Mediaboss Marketing

Housekeepers and baristas are often stiffed.

July 10, 2017, 12:01 AM EDT

Hoping to get a good tip? Seek out the table with the most conservative men from New England. A new survey finds men, Republicans, and residents of the northeast are the best tippers.

The most important business stories of the day.

Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.

Women tip a median of 16 percent, whileDemocrats and southerners leave a median15 percent at a restaurant, according to a new survey of more than 1,000 American adults conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International on behalf of CreditCards.com. That's compared with the median 20 percent that men, Republicans, and northeasterners leave. Those who pay with plastic leave a median 20 percent, compared with 15 percent for those who pay in cash.

Though roughlyhalf ofpeople tip between 16 percent and 20 percent, about a fifth of restaurant goers polled admitted to stiffing the wait staff at least occasionally.

I was definitely surprised by how many people tip over 15 percent, but I was also surprised by how many people never tip at all at a restaurant, Matt Schulz, CreditCards.coms senior industry analyst, said in a statement. Im guessing they don't get very good service on their next visit.

Tipping isn't customary worldwide, but it's a critical source of incomefor nearly all American service workers.The federal minimum wage for tipped employees is just $2.13. Such workers rely on the collective whim of their customers for the remainder of their earnings. (A handful of states have a higher minimum wage for such employees, includingAlaska, California, and Oregon.)

There's a discriminatory nature to tipping, advocates of alternative payment options argue. "The typical full-time, year-round female server is paid just 68 percent of what her male counterpart is paid ($17,000 vs. $25,000 annually)," a February 2012 report from the Restaurant OpportunitiesCenters Unitedfound. "The gender pay gap is even larger for women of color. Black femaleservers, for example, are paid only 60 percent of what all male servers are paid."

The report found that, among more complex gender and economic reasons,these servers were paid less because women, particularly women of color, more frequently worked at fast-food and family-style establishments, rather than infine dining, where tips are higher.

There's been a recent trend against tipping, with some restaurants factoring the service charge into the cost of their products. Famed restaurateur Danny Meyernixed tipping at his restaurants entirely. The majority of restaurants, however, still have tipping policies.

Issues with tipping extend beyond the restaurant industry. The survey found that 31 percent of those surveyed never tip their housekeeper when staying at a hotel and 30 percent never tip their barista at a coffee shop. Hair stylists and barbers fared slightly better: Only 12 percent of those polled stiffed these workers. Women were more likely than men to tip in all three of thesescenarios.

The bottom line? Tip your service workers.

See the original post:
Men and Republicans Are the Best Tippers - Bloomberg - Bloomberg

Politicians call the Medicaid program that provides health care for the poor "broken." Academic studies have reported on its limited health benefitsor the longer appointment wait times that people with Medicaid face.

But as Republicans feverishly work to revise ahealth-care bill that would trigger deep cuts to the program over time, a massive new survey reveals that people enrolled in Medicaid rate their health care pretty high.

On a scale of 0 ("the worst health care possible") to 10 ("the best health care possible"), more than 270,000people covered by Medicaid in 46 states rated their health care at an average of 7.9, according to an analysis in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. That's just slightly worse than how Medicare enrollees rated their health care and not far behind how privately insured patients feel about their coverage.

"The future of Medicaid is just the hottest topic in the health policy world. But its been, for a long time, a lot of rhetoric," said Michael Barnett, assistant professor of health policyandmanagement at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. Missing from the debate, Barnett said, is what people covered by the program feel.

"If theyre satisfied, its really an argument: Does reducing those benefits, having fewer peopleon Medicaid, really improve populationhealth?" Barnett said.

Under a Senate Republican health-care bill, spending for Medicaid would be cut 35 percent by 2036, according to the Congressional Budget Office. For millions of children and families on the program, that could mean losing important health services. (Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post)

[Martin Shkrelis trial shows just how angry people are about drug prices]

The survey took place from December 2014 to July 2015 and included a sample of people who were enrolled in Medicaid as of fall of 2013. That means it did not capture people who received coverage as a result of the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act.

The survey can't show how the health law changed Medicaid, but it provides a snapshot across a broad swath of enrollees including the elderly, disabled people and adults. Nearly half of the people rated their Medicaid coverage a 9 or 10, while less than 10 percent gave it a score less than 5. Older adults rated the care a bit higher than others, but their scores were strikingly consistent overall.

The vast majority of people 84 percent reported being able to get the care they needed over the last six months.

A common critique of Medicaid has been that theprogramcosts the federal government a lot of money but doesn't provide much access to health care because people struggle to get appointments or find many physicians decline to accept their coverage.

Various barriers to care have been documented, but the survey found that only 3 percent of enrollees reported not being able to get care because of waiting times or doctors not accepting their coverage.

Another issuethat policymakers worry about is whether people have a "usual source of care," meaning a primary care doctor or another kind of clinic where they can seek care in non-emergency situations.

The goal is to have people manage chronic diseases such as diabetes and prevent illness altogether, instead of waiting until they are acutely sick and must relyon the emergency room. Only 2 percent of respondents said they lacked a usual source of care because they couldn't find a physician who took their insurance.

Read more:

Louisiana considers radical step to counter high drug prices: Federal intervention

Why the Senate health-care bill is even harsher than it looks, in one chart

Lawmakers make bipartisan push to understand the soaring price of a lifesaving drug

The rest is here:
Republicans say Medicaid is 'broken.' Here's how the people it covers feel. - Washington Post

By Jim Forsyth | SAN ANTONIO

SAN ANTONIO Civil rights groups accused Texas Republicans of illegally drawing district maps with the intention of diluting the voting power of minorities at the start of a hearing on Monday on a long-simmering battle over redistricting.

The hearing before a three-judge panel at a U.S. district court in San Antonio could affect U.S. congressional races in the largest Republican-controlled state next year. It comes as the U.S. Supreme Court has been willing to invalidate state electoral maps on the grounds of racial discrimination.

Plaintiffs including voters in contested districts and civil rights groups told the panel that Republicans, who dominate state politics, deliberately drew the lines to undermine the power of groups including Latinos, who make up about 40 percent of the state's population.

Texas did not deny that many districts are serpentine, but its lawyers argued the boundaries were drawn for Republican partisan advantage, which is legal. They dismissed claims the districts were drawn illegally with the intention to disenfranchise racial and ethnic groups, who typically tend to favor Democrats.

The hearing, expected to take a week, is part of a six-year legal battle over the maps. The panel in March dealt a blow to the state when in a 2-1 decision it ruled Texas lawmakers drew up three U.S. congressional districts to undermine the influence of Hispanic voters.

On the national level, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in June to decide whether the U.S. Constitution limits how far lawmakers can go to redraw voting districts to favor one political party in a case that could have huge consequences for American elections. A decision is likely several months off.

In May, the Supreme Court found that Republican legislators in North Carolina had drawn two electoral districts to diminish the statewide political clout of black voters.

Texas has 36 congressional districts, with Republicans holding 25 seats from the state in the U.S. House of Representatives and Democrats 11. In recent elections, one district has been considered competitive.

"Every district is very Republican or very Democrat.Does that really help the system?" U.S. Representative Henry Cuellar, a Democrat whose district winds more than 150 miles through south Texas into parts of San Antonio, said in an interview.

Republican consultant Matt Mackowiak said in an interview: "The party that is in power always tries to use redistricting to their advantage. We see that in Texas on the Republican side and we see that in California on the Democratic side."

(Writing by Jon Herskovitz; Editing by Matthew Lewis)

NEW YORK Commuters were warned to expect hell going to and from New York City, but on the first day of disruptive repairs at the nation's busiest rail hub on Monday many said their rides were no worse than usual for the crowded, delay-prone transit system.

CHICAGO Three current and former Chicago police officers pleaded not guilty on Monday to felony charges of conspiring to cover up the fatal shooting of an African-American teenager by a white officer, a killing that sparked days of protests.

Go here to see the original:
Civil rights groups battle Texas Republicans in court on redistricting - Reuters

At least two Republicans in the House of Representatives have shown far more of an interest in one particular life that of Charlie Gard than for the millions of other, less well-known lives already in their care.

Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona and Brad Wenstrup of Ohio are both introducing a bill that will allow Gard, an 11-month-old baby on life support in London, to receive permanent residence in the United States, according to a report by AOL News. Already, the predicament of Gard has become an international issue as a recent judicial ruling prevented Gards parents from traveling abroad with their son to seek more advanced treatment than their national health system was able to give the child.

In a joint statement released on Friday, Franks and Wenstrup argued that our bill will support Charlies parents right to choose what is best for their son, by making Charlie a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. in order for him to receive treatments that could save his life.This is a commendable sentiment and a laudable action.

Franks and Wenstrups willingness to extend their compassion and the legal protections afforded by U.S. citizenship stands in contract to their positions on a number of issues that similarly effect the health of millions of children.

Wenstrup faced protests outside of one of his district offices because of his decision to vote for the American Health Care Act, which will undo many of the protections received by the sick and poor by President Barack Obamas Affordable Care Act.Franks also voted for the bill, although he initially opposed it because he wanted to make sure itretained anti-abortion provisions and gutted insurance regulations.

A number of studies have found that removing people from their health insurance, as would happen in roughly 22 million cases under the current Republican health care bill, will almost certainly cause a large number of deaths. Both congressmen have, nonetheless, supported repeal.

As well, Wenstrup hasopposed admitting Syrian refugees into the United States, thus taking a position that would preventat-risk children from getting healthcare and, one presumes, return them to a war zone. Franks has similarly supported President Donald Trumps proposal to applyextreme vettingto immigrants coming from nations with Islamist terrorist ties, another move which would, in turn, prevent both adults and children from getting necessary healthcare.

Perhaps most interestingly, Franks was a co-sponsor of 2009s the Birthright Citizenship Act, a bill that would have required at least one parent of any child newly born on U.S. soil to be either a citizen themselves, a legal resident or alien working for the U.S. armed services in order for that child to receive U.S citizenship. It was designed, by its sponsors own admissions, to prevent anchor babies that is, children born to undocumented residents who would give their parents some leverage applying to extend or make permanent their stays in this country. That and a number of bills like it have failed to become law.

Today, Gards parents provided what a judge called new and powerful medical evidence that, indeed, therapies available only in the U.S. may help the child despite British doctors advice that he be taken off life support.

Read more:
Republicans cynically offer Charlie Gard US citizenship to get the health care they won't give to others - Salon

Rep. Mo BrooksMo BrooksGOP Senate candidate: Moderate Republicans are blocking the wall GOP Senate candidate threatens shutdown over border wall Time to pass National Concealed Carry Reciprocity MORE (R-Ala.), a current candidate for the Senate seat left openby Attorney General Jeff SessionsJeff SessionsDem fumes over Team Trump's 'pattern of convenient forgetfulness' GOP Senate candidate: Moderate Republicans are blocking the wall GOP Senate candidate threatens shutdown over border wall MORE, blamed entrenched Washington special interestsMondayfor holding up the construction of President Trump's promised wall on the border with Mexico.

In a fundraising email, Brooks said that moderate Democrats and Republican big business interests outwaiting Trumps time in officewith an eye towards passing immigration amnesty in the future.

The Wall is being held up because of a tacit deal that has existed for years between moderate Republican big business and Democratic Party, the email read.

The fight to stop Amnesty is a fight for the future of America itself, Brooks said in the email.

The pro-Amnesty crowd is so determined to keep President Trump from doing what the American people elected him to do, that they will stop at nothing to defeat the Wall.

Brooks also called Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.), who has beenappointed to fill Sessionss seat until the election, an establishment Republican backed by pro-Amnesty, establishment money.

The fundraising push comes as Brooks and former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moorechallenge Strange in the upcoming August primary.

Brooks also released a campaign adMonday in which he threatened to shut down the government to obtain funding for the border wall.

Elect me to the Senate, and Ill fight every spending bill that doesnt fund that wall. And if I have to filibuster on the Senate floor, Ill even read the King James Bible until the wall is funded, he said in the campaign ad.

Were going to build that wall, or youll know the name of every Republican who surrenders to the Democrats to break my filibuster. I give you my word, and I dont give my word lightly, Brooks continued.

Brooks repeatedly attacked Trump during the presidentialprimary, calling him a "serial adulterer." While Brooks has become a strong supporter of the president since his November victory, his previous criticisms of Trump could pose a problem for him in the Alabama race.

See more here:
GOP Senate candidate: Moderate Republicans are blocking the wall - The Hill