Shares of the largest U.S. health insurer were up about 1% at $334.4 before the bell.
Large U.S. health insurers, including UnitedHealth, benefited from lower health care spending in the first half of the year, which more than offset pandemic-related additional costs.
The companies, however, signaled a rebound in demand for deferred services in May and June and projected higher medical costs for the second half of the year.
UnitedHealth reported a medical loss ratio (MLR) - the percentage of premiums paid out for medical services - of 81.9%, lower than last year’s 82.4% and analysts’ estimate of 83.55%, according to IBES data from Refinitiv.
The lower MLR is below consensus and much closer to normal after hitting 70.2% in the second quarter, but availing health care services remained below pre-pandemic levels, Evercore ISI analyst Michael Newshel said.
UnitedHealth said results for the third quarter also reflect costs from the company’s customer cost-sharing initiatives for COVID-19 testing and treatment.
Revenue from its Optum unit rose 21.4% to $34.92 billion in the quarter ended Sept. 30.
UnitedHealth’s largest health insurance business brought in $50.4 billion in sales for the quarter, a near 5% rise from a year earlier. Growth in sales of its government-backed health plans for seniors, people with disabilities and those with low-income was offset by a decline in employer-sponsored plans.
The company reported adjusted earnings of $3.51 per share for the quarter, beating estimates of $3.09 per share.
UnitedHealth raised its annual 2020 adjusted profit forecast to between $16.50 per share and $16.75 per share, from its previous range of $16.25 per share to $16.55 per share.
Benson included the decision in guidance sent to Michigan clerks as elections officials prepare for any voter intimidation efforts on Election Day, Nov. 3.
“Fair, free and secure elections are the foundation of our democracy,” Benson said in a news release.
“I am committed to ensuring all eligible Michigan citizens can freely exercise their fundamental right to vote without fear of threats, intimidation or harassment. Prohibiting the open-carry of firearms in areas where citizens cast their ballots is necessary to ensure every voter is protected.”
The directive states that no one may openly carry a firearm within 100 feet of a polling place, clerk’s office or absentee ballot counting board. It requires clerks to post signage noting the rule, and to contact law enforcement if there are any violations.
Additional guidance from the state to law enforcement on possible safety and security issues on Election Day is expected soon.
There are thousands of polling places around the state, many located at schools, churches or similar venues. Although President Donald Trump has bashed mail-in voting and encouraged supporters to vote in person on Election Day, he has also called for an “army” of supporters to monitor voting at the polls.
This has prompted concerns there may be an increase in voter intimidation, especially in a state like Michigan that was decided by only 10,704 votes in 2016.
State Rep. Beau LaFave, an outspoken Republican from Iron Mountain, blasted the decision.
“It doesn’t surprise me one bit that the secretary of state is playing these cheap political games. The idea that she must prevent people from exercising their Second Amendment rights for our elections to be safe and secure is absolutely false. Secretary Benson is fearmongering to suppress voters, and it’s appalling,“ LaFave said.
LaFave said that “while some polling locations like churches and schools are already ‘pistol-free’ zones under state statute, with limited exceptions, any unilateral action by the executive branch, secretary of state or attorney general banning firearms in other polling places is unlawful, unenforceable and a violation of citizens’ voting rights and their right to self-defense.
“No voter should be forced to choose between these fundamental principles. There’s no way her ban passes constitutional muster. I have no doubt a lawsuit will be forthcoming,” LaFave said.
Jacinda Ardern has won a second term in office after her rival conceded in New Zealand’s general election.
Initial tallies showed Ms Ardern’s Labour Party was ahead after her campaign was dominated by her successful handling of the coronavirus crisis.
The 40-year-old leader went head to head with Judith Collins of the National Party in the election to form the country’s 53rd parliament - a referendum on Ms Ardern’s three-year term.
Ms Ardern told roaring crowds: “Thank you to the people who worked so hard to share our message. Who volunteered in what felt like an endless campaign.
“But most importantly thank you to the many people who gave us their vote, who trusted us to continue with leading New Zealand’s recovery.
“And to those amongst you who may not have supported Labour before - and the results tell me there were a few of you - to you I say thank you.
"We will not take your support for granted. And I can promise you we will be a party that governs for every New Zealander.”
Ms Ardern’s party was on track to win almost 50% of the vote as results rolled in on Saturday, while the opposition had under 30%.
Ms Collins, a 61-year-old former lawyer, congratulated Ms Ardern on the win, but said the government would need to do better to navigate the economic wreckage of the coronavirus crisis.
She said: “To Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who I have phoned, congratulations on your result. Which has been an outstanding result.”
The two weeks leading up to the election saw a record number of voters cast early ballots.
Earlier in the day, Ms Ardern brought homemade cheese scones to campaign volunteers and appeared relaxed as she awaited results.
Ms Ardern - whose government has focused particularly on the New Zealand housing crisis, child poverty and social inequality since coming into power in 2017 - has been cheered on and greeted by crowds trying to get selfies with her on the campaign trail.
“Elections aren’t always great at bringing people together but they also don’t need to tear one another apart,” she said after her win.
“And in times of crisis I believe New Zealand has shown that and for that again, I say thank you.”
A group of progressive lawmakers, candidates, and organizations have collectively signed a letter urging Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to eschew appointing corporate executives and lobbyists to his administration if he is elected, Politico reported Friday.
According to Politico, signatories to the letter include Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), and New York congressional candidate Jamaal Bowman.
Groups that signed include Public Citizen, Communications Workers of America, Greenpeace USA, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee—which is closely associated with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Our Revolution, founded by supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
“One of the most important lessons of the Trump administration is the need to stop putting corporate officers and lobbyists in charge of our government,” the letter, which was delivered to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Friday morning, states.
The letter specifically argues that K Street and Wall Street executives should not be nominated for any position that requires Senate confirmation.
“As elected leaders, we should stop trying to make unsupportable distinctions between which corporate affiliations are acceptable for government service and which are not,” it asserted.
Grijalva told Politico that the letter “is not addressed to Biden” specifically, but that “there’s an understanding that he’d be in charge and be the person making nominations.”
The letter is a reminder of the stark differences between the progressive and the corporate wings of the Democratic Party—Ocasio-Cortez famously said earlier this year that “in any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party"—that would likely come to the forefront should President Donald Trump be defeated.
Although Trump loves to tout the stock market gains that have occurred during his tenure, Wall Street has donated more money to Biden and Democrats this election cycle than to the president and his party. Biden has praised and reassured corporate leaders, shareholders, and the wealthiest Americans, promising to not “demonize” them and vowing that “nothing would fundamentally change” for them if he is elected.
Many progressives assert that there is much cause for concern, if Biden’s tenure in Congress and as vice president are any indicator of how he would run the country if elected.
The department said that New York City was responsible for the federal debts.
The letter, obtained by The Hill on Friday, states New York City was provided with accounts of all debts dating back to 2004, although the letter does not specifically detail them.
“New York City firefighters are waiting on Secretary Mnuchin to act,” a spokesperson for De Blasio told CNN. “If the Trump administration supports first responders and the fearless men and women who keep Americans safe, then it’s time for them to prove it.”
This comes after the New York Daily News reported last month that documents it had obtained revealed the Treasury Department failed to provide roughly $3.7 million to the first responder fund, with letters from Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) claiming that around $1.5 million was withheld in 2020.
The congressman had written to Mnuchin in June and on Sept. 10, claiming that the department withheld funding for the program due to “a range of issues dealing with different New York City offices and programs that have nothing to do with the FDNY Clinic.”
“It is essential that you release these funds immediately to the FDNY’s World Trade Center Clinic,” King wrote to Mnuchin in September. “Our firefighters should not [be] punished for an administrative issue with New York City’s Department of Finance.”
According to a response from the Treasury Department shared with The Hill last month, the agency told King on Aug. 20 that money from the FDNY’s World Trade Center Health Program was moved to fulfill other debts New York City had with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In response to Mnuchin’s letter from last week, which was also sent to 30 New York state officials including Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D), FDNY-Uniformed Firefighters Association President Andrew Ansbro in a news conference Wednesday called on Treasury officials to immediately address the withholding of funds.
“Can I blame Secretary Mnuchin? I guess I can’t because this has been going on for 17 years, but I would appreciate him fixing it, and fixing it to our satisfaction where the money is returned,” Ansbro said at the news conference. “They can chase down New York City’s debt somewhere else, but on the backs of New York City firefighters who are suffering from 9/11-related illnesses, that’s not acceptable.”
A spokeswoman for the company WSE said Thursday that Tesla was given repeated warnings its water supply would be turned off.
“The 14-day notice period has expired,” Sandra Ponesky told The Associated Press. “We can’t treat Tesla any differently than other customers.”
Tesla is building its first European factory outside the German capital and aims to eventually build 500,000 electric vehicles there.
It wasn’t immediately clear how the lack of water would affect construction work at the site in Gruenheide, which has been taking place at breakneck speed.
Tesla didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Ponesky said that as soon as the company pays its bills, a worker would be sent out to turn the tap back on again. She declined to say how much Tesla owes.
When the Department of Homeland Security released its Homeland Threat Assessment last week, it emphasized that self-proclaimed white supremacist groups are the most dangerous threat to U.S. security. But the report misleadingly added that there had been “over 100 days of violence and destruction in our cities,” referring to the anti-racism uprisings of this past summer.
In fact, the Black Lives Matter uprisings were remarkably nonviolent. When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters.
Here’s how we did our research
Since 2017, we have been collecting data on political crowds in the United States, including the protests that surged during the summer. We have almost finished collecting data from May to June, having already documented 7,305 events in thousands of towns and cities in all 50 states and D.C., involving millions of attendees. Because most of the missing data are from small towns and cities, we do not expect the overall proportions to change significantly once we complete the data collection.
We make two assumptions. First, when politicians and officials categorize the protests as violent, they are usually envisioning property destruction or interpersonal violence in which they infer that BLM protesters are attacking police, bystanders and property.
Second, using several measures to evaluate protest behavior offers a better assessment than the blanket term “violence.” For example, we disaggregate property destruction from interpersonal violence. We analyze separately the number of injuries or deaths among protesters and police. And we are thinking about how gathering even finer-grained data in the future could help further assign precise responsibility for violent acts.
The data on those protests shows very little violence
Here is what we have found based on the 7,305 events we’ve collected. The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.
First, police made arrests in 5 percent of the protest events, with over 8,500 reported arrests (or possibly more). Police used tear gas or related chemical substances in 2.5 percent of these events.
Protesters or bystanders were reported injured in 1.6 percent of the protests. In total, at least three Black Lives Matter protesters and one other person were killed while protesting in Omaha, Austin and Kenosha, Wis. One anti-fascist protester killed a far-right group member during a confrontation in Portland, Ore.; law enforcement killed the alleged assailant several days later.
Twitter and Facebook knew this was coming. For the last four years, they have ostensibly been preparing for foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election. Pressed by lawmakers, executives from both companies insisted that they had learned their lesson. “In 2016, we were not prepared for the coordinated information operations we now regularly face,” wrote Mark Zuckerberg in a 2018 blog post. “But we have learned a lot since then and have developed sophisticated systems that combine technology and people to prevent election interference on our services.”
Both companies were tested for the first time during this election cycle on Wednesday, and both stumbled out of the gates
The trouble, once again, came from a set of emails. On Wednesday, the New York Post published a story based on a tranche of emails it claimed had been recovered from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, including one suggesting that he had set up a meeting between his father, Joe Biden, and a Ukrainian oligarch. Joe Biden has long denied such a meeting ever took place, while President Trump rejoiced, claiming that it vindicated him for making baseless allegations of corruption against the former vice president.
But everything about the story was fishy. The emails themselves were acquired by Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer. Giuliani was a key figure in the Ukraine scandal that led to Trump’s impeachment. Intelligence agencies had also recently warned the White House that they suspected Russian intelligence officers were using Giuliani “as a conduit for disinformation aimed at undermining” Biden’s campaign, per The New York Times. Meanwhile, no one knew if the laptop involved actually belonged to Hunter Biden. The owner of a Delaware computer repair store who supposedly passed its contents on to the FBI and Giuliani said he couldn’t recall if Hunter Biden left the computer with him or not.
At this point, it’s not clear if all the emails recovered are authentic, if some are authentic and some (including the claim that the former vice president had met with a Ukrainian oligarch) are fake, or if the whole thing is an elaborate forgery. What is clear is that this was intended, as my colleague Matt Ford argued earlier in the week, as an October surprise to benefit Trump—and that it may have been the result of yet another foreign plot.
Facebook and Twitter responded by doing the opposite of what they did in 2016. Twitter shut down the story completely, suspending accounts—including those of many journalists—that spread it. Facebook limited the story’s reach pending review from third-party fact-checkers, a decision that reduced its visibility on the platform.
Japan’s government has reportedly decided to release more than 1m tonnes of contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the sea, setting it on a collision course with local fishermen who say the move will destroy their industry.
Media reports said work to release the water, which is being stored in more than 1,000 tanks, would begin in 2022 at the earliest and would take decades to complete.
An official decision could come by the end of the month, the Kyodo news agency said, ending years of debate over what to do with the water, with other options including evaporation or the construction of more storage tanks at other sites.
The government, however, has long indicated it prefers the option of releasing it into the nearby Pacific, despite opposition from local fishermen who say it will undo years of work rebuilding their industry’s reputation since the plant was wrecked by a huge tsunami in March 2011.
In response, the government has said it will promote Fukushima produce and address concerns among fishermen that consumers will shun their seafood once the water is released.
Environmental groups also oppose the move, while neighbouring South Korea, which still bans seafood imports from the region, has repeatedly voiced concern, claiming that discharging the water represented a ”grave threat” to the marine environment.
Pressure to decide the water’s fate has been building as storage space on the nuclear plant site runs out, with the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), estimating all of the available tanks will be full by the summer of 2022.
As of last month, 1.23m tonnes of water, which becomes contaminated when it mixes with water used to prevent the three damaged reactor cores from melting, were being stored in 1,044 tanks, with the amount of waste water increasing by 170 tonnes a day.
Tepco’s Advanced Liquid Processing System removes highly radioactive substances from the water but the system is unable to filter out tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that nuclear power plants routinely dilute and dump along with water into the ocean.
A panel of experts advising the government said earlier this year that releasing the water was among the most “realistic options”.
According to Justice Ministry spokesperson Sami Kiriakos, the draft legislation would expand the definition of sexual harassment to include “harassment verbally, through pictures or messages, taking photos of another or exposing oneself,” AFP reported.
The punishment could range from a fine to a prison sentence depending on the severity of the offense.
Under Finland’s current laws, sexual harassment only involves physical touch. While explicit photographs can be sometimes prosecuted under defamation laws, they are not currently considered sexual harassment in the Nordic country. The proposed law will be submitted to the government “sometime next year,” Kiriakos confirmed to AFP.
Various studies have revealed the prevalence of online harassment, which includes the sending of unsolicited sexual images.
In a recent global survey, children’s rights charity Plan International found that 58% of the 14,000 girls and young women surveyed said they have experienced online sexual harassment.
“These attacks may not be physical, but they are often threatening, relentless, and limit girls’ freedom of expression. Driving girls out of online spaces is hugely disempowering in an increasingly digital world, and damages their ability to be seen, heard and become leaders,” the organization concluded in a news release.
Such studies suggest that sexual harassment should be “dealt with in law,” Kiriakos explained.
“The studies based on questionnaires show that sexual harassment is quite common and that the victims of this type of behavior are most often female, so it is very relevant to consider how it should be dealt with in law,” Kiriakos said.
Other countries have already taken similar steps to outlaw online sexual harassment. Scotland in 2010 banned the sending of unsolicited sexual photos, whereas the US state of Texas instituted a $500 fine last year for sending unsolicited sexual images, AFP reported.
However, many other countries have not followed suit, especially because of the issues that can arise in enforcing such laws
