#Policy benefits

[techminsolutions]

LIC’s Bima Jyoti Plan for 2024: a comprehensive guide

Unlock the Benefits of LIC’s Bima Jyoti Plan: Secure Your Future Today In today’s uncertain world, securing your future and that of your loved ones is more crucial than ever. The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) presents an exceptional opportunity with its Bima Jyoti plan, a non-linked, non-participating, individual, limited premium, life insurance savings plan. This plan is designed to…

[scriptermubarak]

What is an insurance policy? Explanation of items to be included, necessary situations, and precautions for handling

What is an insurance policy? Explanation of items to be included, necessary situations, and precautions for handling What is an insurance policy? An insurance policy is a legally binding contract between an individual (or entity) and an insurance company. It outlines the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage provided by the company in exchange for the payment of premiums. Key elements…

[imkeepinit]

[watermelinoe]

some of you are like well i refuse to vote democrat because when the rapture revolution comes i want to be morally pure

[notasapleasure]

'oh everything is awful anyway what am I expected to be happy about renationalised railways?'

TODAY. IMAGINE YOU ARE A FRIGHTENED, EXHAUSTED ASYLUM SEEKER WHO HAS BEEN HELD IN LIMBO FOR MONTHS, YEARS, BY A SYSTEM THAT SHOULD BE HELPING YOU BUT HAS BEEN DESIGNED AT EVERY LEVEL TO EXPRESS ITS CONTEMPT FOR YOU.

TODAY. YOU KNOW NOW YOU WILL NOT BE DEPORTED TO RWANDA BY THIS SYSTEM.

No one, today, is trying to tear down something literally called the Human Rights Act so they can send you to a country that will not protect you if you're queer, that is happy to act as a glorified jail in return for cash.

I keep saying it, but this is not nothing. Some lives have been improved today, already. Can they be improved further? My god yes. And I don't know that Yvette Cooper is the person to do it. But let's allow ourselves a moment of relief on behalf of things like this, hm?

[xadnem]

Hey I don't want to sound like a conspiratorial dickbag but that plan of making the free national weather services cost money would somewhat impede the general public's awareness of climate change.

[kiisuuumii]

as tough and as scary and as uncertain as things are going to be, there is no other choice but to keep living. you have to keep living

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Judd Legum at Popular Information:

In 2024, reliable access to high-speed internet is no longer a luxury; it is a basic necessity. From job applications to managing personal finances and completing school work, internet access is an essential part of daily life. Without an internet connection, individuals are effectively cut off from basic societal activities. 

But the reality is that many people — particularly those living around the poverty line — can not afford internet access. Without internet access, the difficult task of working your way from the American economy's bottom rung becomes virtually impossible.   On November 21, 2021, President Biden signed the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The new law included the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which provided up to $30 per month to individuals or families with income up to 200% of the federal poverty line to help pay for high-speed internet. (For a family of four, the poverty line is currently $31,200.) On Tribal lands, where internet access is generally more expensive, the ACP offers subsidies up to $75 per month.  The concept started during the Trump administration. The last budget enacted by Trump included $3.2 billion to help families afford internet access. The FCC made the money available as a subsidy to low-income individuals and families through a program known as the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program. The legislation signed by Biden extended and formalized the program.  It has been a smashing success.

Today, the ACP is "helping 23 million households – 1 in 6 households across America." The program has particularly benefited "rural communities, veterans, and older Americans where the lack of affordable, reliable high-speed internet contributes to significant economic, health and other disparities." According to an FCC survey, two-thirds of beneficiaries "reported they had inconsistent internet service or no internet service at all prior to ACP." These households report using their high-speed internet to "schedule or attend healthcare appointments (72%), apply for jobs or complete work (48%), do schoolwork (75% for ACP subscribers 18-24 years old)." Tomorrow, the program will abruptly end.  In October 2023, the White House sent a supplemental budget request to Congress, which included $6 billion to extend the program through the end of 2024. There is also a bipartisan bill, the Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act, which would extend the program with $7 billion in funding. The benefits of the program have shown to be far greater than the costs. An academic study published in February 2024 found that "for every dollar spent on the ACP, the nation’s GDP increases by $3.89." The program will lapse tomorrow because Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) refuses to bring either the bill (or the supplemental funding request) to a vote. The Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act has 225 co-sponsors which means that, if Johnson held a vote, it would pass. 

[...]

The Republican attack on affordable internet

Why will Johnson not even allow a vote to extend the ACP? He is not commenting. But there are hints in the federal budget produced by the Republican Study Committee (RSC). The RSC is the "conservative caucus" of the House GOP, and counts 179 of the 217 Republicans in the House as members. Johnson served as the chair of the RSC in 2019 and 2020. He is currently a member of the group's executive committee.  The RSC's latest budget says it "stands against" the ACP and labels it a "government handout[] that disincentivize[s] prosperity." The RSC claims the program is unnecessary because "80 percent" of beneficiaries had internet access before the program went into effect. For that statistic, the RSC cites a report from a right-wing think tank, the Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), which opposes the ACP. EPIC, in turn, cites an FCC survey to support its contention that 80% of ACP beneficiaries already had internet access. The survey actually found that "over two-thirds of survey respondents (68%) reported they had inconsistent internet service or no internet service at all prior to ACP."

[...] The RSC also falsely claims that funding for the precursor to the ACP, the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program (EBB), "was signed into law at the end of President Biden’s first year in office." This is false. Former President Trump signed the funding into law in December 2020. The RSC's position is not popular. A December 2023 poll found that 79% of voters support "continuing the ACP, including 62% of Republicans, 78% of Independents, and 96% of Democrats."

In 2024, access to the internet is a necessity and not just a luxury, and the Republicans are set to end the Affordable Connectivity Program if no action is taken. The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) provided subsidies to low-income people and families to obtain internet access.

[the-voice-of-night-vale]

whatever ur electoral decision is. can we PLEASE stop pretending america is a democracy. it is, and has always been, a farse of a democracy at best. the electoral college? the supreme court? anyone?? i remember finding those things distinctly undemocratic in middle school.

saying that 'we're choosing between fascism and democracy' is just patently untrue and frankly disrespectful to the vulnerable people who have been harmed by the authoritarian state even (and in some cases ESPECIALLY) under democrats.

(and before you say, "okay, fascism vs worse fascism" please take a moment and think about how fucking insane that is.)

[vaxxildamn]

very happy Matt decided to clarify his stance on the genocide of the Palestinian people rn. Pretty unhappy with the way he worded it, who he centered in his video, and disappointed to see the responses to it on Twitter.

kinda scared to even post about it bc CR fans can get so defensive about their favorite white people that they can often leave little room for criticism or nuance. but man I have thoughts.

[beeseverywhen]

"All political parties face a trade-off under a first-past-the-post electoral system. Governing depends on attracting a broad coalition of voters, inevitably involving compromises that leave a party’s base disgruntled.

So it is perhaps unsurprising that as we move closer to a general election, the discontent from the anti-Labour left who claim there is little to distinguish Keir Starmer from Rishi Sunak in the battle for the premiership is only getting noisier."

"The argument is threefold: there’s no meaningful difference between the Conservatives and Labour; Starmer supposedly can’t be trusted because he has dropped pledges he made in the 2020 leadership election to shift his party towards the centre; finally, the “Tories are toast” and Labour can’t lose, so disgruntled left voters can safely vote for other parties, such as the Greens.

With Labour so far ahead in the polls, the urge to debunk these sentiments may seem like an expression of paranoia. But all three aspects of this narrative are comprehensively wrong, including the reassurance that it is safe for anyone who would prefer a Labour government to vote for another party in Labour-Tory contests."

"But what this underplays is the number of Labour-Tory marginals where a relatively small vote for other left candidates could cost Labour a win. James Kanagasooriam, of the polling company Focaldata, has written about the “sandcastle” nature of Labour’s likely majority; his forecast is that there will be many more marginal seats in the 2024 parliament compared with 2019. If more than predicted numbers of those who voted Green in the locals decide they can afford to do so in the general election because Labour is so far ahead in national polls, that will boost the Conservatives.

Next up is the idea that Starmer’s dropping of some of his leadership pledges makes him dangerously untrustworthy. But this is the product of a system in which the tiny unrepresentative slice of the electorate that is a party membership pick their leader before voters choose their prime minister. Anyone hoping to be PM would have to shift position between a leadership selection and a general election: a Labour leader’s most important job is to connect with potential voters, not to coddle members with the comfort blanket of a policy platform such as the “free broadband for all” 2019 pledge that was roundly rejected.

Liz Truss provides a cautionary tale of what happens when a party leader seeks to impose a membership-endorsed platform on the country without a general election. For Starmer to have stuck to his 2020 leadership election pledges, instead of spending the past four years understanding voters, would have been fundamentally anti-democratic.

The most egregious aspect of the anti-Labour left argument is there isn’t much to choose between Starmer and Sunak. Yes, Labour’s “Ming vase” election strategy has seen it take a much more cautious fiscal approach than many of us would like: it has effectively adopted the Tory macroeconomic worldview and with it a set of spending constraints that no one sensible thinks either party could stick to in the wake of the election.

That is frustrating for anyone hoping this election campaign may illuminate some of the tough trade-offs facing Britain; but it would have been incredibly risky for one side to go it alone on this. The alternative is Labour walking into the trap and handing the Conservatives a “Labour tax bombshell” election campaign.

From a commitment to scrap the Rwanda plan to making clear that in an ideal world Labour would discard the two-child benefit cap, there are plenty of reasons that it is preposterous to think that a Starmer government would make the same trade-offs as successive Conservative governments that have financed billions of pounds worth of tax cuts for more affluent families by cutting tax credits and benefits for low-income parents. The six pledges Starmer launched two weeks ago may be incremental, but Labour needs voters to believe they are deliverable, and they are indicative of a very different set of priorities than those that animate Sunak."

"Starmer is not without weaknesses, as shown by the days he took to clarify an interview last October in which he gave the impression he thought Israel had the right to withhold power and food from Gaza. But there is no doubt whatsoever he would make a vastly more compassionate and competent prime minister than Sunak. To encourage people to put that outcome at risk by casting a protest vote against a Labour government that does not yet exist is perhaps the ultimate form of luxury belief campaigning."

[barnbridges]

i hate to be all politics on the main but as a clarification: i largely disagree with communism, i think a strong united eu is important and there needs to be more uniformization of business and tax laws to avoid the economic pitfalls of tax havens and jungle capitalism and im socially liberal lol i just don't think its viable for the eu to be disarmed/let the us pay for europe demilitarizing. when i say im centrist on a lot of issues i don't mean human rights lol.

[indianfasttrack]

Worldwide Insurance Companies along with detailed information

Gathering a complete list of all insurance companies worldwide, along with detailed information about each, is a vast and complex task. The number of insurance companies globally is in the thousands, varying across regions and industries (life, health, property, casualty, etc.). Additionally, companies frequently merge, change names, or cease operations, which makes maintaining an up-to-date list…

[ghostzzy]

i'm so glad i don't feel the urge to have to political post on the blog anymore.

[malthusiana]

.