Quantcast
Channel: Health Insurance Headlines on One News Page [United States]
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live

6.1 Percent Unemployment Still 100 Percent Sucks

$
0
0
BALTIMORE -- Erin Isaacs has been selling her stuff in order to make rent. She got $180 for her 40-inch TV and $300 for a small washer-dryer combo.

"Next up I need to go to my storage unit and take pictures of my stuff, and so it'll be things like probably my sofa, which is fairly new," she said. "The coffee table. Probably the power tools I've bought over the years."

The government announced Friday that the unemployment rate fell a tenth of a point in August to 6.1 percent. But to people still out of work, unemployment sucks 100 percent.

The number of long-term unemployed, those out of work longer than six months, is down to 3 million -- a million fewer than this time last year. Economists are unsure whether more of those people are finding jobs or telling the government's monthly employment survey that they've stopped looking.

The declining jobless rate doesn't impress Isaacs. "It's just more indication to me that Washington is completely out of touch with reality and that our country is run by corporations and not our government," she said.

Isaacs, 40, has been out of work since last October, when the health insurance company where she'd spent 14 years reduced its staff. At first, it wasn't so bad. But since then, she's downsized to a smaller apartment here and has had only one interview.

"The stress of being unemployed, of not knowing if I'm going to make the rent, if I'm going to be able to buy groceries -- it is really overwhelming," she said.

One reason the lower unemployment rate makes joblessness more difficult is that sympathetic government policies have gone away. In a few weeks, Isaacs will run out of unemployment insurance. (She would have run out much earlier, but a good severance package delayed the start of her six-month claim.)

If Isaacs had been laid off in 2009, she would have been eligible for another year's worth of benefits paid by the federal government. Congress dropped the extra compensation in December partly because of the declining unemployment rate.

Since losing her job as an appeals specialist, Isaacs has sought similar work. Eventually, she expanded her search to include any job with a chair. She hasn't branched out to retail or food service work, she said, because of leg injuries that make it painful to stand for more than four hours straight.

A major obstacle is that she didn't finish college, a fact she can't fudge in online job application forms -- and pretty much every application is online. She said she's looked into finishing school, but can't get anyone to co-sign for a student loan.

"My friends and family are either already co-signing loans for their own children, or will be very soon," she said.

Though there are fewer people searching for available jobs, in some ways the unemployment experience today is worse than it was when the national unemployment rate peaked at 10 percent in 2009. It can be more isolating than before, since there are fewer people going through it.

"Your friends that are still employed, you suddenly have all this time during the day and you can't talk to your friends because they're working and you know they need their jobs as much as you needed [yours]," Isaacs said. "You can't really afford to go out with them in the evening, so you spend a lot of time at home. I'm an introvert really bad anyways, and even I'm at the point I want to go out and talk to people." Reported by Huffington Post 16 hours ago.

Wonkblog: Some good news — and some concerning news — for health insurance premiums

$
0
0
For all of the dire warnings about health insurance premiums spiking in the coming year, the numbers this summer have been pretty ho-hum. Although no one's ever going to tell you that they're particularly happy about seeing their premiums go up, the overall landscape of rates in the individual market has shown relatively modest increases so far. Reported by Washington Post 15 hours ago.

Bengals sign player so daughter gets health care

$
0
0
NFL health insurance, according to Still, covers 100% of cost for his daughter's treatment.

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Reported by USATODAY.com 13 hours ago.

Hackers break into HealthCare.gov

$
0
0
NEW YORK, Sept 4 – An unknown hacker or hackers broke into a computer server supporting the HealthCare.gov website through which consumers enroll in Obamacare health insurance, a government cybersecurity... Reported by NY Post 15 hours ago.

Census Bureau to Host Webinar on American Community Survey Statistics and Health Insurance Measures

$
0
0
WASHINGTON, Sept. 5, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following release is being issued by the U.S. Census Bureau: What: The Census Bureau will hold a webinar on Sept. 11 in advance of the planned Sept. 18 release of 2013 American Community Survey 1-year statistics. The webinar... Reported by PR Newswire 14 hours ago.

New York health insurance rates to rise in 2015

$
0
0
New York insurance regulators have approved higher health insurance rates for 2015, though the increases are smaller than what the industry wanted. Reported by Miami Herald 13 hours ago.

7 Ways to Prep Your Employees for Open Enrollment in Health Insurance

$
0
0
7 Ways to Prep Your Employees for Open Enrollment in Health Insurance Reported by ajc.com 11 hours ago.

Oregon policy group calls for widespread dental care in reform-shaped plans

$
0
0
A new report from a public policy research group calls on Oregon to add dental coverage to the state’s basic health program. Doing so could help 87,000 low-income residents avoid other costly health problems, say researchers from the Silverton-based Oregon Center for Public Policy. “Without a basic health program, many low-income adults in Oregon who don’t have health insurance through work will continue to struggle to afford mandated health insurance, let alone dental coverage, which adds… Reported by bizjournals 9 hours ago.

Thousands of Covered California enrollees must verify legal status

$
0
0
About 98,000 families who signed up for health insurance with Covered California need to prove they are lawful residents of the state by Sept. 30, exchange officials announced Thursday. Anyone who applies for coverage through the health benefits exchange must show they are citizens or legal residents, and most have done so; the program has enrolled more than 1 million. Families affected by this week's announcement include those for which Covered California has been working to clear inconsistencies.… Reported by bizjournals 8 hours ago.

Starkville adds plus-1 adult to city insurance

$
0
0
A north Mississippi city is revising its health insurance plan to let municipal employees buy coverage for one other adult, including possibly a same-sex partner. Reported by Miami Herald 8 hours ago.

Health insurance spat surfaces between Anthem and Stanford Health Care

$
0
0
Anthem Blue Cross of California is threatening to quit providing in-network coverage at Stanford Hospital and its clinics for 10,000 of the health insurance giant's customers, if the two sides can't reach an agreement by midnight Sunday. Reported by San Jose Mercury News 5 hours ago.

Susan Tompor: Michigan baby boomers worry more than most about finances

$
0
0
A new program called Reinventing MI Retirement will target those 50 and up who are facing various challenges in planning for retirement, such as making sure they have enough health insurance coverage. Reported by Freep 2 hours ago.

Newest Obamacare Offensive: Small Businesses

$
0
0
Small business owners in 14 states will be turning to the Small Business Health Options, or SHOP, exchange this fall for employee health insurance. Reported by Motley Fool 16 hours ago.

The Odds of Supreme Court Review of the Latest Obamacare Challenges Just Got a Lot Lower

$
0
0
Ever since three-judge panels on the Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit issued conflicting rulings in July on the availability of tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the opponents of the law have been trying to rush their case to the Supreme Court. That's where they apparently think they have their best shot at succeeding in what D.C. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards called their "not-so-veiled attempt to gut" the law. But thanks to an Order just issued by the full D.C. Circuit, their chances of getting the case in front of the Supremes just got a lot lower.

The two cases involved are just the latest salvo in the ACA opponents' continuing efforts to kill the ACA by any means possible. In these challenges, the opponents of the law argue that the ACA, which was enacted to make health insurance affordable for all Americans, doesn't permit people to receive the tax credits that actually make it affordable if they purchase their insurance in one of the 36 states that have opted to let the federal government run their Exchange. Thus, they argue, an IRS rule confirming that tax credits are available to all qualifying Americans, regardless of where they live, is invalid under the statute.

It's an argument that shouldn't hold water in any court. The opponents of the law rest their argument on one four-word phrase -- "established by the State" -- but ignore the text of the rest of the 900-some page statute that makes it clear that federally-facilitated Exchanges are functionally the same as state-established Exchanges. Even Justice Scalia should recognize that's no way to interpret a statute. As he explained just last year, "the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Here, reading the words of the statute in context makes clear that tax credits should be available to all qualifying Americans. Fourth Circuit Judge Andre Davis called the argument made by the law's opponents "tortured" and "nonsensical."

But it was just two years ago that opponents of the ACA almost prevailed at the Supreme Court with an argument that many thought was off-the-wall a short time before. So it's no wonder that the law's opponents think that the Supreme Court offers their best shot at a victory. Indeed, they're so eager to get there that they filed their request for the Supreme Court to hear the Fourth Circuit case in which they lost (King v. Burwell) less than ten days after the Fourth Circuit ruled for the government. And they preemptively urged the Court not to grant the government an extension of time to file its response to their request before the government even sought one. The Court granted the government's request anyway, as is its normal practice.

The ACA's opponents also repeatedly argued that the full D.C. Circuit shouldn't rehear the case in which they won (Halbig v. Burwell), even though the federal appellate rules make clear that Halbig is exactly the type of case in which en banc review is appropriate. Oddly, these purported textualists ignored the text of the governing rule entirely in their response to the government's en banc request. Fortunately, the judges on the D.C. Circuit didn't, and they issued an order granting en banc review and setting the case down for argument before the whole court in December. That order also vacated the judgment previously issued in the case.

What does this mean for the opponents' request that the Supreme Court hear King? It makes it a lot less likely that the Court will grant it. The Supreme Court receives thousands of requests to hear cases each year, but grants only 70-80. The most important consideration when the Court is deciding which cases to hear is whether there's division among the lower courts (what Supreme Court watchers call a "circuit split"). Now that the D.C. Circuit has vacated the judgment in Halbig, there's no circuit split, and if the Supreme Court follows its normal practice, there's little question about what it will do with the cert. petition in King. It will either deny it outright or wait to rule on it until the full D.C. Circuit issues a new decision, probably sometime next year. At that point, if the full D.C. Circuit agrees with the Fourth Circuit, there will be no circuit split, and the Supreme Court would most likely deny the petition in King.

The ACA's opponents continue to argue that Supreme Court review is inevitable, but their arguments about that are as weak as their arguments about the law itself. They claim that "[t]he same factor that made Halbig a candidate for en banc rehearing -- its "exceptional importance" -- makes it an equally likely candidate for Supreme Court review.' But they again ignore the text of the relevant rule: Halbig was of "exceptional importance" because it created a split with another circuit. If the full D.C. Circuit ultimately rules as the Fourth Circuit did (as it certainly might), there will no longer be a split. The ACA opponents also argue that other cases in the lower courts "could contribute to a circuit split." They could, but they could very well not. After all, six of the eight judges who have heard these challenges so far have all agreed that the text, purpose, and history of the ACA make clear that tax credits and subsidies should be available to all qualifying Americans, regardless of where they live. In any event, in an ordinary case, the Supreme Court would wait to see if a split actually developed before taking the case.

So while the ACA's opponents may be eager to get another chance to try to take down the law at the Supreme Court, their odds of getting there just got a lot lower.

This piece is also cross-posted at CAC's Text & History blog. Reported by Huffington Post 12 hours ago.

Bengals Cut Then Re-Sign Devon Still So He'll Have Health Insurance for Daughter's Cancer Treatment

$
0
0
"It's like a blessing in disguise," says Still, whose 4-year-old, Leah, has neuroblastoma Reported by People Magazine 8 hours ago.

Pregnant Catholic High School Teacher Fired For Being A Lesbian

$
0
0
Pregnant Catholic High School Teacher Fired For Being A Lesbian Pregnant Catholic High School Teacher Fired For Being A Lesbian
Pregnant Catholic High School Teacher Fired For Being A Lesbian
Religion
Has Been Optimized

Dozens of Michigan parents are rallying behind a pregnant Catholic high school teacher who was allegedly fired last month for being homosexual.

Barbara Webb, 33, worked as a chemistry teacher and volleyball coach at Marian High School in Bloomfield Hills for almost a decade before she was terminated.

Webb says administrators at the all-girls school fired her after they learned she and her wife were expecting their first child.

Webb married her partner Kristen Lasecki nearly six years ago and learned of her pregnancy in June. She didn’t inform her employers until July. In mid-August she was fired, the Detroit Free Press reported.

Webb says her termination letter didn’t give a reason for the dismissal. She said conversations with administrators prior to being fired pointed to a morality clause in her contract over "lifestyle or actions directly contradictory to the Catholic faith."

"If you publicly had some type of actions that were contradictory to Catholic teachings, then there would be an issue," Webb told WJBK-TV. "If you did and it was private, there seemed to be no issue."

She said the school offered to let her resign so she could keep her health insurance through the spring, but she couldn’t discuss what happened. She chose to be terminated.

"Well, you're damn right I wasn't going to sign something that said I willing[ly] was leaving," Webb said. "And their $4k of health insurance wasn't enough to buy my silence."

Parents and former students are protesting the school's actions. They started the “I Stand With Barb Webb” movement, calling for the school to embrace diversity.

"Marian teaches us about social justice in profound ways,” Mazza Cunnings told the Detroit Free Press. "This is a human rights issue. There's a mother and a child involved. (Standing up for them) is what we were taught to do."

About 30 people stood outside the high school Sunday morning to show their support for Webb.

Lisbeth Melendez Rivera, director of Latino/a and Catholic Initiatives at the HRC Foundation said the action taken against Webb is discriminatory and all too common.

"There is a sad and troubling narrative of increasing discrimination by Catholic institutions against LGBT Americans, including and especially those who legally marry or come out," Rivera said in a press release. "These discriminatory actions extend from Oakland to Kansas City to Cincinnati, from Chicago to Atlanta, and are occurring with alarming frequency."

Sources: Detroit Free Press, The Advocate

Image credit: Flickr Creative Commons / Guillaume Paumier

1
Video Piece: 
Regular Piece
OV in Depth:  Reported by Opposing Views 16 hours ago.

What Happens When the Person Taking Care of Your Mom Can’t Earn a Living Wage?

$
0
0
 

(AP Photo/Seth Perlman)

Tanya Melin of Chicago, right, Service Employees International Union members, home care consumers, workers, and allies rally in support of home care funding at the Illinois State Capitol Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012 in Springfield, Illinois.

On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that a key strategy used by unions to raise the earnings and professionalism of home-care workers was illegal. Since the 1990s, the labor movement has worked with states and countries to get laws or executive orders to allow home-care workers to be treated as employees of public authorities rather than as individual contractors. The result has been to allow these workers to form unions and to bargain collectively with government for better wages and working standards.

In the Harris v. Quinn case, however, the Court held that workers could still unionize, but that they were not true public employees. Unions thus could not collect dues from workers who choose to remain outside the bargaining unit. The Service Employees International Union, which pioneered the strategy, took the ruling as a temporary setback but also as a challenge to redouble organizing of home-care workers. This campaign may yet succeed, but in the short run these workers will have a harder time bargaining for decent wages.

Less visible, but perhaps equally damaging, is the harm this ruling will cause an increasingly vulnerable group of elderly and disabled care “consumers.” In theory, the interest of workers can be at odds with that of consumers, because higher wages typically mean higher costs, whether for taxpayers footing Medicaid bills, middle-class families paying out of pocket, or long-term care insurance companies calculating premium costs. When higher costs hit limited budgets, care needs are likely to go unmet. By this reasoning, cheaper care means more care and more benefits for consumers.

But  the care “market” (if you can call it that) doesn’t work that way. Care isn’t something you just pour into a measuring cup and sell by the ounce. Its quality matters—and varies enormously, affected not only by the motivation, experience, and skill of the care provider, but also by empathy with a client who not just a consumer.

Home-care workers are paid to help people with basic activities of daily living in their homes. They are among the fastest-growing segments of the U.S. labor force, not merely because the share of elderly in our population is growing but also because home- and community-based care is a cost-effective—and widely preferred—alternative to nursing-home care. Many states have figured out that Medicaid funds targeted for people with disabilities and the low-income elderly needing assistance are best spent helping those who can get by at home.

Yet policymakers—and probably many other people who have never needed to hire a caregiver—continue to make the outdated assumption that this is menial, low-skilled work. Until recently, federal labor law put home-care workers on a lower tier than domestic servants, exempting them from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act on the grounds that they were merely providing “companionship.” (This provision was revised by the Obama administration in 2013, potentially benefiting some 2 million home-care workers.)

Mere companionship may have been an expectation fifty years ago, when most people could rely on a mother, wife, or daughter to meet most of their care needs, and hired a “sitter” to help fill in for family members. But today, many women are constrained by demands of paid employment, and more elderly people (including many widows who have outlasted their husbands) are living alone. Cost pressures tend to shove people quickly out of hospital care, leaving them to manage their own treatment for ongoing illnesses such as cancer or the chronic diseases of old age, such as diabetes, congestive heart failure, and dementia.

Often a paid caregiver is the only person left standing between a needy client and a hospital emergency room. In our focus groups and interviews with fifty Personal Care Attendants (PCAs) in Massachusetts, we learned a lot about what that takes. Twenty-one of the PCAs answered detailed questions about their time use and we found that 62 percent of their clients lived alone. Many needed time-consuming help with meal preparation and housework, but a large majority (86 percent) also needed help with medication. About 76 percent needed help with bathing, and at least half needed assistance transferring out of bed and/or going to the bathroom.

People who rely on home- and community-based care are, almost by definition, are people who need personal, individualized, customized attention. Reflecting that, virtually all the PCAs we talked with emphasized the emotional demands of the job. They embraced the responsibility of giving affection and many described incidents in which they willingly went far beyond their specific job description.

In one instance, a disabled child got lost on his way home from school, and his family turned first to the PCA who worked with him. She had to stop what she was doing at home, talk to the police, and go pick him up when he was found. She seemed cheerful, even proud that she was able to provide such effective assistance. But she also felt her work was undervalued, asking: “How do you put a price tag on something like this?” In fact, the price was zero because rescue was not on her list of assigned tasks.

Another home-care worker described getting a call at 2 a.m. from a client who cried, “I fell and can’t get up.” The PCA told her she should call an ambulance, but the elderly woman seemed terribly anxious, explaining, “No, I don’t want to do that, I’d rather wait for you.” This PCA went over, on her own time, to help with the ambulance transfer. Another PCA described paying out-of-pocket for a cab to the hospital with a client who wanted her to accompany him. She spent the night there in his room, also “for free.”

PCAs deliver care in skilled and mindful ways, rather than simply doing whatever their clients ask. One explained that her client, a disabled teenage girl, needs to learn greater independence to improve her future.  “I am very patient," the careworker explained. "She needs to do things for herself and her family maybe does a little too much for her. So …I just take time.” Some of her strategies to help this teen have been learned at meetings at the union office with other experienced PCAs. She said she is grateful for this “chance to talk it over.” Isolated in clients’ homes, these workers have little opportunity to learn from one another or gain access to training opportunities. They describe their union as a source of information as well as advocacy.

Most home-care workers try hard to connect with their clients. They recognize that people who need care at home come in all kinds of packages, and with all kinds of needs. To ask for assistance with basic activities of daily living is to relinquish both privacy and pride. Most clients would strongly prefer to hire a family member or someone who closely shares their cultural or religious background. Above all, clients and their families seek home-care providers who practice concern and compassion. Having found a good match, they hope and pray for continuity of care, a long-term relationship.

But home-care workers have a hard time achieving the stability they need to turn their calling into a decent job, much less a career. And they deserve some reciprocity from a society that relies heavily on their commitment. In 2012 their median national hourly wage was only $9.57 per hour. That adds up to about $20,000 per year for those members of this predominantly female and disproportionately black, Latino and immigrant labor force who are able to find full-time employment. Since few people who need care qualify for that much assistance, many workers are forced to spend considerable unpaid time on the road, juggling part-time jobs in other households.

The stresses of dealing with physically and emotionally needy clients are compounded by the difficulty of paying their own bills. PCAs are often caught between the demands of their work and their own family needs. The conflicts can be wrenching. As one woman put it, “I’d hate to quit after five years of taking care of her.” But quit she might if her wages don’t rise and she continues to be denied any sick leave. This kind of turnover is a hidden cost to clients and their families.

Another home-care worker told us of trying to find a job parking cars because the hourly rate was better than taking care of his elderly clients. “You hate to just up and quit but…my kids have to eat.”

Home and community-based care requires a labor force that has incentives to remain on the job and to develop new skills. This helps explain why states like Illinois (where Harris v. Quinn was filed) and Massachusetts have applied the “public authority” model that allows home-care workers authorized by the state’s Medicaid program to be paid directly by the state and  collectively bargain with it. This model is good not only for the workers, but for the citizens who rely on them, because it produces better compensated workers. That, in turn, improves morale, motivation and professionalism.

Economist Candace Howes conducted a detailed statistical analysis of the impact of the public authority and collective bargaining approach in California. She found that turnover for new workers over a six-month period plummeted from 70 percent to 35 percent. Because public authorities were set up on the county level, with variable success in union bargaining, the wage effects varied considerably. But in the San Francisco and Sacramento areas, union efforts raised wages as high as $12.34 an hour compared to $8 an hour in counties with no contract.

The Service Employees International Union has won significant wage gains for unionized workers in states with a public authority model (see SEIU's Overview of Homecare Collective Bargaining) as well as major improvements in job training and career ladder development.

 

In her California research, Howes found that the higher wages and health insurance that workers gained through unionization made it easier for families to hire the care providers they preferred, rather than whoever might be available at a wage barely above the minimum.

Many studies show that high-quality care at home helps reduce emergency room and hospital visits, as well as lessening the likelihood of entering costly nursing home facilities.  

These benefits are relevant not just for states trying to minimize health care costs, but also for families who may need to hire someone to help them care for a loved one.

Unionization improves the stability, reliability and experience of the care labor force, benefiting consumers as well as workers. What labor economists term a “high road” strategy costs more up front, but leads to a safe destination. The low road may seem cheaper, but the monetary savings are outweighed by the costs both to workers and to their clients. When the Supreme Court ruled that home care workers enjoying the benefit of a democratically chosen union under a public authority model don’t have to pay dues, it harmed those needing home care, as well as those providing it. Reported by The American Prospect 7 hours ago.

The Brokerage, Inc. Kicks off Fall Road Shows to Prepare for Medicare and ACA Open Enrollment

$
0
0
The Brokerage, Inc., (http://www.TheBrokerageInc.com) a national insurance marketing organization and leader in the Medicare and ACA marketplace, hits the road to help agents prepare for upcoming Medicare and ACA Open Enrollment.

Lewisville, TX (PRWEB) September 08, 2014

The Brokerage, Inc. is spending this fall season on the road. With a series of workshops scheduled throughout September, the Texas-based IMO is focused on helping insurance agents around the country prepare for the Medicare and the Affordable Care Act Open Enrollment Period. This year, Medicare Annual Enrollment Period is October 15 to December 7. The ACA Open Enrollment Period is November 15 to February 15, 2015.

“As opposed to last year, the healthcare.gov site is expected to be fully operational with no extensions, meaning everything will go into effect March 1 with no foreseen hiccups,” said The Brokerage, Inc. President Mike Smith. “So we will definitely be in full swing.”

Using http://www.medicare.gov, The Brokerage, Inc. will be assisting agents with calculating prescription drug plans, selecting ideal health plans for Medicare beneficiaries, and providing a sneak peek of Medicare and Drug plans with Humana and United Healthcare for 2015’s nationwide portfolio.

Using http://www.healthcare.gov, the company will show agents how to cater to individuals as well as how to analyze small business needs. Following the workshops, producers will be able to identify whether or not a small business qualifies for premium subsidies or health insurance tax credits through the Small Group Health Options Program (SHOP).

In addition to learning how to maximize their income and coverage during this crucial season, insurance agents that attend one of The Brokerage, Inc.’s traveling fall workshops also become eligible to win door prizes and other giveaways. For more information on how to register for one of these events, contact The Brokerage, Inc. at (866) 575-6884 or visit http://www.thebrokerageinc.com.

###

About The Brokerage, Inc.

The Brokerage, Inc., a national insurance marketing organization specializing in life, health and accident products, has been a nationally recognized leader in the Medicare marketplace for over 36 years. The Brokerage, Inc. is proud to provide products such as annuities, health insurance, life insurance, and long term care insurance, as well as marketing services to over 10,000 actively appointed independent insurance agents nationwide. The Brokerage, Inc. helps independent brokers with their marketing efforts and increases the value of their agency with specialized features such as quality Medicare leads, help with Medicare certification, top contracts, free E&O coverage, and marketing support through various avenues year-round, not just during the Annual Enrollment Period. The Brokerage, Inc. has also played a vital role in training agents for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and is a preferred GA for Blue Cross Blue Shield. For more information, visit http://www.thebrokerageinc.com. Reported by PRWeb 1 day ago.

Ouch, the Bill for ObamaCare Coming Due

$
0
0
Ouch, the Bill for ObamaCare Coming Due The bill is coming due for ObamaCare and it’s a whopper. According to Medicare Care’s own actuaries, U.S. health care spending is about to skyrocket.

Federal meddling in what was once the finest and most cost-effective health care system on the planet is nothing new.

Back in the 1960s, many Americans paid for doctor and hospital services out of pocket or through modestly priced private insurance. Health care spending was about 6 percent of GDP.

Enter President Johnson and Medicare. He bought millions of votes by giving seniors free health care that they never paid for through payroll taxes during their working years. As insidious, he helped lay the foundations for the entitlement state with Medicaid. The latter, first conceived to help poor children, has been gradually expanded to include many working families.

Today health care spending is more than 17 percent of GDP. Life extending treatments are part of the jump, but Germany and Holland spend about 12 percent and have those. The extra US costs are federally mandated giveaways, inefficiencies and abuse—about $850 billion and much more than spent on defense.

Federal programs set reimbursements for providers and limit use of many drugs and procedures. Those rules are intended to mirror market prices and informed private decisions but often do not.

No bureaucratic rule or computer program can even capture all the judgments we put into purchasing decisions to maximize what we squeeze from our incomes to meet our family’s needs. Those decisions build up to become what economists call the invisible hand of the marketplace that guides businesses to make what we need.

Just as Soviet central planning failed to put enough TVs and beef on store shelves, federally managed health care creates long waits to see doctors and lots of opportunities for soft fraud—activities by health care providers that game federal rules—and outright stealing.

For example, Medicaid pays doctors a small fee for drawing blood but labs pay doctors handling fees up to six times as large to get their business. Doctors prescribe questionable, expensive treatments that may be administered in their offices and push up Medicare reimbursements into the millions for each practice.

Before ObamaCare, federal and state governments were already financing about half of all health care spending. At that level, federal reimbursement rates and rules no longer mirror the market—those become the market. The decisions of private insurers—each much smaller by dollars spent than federal outlays—fit in around those policies.

It was already Soviet health care but without the benefit of free access, as private premiums, deductions, and co-pays soared.

Now ObamaCare is throwing new sand into the gears by fining individuals who lack employer provided insurance and fail to purchase a plan from the government marketplace.

No surprise, next year those policies are expected to jump in cost by as much as 30 percent. Medicare actuaries are forecasting health spending will rise at 6 percent a year over the next decade and are on pace to reach 20 percent of GDP by 2025.

The Administration has obfuscated the issue. Government numbers show Medicare expenditures growing more slowly—but that’s because the new law raises premiums, cuts benefits, and slices reimbursements to doctors and uses the cash saved to subsidize the federal and state insurance exchanges.

Small businesses are shedding employees and larger ones are scrambling to find machines to replace lower paid workers—or leave the country altogether to escape the burdens of health insurance.

Good jobs are scarce, and America is losing its brand.

The United States, once the home of free markets, is no longer the most vibrant economy on earth. It’s China, where bureaucrats are better at imposing the tyranny of a state managed economy.

Peter Morici is an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland, national columnist and five-time winner of the MarketWatch best forecaster award. He tweets @pmorici1 Reported by Breitbart 21 hours ago.

Why Do So Many People Have The Wrong Kind Of Health Insurance?

$
0
0
Of the 8 million people who obtained health insurance through the new (Obamacare) exchanges, how many still have their insurance? Apparently, the Obama administration doesn’t want you to know the answer to that question. It hasn’t released any official numbers since May. And it’s becoming increasingly clear why. Large numbers [...] Reported by Forbes.com 20 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images