Employers Must Offer Family Health Care, Affordable or Not, Administration Says

WASHINGTON — In a long-awaited interpretation of the new health care law, the Obama administration said Monday that employers must offer health insurance to employees and their children, but will not be subject to any penalties if family coverage is unaffordable to workers.

The requirement for employers to provide health benefits to employees is a cornerstone of the new law, but the new rules proposed by the Internal Revenue Service said that employers’ obligation was to provide affordable insurance to cover their full-time employees. The rules offer no guarantee of affordable insurance for a worker’s children or spouse. To avoid a possible tax penalty, the government said, employers with 50 or more full-time employees must offer affordable coverage to those employees. But, it said, the meaning of “affordable” depends entirely on the cost of individual coverage for the employee, what the worker would pay for “self-only coverage.”

The new rules, to be published in the Federal Register, create a strong incentive for employers to put money into insurance for their employees rather than dependents. It is unclear whether the spouse and children of an employee will be able to obtain federal subsidies to help them buy coverage — separate from the employee — through insurance exchanges being established in every state. The administration explicitly reserved judgment on that question, which could affect millions of people in families with low and moderate incomes.

Many employers provide family coverage to full-time employees, but many do not. Family coverage is much more expensive, and the employee’s share of the premium is typically much larger.

In 2012, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,615 a year for single coverage and $15,745 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $951 for individual coverage and more than four times as much, $4,316, for family coverage.

Starting in 2014, most Americans will be required to have health insurance. Low- and middle-income people can get tax credits to help pay their premiums, unless they have access to affordable coverage from an employer.

In its proposal, the Internal Revenue Service said, “Coverage for an employee under an employer-sponsored plan is affordable if the employee’s required contribution for self-only coverage does not exceed 9.5 percent of the employee’s household income.”

The rules, though labeled a proposal, are more significant than most proposed regulations. The Internal Revenue Service said employers could rely on them in making plans for 2014.

In writing the law, members of Congress often conjured up a picture of employees working year-round at full-time jobs. But in drafting the rules, the I.R.S. wrestled with the complex reality of part-time, seasonal and temporary workers.

In addition, the administration expressed concern that some employers might try to evade the new requirements by firing and rehiring employees, manipulating their work hours or using temporary staffing agencies. The rules include several provisions to prevent such abuse.

The law says an employer with 50 or more full-time employees may be subject to a tax penalty if it fails to offer coverage to “its full-time employees (and their dependents).”

Employers asked for guidance, and the Obama administration provided it, saying that a dependent is an employee’s child under the age of 26.

“Dependent does not include the spouse of an employee,” the proposed rules say.

Thus, employers must offer coverage to children of an employee, but do not have to make it affordable. And they do not have to offer coverage at all to the spouse of an employee.

The administration said that the rules — which apply to private businesses, nonprofit organizations and state and local government agencies — would require changes at many work sites.

“A number of employers currently offer coverage only to their employees, and not to dependents,” the I.R.S. said. “For these employers, expanding their health plans to add dependent coverage will require substantial revisions to their plans.”

In view of this challenge, the agency said it would grant a one-time reprieve to employers who fail to offer coverage to dependents of full-time employees, provided they take steps in 2014 to come into compliance. Under the rules, employers must offer coverage to employees in 2014 and must offer coverage to dependents as well, starting in 2015.

The new rules apply to employers that have at least 50 full-time employees or an equivalent combination of full-time and part-time employees. A full-time employee is a person employed on average at least 30 hours a week. And 100 half-time employees are considered equivalent to 50 full-time employees.

Thus, the government said, an employer will be subject to the new requirement if it has 40 full-time employees working 30 hours a week and 20 half-time employees working 15 hours a week.

Read More..

How your taxes will rise under 'fiscal cliff' deal

Americans may be breathing a deep sigh of relief that Congress resolved the so-called fiscal cliff crisis for the time being – until they see their next pay stubs. That’s because payroll taxes will increase on most workers after Congress decided not to reverse an expiration of a payroll tax cut – a development that was largely expected. Payroll taxes rose to 6.2% under the deal, from 4.2% last year.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that 77% of Americans will see higher taxes because of the elimination of the payroll tax cut, meaning $115 billion less in disposable income.

The payroll tax cut helped Americans put more of their incomes in their pockets in 2011 and 2012, and before that, the Making Work Pay tax credit gave relief to workers in 2009 and 2010, said Joe Rosenberg, a research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

And “2013 will be the first year there’s not stimulus-related targeted tax relief for individuals,” he said.

A household making $50,000 to 75,000 a year will make $822 less this year than last year, according to Rosenberg’s calculations. Those making $75,000 to $100,000 will see $1,206 less in their paychecks, while those making $200,000 to $500,000 will see a drop of $2,711 in their paychecks.

Workers making $500,000 to $1 million will see a drop of $14,812 in their paychecks, more than $1,000 a month.

Studies show that high-income earners tend to save less but spend the same when they experience changes to their income, Rosenberg said.  Middle- and low-income earners tend to spend less, he said. But despite the shock workers may feel when they see their next paychecks, it could have been worse. Though Congress didn’t extend the payroll tax cut, it extended many other tax breaks for middle-income earners. Few consumers should be surprised that the payroll tax cut was on the chopping block, he said.

“This was always meant as a temporary provision to stimulate the economy when it was weak,” he said. “There was very little political support to see it continue.”

ALSO:  

The fiscal cliff con game

Fiscal cliff plan clears House with GOP divided

Fiscal cliff deal won't help labor market, economists say

Read More..

Ruling over bumper-car injury supports amusement park

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court, protecting providers of risky recreational activities from lawsuits, decided Monday that bumper car riders may not sue amusement parks over injuries stemming from the inherent nature of the attraction.

The 6-1 decision may be cited to curb liability for a wide variety of activities — such as jet skiing, ice skating and even participating in a fitness class, lawyers in the case said.

"This is a victory for anyone who likes fun and risk activities," said Jeffrey M. Lenkov, an attorney for Great America, which won the case.

But Mark D. Rosenberg, who represented a woman injured in a bumper car at the Bay Area amusement park, said the decision was bad for consumers.

"Patrons are less safe today than they were yesterday," Rosenberg said.

The ruling came in a lawsuit by Smriti Nalwa, who fractured her wrist in 2005 while riding in a bumper car with her 9-year-old son and being involved in a head-on collision. Rosenberg said Great America had told ride operators not to allow head-on collisions, but failed to ask patrons to avoid them.

The court said Nalwa's injury was caused by a collision with another bumper car, a normal part of the ride. To reduce all risk of injury, the ride would have to be scrapped or completely reconfigured, the court said.

"A small degree of risk inevitably accompanies the thrill of speeding through curves and loops, defying gravity or, in bumper cars, engaging in the mock violence of low-speed collisions," Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the majority. "Those who voluntarily join in these activities also voluntarily take on their minor inherent risks."

Monday's decision extended a legal doctrine that has limited liability for risky sports, such as football, to now include recreational activities.

"Where the doctrine applies to a recreational activity," Werdegar wrote, "operators, instructors and participants …owe other participants only the duty not to act so as to increase the risk of injury over that inherent in the activity."

Amusement parks will continue to be required to use the utmost care on thrill rides such as roller coasters, where riders surrender control to the operator. But on attractions where riders have some control, the parks can be held liable only if their conduct unreasonably raised the dangers.

"Low-speed collisions between the padded, independently operated cars are inherent in — are the whole point of — a bumper car ride," Werdegar wrote.

Parks that fail to provide routine safety measures such as seat belts, adequate bumpers and speed controls might be held liable for an injury, but operators should not be expected to restrict where a bumper car is bumped, the court said.

The justices noted that the state inspected the Great America rides annually, and the maintenance and safety staff checked on the bumper cars the day Nalwa broke her wrist. The ride was functioning normally.

Reports showed that bumper car riders at the park suffered 55 injuries — including bruises, cuts, scrapes and strains — in 2004 and 2005, but Nalwa's injury was the only fracture. Nalwa said her wrist snapped when she tried to brace herself by putting her hand on the dashboard.

Rosenberg said the injury stemmed from the head-on collision. He said the company had configured bumper rides in other parks to avoid such collisions and made the Santa Clara ride uni-directional after the lawsuit was filed.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard dissented, complaining that the decision would saddle trial judges "with the unenviable task of determining the risks of harm that are inherent in a particular recreational activity."

"Whether the plaintiff knowingly assumed the risk of injury no longer matters," Kennard said.

maura.dolan@latimes.com

Read More..

Playboy Hugh Hefner marries his 'runaway bride'

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Hugh Hefner's celebrating the new year as a married man once again.

The 86-year-old Playboy magazine founder exchanged vows with his "runaway bride," Crystal Harris, at a private Playboy Mansion ceremony on New Year's Eve. Harris, a 26-year-old "Playmate of the Month" in 2009, broke off a previous engagement to Hefner just before they were to be married in 2011.

Playboy said on Tuesday that the couple celebrated at a New Year's Eve party at the mansion with guests that included comic Jon Lovitz, Gene Simmons of KISS and baseball star Evan Longoria.

The bride wore a strapless gown in soft pink, Hefner a black tux. Hefner's been married twice before but lived the single life between 1959 and 1989.

Read More..

Study Suggests Lower Death Risk for the Overweight

A century ago, Elsie Scheel was the perfect woman. So said a 1912 article in The New York Times about how Miss Scheel, 24, was chosen by the “medical examiner of the 400 'co-eds'” at Cornell University as a woman “whose very presence bespeaks perfect health.”

Miss Scheel, however, was hardly model-thin. At 5-foot-7 and 171 pounds, she would, by today's medical standards, be clearly overweight. (Her body mass index was 27; 25 to 29.9 is overweight.)

But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people.

The report, although not the first to suggest this relationship between B.M.I. and mortality, is by far the largest and most carefully done, analyzing nearly 100 studies, experts said.

But don’t scrap those New Year’s weight-loss resolutions and start gorging on fried Belgian waffles or triple cheeseburgers.

Experts not involved in the research said it suggested that overweight people need not panic unless they have other indicators of poor health and that depending on where fat is in the body, it might be protective or even nutritional for older or sicker people. But over all, piling on pounds and becoming more than slightly obese remains dangerous.

“We wouldn’t want people to think, ‘Well, I can take a pass and gain more weight,'” said Dr. George Blackburn, associate director of Harvard Medical School’s nutrition division.

Rather, he and others said, the report, in The Journal of the American Medical Association, suggests that B.M.I., a ratio of height to weight, should not be the only indicator of healthy weight.

“Body mass index is an imperfect measure of the risk of mortality,” and factors like blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar must be considered, said Dr. Samuel Klein, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

Dr. Steven Heymsfield, executive director of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study, said that for overweight people, if indicators like cholesterol “are in the abnormal range, then that weight is affecting you,” but that if indicators are normal, there’s no reason to “go on a crash diet.”

Experts also said the data suggested that the definition of "normal" B.M.I., 18.5 to 24.9, should be revised, excluding its lowest weights, which might be too thin.

The study did show that the two highest obesity categories (B.M.I. of 35 and up) are at high risk. “Once you have higher obesity, the fat’s in the fire,” Dr. Blackburn said.

But experts also suggested that concepts of fat be refined.

"Fat per se is not as bad as we thought," said Dr. Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, professor of Medicine and Public Health at the University of California, Irvine. "What is bad is a type of fat that is inside your belly. Non-belly fat, underneath your skin in your thigh and your butt area — these are not necessarily bad." He added that, to a point, extra fat is accompanied by extra muscle, which can be healthy.

Still, it is possible that overweight or somewhat obese people are less likely to die because they, or their doctors, have identified other conditions associated with weight gain, like high cholesterol or diabetes.

“You’re more likely to be in your doctor’s office and more likely to be treated,” said Dr. Robert Eckel, a past president of the American Heart Association and a professor at University of Colorado.

Some experts said fat could be protective in some cases, although that is unproven and debated. The study did find that people 65 and over had no greater mortality risk even at high obesity.

“There’s something about extra body fat when you’re older that is providing some reserve,” Dr. Eckel said.

And studies on specific illnesses, like heart and kidney disease, have found an “obesity paradox,” that heavier patients are less likely to die.

Still, death is not everything. Even if "being overweight doesn't increase your risk of dying," Dr. Klein said, it "does increase your risk of having diabetes" or other conditions.

Ultimately, said the study’s lead author, Katherine Flegal, a senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “the best weight might depend on the situation you’re in.”

Take the perfect woman, Elsie Scheel, in whose "physical makeup there is not a single defect," the Times article said. This woman who "has never been ill and doesn't know what fear is" loved sports and didn't consume candy, coffee or tea. But she also ate only three meals every two days, and loved beefsteak.

Maybe such seeming contradictions made sense against the societal inconsistencies of that time. After all, her post-college plans involved tilling her father’s farm, but “if she were a man, she would study mechanical engineering.”

Read More..

Optimistic stock investors reaped rewards worldwide in 2012

Wall Street closed out the year with a surge in the final trading session, betting on a last-minute resolution of the so-called fiscal cliff.

The market may have jumped the gun, but investors' hopefulness fit the pattern of 2012: It was a year of solid stock price gains worldwide, as various predictions of Armageddon fell flat.

That has reinforced many market pros' conventional cautious optimism as the new year begins. Bears can still find plenty to be dour about, but the bulls have called it right in three of the last four years since the 2008 financial-system crash.

On Monday, the Dow Jones industrial average jumped 166 points, or 1.3%, to end the year at 13,104. Stocks rallied late in the session as rumors spread that Congress would approve a deal to limit the tax increases and spending cuts otherwise set to kick in Tuesday.

But after the closing bell, a deal to avert the fiscal cliff appeared uncertain — raising fears of a blistering market sell-off Wednesday.

Still, investors who had expected a sustained slump in stocks in 2012 found themselves left behind as most world markets posted double-digit percentage gains, underpinned by a resilient U.S. economy and by central banks' efforts to keep interest rates at rock bottom.

Wall Street optimism about 2013 remains rooted in expectations that the U.S. economy will continue to expand, albeit slowly, and with it corporate earnings.

"Absent a complete failure from Washington, growth should remain positive," said Russ Koesterich, global chief investment strategist at money management giant BlackRock Inc. in New York.

That bet paid off in 2012: The Standard & Poor's 500 index, a popular benchmark for many Americans' retirement accounts, rose 1.7% to 1,426 on Monday and was up 13.4% for the year.

That was the biggest advance since the index rose 23.4% in 2009. Stocks' gains last year also beat returns on most kinds of bonds and on low-yielding short-term cash accounts.

The S&P index now has rebounded 111% from its decade low in March 2009, restoring most of the wealth lost by investors in the Great Recession — if they held on.

In Europe, the Stoxx index of 600 big-name shares rose 14.4% for the year, also the biggest rally since 2009. Japan's main market index soared 22.9%. Most so-called emerging markets also were up sharply, including those in India, Mexico and Turkey.

The 30-stock Dow index was a relative laggard, rising 7.3% for the year. It was hurt by weakness in major energy stocks as crude oil prices fell and by a collapse of shares of troubled tech giant Hewlett-Packard Co.

Markets worldwide had rallied in the first few months of 2012, then dived in spring as doubts multiplied about the global economy.

Europe, gripped for a third year by its government-debt crisis, was the epicenter of those fears: Many investors expected the Eurozone to finally break up under its debt strains, consigning Greece, Spain, Portugal and perhaps other nations to economic death spirals.

But the doomsday predictions were thwarted by the European Central Bank. In late July, ECB President Mario Draghi shocked markets by declaring that the central bank would do whatever was necessary to preserve the Eurozone. "And believe me, it will be enough," Draghi said.

The ECB followed that pledge with a commitment to buy unlimited sums of Eurozone governments' bonds, if necessary, to pull down countries' borrowing costs — similar to the U.S. Federal Reserve's ongoing program of buying Treasury debt.

The ECB's move sparked a sharp rally in the euro that buoyed confidence in European stocks as well, despite deep recessions in the Continent's hardest-hit economies.

The U.S. economy, meanwhile, confounded expectations that it would slide back into recession. The economy grew at a 3.1% annualized rate in the third quarter after slowing to a 1.3% rate in the second quarter. Growth was supported in part by the housing market's continuing rebound.

"Housing got us into this mess. Now it's one of the sectors to get us out," said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at S&P Capital IQ in New York.

Housing-related stocks were some of the year's biggest winners, with builder PulteGroup Inc. up 188%, appliance maker Whirlpool Corp. rising 114% and paint producer Sherwin-Williams Co. up 72%.

Worldwide, investors' confidence also benefited as worries dissipated about a war between Israel and Iran. And late in the year, hopes rose that China's slowing economy would avoid a so-called hard landing — which could have put it in a recession — and instead would help drive global growth in the new year. The Shanghai stock market rocketed nearly 15% in December alone.

Emerging markets such as China could be a big lure for global investors in 2013, some experts said. Many governments in those markets have more leeway than developed economies to bolster growth with fiscal stimulus measures and with lower interest rates, said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at BMO Private Bank in Chicago.

By contrast, Ablin worries that U.S. economic growth and corporate earnings growth will be much slower than many investors are anticipating in the new year.

Whatever the ultimate workout of the fiscal cliff, Ablin said, "We are going to see taxes go up incrementally and spending go down incrementally," weighing on the economy.

Market pessimists believe that stock markets since 2009 have been driven largely by cheap credit supplied by central banks, particularly the Federal Reserve. Critics say the Fed's latest decision to ramp up purchases of Treasury bonds, aimed at pumping more money into the economy, smacks of desperation.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, however, has insisted that the Fed still has plenty of tools left to help the U.S. recovery gain speed. Wall Street, by and large, believes Bernanke.

"If they can print money," Stovall said, "are the central banks ever really out of bullets?"

business@latimes.com

Read More..

Body of Connecticut shooter Adam Lanza quietly claimed by his father

Newtown, Conn. shooter Adam Lanza's body has been claimed by his father.

The body of Newtown, Conn., shooter Adam Lanza was claimed by his father last week, a family spokesman said Monday. 

Peter Lanza claimed his son's body from the Connecticut medical examiner last Thursday, said family spokesman Errol Cockfield.

“Private arrangements took place over the weekend," Cockfield said. He declined to elaborate further about the nature of the arrangements.

Connecticut Chief State Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver, confirmed that Lanza's body is "finally gone."

Adam Lanza, 20, killed 20 first-graders and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14 and then committed suicide. He also killed his mother in their Newtown home before the rampag.

PHOTOS: Connecticut school shooting

A private funeral was held earlier this month in New Hampshire for his mother, Nancy Lanza, who was divorced from Peter Lanza.

Authorities have not offered a motive for the killings. State police say they have been exploring all aspects of Adam Lanza's life, including his education, family history and medical treatment for clues.

"Our family is grieving along with all those who have been affected by this enormous tragedy," Peter Lanza said in a statement in the days after the shooting. "No words can truly express how heartbroken we are. We are in a state of disbelief and trying to find whatever answers we can. We too are asking why."

Peter Lanza lives in Stamford, Conn., and is an executive with GE Energy Financial Services. 

Adam Lanza, who was known to be very shy, had a tight relationship with his mother but was estranged from his father after the couple's 2001 separation was finalized in a 2009 divorce.

FULL COVERAGE: Shooting at Connecticut school

Peter Lanza had seen his son weekly after the separation, according to a family acquaintance. But Adam Lanza began refusing to see him after Peter began seeing another woman whom he later married, according to Shelley Cudiner, an employee at the library at the University of Connecticut.

Adam Lanza also began refusing to see his brother, Ryan, an accountant in Manhattan, after their parents' 2009 divorce.

ALSO:

Pinnacles National Monument to become a park

FBI says woman sought funeral funds in Sandy Hook scam

Read More..

Armstrong better, Green Day to resume tour in 2013

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Green Day is going back on the road.

The Grammy-winning punk band announced new tour dates Monday.

The band canceled the rest of its 2012 club schedule and postponed the start of a 2013 arena tour after singer-guitarist Billie Joe Armstrong's substance abuse problems emerged publicly in September when he had a profane meltdown on the stage of the iHeartRadio Music Festival in Las Vegas. The band's rep announced later that Armstrong was headed to treatment for substance abuse.

"I just want to thank you all for the love and support you've shown for the past few months," Armstrong told fans in a statement Monday. "Believe me, it hasn't gone unnoticed and I'm eternally grateful to have such an amazing set of friends and family. I'm getting better every day. So now, without further ado, the show must go on."

The tour is scheduled to begin March 28 at the Allstate Arena in the Chicago area. Tickets for postponed shows will be honored on the new dates, and refunds will be available for canceled shows.

"We want to thank everyone for hanging in with us for the last few months," the band said. "We are very excited to hit the road and see all of you again, though we regret having to cancel more shows."

The band released their most recent album, "Tre," on Dec. 11, more than a month ahead of schedule.

___

Online:

http://www.greenday.com/

Read More..

Essay: In Pursuit of Answers One May Not Want to Know

I jogged into the Stanford Cancer Clinic with my boyfriend, the youngest people there by two decades. We stood there sweating and holding hands, a jarring sight in the sickly light.

“You are 18, right?” the receptionist asked. Behind me, a woman so gaunt that her cheekbones protruded rolled by in a wheelchair. The oncologist called me alone to the exam room, and I told her the story I had revealed to more doctors than friends: I carry the BRCA1 mutation, which gives you a 98 percent chance of developing cancer.

When my family found out that I might have inherited the mutation from my mother, we took it as a given that I would get tested. Scientists, atheists and lawyers, we are compulsively rational. Yet when I learned I carried the mutation, I felt the cruel weight of a paradox: you can never know whether you want to know until you already do.

At Stanford, I study artificial intelligence, in which math is used to resolve these sorts of dilemmas. My teachers claim that gaining information never hurts. It can be proved mathematically that a robot with more information never makes worse decisions But we are not robots. Our eyes don’t filigree the world with coordinates and probabilities, and they can be blinded by tears.

Still, we, too, display a preference for information. We dislike uncertainty so strongly that we sometimes even prefer bad news. One study of people at risk for a terminal disease found that those who learned they were going to die from it were happier a year later than those who remained uncertain about their fates. Most people have a deep intuition that a life lived cleareyed has inherent value, independent of whether the truth makes you happy. But surely this has limits.

I know there are some things I do not want to know: which other girls my boyfriend finds attractive or the day and manner of my death. The truth can hurt in two ways. It can worsen your options: you can’t live as happily with a significant other after learning of his infidelity. Or it can make you irrational: hearing about terrorists targeting airplanes may lead you to drive instead of fly, though planes remain much safer than cars.

So was I wrong to unwind my double helix?

My risks of getting cancer at 21 are too low for me to do anything differently to better my odds. The knowledge is both irrelevant and painful; it’s obsessed me and made me behave irrationally. I wake from nightmares in which I am dying from cancer. I reread the memoirs of patients with metastatic disease until I can’t see the text through my tears. In my supposedly rational pursuit of knowledge, I’ve gone a little mad.

Despite an excess of information, I pursued more, enrolling in Stanford’s cancer biology class. The professor filled his slides with dark oncological puns, lecturing with the almost robotic detachment I sometimes see in those who work closely with cancer. Maybe I, too, am becoming robotic. I can laugh at the puns, calmly press lecturers on survival rates for breast cancer, marvel at the elegant molecular mechanisms by which it eats us alive. Just as tumors eventually swell too large for their hosts to endure, will all this knowledge grow past what I can handle?

The prospect was too much for my mother, a far tougher woman than I am. When she received a diagnosis of breast cancer, she ordered the doctors to give her chemotherapy as rapidly as possible and recovered completely. But she refused to learn her chances of long-term survival or look at her medical records. I became the first in my family to read them, and when I learned her cancer had been unusually lethal, my father asked me not to tell her.

I cannot shake the thought that this mutation was given to me for a reason. I don’t believe in God. I know my chromosomes divided along a random schism, not a divine skein. But while I reject the theist’s idea of God-granted purpose, I accept the existentialist’s idea of crafting your own. The world may be only sound and fury, but we can choose to see patterns in that chaos, stories in the stars.

So I choose to believe that I have been given this mutation so that I can discover how to overcome it. Like the protagonist in “Flowers for Algernon,” I will be both scientist and patient. Even if this sense of purpose is illusory, it lets me do what I couldn’t before. Fear has sharpened me: I wake at 3 in the morning to refine biological algorithms or to read papers on ovarian cancer.

While I believe this knowledge has made me live better, I am not sure it’s made me happier. True, there was the day I dropped by Stanford’s Relay for Life, a fund-raiser for cancer research, ran farther than I ever had and walked home full of joyful purpose. There was also the night I lost it completely and sobbed for hours in my boyfriend’s arms.

In this oscillation between light and dark, one thing remains constant: I’m no longer so eager to illuminate my fate. Recently, I went to the Web site of 23andMe, a company that will read from your genome your risk of dying from a hundred diseases. I clicked through the testimonials and was unnerved by how similar our reasons were for wanting information. I looked down at my fingertips, tempted: what else in my genome waits to be found?

But then I clicked away. The Bible doesn’t tell us if Eve ate any more apples, but I have had my fill of revelations. I am 21 years old, and I want to be free to live a normal life: fate unbound by double helix, future exploding with possibility. I don’t want to know.

Read More..

Stocks turn up on hints of `fiscal cliff' deal

The stock market shot higher on Monday afternoon, in the year's final hour of trading, signaling that investors believe the politicians in Washington will work out a budget compromise to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”

The Dow was up 137 to 13,075 in the late afternoon, more than 1 percent. The Standard & Poor's 500 and the Nasdaq composite were up by more, with the Nasdaq rising nearly 2 percent.

It was a high note in what had been a choppy day for the market, as choppy as the “fiscal cliff” deal-making that has been yanking it around.

Stocks opened lower and struggled for direction in the morning. They jerked higher at midday, on reports that the bare outline of a deal to avoid the “cliff” had been knit together. Then, they lost some of those gains when President Barack Obama made an early afternoon appearance to say that a compromise was “within sight,” but not finalized. Then, in the late afternoon, they shot higher.

The market's indecisiveness overlaid a day of dramatic budget negotiations in Washington. If Republicans and Democrats can't agree to a new budget deal by midnight, then higher taxes and lower government spending will automatically kick in Tuesday — the so-called fiscal cliff.

That would hurt the economy and could even send it back into recession, many investors believe. But what might hurt more, they add, is the psychological impact of knowing that the government can't agree on a budget.

“We're having a fragile recovery, with the pain of 2008 still fresh on everybody's mind,” said Joe Heider, principal at Rehmann Group outside Cleveland. “It's fear of the unknown. And fear is one of the greatest drivers of the financial markets.”

The Dow Jones industrial average surged 99 points in midday trading after The Associated Press reported that Republicans and Democrats had agreed on some key aspects of a compromise budget plan. They cooled after Obama made it clear that a deal wasn't done. Then, around 2:45 p.m. EST, they started shooting higher again.

Shortly after 3 p.m. EST, the Standard & Poor's 500 index was up 21 to 1,423 and the Nasdaq composite index was up 57 to 3,017.

Investors' opinions about the “fiscal cliff,” and how much it matters, are varied.

Some are unruffled: They're confident that politicians will work out a last-minute deal, as they often do. Or they think that even if the U.S. does go over the “cliff,” it would be more akin to the anti-climactic Y2K scare than a true Armageddon. The “cliff's” impact would be felt only gradually, they reason. For example, workers might get more taxes withheld from their first couple of paychecks in the new year, but it's not as if they'd have to pay all their higher taxes up front on Tuesday. And Congress could always retroactively repeal those higher taxes.

Others are more concerned. The higher taxes and lower government spending could take more than $600 billion out of the U.S. economy and send it back into recession. Politically, the U.S. would send a message that its lawmakers can't cooperate. And investors would have no good read on the country's long-term policy for taxes and spending, or how the government plans to eventually trim its deficit.

That's made the fiscal cliff's impact on the stock market uneven. From mid-November through roughly mid-December, the stock market rose more or less steadily, despite the “cliff” looming on the horizon. It wasn't until shortly before Christmas, with still no deal in sight, that the “cliff” finally scared investors enough to send the market down.

Tim Speiss, partner in charge of the personal wealth advisers practice at EisnerAmper in New York, followed the “cliff” negotiations on Monday and wondered if the U.S. would get its debt rating cut again. The Standard & Poor's ratings agency cut its rating of the U.S. government amid similar negotiations in August 2011, when lawmakers were arguing over the government's borrowing limit. S&P said at the time that the “political brinksmanship” highlighted how “America's governance and policymaking (is) becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable.” Its rating cut sent the stock market into a tailspin.

The other major ratings agencies, Moody's and Fitch, have suggested that they might lower their ratings of the U.S. because of the “fiscal cliff.”

“That is, unfortunately, the big story,” Speiss said.

It's also one of the only stories. There's been little other news to trade on during the holiday season, giving the “fiscal cliff” drama outsized influence. No major companies are scheduled to report earnings this week. The most significant economic indicator scheduled for this week, the government's monthly jobs report, won't be released until Friday.

Trading volume has also been light, with many investors still on vacation. That also makes the market more volatile: With fewer shares trading hands, it can be moved by relatively small trades.

Last week, about 2.2 billion shares traded hands each day on average. Throughout the year, the average has been closer to 3.6 billion.

The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note rose to 1.76 percent from 1.70 percent late Friday, a sign that investors were moving money into stocks.

Some of the best-performing stocks for the year were those that had been hammered in 2011. Homebuilder PulteGroup, appliance maker Whirlpool and Bank of America all more than doubled over the year, after falling by double-digit percentages in 2011.

Some of the worst performers of the year were Best Buy, Hewlett-Packard and J.C. Penney. All are struggling to keep up with competitors who have adapted more quickly to changing technologies and changing customer tastes. They were all up Monday, but were each down at least 45 percent for the year.

Read More..