Win a Spot in A Wild New Work!

megan leatherman a wild new workI'm offering working women in Portland a new, innovative group experience starting October 29th, and it's called A Wild New Work. This group is for women who are ready to make work work for them. 

It's for women who want to find ways to bring more of themselves into their careers with a supportive community behind them.

We'll meet for four hours per session and dig deep into issues like intuition, boundaries at work, and work life integration.

If you're ready to shake things up in your worklife and imagine a better, wilder way of doing things, I've got some good news:

I'm giving away a spot in this group for free! 

Spaces normally cost $475, but with one click, you could be joining us gratis!

Here's all you have to do: just pick a social media outlet (or choose all three and triple your chances to win!) below and "like" the post! That will enter your name into the raffle, and I'll choose the winner on Wednesday afternoon. Easy peasy!

Click here to view the Facebook post

Click here to view the post on LinkedIn

Click here to view my profile on Instagram

King vs. Burwell: “Big Hat…No Cattle”

The recent opinion from the Supreme Court on King vs. Burwell reminds me of the old Texas phrase “Big Hat… No Cattle” It was used to describe someone who wanted to play the role of a big influential cattleman but in actuality had no cattle. There have been 50 votes in the house, 2 major lawsuits and an outcry to change the Affordable Care Act. But Congress (now that Republicans control both houses) won’t either through a formal vote or through budget allocation processes in the senate work to defund or repeal this law. All I can say is “Big Hat…No Cattle”. At this point it is important to remember that the subsidies offered to the “State” by the federal government is for 3 years only. Meaning that the funding then transfers to the states budgets after this 3 year period. This was a fundamental reason that many Governors chose not to implement the program. The coming combination of rate increases, the burden of funding to change to states and the reporting requirements and penalties many employers will be facing will compel change, or denial and increased funding, I am not sure which one but just remember “Big Hat…No Cattle”.

SCOTUS rules on King vs. Burwell

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion upheld the provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) that allowed funding premium subsidies through both federally funded and state funded exchanges. The interpretation of the word “State” was cited in Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion and was interpreted to mean any exchange. This means that there will be no change in the law as a result of the case and employers and individuals will proceed as they have over the last 5 years by implementing and complying with the law. In the dissenting opinion authored by Justice Scalia he said “that this law should now be called SCOTUS CARE”. Speculation says he has said this because of the way the court has interpreted arguments and words in the law both in 2012 and now. In both situations the Court has set the precedent. If the Supreme Court likes the law but not the wording they have freedom to redefine the words or introduce non-argued arguments to provide their desired interpretation.