gross domestic product, but the system is poorly managed and woefully inefficient.

Malavika Vyawahare contributed reporting.

Read More..

The Secret iPad List to Bring Down Boehener

When the failed House Republican revolution came, it came by iPad. Now that House Speaker John Boehner has survived the rebellion, all of D.C. now knows which conservative House members were conspiring to mount a challenge, thanks to a list that one of the coup’s leaders brandished on the House floor during the vote.

RELATED: United Nation Fights the ‘Asshole Factor’

A Politico photographer captured Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas (pictured above), who Boehner had removed from a committee for refusing to cooperate, tapping his iPad during the roll call, checking off a list of names of other Congressmen he thought might join him in voting against Boehner. The list was titled, appropriately, “You would be fired if this goes out,” Politico’s Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan report. They hedge, “It’s not clear that any of the Republicans on Huelskamp’s list knew they were on it, or even knew of the list’s existence,” but let’s look at who were at least expected to vote against Boehner:

RELATED: Boehner Puts Down House Republican Coup

• Steve King of Iowa


• Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming


• Paul Gosar of Arizona


• Scott Garrett of New Jersey


• Steve Fincher of Tennessee


• Scott Desjarlais of Tennessee

Earlier this week, outgoing Louisiana Rep. Jeff Landry bragged to Breitbart News that the anti-Boehner ranks were 17 to 20 members strong, though in the end, only nine voted against their speaker, while two didn’t vote, and one voted present. Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle reports on Friday that there were several more names on Huelskamp‘s list:

RELATED: Boehner Was Afraid Issa Would Go Full Pumpkin-Shooter on His Holder Probe

• Jeff Duncan of South Carolina


• Mo Brooks of Alabama


• Sam Graves of Missouri


• Steve Southerland of Florida


• Trey Gowdy of South Carolina


• David Schweikert of Arizona


• Tom Cotton of Arkansas


• Brett Guthrie of Kentucky

Perhaps Huelskamp anticipated some would chicken out, since if some poor aide risked being “fired” for the list getting out, surely a House member might fear the wrath of Boehner for actually voting against him.

Gadgets News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: The Secret iPad List to Bring Down Boehener
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/the-secret-ipad-list-to-bring-down-boehener/
Link To Post : The Secret iPad List to Bring Down Boehener
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

Saban: Alabama players must put aside 'clutter'

MIAMI (AP) — Two days after team leaders held a players-only meeting, Alabama coach Nick Saban says the Crimson Tide's performance in Monday's BCS championship against Notre Dame will show a lot about whether his players have put aside the "clutter" that comes with their success.

"You fight against human nature a little bit," Saban said Saturday at media day for the title game.

In the past, Saban has taken issue with the phrase "defending champions." He delivered a message of moving on to his players two days after winning last season's BCS title.

He said the gist was: "You guys are not the national champions."

"Other than making you a target," he said, "it doesn't do anything for you."

Alabama is still the target.

Tide players held the meeting because they wanted their teammates to get more focused in practice. Two freshmen linebackers — who aren't part of the playing rotation — were sent home Friday for curfew violations.

No. 2 Alabama is favored by more than a touchdown, which is OK with Fighting Irish coach Brian Kelly.

"Somebody's got to be an underdog," Kelly said during his turn at the podium. "Alabama's got the belt; they deserve to have the belt, and we've got to try to take it from them."

The Tide is seeking its third national title in four years. No. 1 Notre Dame has its own impressive collection but none since 1988.

Kelly hopes to reach that same level Saban has achieved, ensuring that this isn't a one-time opportunity.

"Your program is defined in consistency, and Alabama is that model," he said. "I concede to that. It's where we want to be. We want to be back here next year.

"There's been some commentators that talk about, 'Is Notre Dame for real?' Well, for me, we're for real because we're here. We've won all our games."

Kelly said he gets the vibe that his team is ready for Monday night. He says he doesn't want the "outside, perceived pressure to weigh heavily" on players.

Alabama players have been here and done this, including the hype and sometimes off-the-wall questions of what amounts to a downsized version of the Super Bowl media day.

"I mean, I think it's the media that makes the game so much bigger," Tide quarterback AJ McCarron said "Me personally, I think it's just another game.

"Yeah, you're playing for a national championship, but it's another football game. You know, the field is still 53 yards wide, 100 yards long. Still got to put the ball in the end zone to win the game. I don't really pay too much attention to the title of the game, I guess."

In other words, the label "BCS championship" is just more clutter.

Read More..

The New Old Age: Murray Span, 1922-2012

One consequence of our elders’ extended lifespans is that we half expect them to keep chugging along forever. My father, a busy yoga practitioner and blackjack player, celebrated his 90th birthday in September in reasonably good health.

So when I had the sad task of letting people know that Murray Span died on Dec. 8, after just a few days’ illness, the primary response was disbelief. “No! I just talked to him Tuesday! He was fine!”

And he was. We’d gone out for lunch on Saturday, our usual routine, and he demolished a whole stack of blueberry pancakes.

But on Wednesday, he called to say he had bad abdominal pain and had hardly slept. The nurses at his facility were on the case; his geriatrician prescribed a clear liquid diet.

Like many in his generation, my dad tended towards stoicism. When he said, the following morning, “the pain is terrible,” that meant agony. I drove over.

His doctor shared our preference for conservative treatment. For patients at advanced ages, hospitals and emergency rooms can become perilous places. My dad had come through a July heart attack in good shape, but he had also signed a do-not-resuscitate order. He saw evidence all around him that eventually the body fails and life can become a torturous series of health crises and hospitalizations from which one never truly rebounds.

So over the next two days we tried to relieve his pain at home. He had abdominal x-rays that showed some kind of obstruction. He tried laxatives and enemas and Tylenol, to no effect. He couldn’t sleep.

On Friday, we agreed to go to the emergency room for a CT scan. Maybe, I thought, there’s a simple fix, even for a 90-year-old with diabetes and heart disease. But I carried his advance directives in my bag, because you never know.

When it is someone else’s narrative, it’s easier to see where things go off the rails, where a loving family authorizes procedures whose risks outweigh their benefits.

But when it’s your father groaning on the gurney, the conveyor belt of contemporary medicine can sweep you along, one incremental decision at a time.

All I wanted was for him to stop hurting, so it seemed reasonable to permit an IV for hydration and pain relief and a thin oxygen tube tucked beneath his nose.

Then, after Dad drank the first of two big containers of contrast liquid needed for his scan, his breathing grew phlegmy and labored. His geriatrician arrived and urged the insertion of a nasogastric tube to suck out all the liquid Dad had just downed.

His blood oxygen levels dropped, so there were soon two doctors and two nurses suctioning his throat until he gagged and fastening an oxygen mask over his nose and mouth.

At one point, I looked at my poor father, still in pain despite all the apparatus, and thought, “This is what suffering looks like.” I despaired, convinced I had failed in my most basic responsibility.

“I’m just so tired,” Dad told me, more than once. “There are too many things going wrong.”

Let me abridge this long story. The scan showed evidence of a perforation of some sort, among other abnormalities. A chest X-ray indicated pneumonia in both lungs. I spoke with Dad’s doctor, with the E.R. doc, with a friend who is a prominent geriatrician.

These are always profound decisions, and I’m sure that, given the number of unknowns, other people might have made other choices. Fortunately, I didn’t have to decide; I could ask my still-lucid father.

I leaned close to his good ear, the one with the hearing aid, and told him about the pneumonia, about the second CT scan the radiologist wanted, about antibiotics. “Or, we can stop all this and go home and call hospice,” I said.

He had seen my daughter earlier that day (and asked her about the hockey strike), and my sister and her son were en route. The important hands had been clasped, or soon would be.

He knew what hospice meant; its nurses and aides helped us care for my mother as she died. “Call hospice,” he said. We tiffed a bit about whether to have hospice care in his apartment or mine. I told his doctors we wanted comfort care only.

As in a film run backwards, the tubes came out, the oxygen mask came off. Then we settled in for a night in a hospital room while I called hospices — and a handyman to move the furniture out of my dining room, so I could install his hospital bed there.

In between, I assured my father that I was there, that we were taking care of him, that he didn’t have to worry. For the first few hours after the morphine began, finally seeming to ease his pain, he could respond, “OK.” Then, he couldn’t.

The next morning, as I awaited the hospital case manager to arrange the hospice transfer, my father stopped breathing.

We held his funeral at the South Jersey synagogue where he’d had his belated bar mitzvah at age 88, and buried him next to my mother in a small Jewish cemetery in the countryside. I’d written a fair amount about him here, so I thought readers might want to know.

We weren’t ready, if anyone ever really is, but in our sorrow, my sister and I recite this mantra: 90 good years, four bad days. That’s a ratio any of us might choose.

---

Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”

Read More..

After Fiscal Deal, Tax Code May Be Most Progressive Since 1979

WASHINGTON — With 2013 bringing tax increases on the incomes of a small sliver of the richest Americans, the country’s top earners now face a heavier tax burden than at any time since Jimmy Carter was president.

The last-minute deal struck by the departing 112th Congress raised taxes on a handful of the highest-earning Americans, with about 99.3 percent of households experiencing no change in their income taxes. But the Tax Policy Center estimates that the average family in the top 1 percent will pay a federal tax rate of more than 36 percent this year, up from 28 percent in 2008. That is the highest rate since 1979, at least.

By some measures, the tax code might now be the most progressive in a generation, tax economists said, while noting that every American is paying a lower burden currently than they did then. In fact, the total federal tax rate is still vastly lower for the very rich than it was at any point in the 1940s through 1970s. It has risen from historical lows, but is still closer to those lows than where it was in the postwar decades.

“We made the system more progressive by raising rates at the top and leaving them for everyone else,” said Roberton Williams of the Tax Policy Center, a research group based in Washington. “The offsetting issue is that the rich have gotten a lot richer.”

Indeed, over the last three decades the bulk of pretax income gains have gone to the wealthy — and the higher up on the income scale, the bigger the gains, with billionaires outpacing millionaires who outpaced the merely rich. Economists doubted that the tax increases would do much to reverse that trend.

With the recovery failing to improve incomes for millions of average Americans and the country running trillion-dollar deficits, President Obama made “tax fairness” a centerpiece of his re-election campaign. In the heated negotiations with House Speaker John A. Boehner, that translated into the White House’s insistence on tax increases for the top 2 percent of households and a continuation of tax breaks and cuts for a vast number of taxpayers.

Republicans resisted increasing tax rates and aimed for lower revenue targets, arguing that spending was the budget’s primary problem and that no American should see his or her taxes go up too much in such a sluggish economy. But ultimately they relented, and Congress cut a last-minute deal.

“A central promise of my campaign for president was to change the tax code that was too skewed towards the wealthy at the expense of working middle-class Americans,” Mr. Obama said after Congress reached an agreement.

That deal includes a host of tax increases on the rich. It raises the tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent on income above $400,000 for individuals, and $450,000 for couples. The rate on dividends and capital gains for those same taxpayers was bumped up 5 percentage points, to 20 percent. Congress also reinstated limits on the amount households with more than $300,000 in income can deduct. On top of that, two new surcharges — a 3.8 percent tax on investment income and a 0.9 percent tax on regular income — hit those same wealthy households.

As a result of the taxes added in both the deal and the 2010 health care law, which came into effect this year, taxpayers with $1 million in income and up will pay on average $168,000 more in taxes. Millionaires’ share of the overall federal tax burden will climb to 23 percent from 20 percent.

The result is a tax code that squeezes hundreds of billions of dollars more from the very well off — about $600 billion more over 10 years — while leaving the tax burden on everyone else mostly as it was. And the changes come after 30 years of both Republican and Democratic administrations doing the converse: zeroing out federal income taxes for many poor working families while also reducing the tax burden for households on the higher end of the income scale.

“Back at the end of the Carter and beginning of the Reagan administrations, we had a pretty severe income-tax burden for people at a low level of income. It was actually kind of appalling,” said Alan D. Viard, a tax expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-of-center research group in Washington. “Policy makers in both parties realized that was bad policy and started whittling away at it” by expanding credits and tinkering with tax rates.

After those changes and the new law, comparing average tax rates for poor households and wealthy households, 2013 might be the most progressive tax code since 1979. But economists cautioned that measuring progressivity is tricky. “It’s not like there is some scientific measure of progressivity all economists agreed upon,” said Leonard E. Burman, a professor of public affairs at Syracuse University. “People look at different numerical measures and they’ve changed in different ways at different income levels.”

Mr. Viard said that over time the code had become markedly more progressive for the poor compared with the middle class. But it arguably did not become much more progressive for the rich compared with the middle class, or the very rich compared with the rich, in part because of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on investment income.

An anesthesiologist who earns a $500,000 salary subject to payroll and income taxes might pay a higher tax rate than a hedge fund manager making $1 billion subject mostly to capital-gains taxes, for instance.

Economists are also divided on the ultimate effect of those tax increases on the wealthy to income growth and income inequality in the United States. The recession hit the incomes of the rich hard, but they have snapped back much more strongly than those for middle or low-income workers.

“I’d still rather be really rich, even if I’m getting taxed much more than a low-income person” would be, Mr. Williams of the Tax Policy Center added.

Read More..