Advocates warn barriers are making it hard for immigrants to submit health insurance documents
Reported by ABCNews.com 13 hours ago.
Problems Abound With Health Law Immigration Papers
↧
↧
Pennsylvania the 27th state to expand Medicaid under ACA; Republican governor approved it
Virginia is set to reconsider the expansion of Medicaid, health insurance for low-income and disabled people, this month. To date, the Republicans have rejected the federal offer to pay for the expansion until 2017, when states would start to pick up a share, up to a cap of 10 percent.
Reported by dailypress.com 12 hours ago.
↧
Fighting to Give You A Raise
This past Labor Day, President Barack Obama once again reminded us why Congress must increase the federal minimum wage. In America, the land of opportunity, no one who works 40 hours per week should be struggling to raise a family. Yet that is exactly what is happening. People in cities from Detroit to Chicago are demanding the long overdue pay raise that they deserve. At least 23 states have heard this call to action and raised their minimum wages above the federal level. It is now time for Congress to act and pass legislation that would increase the federal minimum wage because America cannot afford to do otherwise.
Since 1968, the real value of the federal minimum wage has fallen by nearly one-third. Had the minimum wage been tied to inflation, it would be about $10.70 today. Consequently, increases in minimum wage have not kept pace with the rising costs of basic necessities for the average American family. What I find even more disturbing, however, is that income inequality has increased by 23% since 2008.
In an effort to address this, I joined House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and my Democratic colleagues earlier this year to sign a discharge petition to bring the Fair Minimum Wage Act to the House floor for a vote. This bill would increase the federal minimum wage over the next three years from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour. The boost would benefit more than 28 million people across the country -and save taxpayers $4.6 billion annually. In New York alone, the pay raise would help low-income households afford 14 weeks of groceries, 36 tanks of gasoline, or more than a month of rent.
Yet the Republican leadership blocked this bill from passing the House and once again demonstrated their total disregard for the millions of hardworking American families. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's new so-called "Expanding Opportunity in America," which he claims is an "anti-poverty" plan, does nothing to address one of the greatest challenges we now face: the lack of opportunities to help lift 50 million people out of poverty. Chairman Ryan previously proposed an anti-poor budget plan that would end benefits for 3.8 million SNAP recipients and leave at least 40 million people - or about 1 in 8 Americans - without health insurance by 2024.
If we want to help build real, lasting economic security, the federal minimum wage must be raised to a living wage. I am very proud that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo set an example for the nation by raising the State's minimum wage to $9.00 by 2016. However we cannot and must not stop there, because $9.00 an hour falls far short of the $11.50 an hour that would barely constitute a living wage for a typical New Yorker. That is why, when I learned that New York City airport workers were receiving just $8 an hour, I urged the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to give them a raise. The Port Authority voted to do just that, and as a result, 12,000 minimum wage workers at New York City's LaGuardia and Kennedy airports will receive an hourly wage of $10.10 by the end of 2015. This increase will make a major difference in these workers' lives.
At its core, raising the federal minimum wage to a living wage is not just about ensuring fair compensation, but also preserving justice and dignity for all workers. If Republicans truly care about our country, they should abandon their destructive agenda and join Democrats in Congress in answering the President's call to pass legislation that will provide everyone in America with the opportunity to succeed. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
Since 1968, the real value of the federal minimum wage has fallen by nearly one-third. Had the minimum wage been tied to inflation, it would be about $10.70 today. Consequently, increases in minimum wage have not kept pace with the rising costs of basic necessities for the average American family. What I find even more disturbing, however, is that income inequality has increased by 23% since 2008.
In an effort to address this, I joined House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and my Democratic colleagues earlier this year to sign a discharge petition to bring the Fair Minimum Wage Act to the House floor for a vote. This bill would increase the federal minimum wage over the next three years from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour. The boost would benefit more than 28 million people across the country -and save taxpayers $4.6 billion annually. In New York alone, the pay raise would help low-income households afford 14 weeks of groceries, 36 tanks of gasoline, or more than a month of rent.
Yet the Republican leadership blocked this bill from passing the House and once again demonstrated their total disregard for the millions of hardworking American families. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's new so-called "Expanding Opportunity in America," which he claims is an "anti-poverty" plan, does nothing to address one of the greatest challenges we now face: the lack of opportunities to help lift 50 million people out of poverty. Chairman Ryan previously proposed an anti-poor budget plan that would end benefits for 3.8 million SNAP recipients and leave at least 40 million people - or about 1 in 8 Americans - without health insurance by 2024.
If we want to help build real, lasting economic security, the federal minimum wage must be raised to a living wage. I am very proud that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo set an example for the nation by raising the State's minimum wage to $9.00 by 2016. However we cannot and must not stop there, because $9.00 an hour falls far short of the $11.50 an hour that would barely constitute a living wage for a typical New Yorker. That is why, when I learned that New York City airport workers were receiving just $8 an hour, I urged the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to give them a raise. The Port Authority voted to do just that, and as a result, 12,000 minimum wage workers at New York City's LaGuardia and Kennedy airports will receive an hourly wage of $10.10 by the end of 2015. This increase will make a major difference in these workers' lives.
At its core, raising the federal minimum wage to a living wage is not just about ensuring fair compensation, but also preserving justice and dignity for all workers. If Republicans truly care about our country, they should abandon their destructive agenda and join Democrats in Congress in answering the President's call to pass legislation that will provide everyone in America with the opportunity to succeed. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
↧
Planned Parenthood Dismisses 'Cynical' GOP Birth Control Proposal
Planned Parenthood and several Republican Senate candidates have finally found something they agree on: that birth control pills should be available over the counter. But the family planning provider has warned voters not to trust the candidates' sudden show of support for the policy, calling it an "empty gesture" designed to appeal to women voters.
While most Republicans object to requiring for-profit companies to cover the full range of contraception in their health insurance plans, several candidates have suggested the pill be made available over the counter, in an attempt to avoid coming off as "anti-birth control." Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), a staunchly anti-abortion Senate candidate who recently took back his support for a fetal personhood bill, told voters on Tuesday that he wants to make the birth control pill available "around the clock," while Democrats want "to keep government bureaucrats between you and your health care plan."
Planned Parenthood responded that it "supports any effort" to make it easier for women to buy birth control, including making some methods available over the counter. But the group said that the policy will do nothing to help women afford contraception, and that most Republicans are still opposed to the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires most employers to cover birth control in their health care plans.
"This is simply a cynical political attempt to whitewash his terrible record and agenda for women's health," said Dawn Laguens, Executive Vice President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "The reality is that Cory Gardner’s proposal would actually cost women more by forcing them to pay out of pocket for the birth control that they are getting now at no cost thanks to the ACA. We would welcome a sincere conversation about expanding birth control access for women - sadly Cory Gardner has not offered one."
The over-the-counter proposal, also embraced by candidates Ed Gillespie in Virginia and Mike McFadden in Minnesota, would make it easier for women to buy birth control pills without having to see a doctor. But it could jeopardize insurance coverage of birth control, and it would not increase access to costlier, long-acting methods of contraception, such as the intrauterine device.
"If Cory Gardner and others were serious about expanding access to birth control, they wouldn’t be trying to repeal the no-copay birth control benefit, reduce Title X funding for birth control, or cut women off from Planned Parenthood’s preventive health services," Laguens said.
The Supreme Court ruled earlier this summer that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gives closely held for-profit corporations the right opt out of covering the methods of birth control to which they morally object. Hobby Lobby, the craft supply store chain that brought the lawsuit against the Obama administration, is owned by a family of Christians that believe some methods of birth control are akin to abortion.
In the wake of the Supreme Court decision, Democrats tried to pass a law that would effectively override the Supreme Court decision by stating that RFRA does not exempt for-profit companies from complying with any federal law. Republicans blocked the bill in the Senate. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
While most Republicans object to requiring for-profit companies to cover the full range of contraception in their health insurance plans, several candidates have suggested the pill be made available over the counter, in an attempt to avoid coming off as "anti-birth control." Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), a staunchly anti-abortion Senate candidate who recently took back his support for a fetal personhood bill, told voters on Tuesday that he wants to make the birth control pill available "around the clock," while Democrats want "to keep government bureaucrats between you and your health care plan."
Planned Parenthood responded that it "supports any effort" to make it easier for women to buy birth control, including making some methods available over the counter. But the group said that the policy will do nothing to help women afford contraception, and that most Republicans are still opposed to the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires most employers to cover birth control in their health care plans.
"This is simply a cynical political attempt to whitewash his terrible record and agenda for women's health," said Dawn Laguens, Executive Vice President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "The reality is that Cory Gardner’s proposal would actually cost women more by forcing them to pay out of pocket for the birth control that they are getting now at no cost thanks to the ACA. We would welcome a sincere conversation about expanding birth control access for women - sadly Cory Gardner has not offered one."
The over-the-counter proposal, also embraced by candidates Ed Gillespie in Virginia and Mike McFadden in Minnesota, would make it easier for women to buy birth control pills without having to see a doctor. But it could jeopardize insurance coverage of birth control, and it would not increase access to costlier, long-acting methods of contraception, such as the intrauterine device.
"If Cory Gardner and others were serious about expanding access to birth control, they wouldn’t be trying to repeal the no-copay birth control benefit, reduce Title X funding for birth control, or cut women off from Planned Parenthood’s preventive health services," Laguens said.
The Supreme Court ruled earlier this summer that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act gives closely held for-profit corporations the right opt out of covering the methods of birth control to which they morally object. Hobby Lobby, the craft supply store chain that brought the lawsuit against the Obama administration, is owned by a family of Christians that believe some methods of birth control are akin to abortion.
In the wake of the Supreme Court decision, Democrats tried to pass a law that would effectively override the Supreme Court decision by stating that RFRA does not exempt for-profit companies from complying with any federal law. Republicans blocked the bill in the Senate. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
↧
Problems abound for immigrants who bought health insurance
Reported by DallasNews 8 hours ago.
↧
↧
Children's Hospital, Regence settle dispute over insurance networks
%%%da8fc245b302ad638ab2e328b988445b%%%A nearly yearlong dispute in which Seattle Children’s hospital sought to make sure its facilities and experts were included in Washington state health insurance plans was finally resolved Tuesday.
Reported by Seattle Times 6 hours ago.
↧
US appeals court to rehear case on Obamacare tax subsidies
A U.S. appeals court on Thursday agreed to reconsider a July 22 ruling that poses a major setback to the Obamacare health insurance overhaul, as it could limit the availability of federal health insurance subsidies for millions of people. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said it would hear new oral arguments in the case on December 17, which could delay possible U.S. Supreme Court consideration of the issue. (Reporting […]
Reported by Raw Story 8 hours ago.
↧
The Origins -- And the Price -- of My Accidental Manifesto for Children's Mental Health
Liza Long's essay, "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother," went viral in the wake of the Newtown tragedy in December, 2012. The following is an excerpt from her new book, The Price of Silence: A Mom's Perspective on Mental Illness.
October 20, 2010. Sitting in a psychiatrist's waiting room with my son, I find myself transfixed by a magazine reprint of the classic black-and-white JFK and Jackie photo taken in Hyannis Port, 1960. They are both looking to the right -- his iconic boyish smile is as bright as his crisp white linen button-down. Jackie's half smile, elegant like her perfectly pressed floral print dress, is softer, contented. They are comfortable together, two beautiful people at peace with each other and the world. It is a hauntingly intimate photo, a perfect moment that belies the storms that would rage through their loves and lives.
No one is beautiful or brave or brilliant enough to live a life free from pain.
Still, sometimes I wish that life could be distilled to the simplicity of photographs.
When I was married, I was obsessed with the perfection of my family photos. I learned Photoshop and would spend hours planning photo shoots for my children, in their matching outfits, with their beautiful blond hair -- my brilliant, beautiful, perfect children. Of course, with four, I could never get them all to smile at once. So I used a digital guillotine to refashion reality. I took the best image from each shot and merged them to create a masterpiece that never existed.
Now, thinking about this, about the time I spent digitally massaging photos to create a reality that did not exist, creeps me out. Why did I care about something so artificial?
Later, I sat in a drab doctor's office on the floor next to my son, watching him connect and disconnect little plastic bricks. He wouldn't look at his father in the corner, seated beside a stranger, his stepmother.
I closed my eyes and thought about the photographs. We had our own Hyannis Port, our own moments of grace reduced now to photographic stills, evidence of a life that no longer exists, that probably never existed.
But I wanted that life!
If you knew his real name, you could look up court documents to see that [my son] Michael's father filed for divorce in 2008, that he remarried a few weeks later, that I petitioned the court for a custody modification to seek sole physical custody of my two older sons in 2011 after they had already been living exclusively with me for several months, and that custody was formally modified in May 2012. You could also see that he petitioned the court for a custody modification granting him sole physical custody of our younger two children in June 2012, and that he successfully argued an ex parte motion to remove the younger two children from my care on December 24, 2012, a week after my blog post went viral. He did not notify me until two days after the order was issued, when I e-mailed to ask what time he was dropping off Anna and Jonathan, and he replied, "I'm not."
The judge in that case left me with a Hobson's choice: I could keep my younger two children half-time, but only if I committed Michael to long-term residential care. Two well children or one sick child. No mother should ever be faced with that kind of choice, just because one of her children is ill. But that is the choice facing me today, as I write these words. It is a choice that too many parents face.
I will say this, though: no parent should ever have to do what I am doing alone. When I wrote my blog post, I had been solely responsible for Michael's care for more than two years, except for three hours per week that he spent with his father (and he now has not seen his dad in several months outside of social settings). In all that time, a persistent, low-level anxiety has run constantly through my brain, like the three-kelvin microwave background that permeates the known universe. I am never worry free, not for one minute. When the school calls, my heart skips. When I see police officers in my neighborhood on the way home from work, I instinctively check the backseat to see if my son is behind bars again.
Like many parents, I have tried for years to "manage" my son's condition essentially on my own. I've thought that I could wish him into wellness. I've even denied that he had problems. The emotional anguish of my blog post came out of that space, as a national tragedy sparked a private moment of raw honesty.
And yet when we speak, we may subject ourselves and our families to even worse punishments. I believe that this is why the stigma associated with mental disorders has not decreased in recent years. Families are afraid to speak up about or ask for help for their sick children, for the very real fear that they will lose their healthy ones, either to another parent (as in my case) or to the state. There are other, more mundane reasons, too -- that ache we feel as we long for Hyannis Port. The shame of having a child who isn't perfect -- at least, by society's impossible standards.
It's easy to blame parents. When Adam Lanza shot up an elementary school, we wanted answers. So many small coffins, grieving parents, presents under Christmas trees that would never be opened. But as we always do when these outlier events occur, we inevitably looked to easy answers -- guns, and parenting. In the immediate aftermath, the pundits were certain: clearly it was Nancy Lanza's fault. She should not have had guns in her home. She should have recognized how potentially violent her son was. He should not have had access to guns.
As a mother of a child with a mental disorder, I know one thing for sure: she tried to help her son. No mother wants her child to suffer like Adam Lanza did. No mother wants her son to murder first graders. Without in any way condoning what Adam Lanza did, I am still troubled by the media's reporting of twenty-six victims in that Newtown tragedy. There were twenty-eight victims. Adam Lanza and his mother were victims that day. Like too many people who suffer from mental disorders, Adam Lanza completed suicide. I say "completed" suicide because the normal phrase, "commit suicide," suggests that this ultimate act of self-harm is criminal in nature, contributing to the stigma of mental illness. When Lanza completed suicide, he committed a criminal act, taking twenty-seven other people with him. We can talk all day about gun control. But what is our obligation as a society to care for people like Adam Lanza? What should we have done for his mother?
Like Nancy Lanza, I'm a highly educated white woman with resources, with connections, with health insurance. Think how bad it is to have a child with a mental disorder if you don't have any of those things.
And so my 750 words became an accidental but powerful manifesto for children's mental health. In retrospect, I think that one of the things that resonated most strongly with parents in similar situations was the raw emotion in the piece. That's because I, as the writer, was revealing truths to myself that I had been unwilling or unable to face. My first audience was myself.
So for me, and for many other parents, this is what "normal" looks like. People said that I was brave for telling my story. I did not feel brave; I felt helpless.
This is how ordinary people become heroes. When bravery finds you, you don't have time to think. You've been preparing for this accidental moment your entire life. If you are brave, when that moment finds you, you embrace the consequences, no matter how terrible. The naïve part of me actually believed that my cry for help would reveal some meaningful answers. That's the way it works in fiction, right? You have a mystery, you follow the clues, and you solve it.
It proved to be a bit more complicated. But I have hope that the conversation I sparked might translate into something meaningful. The ancient Greeks defined their heroes on two axes: praxis (deeds) and logos (words). We've had enough of logos in this epic battle against mental illness. It's time to take action. Like so many who take a first step into the darkness, I did not mean to be brave -- I was an accidental advocate. But I will accept the consequences. This is a battle waged, in the words of one of my favorite poets, Robert Frost, "for Heaven and the future's sakes."Reprinted by arrangement with Hudson Street Press, a member of Penguin Random House (USA) Inc., from The Price of Silence by Liza Long. Copyright © 2014 by Liza Long.
Like Us On Facebook |
Follow Us On Twitter |
Contact HuffPost Parents
Also on HuffPost: Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
October 20, 2010. Sitting in a psychiatrist's waiting room with my son, I find myself transfixed by a magazine reprint of the classic black-and-white JFK and Jackie photo taken in Hyannis Port, 1960. They are both looking to the right -- his iconic boyish smile is as bright as his crisp white linen button-down. Jackie's half smile, elegant like her perfectly pressed floral print dress, is softer, contented. They are comfortable together, two beautiful people at peace with each other and the world. It is a hauntingly intimate photo, a perfect moment that belies the storms that would rage through their loves and lives.
No one is beautiful or brave or brilliant enough to live a life free from pain.
Still, sometimes I wish that life could be distilled to the simplicity of photographs.
When I was married, I was obsessed with the perfection of my family photos. I learned Photoshop and would spend hours planning photo shoots for my children, in their matching outfits, with their beautiful blond hair -- my brilliant, beautiful, perfect children. Of course, with four, I could never get them all to smile at once. So I used a digital guillotine to refashion reality. I took the best image from each shot and merged them to create a masterpiece that never existed.
Now, thinking about this, about the time I spent digitally massaging photos to create a reality that did not exist, creeps me out. Why did I care about something so artificial?
Later, I sat in a drab doctor's office on the floor next to my son, watching him connect and disconnect little plastic bricks. He wouldn't look at his father in the corner, seated beside a stranger, his stepmother.
I closed my eyes and thought about the photographs. We had our own Hyannis Port, our own moments of grace reduced now to photographic stills, evidence of a life that no longer exists, that probably never existed.
But I wanted that life!
If you knew his real name, you could look up court documents to see that [my son] Michael's father filed for divorce in 2008, that he remarried a few weeks later, that I petitioned the court for a custody modification to seek sole physical custody of my two older sons in 2011 after they had already been living exclusively with me for several months, and that custody was formally modified in May 2012. You could also see that he petitioned the court for a custody modification granting him sole physical custody of our younger two children in June 2012, and that he successfully argued an ex parte motion to remove the younger two children from my care on December 24, 2012, a week after my blog post went viral. He did not notify me until two days after the order was issued, when I e-mailed to ask what time he was dropping off Anna and Jonathan, and he replied, "I'm not."
The judge in that case left me with a Hobson's choice: I could keep my younger two children half-time, but only if I committed Michael to long-term residential care. Two well children or one sick child. No mother should ever be faced with that kind of choice, just because one of her children is ill. But that is the choice facing me today, as I write these words. It is a choice that too many parents face.
I will say this, though: no parent should ever have to do what I am doing alone. When I wrote my blog post, I had been solely responsible for Michael's care for more than two years, except for three hours per week that he spent with his father (and he now has not seen his dad in several months outside of social settings). In all that time, a persistent, low-level anxiety has run constantly through my brain, like the three-kelvin microwave background that permeates the known universe. I am never worry free, not for one minute. When the school calls, my heart skips. When I see police officers in my neighborhood on the way home from work, I instinctively check the backseat to see if my son is behind bars again.
Like many parents, I have tried for years to "manage" my son's condition essentially on my own. I've thought that I could wish him into wellness. I've even denied that he had problems. The emotional anguish of my blog post came out of that space, as a national tragedy sparked a private moment of raw honesty.
And yet when we speak, we may subject ourselves and our families to even worse punishments. I believe that this is why the stigma associated with mental disorders has not decreased in recent years. Families are afraid to speak up about or ask for help for their sick children, for the very real fear that they will lose their healthy ones, either to another parent (as in my case) or to the state. There are other, more mundane reasons, too -- that ache we feel as we long for Hyannis Port. The shame of having a child who isn't perfect -- at least, by society's impossible standards.
It's easy to blame parents. When Adam Lanza shot up an elementary school, we wanted answers. So many small coffins, grieving parents, presents under Christmas trees that would never be opened. But as we always do when these outlier events occur, we inevitably looked to easy answers -- guns, and parenting. In the immediate aftermath, the pundits were certain: clearly it was Nancy Lanza's fault. She should not have had guns in her home. She should have recognized how potentially violent her son was. He should not have had access to guns.
As a mother of a child with a mental disorder, I know one thing for sure: she tried to help her son. No mother wants her child to suffer like Adam Lanza did. No mother wants her son to murder first graders. Without in any way condoning what Adam Lanza did, I am still troubled by the media's reporting of twenty-six victims in that Newtown tragedy. There were twenty-eight victims. Adam Lanza and his mother were victims that day. Like too many people who suffer from mental disorders, Adam Lanza completed suicide. I say "completed" suicide because the normal phrase, "commit suicide," suggests that this ultimate act of self-harm is criminal in nature, contributing to the stigma of mental illness. When Lanza completed suicide, he committed a criminal act, taking twenty-seven other people with him. We can talk all day about gun control. But what is our obligation as a society to care for people like Adam Lanza? What should we have done for his mother?
Like Nancy Lanza, I'm a highly educated white woman with resources, with connections, with health insurance. Think how bad it is to have a child with a mental disorder if you don't have any of those things.
And so my 750 words became an accidental but powerful manifesto for children's mental health. In retrospect, I think that one of the things that resonated most strongly with parents in similar situations was the raw emotion in the piece. That's because I, as the writer, was revealing truths to myself that I had been unwilling or unable to face. My first audience was myself.
So for me, and for many other parents, this is what "normal" looks like. People said that I was brave for telling my story. I did not feel brave; I felt helpless.
This is how ordinary people become heroes. When bravery finds you, you don't have time to think. You've been preparing for this accidental moment your entire life. If you are brave, when that moment finds you, you embrace the consequences, no matter how terrible. The naïve part of me actually believed that my cry for help would reveal some meaningful answers. That's the way it works in fiction, right? You have a mystery, you follow the clues, and you solve it.
It proved to be a bit more complicated. But I have hope that the conversation I sparked might translate into something meaningful. The ancient Greeks defined their heroes on two axes: praxis (deeds) and logos (words). We've had enough of logos in this epic battle against mental illness. It's time to take action. Like so many who take a first step into the darkness, I did not mean to be brave -- I was an accidental advocate. But I will accept the consequences. This is a battle waged, in the words of one of my favorite poets, Robert Frost, "for Heaven and the future's sakes."Reprinted by arrangement with Hudson Street Press, a member of Penguin Random House (USA) Inc., from The Price of Silence by Liza Long. Copyright © 2014 by Liza Long.
Like Us On Facebook |
Follow Us On Twitter |
Contact HuffPost Parents
Also on HuffPost: Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
↧
D.C. Circuit Court Agrees To Re-hear Obamacare Case
The full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to re-hear the case of Halbig v. Burwell.
In July, a three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that people in the 36 states that use the federal health insurance exchange as part of the Affordable Care Act are ineligible for subsidized insurance. HuffPost's Ryan Grim and Jeffrey Young have more on that earlier decision here.
According to the Wall Street Journal's Brent Kendall, oral arguments will be heard in December.
Read the court order below:
Halbig Order
This is developing.. check back for more.. Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
In July, a three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that people in the 36 states that use the federal health insurance exchange as part of the Affordable Care Act are ineligible for subsidized insurance. HuffPost's Ryan Grim and Jeffrey Young have more on that earlier decision here.
According to the Wall Street Journal's Brent Kendall, oral arguments will be heard in December.
Read the court order below:
Halbig Order
This is developing.. check back for more.. Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
↧
↧
A Federal Court Just Agreed To Rehear A Huge Obamacare Case, And It's Great News For The White House
A federal appeals court in Washington has ordered a review of a case involving a major challenge to the Affordable Care Act, raising hopes among the law's supporters that the law would ultimately prevail. It also diminished the near-term prospects the Supreme Court would become involved in the case.The order means the full U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear Halbig v. Burwell, a case on which a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of the plaintiffs in June. The 2-1 decision threw out an IRS regulation that implements key subsidies for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, allowing millions of low-income people to afford insurance.The Halbig lawsuit is viewed as having the potential to cripple Obamacare in the 36 states where the federal government provides subsidies for low-income people to buy health insurance.
The plaintiffs in the case argue the way the law was written does not allow for subsidies to be provided by the federal government, pointing to a statute that says subsidies should be issued to plans purchased "through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311"* *of the Affordable Care Act. Section 1311 establishes the state-run exchanges. But plaintiffs say the law does not permit subsidies in federal exchanges, according to Section 1321 of the law.
The three-judge panel in July was comprised of two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee. But the Obama administration has better math with a full, 13-judge panel, which is comprised of eight Democratic and five Republican appointees. Three of President Barack Obama's appointees to the court have been confirmed by the Senate after a rules change in the past year.
"The full D.C. Circuit will hear Halbig, an important and welcome next step in the process of the Halbig case," a senior Obama administration official told Business Insider.
"The 2-1 decision of the panel was wrong, and we are confident that the full court will recognize that the text of the statute, the clear intent of Congress, and common sense all demonstrate that premium tax credits are available to Americans in every state – as a unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit has already concluded."
In a separate ruling hours after the D.C. Circuit Court panel handed down its Halbig decision in July, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals gave the law a unanimous victory in a similar challenge and upheld the federal government's ability to distribute subsidies.
The plaintiffs in that case are appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. But if, as expected, the D.C. Circuit Court issues a different ruling in concurrence with the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court may not step into a situation where the lower courts are in agreement.
"We'll now see whether the D.C. Circuit will apply longstanding principles of statutory interpretation or will acquiesce to the administration's request that it be allowed to ignore the plain text of a duly enacted law," Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio and a conservative legal scholar behind the Halbig challenge, told Business Insider.
"We're this not about the [Affordable Care Act], this would really be an easy case."
Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 7 hours ago.
↧
Ruling Limiting Health Law Subsidies to be Reviewed
A federal appeals court agreed to take a new look at the legality of health-insurance subsidies tied to the 2010 federal health care law, a blow to challengers who won an earlier ruling that invalidated subsidies in many states.
Reported by Wall Street Journal 8 hours ago.
↧
Smartphones and Wearables to Impact Healthcare More Than Health Insurance
NEW YORK, Sept. 4, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- New York College of Health Professions announced the granting of Patent Number 8,823,512 for a Wearable Biosensor on Tuesday. Unlike previous biosensors, the patent will offer the development of a technology that delivers the information...
Reported by PR Newswire 8 hours ago.
↧
Aflac Survey Finds 2 in 5 American Workers Spend Less than 15 Minutes on Benefits Selection
COLUMBUS, Ga., Sept. 4, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Selecting the right health insurance plan may be one of the most important decisions Americans will make this open enrollment period, yet many workers do very little research on their health benefits. In fact, 41 percent of employees spent...
Reported by PR Newswire 7 hours ago.
↧
↧
Udall Caught in Health Care Flip Flop
Republicans have unearthed a curious comment with which to hit Colorado Democrat Mark Udall as he struggles to defend his seat in the Senate.
In a 2008 debate, Udall claimed he was against a "government-sponsored" solution in the health care area and sounded more like a conservative Republican at the time.
"I'm not for a government-sponsored solution," Udall said. "I'm for enhancing and improving the employer-based system that we have."
Whatever his rationalizations today, clearly the Mark Udall of 2008 was talking a much different game, than his ObamaCare vote just two years later in 2010.
In the first U.S. Senate debate in 2008, the candidates were asked their plan for health-care reform. Here's what Udall, a Democratic congressman, said:
"We have 800,000 people here in Colorado who don't have health care. Many of them feel like they're an illness away from being bankrupt. They don't know how they're going to cover their premiums for the next month. This isn't acceptable. It weakens our economy. It's unconscionable.
We want to have Coloradans healthy so they can all pull on an oar and make a contribution.
I'm not for a government-sponsored solution. I'm for enhancing and improving the employer-based system that we have.
Let me give you some ideas on how we can do that.
We ought to expand the children's health insurance program. For the life of me, I don't understand why President Bush opposed that expansion. ...
We ought to put more of an investment in electronic medical record keeping so we better practice medicine. We can create insurance pools for small business who, after all, carry some of this burden. And we can put in place tax credits for those in families who are struggling to meet those needs that the premiums present to them.
And we ought to make sure insurance companies can't discriminate against .us, our family members who have pre-existing conditions.
Those are some of the ways in which we can strengthen our health care system.
Again, there a lot of great ideas out there. Republicans have some great ideas. Democrats have a lot of great ideas. We ought to come together and work on this, starting next year to find a way to cover more Americans. Reported by Breitbart 7 hours ago.
In a 2008 debate, Udall claimed he was against a "government-sponsored" solution in the health care area and sounded more like a conservative Republican at the time.
"I'm not for a government-sponsored solution," Udall said. "I'm for enhancing and improving the employer-based system that we have."
Whatever his rationalizations today, clearly the Mark Udall of 2008 was talking a much different game, than his ObamaCare vote just two years later in 2010.
In the first U.S. Senate debate in 2008, the candidates were asked their plan for health-care reform. Here's what Udall, a Democratic congressman, said:
"We have 800,000 people here in Colorado who don't have health care. Many of them feel like they're an illness away from being bankrupt. They don't know how they're going to cover their premiums for the next month. This isn't acceptable. It weakens our economy. It's unconscionable.
We want to have Coloradans healthy so they can all pull on an oar and make a contribution.
I'm not for a government-sponsored solution. I'm for enhancing and improving the employer-based system that we have.
Let me give you some ideas on how we can do that.
We ought to expand the children's health insurance program. For the life of me, I don't understand why President Bush opposed that expansion. ...
We ought to put more of an investment in electronic medical record keeping so we better practice medicine. We can create insurance pools for small business who, after all, carry some of this burden. And we can put in place tax credits for those in families who are struggling to meet those needs that the premiums present to them.
And we ought to make sure insurance companies can't discriminate against .us, our family members who have pre-existing conditions.
Those are some of the ways in which we can strengthen our health care system.
Again, there a lot of great ideas out there. Republicans have some great ideas. Democrats have a lot of great ideas. We ought to come together and work on this, starting next year to find a way to cover more Americans. Reported by Breitbart 7 hours ago.
↧
Fitch Affirms Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York at 'BBB-'; Outlook Stable
CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Fitch Ratings has affirmed the 'BBB-' Insurer Financial Strength (IFS) rating of Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York (HIP). The Rating Outlook is Stable. KEY RATING DRIVERS Group Rating Methodology Applied: HIP's rating reflects use of a group rating methodology that considers the operational and financial aspects of HIP's subsidiaries including Group Health Options, Inc. (GHI). Fitch believes that a group rating methodology is appropriate due to GHI's role in ro
Reported by Business Wire 7 hours ago.
↧
Federal Court Throws Out Obamacare Subsidies Ruling
A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. threw out an earlier ruling that said financial subsidies are not available for people who bought health insurance on the federal exchange.
Reported by msnbc.com 7 hours ago.
↧
Many Americans worried about losing health insurance
While more Americans now have health insurance, survey finds more than half are afraid they won't be able to afford it in the future
Reported by CBS News 6 hours ago.
↧
↧
Predicted spike in part-time workers yet to materialize under Affordable Care Act
Employers have yet to increase part-time workers to dodge some costs related to providing health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, a new Urban Institute report shows. But the real test of that strategy to reduce full-time workers is expected to start next year, when businesses begin facing more penalties under the 2010 federal health reform, the report shows. The health policy research group studied data on employment practices in recent years. That included data showing when businesses…
Reported by bizjournals 6 hours ago.
↧
5 of today's health care stories Louisianians should know about
Here are five important health care stories in today's news that Louisianians should know about: Big important news on health care spending: Medicare spending is dropping, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The federal health insurance program covering people 65...
Reported by nola.com 6 hours ago.
↧
You have health insurance, but you cannot afford surgery? You should have bought HUM stock.
Obamacare was signed into law on March 23, 2010. However, one year earlier in March of 2009, after Obama's election, drafts of the bill were being circulated within the insurance industry, and amongst the staffs of the politicians they helped to get elected. Although Nancy Pelosi is famous for saying, "We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it,” that was not the case for the insurance company insiders that were actually drafting the bill.
Since the inception of Obamacare, United Healthcare stock has increased more than 340%, and *Humana stock has increased more than 440%; this appreciation is in addition to the quarterly dividends HUM has paid since June 28, 2011. *This impressive feat may come as a surprise to you, dear Zerohedge reader, as I doubt you will have heard about these great American success stories on television. Can you name the CEOs of Humana, or United Healthcare? No? Hmmm. I wonder why? One might think President Obama would want to hold up these companies as shining symbols of, "The Recovery."
Google chart
How do health insurance companies like Humana make money? *They don't provide healthcare!* Very simply, they charge patients premiums, and pay healthcare providers fees. They are intermediaries, middlemen. When they charge higher premiums, and pay providers less, or nothing (via high deductibles and high coinsurance), then they are more profitable. They take this profit and invest it.
Why have the United Healthcare, Humana, and the healthcare insurance companies done so well since Obamacare?
Have the health insurance companies significantly increased investment returns? Maybe, but not enough to justify the stock price.
Have the health insurance companies significantly increased covered lives? No.
Have United Healthcare or Humana significantly increased market share? No.
Have United Healthcare or Humana significantly increased premiums? Maybe, but not enough to justify the stock price.
Have the health insurance companies significantly decreased provider payments? *Yes.*
*How? Just as cereal manufacturers decrease their costs by putting less cereal in the same box and charging you the same price for less cereal, health insurers have raised the deductible amounts and co-insurance amounts, but not lowered premiums.*
*Coinsurance*: A cost-sharing requirement of some
insurance plans where the patient assumes a percentage of the costs for
covered services after the amount of the deductible has been met.
Coinsurance is described as a ratio, for example 30/70, meaning the
patient is responsible for paying 30% and the insurance will pay 70% of
the allowable.
*Deductible*: The amount paid by the member before
insurance will begin to reimburse services. It is reset annually, and
based on the level of benefits or amount of premium paid. For example,
with a $1,000 deductible the patient must pay medical providers for the
first $1,000 of allowable expenses incurred by the patient each year,
after which costs may be split according to a coinsurance arrangement,
and/or may be limited to the patient’s out of pocket expenses.
*Premium: * The monthly amount enrollees pay the insurance company to be covered.
In summary, because 1) you are paying more before the insurance company begins to reimburse services, 2) you are paying a higher percentage of the costs after the insurance company begins to reimburse services, and 3) you are required by law to purchase health insurance United Healthcare stock has increased more than 340%, and Humana stock has increased more than 440%. *You have health insurance, but you cannot afford surgery? You should have bought HUM stock.*
Just like I said in January of 2013...
Bait and switch.
Obamacare is of, by, and for the healthcare insurers. It is designed
to remove competition and assure profits for healthcare insurers,
exactly as the Federal Reserve Act does for the big banks.
HIPAA was not about privacy for the patient. It is solely to guarantee healthcare insurers access to preexisting conditions.
None of this will change until bribery campaign contributions are reformed.
How does Obamacare assure profits for the health insurers?
The fine print, Section 2718 of the Public Health Services Act,
implements the *minimum medical loss ratio* requirement, aka *guaranteed*
*
profit* requirement.
What does this mean for those investing in or practicing healthcare in America?
Well, like I said back in October of 2013...
The following provision, in a nation of deadbeats that cannot put
their hands on $2,000 cash for an emergency, when combined with $2,000
deductibles and 70/30 co-pays, is going to be the
mother-of-all-unintended-consequences.
Furthermore, health plans from the marketplace could present financial obstacles for physicians, because those *health plans are required to have a 90-day grace period for policyholders that do not pay their monthly premiums on time*.
While other health plans would cut off coverage if a patient did not
pay their bill on time, the health plans offered in the marketplace
would still indicate the patient was covered during that grace period,
and retroactively revoke payments to the physician for treatment
provided during that time. In those situations, *the doctor would be forced to seek payment from the patient for services already provided.*
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/Texas-Doctors-Un...
Short providers, long insurers, long collection agencies.
The next time you see your congressman, ask how his or her Humana stock is doing. The next time you pay your health insurance premium, you may want to stuff some money in the mattress, too, so you can afford the deductible and co-insurance.
Peace be with you!
Reported by Zero Hedge 5 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
