Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester will join the distinguished ranks of Black women who’ve served in the U.S. Senate. She defeated her Republican opponent Eric Hansen and independent Mike Katz; as of 20:45 she received 56.2% of the votes, – reports the Associated Press.

Blunt Rochester, who made history eight years ago when she became the first black person and first woman to represent Delaware in Congress, was heavily favored to win the Senate race in a reliably blue state. But her rise from a 54-12 months-old widow with no political campaign experience in 2016 to the upper echelons of political power in Delaware was removed from guaranteed.

During her campaign, Blunt Rochester took nothing as a right, and in her victory speech she promised that she would work for everybody, whether or not they voted for her or not. She also had an optimistic outlook, remembering the church her grandmother attended for many years and that served as her spiritual home, Bright Hope Church. She vowed to serve her constituents with “bright hope.” “A bright hope is not content with what we see, but brings to life what we dream of. Bright hope is not just about making history, but about making change,” she said.

Blunt Rochester brings a wealth of experience to the Senate, having spent the last eight years in Congress. Blunt Rochester also began her profession working in government. She began working in 1989 as an intern for then-Delaware congressman Tom Carper, and later became a social employee in his constituent relations office. When Carper was elected governor of Delaware, he appointed Blunt Rochester deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in 1993 and secretary of the Department of Labor in 1998. Carper’s successor, Ruth Ann Minner, named Blunt Rochester state personnel director, a position he had held for years. 2001-2004. Blunt Rochester continues to cover economic and labor issues and is the founder and co-chair of the House Future of Work Caucus.

Some of the priorities she has pledged to work on in the Senate include creating more good-paying jobs, securing reproductive freedom and protecting access to health care.

Blunt Rochester will take office on January 3, 2025.

We’re aware of the terms “ghost” and “ghostlight,” and now the dating trend “haunting” has emerged within the chat. “Haunting” is a dating trend emerging on social media that describes an ex from a previous relationship who continues to interact on social media even after you have decided to chop off all ties (no contact or seeing one another in person).

Intrusive behaviors include liking your photos, viewing your stories, or leaving comments, which are frequently passive in nature and forestall you from feeling the necessity to respond or directly address the behavior. Basically, being haunted signifies that your ex is watching you via social media, which is the other of ghosting. But what, if anything, should you do about this sort of intrusive behavior?

Some individuals who experience hauntings decide to block their ex on social media, but… Damons Hoffmanrelationship expert and dating coach, suggests that this method could also be a little too extreme. “I believe in blocking only as a last resort. As a dating coach who focuses on communication, I prefer that my clients express themselves through words rather than letting the unsaid speak for them. However, there are situations where blocking is appropriate and necessary. Of course, if someone is threatening you or doing something inappropriate or illegal, you should block them immediately,” he says.

Hoffman continues, “Haunting is an emerging form of communication because we must remember that sometimes not saying something says a lot. When an ex haunts your social media, it can trigger feelings of nostalgia, anxiety, anger and confusion – especially if it’s someone who ended up throwing shade at you without a word or warning.”

However, if you feel uncomfortable because of the haunting, you should take these feelings into consideration and respond accordingly. “Ultimately the decision depends on how you feel about the person being haunted. Does it prevent you from further development? Does it evoke difficult emotions?” says Hoffman. “If the reply to any of these questions is yes, it is strongly recommended that you block them. However, sometimes you can discover and grow by asking the person why they might imitate you and follow you anyway. If the directness of the query turns them off, it could be a good idea to chop them out of your life (and your feed). However, in the event that they respond, you may learn something about yourself, your patterns, your attractions, and the way you might select who you will devote your time and emotional energy to in the longer term.

Relationship and intimacy expert Nikquan Lewis believes that social media is a passive but assertive form of communication and it’s as much as us to develop a “communication code of conduct” about how we wish to be “talked to” verbally or non-verbally. For some people, having their ex-partner see their story is unimportant. But for others, it could actually be frustrating, disturbing, and even very invasive, depending on how they process the tip of things and their relationship to social media.

So if your ex is haunting you, consider this query: “According to Lewis, listed here are some internal questions you should ask yourself to find out your next plan of motion:

Should you block them?

There isn’t any right or mistaken answer here – it comes right down to what’s healthiest for you. Here are some things to contemplate when deciding whether to dam:

Is your behavior stopping you from moving forward?

If seeing their name in your stories appears like a setback or stirs up emotions that make healing difficult, blocking often is the best strategy to give yourself the emotional space you need.

Was the connection unhealthy and even toxic?

If a relationship has caused you harm, blocking is usually the healthiest option. It’s not about being petty – it’s about protecting your peace of mind.

Does this affect your current relationship?

If the haunting is causing uncertainty or drama in your latest relationship, or is just plain disturbing, it might be time to attract the road and protect your peace.

Move forward with intention

Ultimately, the alternative of whether you wish to block or not is entirely as much as you. Prioritizing your mental and emotional well-being is not selfish – it’s obligatory. If a haunting brings something aside from peace to your life, trust that you can draw the road and move on.

Sometimes closing one chapter completely opens you as much as the following one. So if you’re feeling haunted, do not be afraid to reclaim your virtual space.

Australia’s second largest private health insurer, Bupa, recently did so he began offering its members receive three free telehealth consultations with a primary care physician per yr. It mimics other insurers similar to nib offers its members digital GP consultations, including prescriptions and medical certificates, for a fee.

But if you happen to search the govt. Compare the web site with the principles which helps people pick from a variety of personal health plans, you will not find any plans that officially cover visits to your GP.

This is since it is so currently illegal that insurers cover the prices of out-of-hospital services which can be also funded by Medicare, which incorporates visits to primary care physicians and specialist visits.

Insurers can get around this problem by running their digital health platforms as a separate company fairly than as part of personal health plans which can be highly regulated by the federal government. Another strategy is to pay the clinic’s overhead costs which then offer “free” consultations to members.

So why might private health insurers move into primary care? Why wasn’t it allowed? Is this a risk to Medicare?

Keeping people out of the hospital saves money

Better access to (primary) healthcare can improve people’s health and reduce the risk of hospitalization, especially for individuals with chronic diseases similar to heart disease, diabetes and asthma.

Sometimes people use emergency services for minor problems which might be solved by your loved ones doctor.

So offering members free or low-cost and simply accessible primary care may end up in lower hospital costs and save insurers money in the long term.

There are other the reason why private insurers want to cover primary care costs.

The first is the potential for “cherry picking.” In Australia, private health insurance operates under a community rating a system through which contributions don’t rely on a person’s health or age.

This implies that insurers cannot exclude or charge higher rates for people at higher risk of needing surgery or other hospital treatment (except Loading Lifetime Health Coveragewhich applies to the primary private health insurance after the age of 31).

However, insurance firms often have strategies to attract healthier members. For example, they might offer free trainers to appeal to avid runners or age-based discounts for latest members under 30 years of age.

The target market for free or easily accessible GP telehealth services is probably going to be working professionals who’re short on time or younger people. These groups are generally healthier and are less likely to be hospitalized every year.

Another reason insurers might want to cover primary care is to help retain members who feel they’re receiving tangible advantages and a sense of value from their insurance coverage.

When Medibank tried to offer free GP visits in 2014, members using the service reported that fairly stick with the insurer.

Across the health system, the Australian Government is moving forward telehealth and multidisciplinary teams (for example, GPs, nurses, dieticians, physiotherapists and specialists) to treat long-term conditions.

In response to these changes, insurance firms are preparing for the longer term of health care delivery through developments in digital health and the creation of huge clinics housing multidisciplinary teams. Offering free GP services via telehealth is a small step towards this big strategic change.

Why have not insurers offered primary care previously?

When Medicare was introduced in 1984, doctors opposed allowing private health care funds to cover the “gap” between Medicare advantages (what the federal government pays the doctor) and wages (what the doctor collects).

Following lobbying from the Australian Medical Association, then Minister for Health Neal Blewett, he stated allowing insurers to cover the gap would simply increase the price of services, especially for those without insurance – with no profit to patients.

Therefore, a ban on primary health care insurance was introduced legally regulated.

Over time, each time the query of allowing private insurers to cover primary care arose, the foremost argument against this option was that it could create two-tier system. In such a system, people without private insurance would have worse access to primary health care.

ABOUT 45% population has private insurance. And with insurers footing the bill, it’s likely that prices for a GP consultation will increase would increase.

Additionally, private funds would likely pay greater than Medicare to encourage primary care physicians to participate. This would drawback individuals who would not have private health insurance.

This situation is currently happening within the hospital sector. Surgeons earn far more for operations in private hospitals compared to doctors public hospitals. This makes them prioritize working in private hospitals.

Thanks to this, patients with private health insurance can immediately proceed to planned procedures. Meanwhile, individuals who would not have private insurance must take into consideration longer waiting times.

Should the federal government allow private insurers to cover primary care?

Current evidence doesn’t provide much support for the federal government supporting the private health insurance industry by subsidizing insurance premiums for individuals.

Our research found that despite the federal government spending billions of dollars every year to subsidize private health insurance, the sector has barely made a dent in the general public hospital system.

Currently, the power of personal insurers to offer primary care is restricted by law and may proceed to be so.

Allowing private insurers to proceed to expand into primary care would undermine the universality of Medicare. This risks creating a two-tier primary care system, replicating the disparities we’ve got already seen in hospital care.

Insurer-funded primary care would also involve high administrative costs, as seen within the healthcare system United Stateswhich relies heavily on private financing and supplies.

However, the federal government should take other steps to make primary care more cost-effective, which is able to save on the prices of downstream hospitals and emergency departments. This includes:

• increasing Medicare rebates to keep primary health care free for the poor and kids, no matter where they live
• making free primary health care available to rural and distant areas
• making primary health care cheaper for others.

The Australian Government has the financial capability to make primary care more cost-effective and may prioritize its implementation. Even private insurance firms recognize its benefits. However, this couldn’t be achieved through private health insurance, which might make primary care more unequal and dearer.