Contact Us: New In Town And Renting?

After weeks of talk about implementation "train wreck" for the Affordable Care Act, supporters of the law finally got some good news Thursday.   Insurance premiums in California's health care exchange will provide plans that range from a 2 percent increase and 29 percent decrease in premiums, compared to current insurance rates.  Covered California, the state agency in charge of the state's health insurance exchange, announced on Thursday that the state will provide 13 insurance plans next year. Medium-level "bronze" and "silver" health insurance plans came in nearly $200 lower a month than predicted, according to the Washington Post's Sarah Kliff.  For those who have been closely following the law and its implementation, these are good signs for overall implementation. Linda Blumberg, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, said the news was positive for a number of key reasons.  First, it's a good sign that the 13 plans have created legitimate competition, which has always been the central goal of the law. And that competition comes in the nation's largest state actively working to implement Obamacare, which supporters hope will create a model for other states. "It's the most important state," Blumberg told Business Insider. "It's huge. And it has a large number of uninsured." The most important part to Blumberg, however, is that premiums will cost much lower than was expected. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a "silver plan" would cost an average of $5,200 per year. In reality, at least in California, it will cost approximately $3,312, or $276 per month.  For Blumberg, it's a sign that insurers are not trying to "game the system." "It's a signal to other states and carriers in other states that, listen, you know, there are plenty of insurers out here who want this business, and not everybody is trying to game the system by pricing high out of the blocks. "Because that's one thing you worry about. Without implicitly colluding, they all get in there and say, 'Let's all bid high and see what happens.' This is a sign that, listen, there are plenty of carriers out there who are going to try to price this smartly and carefully." Obviously, California's smooth start does not mean implementation will be easy for the rest of the country. In some states — including Alabama, Hawaii, Michigan, Delaware, Alaska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and Nebraska — there is the problem of a lack of competition and monopolies.  Some states, including Florida and Texas, are not working as hard as California is to implement the law. But for Blumberg, California is the blueprint. "It's going to continue to be a mix that's going to continue to play out across the states," Blumberg said. "We're going to see some that are pricing too well, and some that are pricing too high. But I think the dynamics in the market will then lead to changes after that, as you see in California." Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.Join the conversation about this story »    

McDonald's just announced its highest-calorie single menu item ever.  Oof.  While the Japanese Mega Potato has more than 1,000 calories, that number is not shocking for fast food or even chain restaurant menu items.  Stalwarts of indulgence like Cheesecake Factory and Burger King also made our list for their calorie-coma concoctions, along with a massive smoothie from Smoothie King. Check out the gallery to see what you can eat to challenge the structural integrity of your waistband. 17. Burger King's Triple Whopper has 1,020 calories. "Our Triple Whopper Sandwich boasts three savory fire-grilled beef patties topped with juicy tomatoes, fresh cut lettuce, creamy mayonnaise, crunchy pickles, and sliced white onions on a soft sesame seed bun," the fast food giant writes.  16. Quizno's large Veggie Deluxe sandwich has 1,060 calories. Cheese and guacamole add calories to this otherwise healthy sub.  15. Burger King's Ultimate Breakfast Platter has 1,070 calories. The dish comes with generous helpings of sausage, pancakes, eggs, and hash browns. If that isn't enough, you also get a biscuit.  See the rest of the story at Business Insider Please follow Retail on Twitter and Facebook.    

Last month, Business Insider took a deep dive into how to decide whether you should get your CFA or MBA — now we're getting more personal. We found that both accreditations have their purposes. For example, the CFA charter is better if you want to be an analyst, and the MBA is better if you want a more diverse skill set. But this is a hotly debated topic, one that get people frothing at the mouth and rolling their eyes. So there's a lot more to be broken down here. We reached out to sources who hold either CFA charters or MBA degrees to find out what makes one better than the other. This time around we're featuring the MBA, but don't worry, the CFA will get its day.Better networking during the process. According to our sources, Business School is where you meet people — your classmates, faculty, speakers, recruiters. They all come to you. A better-connected alumni base. The CFA Institute is trying to get better, but it just doesn't have the close-knit alumni community that Business Schools around the country have been fostering for decades. If you think you'll need that, the MBA is a  better option. Better for working in a variety of sectors. Yes, you'll likely concentrate in a certain skill set, but with the variety of business classes at your disposal, the MBA is better for working in different kinds of jobs from business journalism to the C-suite. See the rest of the story at Business Insider Please follow Clusterstock on Twitter and Facebook.    

You may be wondering why America lets the Chinese army get away with hacking and stealing secrets from Lockheed, Raytheon, Bank of America, and a slew of other giant multinational corporations. Why are these repeated incidents not treated as acts of war? It comes down to the interpretation of this kind of hacking as just another form of espionage, and espionage is not an act of war. Countries have been conducting espionage against each other for thousands of years, and though spies have been caught and killed, generally their spying hasn't led to a war. It's pretty much assumed that every foreign embassy has intelligence personnel working inside it. In fact, Americans have made several concerted attempts to bug the Russian Embassy in the U.S. (and vice versa). What makes China a bit different is that they're apparently doing it so well. Companies are obviously being robbed, but there's also the possibility of hackers perpetrating real-world damage — the threat of damaging critical infrastructure and lives in the process. Actual real-world damage, it turns out, is where the international community draws the line. Researchers and military professionals recently got together to sort out the whole idea of using military might against a sponsoring country or a collective of cyber hackers. From Global Post: The so-called Tallinn Manual, published in March, controversially concluded that nations would be in their rights under international law to respond with bombs or bullets against cyber attacker that caused death, destruction or damage on a significant scale. We also talked to Jarno Limnell, a cyber security expert at Stonesoft, who told us via email, "the cyber espionage that has been making headlines recently should not be counted as warfare or as an act of war." Limnell concluded with a warning: "The ability to escalate from espionage to destructive cyberwar is certainly there, but fear may ultimately perpetuate this eventuality. It is possible, for example, that the ongoing 'cyber spying accusations' between US and China could escalate to real war, especially in a climate of mutual distrust and fear." Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.Join the conversation about this story »    

One of biggest criticisms of Steve Jobs was that he was not very philanthropic. While he became a billionaire thanks to Pixar, he wasn't known as an activist like Bill Gates who pledged to donate the bulk of his fortune to causes he believed in. Well, it turns out, Jobs' family has been donating money for the last 20 years to various causes. It's just been doing it anonymously, the New York Times reports.  His wife, Laurene Powell Jobs said, "we don’t like attaching our names to things" so the family just quietly made donations. She's becoming a slightly more public figure lately talking about causes she believes in like immigration reform and education. Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.Join the conversation about this story »