It's Round 2 for the state health insurance exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act. After a shaky start, plagued by problems with the government's website, almost 200,000 Virginians enrolled through the state's federally facilitated exchange in 2014.
Reported by dailypress.com 31 minutes ago.
Health insurance exchange opens for 2015 enrollment
↧
↧
Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Agrees to a New Labor Deal
The agreement, which resolves a two-month lockout, will give the musicians small raises but require them to pay higher health insurance rates.
Reported by NYTimes.com 3 hours ago.
↧
Upcoming health insurance enrollment events
Open enrollment for 2015 health coverage begins Nov. 15.
Reported by Delawareonline 23 hours ago.
Reported by Delawareonline 23 hours ago.
↧
You May Pay More for Health Insurance in These States
In terms of price and competition, there are big differences from state to state.
Reported by Motley Fool 14 hours ago.
↧
Higher bar for health law in 2nd sign-up season
With a bright look to its rebuilt website, version 2.0 of President Barack Obama's health insurance overhaul represents another chance to win over a skeptical public.
Reported by Seattle Times 12 hours ago.
↧
↧
Obamacare Shoppers Get Sneak Peak At New Prices
Health insurance consumers using HealthCare.gov will get their first look at the prices for 2015 coverage starting Sunday night, when window shopping goes live on the website, federal officials announced Sunday.
Shoppers won't be able to choose a health plan for 2015 until Nov. 15, when the three-month enrollment period begins. But the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is providing early access to estimated health insurance premiums and the value of subsidies available to low- and moderate-income households. The window-shopping tool proved to be the most-visited part of HealthCare.gov during the first Obamacare enrollment period, officials said.
HealthCare.gov, which serves insurance consumers in more than 30 states, debuted Oct. 1, 2013, without the ability for people to window shop, which forced users to create accounts and begin applications for coverage before they could view prices. And since the website was barely functional for the first two months of the six-month sign-up period last year, the absence of this tool made it nearly impossible for people to gauge whether they could afford coverage -- and put greater strain on the system -- until the feature was added.
Obamacare officials said they would release an analysis of the health insurance premiums for 2015 later this week.
"We think the news is largely positive," said Kevin Counihan, the CEO of HealthCare.gov and the director of the Center for Consumer and Information and Insurance Oversight within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Independent analyses based on health insurance pricing information made public by state regulators have shown modest average premium increases for Obamacare plans across the nation. According to the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, rates will rise an average of 6 percent in states that have reported 2015 prices. The changes vary greatly, however, so some consumers will see double-digit increases while others will see prices go down if they keep their current coverage. The number of health insurers selling plans on the exchanges also is increasing by about 25 percent.
Consumers will be automatically re-enrolled into the plans they have this year if they are still being sold by their insurance carriers, but Counihan stressed that federal officials want individuals who already have coverage through the exchanges to revisit the website to ensure they're getting the best deal based on the new prices and the subsidies they can receive based on their incomes.
"The majority of our customers will be able to save money by shopping and comparing," Counihan said during a conference call with reporters Sunday. "We are strongly encouraging our customers to return back to HealthCare.gov, update their income and eligibility information, shop and compare, and see if there are better values out there for them."
Next year's prices will be available Sunday night on both HealthCare.gov and CuidadoDeSalud.gov, the Spanish-language portal to the federally run exchanges. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia operate their own exchanges and will provide premium information on their own schedules, the federal officials said.
The health insurance exchanges will open on time next Saturday, said Andy Slavitt, principal deputy administrator at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. "We've hit all the critical deadlines," he said. "We're not contemplating anything unusual or out of the ordinary, regarding Nov. 15."
The HealthCare.gov team has streamlined the application process most consumers will use, and has completed more than a month of testing to ensure the website functions this time. The website also will be able to serve more users at a time than it did during the first enrollment period.
Officials said it will be easier than it was last year for visitors to HealthCare.gov to access the window-shopping tool and view estimates of the price and benefits of plans available in their local area before this sign-up period.
Shoppers can provide their zip codes, approximate income and information about the make-up of their households to get a look at what's available and what it costs, including the effects of tax credits to reduce premiums, and subsidies to reduce out-of-pocket costs. Then users can sort health insurance plans by price and level of benefits, view information on what services are covered or not covered, and see how much they will pay when they receive medical care. When consumers find a plan they may want to purchase during the enrollment period, they can print out or email the information to themselves or save the link to that plan. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
Shoppers won't be able to choose a health plan for 2015 until Nov. 15, when the three-month enrollment period begins. But the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is providing early access to estimated health insurance premiums and the value of subsidies available to low- and moderate-income households. The window-shopping tool proved to be the most-visited part of HealthCare.gov during the first Obamacare enrollment period, officials said.
HealthCare.gov, which serves insurance consumers in more than 30 states, debuted Oct. 1, 2013, without the ability for people to window shop, which forced users to create accounts and begin applications for coverage before they could view prices. And since the website was barely functional for the first two months of the six-month sign-up period last year, the absence of this tool made it nearly impossible for people to gauge whether they could afford coverage -- and put greater strain on the system -- until the feature was added.
Obamacare officials said they would release an analysis of the health insurance premiums for 2015 later this week.
"We think the news is largely positive," said Kevin Counihan, the CEO of HealthCare.gov and the director of the Center for Consumer and Information and Insurance Oversight within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Independent analyses based on health insurance pricing information made public by state regulators have shown modest average premium increases for Obamacare plans across the nation. According to the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, rates will rise an average of 6 percent in states that have reported 2015 prices. The changes vary greatly, however, so some consumers will see double-digit increases while others will see prices go down if they keep their current coverage. The number of health insurers selling plans on the exchanges also is increasing by about 25 percent.
Consumers will be automatically re-enrolled into the plans they have this year if they are still being sold by their insurance carriers, but Counihan stressed that federal officials want individuals who already have coverage through the exchanges to revisit the website to ensure they're getting the best deal based on the new prices and the subsidies they can receive based on their incomes.
"The majority of our customers will be able to save money by shopping and comparing," Counihan said during a conference call with reporters Sunday. "We are strongly encouraging our customers to return back to HealthCare.gov, update their income and eligibility information, shop and compare, and see if there are better values out there for them."
Next year's prices will be available Sunday night on both HealthCare.gov and CuidadoDeSalud.gov, the Spanish-language portal to the federally run exchanges. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia operate their own exchanges and will provide premium information on their own schedules, the federal officials said.
The health insurance exchanges will open on time next Saturday, said Andy Slavitt, principal deputy administrator at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. "We've hit all the critical deadlines," he said. "We're not contemplating anything unusual or out of the ordinary, regarding Nov. 15."
The HealthCare.gov team has streamlined the application process most consumers will use, and has completed more than a month of testing to ensure the website functions this time. The website also will be able to serve more users at a time than it did during the first enrollment period.
Officials said it will be easier than it was last year for visitors to HealthCare.gov to access the window-shopping tool and view estimates of the price and benefits of plans available in their local area before this sign-up period.
Shoppers can provide their zip codes, approximate income and information about the make-up of their households to get a look at what's available and what it costs, including the effects of tax credits to reduce premiums, and subsidies to reduce out-of-pocket costs. Then users can sort health insurance plans by price and level of benefits, view information on what services are covered or not covered, and see how much they will pay when they receive medical care. When consumers find a plan they may want to purchase during the enrollment period, they can print out or email the information to themselves or save the link to that plan. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
↧
Window-shopping for insurance on HealthCare.gov to start Monday
Consumers will be able to go to HealthCare.gov starting Monday to explore the benefits and prices of health plans that will be sold for 2015 through the federal health insurance exchange, officials said Sunday.
Reported by Washington Post 9 hours ago.
↧
Lessons learned: How one contractor is preparing for the second round of the Affordable Care Act
This Saturday, the second annual open enrollment period kicks off for health insurance plans governed by the Affordable Care Act.
A year after its botched rollout, companies that worked closely on the initial launch are gearing up for phase two as millions of Americans are expected to sign up for coverage yet again or renew their existing options. Reported by Washington Post 8 hours ago.
A year after its botched rollout, companies that worked closely on the initial launch are gearing up for phase two as millions of Americans are expected to sign up for coverage yet again or renew their existing options. Reported by Washington Post 8 hours ago.
↧
Report: Uninsured children in Utah could benefit from Healthy Utah plan
The federal Children's Health Insurance Program has helped thousands of Utah kids gain access to health care
Reported by Deseret News 6 hours ago.
↧
↧
DNC Email Signed by Obama: 'The Republicans Had a Good Night, But Our Results Were Better'
On Friday the Democratic National Committee sent out an email to its supporters, signed by President Obama, that shows an unwillingness to believe the results of the election that almost all observers agree is a Republican wave."The Republicans had a good night on Tuesday -- but believe me when I tell you that our results were better because you stepped up, talked to your family and friends, and cast your ballot," the e-mail read.
The full email reads:
The hardest thing in politics is changing the status quo. The easiest thing is to get cynical.
The Republicans had a good night on Tuesday -- but believe me when I tell you that our results were better because you stepped up, talked to your family and friends, and cast your ballot.
I want you to remember that we're making progress. There are workers who have jobs today who didn't have them before. There are millions of families who have health insurance today who didn't have it before. There are kids going to college today who didn't have the opportunity to go to college before.
So don't get cynical. Cynicism didn't put a man on the moon. Cynicism has never won a war, or cured a disease, or built a business, or fed a young mind. Cynicism is a choice. And hope will always be a better choice.
I have hope for the next few years, and I have hope for what we're going to accomplish together. If you do, too, join the Democratic Party, and let's keep building this movement:
Thank you so much.
Barack Obama
The President may have intended to say "our results, as bad as they were, were better than they would have been had you not stepped up, talked to your family and friends, and cast your ballot."
But that language would have led to the inevitable question -- how much worse would it have been had the recipients of this email not voted for the President's policies, which the rest of the country soundly rejected? Reported by Breitbart 5 hours ago.
↧
After GOP Pins Blame on Donkey, Can Dems Find Their Inner TR by '16?
*LISTEN HERE:*
By Mark Green
*Corn and Christie debate if Republicans won a wave election but not mandate since they campaigned only on "Obama Sucks". Q: How did Dems get blamed for gridlock and the economy by a GOP responsible for the Shutdown and Recession? A: Political malpractice. Q: Can Obama make a deal on Immigration? A: Not with a Party With the Fringe on the Top.*
What just happened?
Ron credits the late GOP surge to "a clear repudiation of Harry Reid's obstructionism, support for a smaller, less intrusive government and concern about an economy that's good for Wall Street but not Main Street." (Host: the best post-election explanation is a metaphor from Republican consultant Josh Brabender, who cites the Rex Ryan Strategy -- if your team is losing, you might as well put in the back-up quarterback to see if that makes a difference.) David agrees that Republicans were "fired up!" about Obama and then showed up. But there is no mandate since the winners didn't run on specific policies.
Was Obama delusional or effective in his calm post-election presser? Ron regards him as arrogant, silly, petulant (Obama petulant?). "The public sent him a message but he didn't hear it. All nine new Republican senators are opposed to Obamacare, for example, yet he blew them off." David dismisses such criticism because, when Republicans suffered an even bigger defeat in 2012, they didn't surrender their views on, say, guns and health care. Indeed, he points out how many Democratic policy positions won referenda that day - on gun safety, pot, the minimum wage. (Peggy Noonan too is angry that Obama isn't "humbled" by electoral rebuke. But when her hero Reagan famously said, "there's gotta be a pony in there somewhere", she swooned. Who does Obama think he is not crying uncle!)
How did the GOP successfully play the blame game on gridlock since, to quote Paul Krugman, "Republicans discovered that obstruction bordering on sabotage was a successful political strategy." David concludes that voters blame the guy apparently in charge which would be the president and that, as the party of government, Democrats attract most of the blame when government doesn't perform well enough. Ron continues to chastise Obama and Democrats for not listening. But aren't GOP refusniks unusually adversarial? Recall that Bush43 won Democratic votes for his early tax cuts. Replies Christie: "Well that was because he really listened to Democrats while Obama doesn't listen to Republicans."
Since Obama is basically digging the economy out of the deep hole that Bush43 dug -- jobless rate cut in half, auto industry saved, stock market nearly tripled, Depression averted -- is voter resentment of Democrats for the economy a classic case of 'no good deed goes unpunished'? Couldn't Obama come up with some Rooseveltian/Reaganish version of "Morning in America"? Ron plays up the low-participation rate because many workers have just given up looking for jobs. Both agree that economic gains have not reached many middle class workers because of worsening income inequality that's been occurring, according to Obama, "over the past 10, 20, 30 years."
David frets that continuing economic insecurity may mean regular "throw-the-bums-out" midterm elections and unpopular presidents "for the remainder of our lifetimes."
Can a more conservative Republican House and Senate work better with this Democratic president? Ron thinks there are areas of consensus, citing patent reform, Keystone Pipeline, tax reform; but David doubts it given a party driven by Tea Party radicals. Is it possible that a president who really wants a pathway to citizenship for millions of residents could come to some consensus with GOP leaders who really don't want to keep losing Hispanic voters 3-1 in presidential elections and flunking out of the Electoral College? Theoretically yes but probably not when one party's base thinks the president of the other is an untrustworthy "clown."
Republicans in the election did what they always do, unanimously and repeatedly hating on Obama. But Democrats apparently like playing defense since they had no counter meta-narrative of their own. Their framing brings to mind Churchill's complaint about pudding: "it lacks theme."
Was it truly untenable for Democrats to compare themselves to Republicans who a) shut the government to stop millions from getting health insurance; and b) tanked the economy that Democrats are provably improving? How about something straightforward like "They want to enrich the one percent. We're for the 100 percent because Americans are all better off only when we're all better off. Let's vote ourselves a raise."
Americans think that the system is rigged and that economic elites use political power to enrich themselves and worsen income inequality. So why not say it and propose corrective policies -- tax changes, pension reform, Social Security fixes, minimum wage, infrastructure, etc.? And while the party of FDR/Clinton/Obama are at it, why not loudly denounce how the Republican strategy depends on more money and fewer voters. Sure looks like the Roberts Court won this election given the unprecedented mountain of money and record low voters (since 1940s). Would this have been merely a process argument that always fails to move voters? TR didn't think so. And "Democracy" is a word as compellingly American as "Freedom."
So in 2016 Democrats need to make sure that they have the themes, policies and passion to inspire the 2012 "Coalition of the Ascendant" to turn out. That means embracing, not running from, the Warren-Buffett argument that there is a class war and the wealthy are winning it because Democrats have been scared off by donors. But if they stand for nothing, voters will fall for anything. The issue isn't Left-Right but who's on our side with a program for prosperity that's shared by all.
Mark Green is the creator and host of Both Sides Now.
You can follow him on Twitter @markjgreen
Send all comments to Bothsidesradio.com, where you can also listen to prior shows.
Both Sides Now is available
Sat. 5-6 PM EST From Lifestyle TalkRadio Network
& Sun. 8-9 AM EST from Business RadioTalk Network. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.
By Mark Green
*Corn and Christie debate if Republicans won a wave election but not mandate since they campaigned only on "Obama Sucks". Q: How did Dems get blamed for gridlock and the economy by a GOP responsible for the Shutdown and Recession? A: Political malpractice. Q: Can Obama make a deal on Immigration? A: Not with a Party With the Fringe on the Top.*
What just happened?
Ron credits the late GOP surge to "a clear repudiation of Harry Reid's obstructionism, support for a smaller, less intrusive government and concern about an economy that's good for Wall Street but not Main Street." (Host: the best post-election explanation is a metaphor from Republican consultant Josh Brabender, who cites the Rex Ryan Strategy -- if your team is losing, you might as well put in the back-up quarterback to see if that makes a difference.) David agrees that Republicans were "fired up!" about Obama and then showed up. But there is no mandate since the winners didn't run on specific policies.
Was Obama delusional or effective in his calm post-election presser? Ron regards him as arrogant, silly, petulant (Obama petulant?). "The public sent him a message but he didn't hear it. All nine new Republican senators are opposed to Obamacare, for example, yet he blew them off." David dismisses such criticism because, when Republicans suffered an even bigger defeat in 2012, they didn't surrender their views on, say, guns and health care. Indeed, he points out how many Democratic policy positions won referenda that day - on gun safety, pot, the minimum wage. (Peggy Noonan too is angry that Obama isn't "humbled" by electoral rebuke. But when her hero Reagan famously said, "there's gotta be a pony in there somewhere", she swooned. Who does Obama think he is not crying uncle!)
How did the GOP successfully play the blame game on gridlock since, to quote Paul Krugman, "Republicans discovered that obstruction bordering on sabotage was a successful political strategy." David concludes that voters blame the guy apparently in charge which would be the president and that, as the party of government, Democrats attract most of the blame when government doesn't perform well enough. Ron continues to chastise Obama and Democrats for not listening. But aren't GOP refusniks unusually adversarial? Recall that Bush43 won Democratic votes for his early tax cuts. Replies Christie: "Well that was because he really listened to Democrats while Obama doesn't listen to Republicans."
Since Obama is basically digging the economy out of the deep hole that Bush43 dug -- jobless rate cut in half, auto industry saved, stock market nearly tripled, Depression averted -- is voter resentment of Democrats for the economy a classic case of 'no good deed goes unpunished'? Couldn't Obama come up with some Rooseveltian/Reaganish version of "Morning in America"? Ron plays up the low-participation rate because many workers have just given up looking for jobs. Both agree that economic gains have not reached many middle class workers because of worsening income inequality that's been occurring, according to Obama, "over the past 10, 20, 30 years."
David frets that continuing economic insecurity may mean regular "throw-the-bums-out" midterm elections and unpopular presidents "for the remainder of our lifetimes."
Can a more conservative Republican House and Senate work better with this Democratic president? Ron thinks there are areas of consensus, citing patent reform, Keystone Pipeline, tax reform; but David doubts it given a party driven by Tea Party radicals. Is it possible that a president who really wants a pathway to citizenship for millions of residents could come to some consensus with GOP leaders who really don't want to keep losing Hispanic voters 3-1 in presidential elections and flunking out of the Electoral College? Theoretically yes but probably not when one party's base thinks the president of the other is an untrustworthy "clown."
Republicans in the election did what they always do, unanimously and repeatedly hating on Obama. But Democrats apparently like playing defense since they had no counter meta-narrative of their own. Their framing brings to mind Churchill's complaint about pudding: "it lacks theme."
Was it truly untenable for Democrats to compare themselves to Republicans who a) shut the government to stop millions from getting health insurance; and b) tanked the economy that Democrats are provably improving? How about something straightforward like "They want to enrich the one percent. We're for the 100 percent because Americans are all better off only when we're all better off. Let's vote ourselves a raise."
Americans think that the system is rigged and that economic elites use political power to enrich themselves and worsen income inequality. So why not say it and propose corrective policies -- tax changes, pension reform, Social Security fixes, minimum wage, infrastructure, etc.? And while the party of FDR/Clinton/Obama are at it, why not loudly denounce how the Republican strategy depends on more money and fewer voters. Sure looks like the Roberts Court won this election given the unprecedented mountain of money and record low voters (since 1940s). Would this have been merely a process argument that always fails to move voters? TR didn't think so. And "Democracy" is a word as compellingly American as "Freedom."
So in 2016 Democrats need to make sure that they have the themes, policies and passion to inspire the 2012 "Coalition of the Ascendant" to turn out. That means embracing, not running from, the Warren-Buffett argument that there is a class war and the wealthy are winning it because Democrats have been scared off by donors. But if they stand for nothing, voters will fall for anything. The issue isn't Left-Right but who's on our side with a program for prosperity that's shared by all.
Mark Green is the creator and host of Both Sides Now.
You can follow him on Twitter @markjgreen
Send all comments to Bothsidesradio.com, where you can also listen to prior shows.
Both Sides Now is available
Sat. 5-6 PM EST From Lifestyle TalkRadio Network
& Sun. 8-9 AM EST from Business RadioTalk Network. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.
↧
Administration dials back goal for health law sign-ups
The administration is dialing back expectations for health insurance sign-ups in the second year of President Barack Obama's big push to cover uninsured Americans.
Reported by FOXNews.com 11 hours ago.
↧
How a GOP Congress Could Force Obama to Work with Them
Getting elected is tough, but for the new Republican majority in Congress, working with President Obama could prove downright daunting.After the drubbing Democrats took in the mid-term elections, the president oddly pronounced if the GOP has some ideas to fund more infrastructure investment, advance early childhood education, or improve Obamacare, he is open to listening.
That may not quite be what congressional Republicans have in mind, but if I were Senator McConnell or Speaker Boehner, I could work on those issues—but with measures that get to the root of some of country’s growth problems.
America spends plenty on infrastructure, but it spends it badly—and that impedes new investments in housing and jobs.
State and local governments, bending to powerful construction and homebuilder lobbies, place too much emphasis on expanding highways to ever more distant suburbs. Specifically, millennials show a much greater appetite than their parents for living in or near cities and short commutes. New home construction has shifted towards urban redevelopment, but young folks face daunting transportation problems on overtaxed roads and transit systems.
The “prevailing wage” provision of the Davis-Bacon Act generally requires excessively-high union wages on federally assisted projects. No matter that grossly inflates construction costs and reduces the number of projects undertaken, and organized labor represents only 6.7 percent of the private sector labor force these days.
The gasoline tax was last raised since 1997, and the federal highway trust fund is broke. The GOP leadership should craft a bill that increases the tax in line with inflation but refocuses spending more on relieving congestion and bottlenecks on urban roads and rail and repeals Davis-Bacon.
Obama always likes more taxes, and he would find the urban emphasis, serving the needs of his young constituents, intriguing—but develop apoplexy about repealing Davis-Bacon.
McConnell and Boehner could refer him to Governor Scott Walker, who has cleaned out union obstructions to growth and has Wisconsin’s economy firing on all cylinders. And the governor won his reelection the same day the president took his national shellacking.
Hardly anyone likes the IRS. Junking the federal income tax for a simpler to implement value-added tax would better encourage investment and growth, but that would impose greater burdens on parents of young children who by necessity save less and spend more on items that would be subject to the new levy. To compensate, Congress should also create a childcare allowance and permit parents to spend that money on pre-school or to defer the cost of “home schooling” for stay-at-home parents.
We could count on the president balking at funding for home schooling, in deference to Democratic-leaning teachers’ unions, but it’s time for the GOP to stand up for America’s moms—including those that stay at home.
The Affordable Care Act states that health insurance subsidies be paid through exchanges “established by the states,” but 36 states have balked at creating on-line marketplaces. The IRS unilaterally decided ACA subsidies may be paid through the federal marketplace, despite the fact that law was written to explicitly encourage states to set up exchanges.
The Supreme Court is reviewing legal challenges to the IRS’s peculiar interpretation of the law. Disallowing the subsidies, absent state exchanges, would all but kill the ACA, and Congress should help stiffen the court’s allegiance to the clear reading of statutes by restating its will.
Supporting state governors who have determined the ACA is an unworkable morass, the Congress should quickly put an appropriation bill on the president’s desk that eliminates funding for subsidies in states without exchanges.
It all sounds radical, but when the president was winning majorities in Congress, he was fond to say “elections have consequences.”
It’s time for the president to live by his own admonitions and bear the consequences of a conservative majority in the Congress.
Peter Morici is an economist and business professor at the University of Maryland, national columnist. He tweets @pmorici1. Reported by Breitbart 11 hours ago.
↧
↧
State offers more plans, hope for lower health insurance costs
Another open enrollment period begins this Saturday for individual health insurance through the states marketplace. Local managers are promising more options and the possibility of lower costs.
Reported by MyNorthwest.com 10 hours ago.
↧
Wonkblog: Why expectations for Obamacare are falling — in charts
The Obama administration on Monday released new estimates for how many people will sign up through the Affordable Care Act's health insurance marketplaces in 2015 — and it's much lower than the 13 million projected by the Congressional Budget Office. The Obama administration now predicts anywhere between 9 million and 9.9 million people will be enrolled in marketplace coverage this coming year, down from the 13 million the CBO previously expected.
Reported by Washington Post 11 hours ago.
↧
First Draft: Lower Projections for Health Law
Enrollment for health insurance purchased through the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges is not expected to be as robust next year as previously projected.
Reported by NYTimes.com 11 hours ago.
↧
SEIU's New Research Shows Prime Healthcare Repeatedly Misled Communities with Struggling Hospitals
OAKLAND, Calif., Nov. 10, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Healthcare workers shared new information today showing Prime Healthcare has repeatedly misled communities with struggling hospitals by passing off $263 million in debt to taxpayers, canceling health insurance plans on patients,...
Reported by PR Newswire 10 hours ago.
↧
↧
In response to lawsuit, D.C argues congressional staffers allowed on small business health exchange
The District is calling for the dismissal of a lawsuit in which a taxpayer claimed last month that D.C. Health Link allowed Congress to essentially lie about its staff size so it could sign up its employees on the District's small business health insurance exchange. The initial lawsuit filed by District resident Kirby Vining — with backing from conservative group Judicial Watch — accuses D.C. Health Link of accepting documents from the House and Senate saying they employ less than 50 people…
Reported by bizjournals 10 hours ago.
↧
Administration Lowers Its Obamacare Sights
The federal government only expects about 9 million people to sign up for health insurance on the new online exchanges this year.
Reported by msnbc.com 10 hours ago.
↧
Health Insurers (and Their Shareholders) Win Midterm Election!
Republicans weren't the only big winners in last Tuesday's election. So were health insurance companies, many of which spent heavily to influence the outcome.
There are several provisions of the Affordable Care Act that the insurance industry would like the next Congress to change. If insurers get what they want -- and with the GOP in control of both houses of Congress, it's a decent bet they will -- Wall Street will be exuberant indeed.
Just the anticipation of what a Republican-controlled Congress might be able to pull off has put insurance company shareholders in good humor. Within 24 hours of knowing that Mitch McConnell would replace Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, investors were active buyers of health insurance stock. In fact, the share prices of five of the six largest for-profit health insurers -- Cigna, Health Net, Humana, UnitedHealthcare and WellPoint/Anthem -- reached their highest points in a year last Wednesday. Some even reached historic highs. Aetna was the only one that fell short of reaching a 52-week high, but only by pocket change.
Even though there is still chatter about repealing Obamacare, GOP leaders and insurance company executives understand that isn't likely to happen. And they really don't want it to. Insurance firms and their shareholders actually love the billions of dollars in new revenue they're getting as a result of the law's requirement that most of us buy coverage from private insurers. They're pretty confident that the cash will continue to flow, because, even with Republican control of Capitol Hill, the law will not be repealed.
No doubt a full repeal bill will pass in the House, just as previous bills have every year since the GOP took control of that chamber four years ago. But there's almost no chance the Senate version will match the House's action. Republicans still won't have the 60 votes necessary to overcome an almost-certain Democratic filibuster of any bill that would repeal or gut the reform law. Even if they did, President Obama would surely veto it.
But we can expect Republican lawmakers to quickly introduce bills in the new Congress that would strip the law's "root and branch," to use a favorite McConnell phrase. This is part of a skillful game of political chess insurance company executives and lobbyists have played since the beginning of the health reform debate. Despite the fact that they have given more money through their PACs to Republicans than Democrats and have sided with groups that have sought to abolish the law, the insurers have also played Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to their advantage.
While they didn't get all they wanted during the reform debate, they won the major battles. The insurance companies got the White House and Democratic leaders to stifle any real discussion of single payer health care. And they were able to kill the idea of a government-run public option to compete with them.
As a consequence, even with the provisions of the law that protect consumers from insurance company abuses, such as refusing to sell coverage to applicants with pre-existing conditions, insurers have thrived.
While the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased an impressive 160 percent since President Obama signed the reform bill into law on March 23, 2010, the price of the insurers' shares have doubled -- and in some cases even tripled. If you had invested $25,000 in UnitedHealthcare stock in 2010, you would have $78,750 today, a 315 percent return.
But that's not enough for the companies or their shareholders. They figure they can do even better with a few industry-friendly "fixes" to the law. For one thing, they want to get rid of a tax on some health plans that covers some of the cost of the government subsidies to help low-income folks buy insurance. Even though the subsidies go to the insurers, they want to get rid of the tax, and they have the GOP on their side.
They also want to be able to once again sell policies that only cover 50 percent of a person's medical expenses. Not only are Republicans on board to allow that, so are many Democrats.
With Obama in the White House and the GOP in control of Congress, insurers are in the catbird seat. They know the president won't allow the law to be repealed or even altered substantially, which will be good for future profits, and they also know they can count on the Republicans to push through legislation to get rid of the health plan tax and let them sell low-value policies again.
No wonder shareholders are smiling -- all the way to the bank. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
There are several provisions of the Affordable Care Act that the insurance industry would like the next Congress to change. If insurers get what they want -- and with the GOP in control of both houses of Congress, it's a decent bet they will -- Wall Street will be exuberant indeed.
Just the anticipation of what a Republican-controlled Congress might be able to pull off has put insurance company shareholders in good humor. Within 24 hours of knowing that Mitch McConnell would replace Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, investors were active buyers of health insurance stock. In fact, the share prices of five of the six largest for-profit health insurers -- Cigna, Health Net, Humana, UnitedHealthcare and WellPoint/Anthem -- reached their highest points in a year last Wednesday. Some even reached historic highs. Aetna was the only one that fell short of reaching a 52-week high, but only by pocket change.
Even though there is still chatter about repealing Obamacare, GOP leaders and insurance company executives understand that isn't likely to happen. And they really don't want it to. Insurance firms and their shareholders actually love the billions of dollars in new revenue they're getting as a result of the law's requirement that most of us buy coverage from private insurers. They're pretty confident that the cash will continue to flow, because, even with Republican control of Capitol Hill, the law will not be repealed.
No doubt a full repeal bill will pass in the House, just as previous bills have every year since the GOP took control of that chamber four years ago. But there's almost no chance the Senate version will match the House's action. Republicans still won't have the 60 votes necessary to overcome an almost-certain Democratic filibuster of any bill that would repeal or gut the reform law. Even if they did, President Obama would surely veto it.
But we can expect Republican lawmakers to quickly introduce bills in the new Congress that would strip the law's "root and branch," to use a favorite McConnell phrase. This is part of a skillful game of political chess insurance company executives and lobbyists have played since the beginning of the health reform debate. Despite the fact that they have given more money through their PACs to Republicans than Democrats and have sided with groups that have sought to abolish the law, the insurers have also played Democrats at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to their advantage.
While they didn't get all they wanted during the reform debate, they won the major battles. The insurance companies got the White House and Democratic leaders to stifle any real discussion of single payer health care. And they were able to kill the idea of a government-run public option to compete with them.
As a consequence, even with the provisions of the law that protect consumers from insurance company abuses, such as refusing to sell coverage to applicants with pre-existing conditions, insurers have thrived.
While the Dow Jones Industrial Average has increased an impressive 160 percent since President Obama signed the reform bill into law on March 23, 2010, the price of the insurers' shares have doubled -- and in some cases even tripled. If you had invested $25,000 in UnitedHealthcare stock in 2010, you would have $78,750 today, a 315 percent return.
But that's not enough for the companies or their shareholders. They figure they can do even better with a few industry-friendly "fixes" to the law. For one thing, they want to get rid of a tax on some health plans that covers some of the cost of the government subsidies to help low-income folks buy insurance. Even though the subsidies go to the insurers, they want to get rid of the tax, and they have the GOP on their side.
They also want to be able to once again sell policies that only cover 50 percent of a person's medical expenses. Not only are Republicans on board to allow that, so are many Democrats.
With Obama in the White House and the GOP in control of Congress, insurers are in the catbird seat. They know the president won't allow the law to be repealed or even altered substantially, which will be good for future profits, and they also know they can count on the Republicans to push through legislation to get rid of the health plan tax and let them sell low-value policies again.
No wonder shareholders are smiling -- all the way to the bank. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
