Kim Kardashian's Sexy Side Braid While Boating With Family

Kim Kardashian was seen wearing an amazing side bride and very fashionable outfit while boating with her family in the Hamptons on June 29. Her loose side braid was the perfect look for a day on the water and it is an easy 'do to rock all summer long.

Kim Kardashian, 33, isn't one to let boating get in the way of her wearing a killer outfit and hairdo! Kim's hair was both trendy and practical, as her side braid was the perfect way to keep her hair from flying everywhere while on the water. This sexy side braid is an awesome style to wear in the hot summer sun and we've got tips for you on how to get this great look!

Kim Kardashian's Side Braid - Get Her Sexy Look With Wella Matte Molding Cream

The key to pulling off a side braid like Kim is making sure that your hair is full of texture and can be molded into a styled braid rather than one that hangs limp.

Take Our Poll

To get this textured and moldable hair, we recommend Wella Professional's Matte Molding Cream.

Begin by molding the directed amount of cream all over hair and working it into the hair so that it gains texture and volume. Next, bring hair over to one shoulder and begin braiding at the bottom of the scalp. Continue a three strand braid all the way down while making sure to braid loosely and allow room for extra volume.

When finished braiding, go back through and lightly pull on the width of the braid, stretching the pieces apart slightly to loosen the braid and create more of a messy look. Finish off with a slight mist of hairspray to make sure the messy braid holds.

This hair is so easy to get and is perfect for any occasion! Whether you are spending a day in the sun or attending a special event, a messy side braid can be dressed up or down and will always look good.

Will you try wearing Kim's messy side braid this summer, HollywoodLifers?

- Claire O'Halloran More Kim Kardashian Beauty News: Kim Kardashian: How To Get Her Sexy Bikini Body For Summer Kim Kardashian's Blonde Wig & Tan Skin - Her Fave Tanner Revealed Kim Kardashian Goes Back To Blonde - Do You Love Or Loathe?

The Accidental Reason Companies Like Hobby Lobby Control Our Health Care

Posted:

Print Article

The Supreme Court's ruling Monday that Hobby Lobby can refuse to cover contraception for workers is yet another reminder that our bosses have a lot of control over the health care we receive -- and that's not likely to change any time soon.

Jobs are the most common source of health insurance in the United States, a peculiar fact that sets the country apart from its international peers. That's why losing a job typically has meant losing health coverage, and it's why workers whose needs aren't met by their company's health plan have little recourse. They can go work elsewhere, pay much more money for health insurance on the open market or shell out cash for medical care that's not covered by their benefits.

Dumping employer-based health insurance is something of a cause célèbre among liberal and conservative economists alike. These intellectuals believe 'decoupling' health insurance from jobs would be a more rational and fair way of pooling medical costs. Whether employer-based insurance should be replaced by a big national health care program or a private insurance system where individuals buy their own coverage depends on which economist you ask.

Getting rid of the current system would also let you avoid situations where your boss decides he doesn't want cover your medical treatments -- or shouldn't have to pay for something he believes is morally wrong, like, say, birth control.

But people who aren't eggheads tend to have a pretty strong bias for the status quo, and so do the politicians they elect.

More than 150 million Americans are covered by employer-sponsored group health insurance. That's more than Medicare, Medicaid and individual insurance plans combined. And workers seem to like it that way: 88 percent said they were satisfied with their insurance last year, according to a survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. One reason might be that companies pay part of the monthly premiums.

President Barack Obama, seen here not rocking the boat. 'The only thing we have to fear is a distorted health care market 70 years from now.'

President Barack Obama and the Democrats who wrote the Affordable Care Act understood this, and they also knew that fear of change among the already insured was a huge reason why President Bill Clinton's health care reform agenda blew up in his face. So they sought to preserve the system that provides almost half the country with insurance, rather than scrapping it.

The furor over the cancellation of a tiny fraction of health insurance plans last year suggests those Democrats were onto something.

How did the U.S. wind up with a health insurance system so different from those of other rich nations, nearly all of which have universal health care programs, including those where employers play a role? How did employers became responsible for providing health insurance, and how did workers become dependent on their bosses for health care?

Source: Towers Watson/National Business Group on Health

It's an accident of history. During World War II, the federal government imposed wage and price controls on private companies that made it impossible for them to raise pay levels in order to attract employees at a time when a huge chunk of the workforce was fighting (and dying) overseas. But the feds also decided that fringe benefits like medical insurance were exempt from wage controls. After the war, the federal government ruled that these benefits weren't subject to income tax, either.

This made juicy benefits cheaper for employers than higher pay, and advantageous for workers, too, since no one pays income taxes on the value of these benefits. The U.S. Treasury would have collected $185 billion more in taxes last year if health benefits weren't exempt, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Congressional Budget Office refers to it as the biggest so-called tax expenditure on the federal books.

The number of Americans who get health insurance at work is expected to rise, not fall, in the coming years, despite the emergence of an alternative in the form of the health insurance exchanges created by Obamacare. For one thing, the exchanges aren't a great option for workers whose companies have health plans, because people with access to health insurance at work mostly don't qualify for federal subsidies if they buy it on their own.

For another, the Affordable Care Act requires companies with at least 50 full-time employees to offer health benefits or pay a penalty to offset the cost of the government doing it instead. That mandate has been delayed twice already, so maybe it'll never take effect. But if it does, the Congressional Budget Office projects that companies will, by and large, continue to provide insurance to workers.

Companies themselves say the same thing when asked, at least when it comes to full-time employees. In a typical poll, published by Towers Watson and the National Business Group on Health in May, 98 percent of employers agreed it was important to offer health benefits to full-time employees next year and in the near future.

And as much as employers might like to get out of the costly health care business, they're not clamoring to let the government take it over and raise their taxes while taking away the control they currently have.

Plus, American companies are accustomed to using rich benefit packages as a way to lure and keep the workers they value, especially given the tax advantages. Competition for labor makes employers loath to be the first ones to dump their benefits and direct workers to the Obamacare exchanges, lest the employees flee to rival firms where the health plans haven't been killed.

There are some small signals that the status quo might change, however. If the health insurance exchanges stabilize and grow, and people like the coverage they find there, companies could become less fearful of a backlash. The same Towers Watson survey found that just a quarter of employers are 'very confident' they will provide health insurance a decade from now, down from 43 percent 10 years ago.

Source: Towers Watson/National Business Group on Health

What's the prognosis for health

It's hard to find investors and analysts who aren't bullish on health care.

The S&P Health Care Sector gained more than 10 percent in the first half of the year, compared with just over 6 percent for the broader S&P 500, and the Health Care Select Sector SPDR ETF is at all-time highs.

Well, count BMO Capital's Brian Belski among the health-care bears, at least for the second half of the year. He's telling clients to ease up and maintain a more neutral position on the sector.

'I always worry when there's a very crowded long trade,' the investment strategist explained. He said he finds sentiment among his fund manager clients remains overly bullish on health-care names. But Belski insists he's not just playing contrarian.

Read More Court rules for certain companies over Obamacare mandate

'The biggest problem is that people aren't seeing that health care has become very expensive,' he explained. He said he expects valuations on big-cap health stocks are less attractive after this year's run-up, and small caps have been too volatile-most notably in the biotech sector.

Ariel Skelley | Blend Images | Getty Images

Michael Gregory, health-care portfolio manager at Highland Capital, said the health-care sector's premium to the S&P 500 has narrowed. His fund went short on the biotech sector earlier this year, but he remains long when it comes to health-care services and facilities.

'We're still very constructive on hospitals,' which he argued are trading at attractive valuations of about eight-times their cash flow. 'We think that there's significant upside in the stocks.'

Checking in on mental health

Gregory is positive on HCA and Community Health, both of which saw their stocks gain more than 15 percent in the first half of the year. Longer term, he's very bullish on the in-patient mental health hospitals, Universal Health Services and Acadia Healthcare.

'There's a supply-demand imbalance for inpatient behavioral health,' he contended, especially with new regulations that expand mental health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, which is also known as Obamacare.

Read More Wealthy worry about long-term health costs

'Both Acadia and Universal Health Services benefit from 6 percent annual volume growth,' when it comes to admissions, he said.

While Acadia Healthcare's shares have underperformed its peers-shares are flat year-to-date-Gregory said he expects the company's acquisitions position it for strong growth ahead. It struck its latest deal in early June-an agreement to acquire British behavioral health provider Partners in Care for $660 million-and the acquisition is expected to boost earnings in 2014.

Gregory is also positive on the health-insurance sector, though one of his favorite picks is brokerage and benefits consultancy Aon. He said he expects its private health insurance exchange business will continue to grow as employers look to reduce health costs by switching to defined benefit plans.

As for insurers' stocks, the prospect of rising medical costs is beginning to worry investors.

Will medical inflation deflate insurers?

The pullback in medical cost inflation in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis provided health insurers with an earnings cushion. That attracted a number of new investors, Wedbush Morgan analyst Sarah James observed in a recent research note to clients.

'Five years of large earnings beats has brought in a number of momentum investors to the space,' James wrote.

Although the government reported a drop in medical spending during the first quarter of this year, medical costs are expected to become more of a headwind in 2015, James said.

Read More How Obamacare could hurt you at tax time

'We believe over the next two years, we will return to more predictable earnings with smaller beats,' she said.

She said she expects health insurers' second-quarter earnings will exceed earnings expectations, and that most of the major carriers will boost their outlooks for this year.

Molina Health remains one of James' top picks because the Medicaid-focused insurer's conservative revenue guidance will have set the company up for bigger earnings beats than its peers.

When it comes to Medicare players, James said she expects Humana, the nation's largest Medicare Advantage insurer, to continue to post above-average growth, while maintaining profit margins.

Obamacare: Fall elections key

For the last several years, health insurance and hospital stocks have benefitted from the expectation of insurance coverage expansion under the Affordable Care Act. The last two quarters of the year should bring greater clarity on the medical costs incurred by new exchange plan members and newly covered Medicaid recipients.

Just over half of states have expanded Medicaid under the Obamacare law at this point, with most Republican-led states opting out. Highland's Gregory said he expects that politics will shift, as the industry puts pressure on state legislatures not to forego federal the funding under the program.

Read More How does your state stack up with Obamacare?

'We're going to pivot from a political rational to say no, to an economic rational to say yes,' Gregory said. 'My view is you're going to see a perpetual domino effect to states expanding Medicaid...which provide a tailwind to insurers and to hospitals.'

But BMO's Belski said the congressional elections in November could alter the playing field, if Republicans take control of the Senate.

'The whole thing could be up in the air in the next six months,' he said. 'I think the construct of the health care bill will look dramatically different over the next five years.'

-By CNBC's Bertha Coombs

Kim Kardashian Reacts to Blackface Incident at Vienna Ball on Keeping Up With ...

Remember back in February, when Kim Kardashian made an early exit from the Vienna Opera Ball after being harassed by a man in blackface pretending to be her then-fiance, ? The reality star didn't comment publicly on the incident at the time, but viewers got to see the whole ugly prank go down on the Sunday, June 29, episode of Keeping Up With the Kardashians.

PHOTOS: Kim and Kanye, the perfect match

As seen on KUWTK, Kim and her mom, Kris Jenner, attended the annual society event as guests of Austrian businessman Richard Lugner. Upon arriving, the trio were immediately swarmed by photographers.

'There [are] about 5,000 people here,' Kim said of the ball, which takes place every year at the Vienna State Opera. 'There is a beautiful ballet going on, opera singers, dances. It is super glamorous...and super claustrophobic.'

PHOTOS: How celeb couples first met

Kim is used to crowds, of course -- but this one was different. As she posed for pictures with Lugner, she was confronted by jokester Chris Stephan, who wore a white tux, a top hat, and full blackface. 'Kim, it's me!' he yelled. 'It's me! Kanye!'

PHOTOS: Kimye's sweetest moments

Kim was visibly shaken by the incident. 'I can't believe there's this guy in full blackface,' she said. 'I just am so confused. I don't get why him or anyone else would find this funny.'

'This is supposed to be some really nice, upscale event,' she added. 'Like, how did this guy get in? Is this just like a sick joke?'

PHOTOS: The Kardashian family album

Kris, 58, had a similar reaction, noting that she had never before felt so disrespected. 'A guy in blackface? It's really uncomfortable and a little scary,' she said in a confessional before launching into a brief explanation of the history of blackface. 'To have somebody so ignorant come to such a beautiful event and spoil it for everyone is just taking a huge step backwards.'

Hobby Lobby decision shows we need to get rid of the employer

Today, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that if a 'closely held' corporation (a private one with a small number of owners) doesn't want to abide by the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that all insurance plans offer preventive care including contraception at no cost, then it doesn't have to. There are many ways to look at this decision and many implications, but for the moment, I want to focus on just one: This is yet more evidence that our system of employer-based health insurance has got to go.

The fact that most Americans get their health coverage through their employers is something that we all take for granted but has no logical purpose behind it whatsoever. No other industrialized country in the world does it this way, and the system didn't develop in the United States because it made sense from any standard of efficiency, cost or providing superior benefits to citizens. It was an accident of history - one that would take some time and work to undo, but which is worth undoing. Not only that, both conservatives and liberals would have reason to support such a shift.

The system has its real roots in World War II, when the government imposed wage and price controls. Although there had been some health insurance plans sold through employers before, when companies couldn't offer increased wages during the war, they began offering health benefits instead. When the IRS ruled that those benefits didn't count as income and so were tax-free, the momentum toward employer-sponsored insurance was all but unstoppable (the deduction for employer-provided coverage is now the largest tax expenditure in the federal budget, dwarfing even the mortgage interest deduction).

But that system was fundamentally dysfunctional from the start. Why should you have to pay for insurance with post-tax dollars if you work for yourself or for a small company that doesn't offer insurance, but with pre-tax dollars if you work for a larger company? Why should your employer's preferences - including, as they do now, their preferences on what kind of birth control you should use - be more important than your own? And why should your insurance have to change if you get a new job? Of course, before the Affordable Care Act went into effect, leaving your job often meant losing coverage altogether.

I've never seen anyone argue that employer-based insurance is a good idea, or that if we had it to do all over again then that's how we'd design our system. And even though liberals have been the ones most concerned with addressing its shortcomings, conservatives should have no particular interest in maintaining it, either. I'm sure the owners of Hobby Lobby would rather if they never had to deal with any questions about their employees' contraception in the first place. Administering health benefits costs employers money and time. When he was running for president in 2008, John McCain proposed a plan that would have eliminated the tax deduction for health benefits and replaced it with a tax credit to individuals, which would have encouraged people to leave their employer-provided coverage.

It's true that transitioning away from the employer-based system wouldn't be easy; the reason the Obama administration didn't propose doing so when it devised the Affordable Care Act was that it was terrified of anything that would cause lots of disruption and make people fearful that they'd lose what they had. But now we have a structure in place through which it could be accomplished. The ACA exchanges allow people who don't get employer coverage to compare plans and buy insurance. With some changes in tax laws and the ACA itself, you could encourage people to leave their employer plans and find something as good or better on their state's exchange (and the first step would be to make coverage bought by individuals tax-deductible in the same way coverage bought by employers is).

If you made it worth everyone's while - both employers and individuals - we could eventually have an insurance system that was a little more sane, and wasn't held captive by decisions made 70 years ago. By eliminating a layer of bureaucracy, we'd almost certainly save money. And your boss wouldn't be able to dictate the terms of your reproductive health.

A History of Brands Kanye West Gave Early Co

In August 2007, Kanye West launched his blog Kanyeuniversecity.com. In the three years that it existed, the site was a hub for the rapper's inspirations. It was updated almost daily with whatever it was Kanye was interested in at the time. He writings and musings covered a range from everything from the Souls of Mischief's classic '93 Til Infinity to artists, gold plated toilets, and high-fashion labels.

It was incredible.

On the fashion front, Kanye flexed his knowledge in a way that no other rapper or celebrity was doing back then, and no public figure is doing today. He wrote about collections and shared photos from the fashion shows he attended. He broke down individual products that resonated with him. He even had a reoccurring franchise called 'Designer of the Week,' where he'd highlight both famous and lesser-known fashion designers he admired, such as Patrik Ervell . The blog reflected just how deeply absorbed he was in the fashion world.

But perhaps the biggest takeaway from the site was Kanye's knack of trend forecasting. He championed emerging designers, obscure Japanese brands, and high-fashion labels that, while successful and famous today, were seldom heard of back then-especially in hip-hop.

For example, on Sept. 30, 2007, Kanye wrote about a pair of visvim sneakers. visvim may be one of the most celebrated Japanese brands now, sure, but back then few, if any, rappers or celebs knew about designer Hiroshi Nakamura's genius. In the months and years that followed, he co-signed Neighborhood, Junya Watanabe Man, and Uniform Experiment, names that are familiar only to heads that are deeply passionate enough about the game to celebrate small, niche Japanese labels.

On top of that, no other rapper was personally co-signing Public School, Thom Browne, Bottega Veneta, and Gareth Pugh-especially not in 2007 and 2008. A dig into the archives quickly proves that Kanye knew of labels and brands that would later become some of the most popular in hip-hop. Tom Ford. Yves Saint Laurent (now Saint Laurent Paris). Maison Martin Margiela. Givenchy. Balenciaga. Acne. Before these labels were household names in lyrics, Yeezy was geeking out over them all.

It doesn't take a fan to realize that Kanye was ahead of his time and his peers when it came to fashion. Everyone knows now that Ye is heavily into fashion, but to those who doubt his genuine commitment and ardor to this pursuit, one look through A History of Brands Kanye Gave Early Co-Signs to on His Blog might change some minds.

This Is What Happens When Kanye West Pranks You

Gone are the days of the 'Jerky Boys' and 'Crank Yankers,' so when a good prank comes along, who can resist? The funny fellows over at Jayuzumi created the Kanye West soundboard and decided to prank some people.

While some took it well and laughed it off, others bit back, and the results were quiet funny and horrific. 'I'll split your n-ts from your head to the backside of your a- for ya,' one guy responded. 'How'd you like that?'

This is how I think a Kanye prank would go, you know, if he were into that.

Follow @TheUrbanDaily

Like TheUrbanDaily.com on Facebook! MORE LINKS ON THE URBAN DAILY

Racism's Got Jokes: Columbusing Vs. Hoodie In A Liquor Store [VIDEOS]

If Black People Said The Stuff White People Say [VIDEO]

Breakupedia: How To End That Relationship In Style [HUMOR]