A potentially massive shuffle of ownership has shaken up the health insurance market in recent days. Most recently, we've seen a $47.5 million bid from Anthem Inc. (NYSE: ANTM) to take over Cigna Corp. (NYSE: CI). That news came only days after Aetna Inc. (NYSE: AET) made an offer for Humana Inc. (NYSE: HUM) And there's an additional possibility UnitedHealth (NYSE: UNH) may have interest in acquiring Aetna or Humana. An analysis by the Wall Street Journal concluded those deals would consolidate…
Reported by bizjournals 17 hours ago.
Why massive health insurance mergers might not be bad for business
↧
↧
Why the Supreme Court could deliver a much more fatal blow to Obamacare this time around
Any day now, the Supreme Court is set to hand down a decision in King v. Burwell, a case that centers on a key provision of the Affordable Care Act that helps provide subsidies to millions of low-income people.It's the third major Obamacare-related case before the court in the past four terms. But if the high court rules against the Obama administration in the coming days, it could potentially deliver a much more fatal blow to President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law than it could have with previous cases.
"If the court sides with the challengers, chaos ensues, not only in insurance markets but in the political realm as well. The law could survive, but in a very weakened form," Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told Business Insider.
Last year, the court ruled against the administration in a case involving a relatively small provision of the law — its contraception mandate. The court ruled that family-owned corporations shouldn't have to pay for insurance that covers birth control.
In 2012, the court somewhat surprisingly sided with the administration in the end, when it held upheld the heart of the law — its mandate that individuals buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
But there's a key difference between this case and the 2012 version: Most of the law has been fully implemented for almost two years, and a decision against the government could have real effects.
A decision in favor of the challengers in the case could, depending on your viewpoint, take away health insurance from millions of people or free them from government-subsidized insurance to potentially more affordable options.
What's not debatable is that more than 6 million people could have their lives thrown into chaos because of a disruption in their health insurance. The key question in the case centers on whether the government can keep providing subsidies to help low-income people through the federal insurance marketplace.
The challengers argue the way the law was written does not allow for subsidized insurance in states where the federal government had set up insurance exchanges. Instead, the challengers argue, insurance subsidies are allowed only in states that have set up their own exchanges. They point to a clause that reads exchanges should be "established by the state," but members of Congress who were involved in writing the law have disputed this characterization. Thirty-four states currently rely on the federal marketplace.
A win for the challengers could lead to significant ramifications, and it would become a dominant theme on the 2016 campaign trail.
Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute's director of health policy and a key architect of the current challenge before the court, told Business Insider it could be an opportunity for Republicans to provide Obamacare with something of a death knell if they can propose a new law that would further unravel the president's signature healthcare law.
Cannon favors a version of legislation introduced by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Arizona), which would exempt plans in states affected by the King v. Burwell ruling from some regulations imposed by the Affordable Care Act.
"Republicans should realize that they would not need to expand Obamacare to solve the problem," Cannon said.
Others, like Levitt, say the response to a potential win for the challengers would depend on several factors — chief among them being how those affected and the general public responds to the likely swift loss of subsidies. It would be crucial to find a way to pay for insurance before people started getting rid of their coverage.
"Like Humpty Dumpty, the individual insurance market would be hard to put back together if people lose subsidies and start dropping coverage," he said.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Here are all the best moments from Donald Trump's presidential announcement Reported by Business Insider 17 hours ago.
↧
Woman Left Blind In One Eye After Unfortunate Mud Run Incident (Video)
A woman in Dallas was left blind in one eye after a flesh-eating bacteria latched onto her eye during a mud run.It was Brittany Williams’ first mud run and it may have very well left her scarred for life.
“My eye started hurting, like maybe I’ve got mud or some debris in there,” Williams told CBSDFW. “When I opened my eye, it was just like white. The whole room was white.”
Williams said the debris cut her eye and allowed the flesh-eating bacteria to destroy her cornea.
“It just completely melted off of my eye,” she said.
The mother with two jobs spent a week in the hospital and racked up a total of $100,000 in medical bills. She said she had recently canceled her health insurance.
“I’ve had health insurance before and I never used it,” Williams explained. “I never went to the doctor and I just spent lots of money for nothing. So I didn’t see the point at the time when we couldn’t afford it.
“You don’t think you’re going to go to the doctor and someone’s gonna say you owe $3,000 for eye drops.”
The family made a GoFundMe page to help pay for treatment to prevent the bacteria from spreading throughout Williams’ body. So far the page has raised more than $5,600.
There is a chance that Williams’ vision can be restored with surgery, but several local doctors have denied her treatment because of her lack of insurance.
Still, Williams remains optimistic.
“Even though people go through horrible things, I make the best of it,” she said. “Because there’s no point in sitting and sulking, because it’s just going to make the rest of my days miserable.”
Sources: CBS Local, GoFundMe / Photo Credit: GoFundMe Reported by Opposing Views 16 hours ago.
↧
Not Expanding Medicaid Can Cost Local Taxpayers
This piece comes to us courtesy of Stateline. Stateline is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news service of the Pew Charitable Trusts that provides daily reporting and analysis on trends in state policy.
DALLAS — Dallas County property owners paid more than $467million in taxes last year to Parkland Health and Hospital System, the county’s only public hospital, to provide medical care to the poor and uninsured.
Their tax burden likely would have been lower if the state of Texas had elected to expand Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people. If more low-income patients at Parkland had been covered by Medicaid, then federal and state taxpayers would have picked up more of the costs.
Elsewhere in Texas and in most of the 20 other states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid, residents pay local taxes to help support hospitals that care for uninsured people. On top of that, they pay a portion of the federal taxes that help subsidize Medicaid in the 29 states and District of Columbia that did expand the program to cover more people — places where residents can expect to see lower local taxes as more people become insured.
“Taxpayers (in non-expansion states) are not going to get off the hook any time soon,” said Linda Quick, president of South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association. Florida is one of the non-expansion states where localities pay property taxes to support indigent care.
Under the Affordable Care Act, and a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision, states have the option of extending Medicaid eligibility to all non-elderly adults who make less than 138 percent of the poverty line (an annual income of less than $16,242 for an individual). For the first three years, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the costs associated with new enrollees. After that, the federal share gradually declines until it reaches 90 percent in 2020 and beyond.
Nationwide, the cost of caring for uninsured people in non-expansion states between now and 2024 is projected to reach $266 billion if no new states decide to expand Medicaid, according to a report in April from the Kaiser Family Foundation. If all states decided to expand, that cost would drop by a third.
The Urban Institute reports in a study for the Kaiser Family Foundation that states and localities spent nearly $20 billion for uncompensated care in the United States in 2013. The federal government paid $33 billion and the private sector $700 million.
Last year, Texas hospitals spent $5.5 billion for uncompensated care, according to the Texas Hospital Association. The federal government reimburses hospitals for part of that cost through a $1 billion-a-year Medicaid subsidy known as the Disproportionate Share Hospital Allotments or DSH. As part of the Affordable Care Act, the DSH program will be sharply reduced starting in 2018. A recent Health Affairs article projected that Texas hospitals could see a 20 percent drop in DSH payments in the first year.
Lance Lunsford, a vice president with the Texas Hospital Association, said without that federal money, residents would have to foot the bill in the form of higher insurance premiums and, in jurisdictions with public hospitals like Dallas County, higher taxes. “Hospitals have no choice but to limit their exposure,” he said. “That means cost-shifting to consumers and taxpayers.”
Texas also receives $29 billion through a five-year Medicaid demonstration program, with about half of that money going to care for the uninsured. That program expires next year and the state is negotiating with the federal government over its renewal. The Obama Administration made it clear in April that it prefers Texas insure more people by expanding Medicaid than continuing to reimburse hospitals that serve the uninsured.
Despite that, the Texas Legislature ended its session earlier this month with no action on Medicaid expansion. If the federal government withholds funding for hospitals, local taxpayers will likely have to make up the difference.
“If you have the federal funding source going away, the money has to come from somewhere. These people aren’t going away,” said Teresa Coughlin, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.
-Texas Leaders Oppose Expansion -
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, and the heavily Republican Texas Legislature remain opposed to Medicaid expansion.
Abbott calls Medicaid, “an already broken and bloated … program." In March, members of the Republican Senate caucus wrote to President Obama reiterating their opposition to expansion. They noted that the “Texas Medicaid program has grown from 11 percent of the state budget in 1987 to 29 percent in 2015,” a trajectory they labeled “clearly unsustainable.”
The senators urged the Obama administration to grant the state more flexibility to control spending in Medicaid as it currently operates in the state. They asked that the state be able to impose work requirements on recipients, introduce “personal accountability requirements” such as cost-sharing, fees for missed appointments, the creation of health savings accounts, and the use of asset testing to determine eligibility for the program.
The decision not to expand has left Texas with more uninsured people than any other state: 1.7 million non-elderly adults. Texas also has the highest rate, 28 percent, of uninsured non-elderly adults.
The Urban Institute estimates that if Texas had expanded Medicaid in 2014, over the next 10 years it would have spent $5.7 billion as its share of Medicaid expenses for the newly eligible population, while drawing down nearly $66 billion in matching federal Medicaid funds.
The decision also means a continued tax burden for local citizens, including those in Dallas County. “Our taxpayers pay more to Parkland for uncompensated care than for all of our other services combined,” said Dallas County Judge Clay Lewis Jenkins, who presides over the five-member commission that governs the county. “It is also the fastest growing budget item.”
Jenkins, a Democrat, is among the highest profile politicians in the state to champion the case for expanding Medicaid, saying it would bring relief to county taxpayers by reducing what the county pays for uncompensated care.
Dallas County estimates that expansion would have extended Medicaid eligibility to an additional 133,000 county residents and would have brought an additional $580 million in Medicaid reimbursement. That money would not have eliminated all expenditures for uncompensated care because some, including undocumented workers, would remain uninsured.
In Harris County, where Houston is located, residents pay more than $500 million a year in real estate taxes for uncompensated care at its public hospitals. Bexar County, home of San Antonio, pays just short of $300 million a year for uncompensated care.
-Texas Not Alone-
Texas isn’t the only state where local taxpayers cover the costs. Thirteen of the 21 states that have not expanded Medicaid have public hospital districts where local tax dollars pay for uncompensated care.
Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, for example, receives $57 million a year from local taxpayers. The federal government’s expected cuts in uncompensated care reimbursement could eventually cost the hospital $45 million a year. Hospital CEO John Haupert said he does not expect the two counties that Grady serves to make up that loss, which could mean a cut in services.
“We would have to reevaluate the clinical services we could continue to supply and the clinical services that we couldn’t,” Haupert said. Georgia currently is working on a proposal that would keep some federal uncompensated care funds flowing in the expectation that more of the uninsured would receive comprehensive health care.
Mayors and county executives in other non-expansion states, including Republicans, have urged their states to expand coverage. One, Republican Mayor Adam O’Neal of Bellhaven, North Carolina, marched to Washington, D.C., twice in support of expansion.
Some legislators in some other non-expansion states have expressed concerns that continuing to provide indigent care will endanger the survival of many rural hospitals. Since 2010, 55 rural hospitals have already closed, according to the North Carolina Rural Health Research Program. (The list is here.)
-The Human Cost-
DeShawn Bunton is one of Dallas County’s uninsured, who would qualify for Medicaid if the state expanded. A tiny, 51-year old, unemployed woman living in a one-bedroom, West Dallas apartment, Bunton has three ways of dealing with her lack of health insurance: visiting the emergency room, scavenging leftover medicine from friends or doing without treatment.**
When her untreated diabetes makes her especially shaky and she gets a terrible taste in her mouth well known to diabetics, she goes to the nearest emergency room for treatment. During bad asthma attacks, she counts on friends to let her use one of their inhalers.
When she was hospitalized after having a heart attack on a train last year, Bunton passed on having a recommended stress test because she couldn’t afford it. She also left a prescription for a heart medicine unfilled.
Recently, she enrolled in a program at Parkland that allowed her to get back on all her medications. She is vastly relieved. “I was scared I was going to get sick at any time,” she said. “I had to watch my stress levels to make sure nothing upset me.”
The Parkland program is supported by local taxes. And Bunton now volunteers for the Texas Organizing Project, a grassroots organization pushing for expansion.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 16 hours ago.
DALLAS — Dallas County property owners paid more than $467million in taxes last year to Parkland Health and Hospital System, the county’s only public hospital, to provide medical care to the poor and uninsured.
Their tax burden likely would have been lower if the state of Texas had elected to expand Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people. If more low-income patients at Parkland had been covered by Medicaid, then federal and state taxpayers would have picked up more of the costs.
Elsewhere in Texas and in most of the 20 other states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid, residents pay local taxes to help support hospitals that care for uninsured people. On top of that, they pay a portion of the federal taxes that help subsidize Medicaid in the 29 states and District of Columbia that did expand the program to cover more people — places where residents can expect to see lower local taxes as more people become insured.
“Taxpayers (in non-expansion states) are not going to get off the hook any time soon,” said Linda Quick, president of South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association. Florida is one of the non-expansion states where localities pay property taxes to support indigent care.
Under the Affordable Care Act, and a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision, states have the option of extending Medicaid eligibility to all non-elderly adults who make less than 138 percent of the poverty line (an annual income of less than $16,242 for an individual). For the first three years, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the costs associated with new enrollees. After that, the federal share gradually declines until it reaches 90 percent in 2020 and beyond.
Nationwide, the cost of caring for uninsured people in non-expansion states between now and 2024 is projected to reach $266 billion if no new states decide to expand Medicaid, according to a report in April from the Kaiser Family Foundation. If all states decided to expand, that cost would drop by a third.
The Urban Institute reports in a study for the Kaiser Family Foundation that states and localities spent nearly $20 billion for uncompensated care in the United States in 2013. The federal government paid $33 billion and the private sector $700 million.
Last year, Texas hospitals spent $5.5 billion for uncompensated care, according to the Texas Hospital Association. The federal government reimburses hospitals for part of that cost through a $1 billion-a-year Medicaid subsidy known as the Disproportionate Share Hospital Allotments or DSH. As part of the Affordable Care Act, the DSH program will be sharply reduced starting in 2018. A recent Health Affairs article projected that Texas hospitals could see a 20 percent drop in DSH payments in the first year.
Lance Lunsford, a vice president with the Texas Hospital Association, said without that federal money, residents would have to foot the bill in the form of higher insurance premiums and, in jurisdictions with public hospitals like Dallas County, higher taxes. “Hospitals have no choice but to limit their exposure,” he said. “That means cost-shifting to consumers and taxpayers.”
Texas also receives $29 billion through a five-year Medicaid demonstration program, with about half of that money going to care for the uninsured. That program expires next year and the state is negotiating with the federal government over its renewal. The Obama Administration made it clear in April that it prefers Texas insure more people by expanding Medicaid than continuing to reimburse hospitals that serve the uninsured.
Despite that, the Texas Legislature ended its session earlier this month with no action on Medicaid expansion. If the federal government withholds funding for hospitals, local taxpayers will likely have to make up the difference.
“If you have the federal funding source going away, the money has to come from somewhere. These people aren’t going away,” said Teresa Coughlin, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.
-Texas Leaders Oppose Expansion -
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, and the heavily Republican Texas Legislature remain opposed to Medicaid expansion.
Abbott calls Medicaid, “an already broken and bloated … program." In March, members of the Republican Senate caucus wrote to President Obama reiterating their opposition to expansion. They noted that the “Texas Medicaid program has grown from 11 percent of the state budget in 1987 to 29 percent in 2015,” a trajectory they labeled “clearly unsustainable.”
The senators urged the Obama administration to grant the state more flexibility to control spending in Medicaid as it currently operates in the state. They asked that the state be able to impose work requirements on recipients, introduce “personal accountability requirements” such as cost-sharing, fees for missed appointments, the creation of health savings accounts, and the use of asset testing to determine eligibility for the program.
The decision not to expand has left Texas with more uninsured people than any other state: 1.7 million non-elderly adults. Texas also has the highest rate, 28 percent, of uninsured non-elderly adults.
The Urban Institute estimates that if Texas had expanded Medicaid in 2014, over the next 10 years it would have spent $5.7 billion as its share of Medicaid expenses for the newly eligible population, while drawing down nearly $66 billion in matching federal Medicaid funds.
The decision also means a continued tax burden for local citizens, including those in Dallas County. “Our taxpayers pay more to Parkland for uncompensated care than for all of our other services combined,” said Dallas County Judge Clay Lewis Jenkins, who presides over the five-member commission that governs the county. “It is also the fastest growing budget item.”
Jenkins, a Democrat, is among the highest profile politicians in the state to champion the case for expanding Medicaid, saying it would bring relief to county taxpayers by reducing what the county pays for uncompensated care.
Dallas County estimates that expansion would have extended Medicaid eligibility to an additional 133,000 county residents and would have brought an additional $580 million in Medicaid reimbursement. That money would not have eliminated all expenditures for uncompensated care because some, including undocumented workers, would remain uninsured.
In Harris County, where Houston is located, residents pay more than $500 million a year in real estate taxes for uncompensated care at its public hospitals. Bexar County, home of San Antonio, pays just short of $300 million a year for uncompensated care.
-Texas Not Alone-
Texas isn’t the only state where local taxpayers cover the costs. Thirteen of the 21 states that have not expanded Medicaid have public hospital districts where local tax dollars pay for uncompensated care.
Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, for example, receives $57 million a year from local taxpayers. The federal government’s expected cuts in uncompensated care reimbursement could eventually cost the hospital $45 million a year. Hospital CEO John Haupert said he does not expect the two counties that Grady serves to make up that loss, which could mean a cut in services.
“We would have to reevaluate the clinical services we could continue to supply and the clinical services that we couldn’t,” Haupert said. Georgia currently is working on a proposal that would keep some federal uncompensated care funds flowing in the expectation that more of the uninsured would receive comprehensive health care.
Mayors and county executives in other non-expansion states, including Republicans, have urged their states to expand coverage. One, Republican Mayor Adam O’Neal of Bellhaven, North Carolina, marched to Washington, D.C., twice in support of expansion.
Some legislators in some other non-expansion states have expressed concerns that continuing to provide indigent care will endanger the survival of many rural hospitals. Since 2010, 55 rural hospitals have already closed, according to the North Carolina Rural Health Research Program. (The list is here.)
-The Human Cost-
DeShawn Bunton is one of Dallas County’s uninsured, who would qualify for Medicaid if the state expanded. A tiny, 51-year old, unemployed woman living in a one-bedroom, West Dallas apartment, Bunton has three ways of dealing with her lack of health insurance: visiting the emergency room, scavenging leftover medicine from friends or doing without treatment.**
When her untreated diabetes makes her especially shaky and she gets a terrible taste in her mouth well known to diabetics, she goes to the nearest emergency room for treatment. During bad asthma attacks, she counts on friends to let her use one of their inhalers.
When she was hospitalized after having a heart attack on a train last year, Bunton passed on having a recommended stress test because she couldn’t afford it. She also left a prescription for a heart medicine unfilled.
Recently, she enrolled in a program at Parkland that allowed her to get back on all her medications. She is vastly relieved. “I was scared I was going to get sick at any time,” she said. “I had to watch my stress levels to make sure nothing upset me.”
The Parkland program is supported by local taxes. And Bunton now volunteers for the Texas Organizing Project, a grassroots organization pushing for expansion.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 16 hours ago.
↧
Googling With a Twenty Something
Getting "old" has its ups and downs. The positives of course are that you have your own money (or at least enough to pay your rent), and that you can literally do whatever you want (unless of course it's illegal). A twenty-something is by no means old, but those of us who have passed over the 25 hump may have noticed a few changes-both physically by our metabolism slowing (and froyo consumption on the rise), and mentally -- the things we worry about, the questions we have, etc.
Whenever I have a question I find myself looking to Google for the answer. Google's search engine answers more than one billion questions a day (now that's a lot of Googlin'). The Google search is a funny thing. Do you ever get so far into a search that you have to take a step back and wonder how you even got to that point? It is a similar feeling when you are 48 weeks deep in someone's Instagram (don't pretend you don't do it...we all do it).
Lately, I find myself Googling some interesting questions, things I never thought I would be wondering about as a twenty-something. While most of these are funny things that are starting to make me feel old, others are legitimate questions I have as I navigate through the adult world. The best part about this technology? The world is literally at our fingertips, and I plan to make the most of it.
*Let's start with the funnies...*· How do I fold a fitted sheet? Believe it or not, I actually care about my closets being organized and looking good.
· Do Mr. Clean Magic Erasers work? ---In case you're wondering- yes, they really do quite well.
· What are the side effects of too much caffeine? -I am a caffeine addict, and after my morning bout of the shakes I tend to Google things like above. Is there such thing as too much coffee in the morning? If too much coffee is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
· How can I be more like Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer?- These two ladies are the epitome of female empowerment. They take risks, they make people laugh, and they aren't afraid to be who they are.
· Where can I buy groceries online? As if I wasn't enough of a homebody, I have started to investigate how I can get groceries delivered to my front door.
· How do I get rid of cellulite without working out? Any health gurus have any ideas?
· How do I get a new license plate? It's the little things our parents did that we now take for granted? I recently had to register my car in a new state and quite frankly had no idea where to start...
*And now a few of the more serious Google questions:*· How do I invest money? And make money? Investing is something that intrigues me, but yet intimidates me. To be honest, I feel like I'm late to the game on this one, but starting to learn that investing your money seems like the smart thing to do, no?
· How do I make a budget and stick to it? If you would have asked me five years ago if I would ever be Googling things my parents harped on me about since high school I would have laughed...we really do come full circle.
· How do I know what is covered under my health insurance? Insurance is one of those things I wish we learned about in college. There are so many facets to the insurance world (health, auto, home, renters, life) that makes it tricky to navigate through as a young adult.So, how do you make the most of your Google Search? You can find a few quick tips here.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 16 hours ago.
Whenever I have a question I find myself looking to Google for the answer. Google's search engine answers more than one billion questions a day (now that's a lot of Googlin'). The Google search is a funny thing. Do you ever get so far into a search that you have to take a step back and wonder how you even got to that point? It is a similar feeling when you are 48 weeks deep in someone's Instagram (don't pretend you don't do it...we all do it).
Lately, I find myself Googling some interesting questions, things I never thought I would be wondering about as a twenty-something. While most of these are funny things that are starting to make me feel old, others are legitimate questions I have as I navigate through the adult world. The best part about this technology? The world is literally at our fingertips, and I plan to make the most of it.
*Let's start with the funnies...*· How do I fold a fitted sheet? Believe it or not, I actually care about my closets being organized and looking good.
· Do Mr. Clean Magic Erasers work? ---In case you're wondering- yes, they really do quite well.
· What are the side effects of too much caffeine? -I am a caffeine addict, and after my morning bout of the shakes I tend to Google things like above. Is there such thing as too much coffee in the morning? If too much coffee is wrong, then I don't want to be right.
· How can I be more like Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer?- These two ladies are the epitome of female empowerment. They take risks, they make people laugh, and they aren't afraid to be who they are.
· Where can I buy groceries online? As if I wasn't enough of a homebody, I have started to investigate how I can get groceries delivered to my front door.
· How do I get rid of cellulite without working out? Any health gurus have any ideas?
· How do I get a new license plate? It's the little things our parents did that we now take for granted? I recently had to register my car in a new state and quite frankly had no idea where to start...
*And now a few of the more serious Google questions:*· How do I invest money? And make money? Investing is something that intrigues me, but yet intimidates me. To be honest, I feel like I'm late to the game on this one, but starting to learn that investing your money seems like the smart thing to do, no?
· How do I make a budget and stick to it? If you would have asked me five years ago if I would ever be Googling things my parents harped on me about since high school I would have laughed...we really do come full circle.
· How do I know what is covered under my health insurance? Insurance is one of those things I wish we learned about in college. There are so many facets to the insurance world (health, auto, home, renters, life) that makes it tricky to navigate through as a young adult.So, how do you make the most of your Google Search? You can find a few quick tips here.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 16 hours ago.
↧
↧
The Progress We've Made Is Vulnerable, Unless We Act to Protect Future Generations
The distance between my position as an ACLU lawyer and my mother working in the fields of South Carolina in the 1920s seems enormous.My parents were able to claw their way into the middle class by taking advantage of a GI Bill loan, earned through my father's service in the segregated army of World War II, and by both of them working hard. My father worked in a day job, which he described as training a series of white men to be his supervisor over 30 years, and an evening job in the mail room of a different company. My mother also worked, and together they were able to piece together an income that supported something approaching a typical middle-class life. Through their hard work and a series of loans and scholarships, my brothers and I were able to attend schools and obtain meaningful employment and, in many respects, ended up faring better than many other people of color who were not lucky enough to get the same opportunities we did. Even with those advantages, I worry that my daughter does not enjoy the same economic security as many of her white friends and classmates.But a new report confirms what I and others know to be true: That the progress my family and others made is vulnerable.This economic reality is quantified in the release today of the report, "Impact of the U.S. Housing Crisis on the Racial Wealth Gap Across Generations," prepared by the Social Science Research Council. The independent report commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union documents how the economic gap that existed before the housing market collapsed -- and which was showing signs of decreasing -- was substantially widened and fueled by harmful lending practices by Wall Street institutions that were discriminatory and predatory. Most significantly, the report is forward-looking and considers how the gap created by past discrimination is projected to compound racial disparities in the future.The implications are enormous for Black people looking to own their homes and use the principal in those homes to create opportunities for their children through, for example, financing their children's education or passing on wealth to the next generation. In fact, if we do nothing to create meaningful reform, the Black homeowners of 2031 will have just 22 percent of the wealth of their white counterparts. That's a larger gap than before the housing bubble burst of 2008. This is not merely a concern; it's an impending crisis.On a personal level, the report resonates deeply with me.On a recent evening, a group of people attending a conversation about race in a Hudson Valley church were instructed to form a single line down the middle of the room. That line, which included people of a number of different races and ethnicities, seemed like an illustration of equality, a gathering of neighbors who equally enjoy access to opportunity. But the semblance of equality quickly disappeared as the moderator, in an exercise called a Privilege Walk, asked a series of questions and then, depending on the answers, requested that individuals step forward or backward.Only one of the questions explicitly mentioned race: "If you are a white male, take one step forward." The rest were completely race-neutral. Many of the questions related to economics: Were there times when you skipped a meal because there was no food in the house? Did your family have health insurance? Did you take out loans for your education? By the end of the exercise, the room was dramatically divided into two distinct and distant lines -- one with all white people and one with all non-white people -- as separate as a pre-boycott Montgomery bus.The exercise was a physical representation of the sad reality of race in America in 2015. The placement of people in the room represented in equal parts the history of discrimination, the present day consequences of that discrimination, and the way that the past and future will continue to constrain the future opportunities of some non-white individuals, who find themselves in a vastly different position than the white participants.The report that we released today is the data behind the exercise that played out in my church recently, and it serves as both a warning and an opportunity. The projections of increasing inequality are not carved in stone. But in order to address, once and for all, the continuing scourge of economic inequality, we must first acknowledge the problem and take action, including reforming the secondary mortgage market, opening access to credit, and regulating mortgage servicing. Our failure to take these and similar steps will condemn us to a country in which our discriminatory past will continue to shape our future.See the full report here.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.
↧
I'm Behind on my Health Insurance Premiums. How Long Will They Pay My Claims?
*Question:*
I purchased my health insurance through Healthcare.gov last year. I've made all of my payments on time, until now. My income was recently cut by about 25 percent when I lost the part-time job I was working to make ends meet. I'm two weeks late on my health insurance premium, but need to get my medication refilled and schedule a checkup. Will these be covered? How long do I have to get caught up before my policy is canceled?
*Answer:*
When life throws a curveball, like your recent job loss, financial chaos can ensue. Losing one-fourth of your income is pretty significant, so your inability to stay on top of your premium is understandable.
An estimated 13 percent of those who signed up on ACA federal and state marketplaces in 2015 have since lost their insurance due to premium nonpayment, so you're not alone. Fortunately, there are some safeguards in place to protect you, and options available should your policy actually lapse.
You're likely entitled to a "grace period."
Most people who purchased insurance plans on state and federal marketplaces qualified for tax credits, making their insurance more affordable. If you received a premium tax credit to reduce your monthly premiums, you're in luck: The Affordable Care Act instituted a 90-day grace period for these subsidized plans.
For the first 30 days after your missed payment, your insurance company must pay your claims. For days 31-90 of the grace period, they don't have to pay the claims but will hold them rather than flat-out denying them.
During the entire 90-day grace period, you are afforded the opportunity to get caught up and have your insurance pick back up once you are current on your premiums. Any claims held during this time will be processed once you're caught up. If you're unable to get caught up during this time, your policy will be canceled and any claims submitted after the initial 30 days will be your responsibility entirely.
If you didn't qualify for a premium tax credit, call your insurer.
If your plan isn't protected by the ACA 90-day grace period for subsidized plans, your insurer may still offer you some time to catch up. Thirty days tends to be the norm, but grace periods and the specifics of coverage during these times vary widely from insurer to insurer. Your best chance for resolving the issue with minimal disruption is to contact them directly and explain your situation. Even if they aren't willing to give you additional time to pay, you'll at least know what you're up against.
If your policy is canceled, don't wait to take action.
It sounds like you have recurring prescription costs, and likely the doctor's visits that often accompany them. If your policy is canceled or you know a cancelation is inevitable, you should immediately begin looking for other coverage options or budgeting to pay out of pocket.
Depending on the extent of your current financial hardships, you could be eligible for Medicaid. Check with your state's Medicaid office for eligibility specifics. If you're not eligible, you'll have to wait until open enrollment begins on Nov. 1, 2015, to shop for a new plan on the marketplace, as nonpayment of premiums disqualifies you from "special enrollment periods." Also, if you go without health insurance for more than three consecutive months and do not qualify for an exemption, you will be responsible for paying a penalty at tax time.
If forced to go uninsured for the remainder of the year, set aside what you can to pay for your medical expenses and don't be afraid to use community health centers. You can reduce prescription costs by opting for generics, choosing more affordable therapeutic alternatives when generics aren't available and applying for assistance through drug manufacturers and nonprofit organizations. Finally, be a savvy health care consumer by comparing prices for medical services as you would if you were shopping for plane tickets or anything else.
If you find yourself holding an unmanageable medical bill, call your provider and negotiate. You'll often find they're willing to work with cash-paying customers who are having a difficult time.
At NerdWallet Health Navigators we help employees save time and money by pairing them with experts in medical billing and health insurance. Have a question for Christina? Submit it to AskChristina@nerdwallet.com.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.
I purchased my health insurance through Healthcare.gov last year. I've made all of my payments on time, until now. My income was recently cut by about 25 percent when I lost the part-time job I was working to make ends meet. I'm two weeks late on my health insurance premium, but need to get my medication refilled and schedule a checkup. Will these be covered? How long do I have to get caught up before my policy is canceled?
*Answer:*
When life throws a curveball, like your recent job loss, financial chaos can ensue. Losing one-fourth of your income is pretty significant, so your inability to stay on top of your premium is understandable.
An estimated 13 percent of those who signed up on ACA federal and state marketplaces in 2015 have since lost their insurance due to premium nonpayment, so you're not alone. Fortunately, there are some safeguards in place to protect you, and options available should your policy actually lapse.
You're likely entitled to a "grace period."
Most people who purchased insurance plans on state and federal marketplaces qualified for tax credits, making their insurance more affordable. If you received a premium tax credit to reduce your monthly premiums, you're in luck: The Affordable Care Act instituted a 90-day grace period for these subsidized plans.
For the first 30 days after your missed payment, your insurance company must pay your claims. For days 31-90 of the grace period, they don't have to pay the claims but will hold them rather than flat-out denying them.
During the entire 90-day grace period, you are afforded the opportunity to get caught up and have your insurance pick back up once you are current on your premiums. Any claims held during this time will be processed once you're caught up. If you're unable to get caught up during this time, your policy will be canceled and any claims submitted after the initial 30 days will be your responsibility entirely.
If you didn't qualify for a premium tax credit, call your insurer.
If your plan isn't protected by the ACA 90-day grace period for subsidized plans, your insurer may still offer you some time to catch up. Thirty days tends to be the norm, but grace periods and the specifics of coverage during these times vary widely from insurer to insurer. Your best chance for resolving the issue with minimal disruption is to contact them directly and explain your situation. Even if they aren't willing to give you additional time to pay, you'll at least know what you're up against.
If your policy is canceled, don't wait to take action.
It sounds like you have recurring prescription costs, and likely the doctor's visits that often accompany them. If your policy is canceled or you know a cancelation is inevitable, you should immediately begin looking for other coverage options or budgeting to pay out of pocket.
Depending on the extent of your current financial hardships, you could be eligible for Medicaid. Check with your state's Medicaid office for eligibility specifics. If you're not eligible, you'll have to wait until open enrollment begins on Nov. 1, 2015, to shop for a new plan on the marketplace, as nonpayment of premiums disqualifies you from "special enrollment periods." Also, if you go without health insurance for more than three consecutive months and do not qualify for an exemption, you will be responsible for paying a penalty at tax time.
If forced to go uninsured for the remainder of the year, set aside what you can to pay for your medical expenses and don't be afraid to use community health centers. You can reduce prescription costs by opting for generics, choosing more affordable therapeutic alternatives when generics aren't available and applying for assistance through drug manufacturers and nonprofit organizations. Finally, be a savvy health care consumer by comparing prices for medical services as you would if you were shopping for plane tickets or anything else.
If you find yourself holding an unmanageable medical bill, call your provider and negotiate. You'll often find they're willing to work with cash-paying customers who are having a difficult time.
At NerdWallet Health Navigators we help employees save time and money by pairing them with experts in medical billing and health insurance. Have a question for Christina? Submit it to AskChristina@nerdwallet.com.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.
↧
The 9 worst money mistakes to make in your 20s
"Every person, and especially every entrepreneur, should embrace failure with open arms," writes Richard Branson. "It is only through failure that we learn."Of course, there are caveats to such broad advice — especially when it comes to money.
Here are nine money management mistakes you might make in your 20s that could come back to haunt you:
-1. Taking on debt, and ignoring it.-
In 2013, a full 70% of college students graduated with debt, averaging $30,000 in student loans.
What's more, a shocking number of students are completely unaware that they have loan debt; 28% of students with federal loans reported having no federal debt, and another 14% with federal loans said they had no student debt at all, according to a report from the Brookings Institute.
Student loan debt in particular is often blamed for preventing young people from buying homes and growing their wealth — and that doesn't even touch on debt like car loans or credit cards.
If you have debt, it's usually in your best interest to pay more than your minimum payment, thereby reducing the length of your loan and the amount you pay in interest. If you aren't sure where to start, consider the advice from 13 real people who paid off thousands.
-2. Foregoing a budget.-
A budget is simply a plan to make sure your money goes where you need it, instead of trickling away when you aren't paying attention. And if you don't have one, that's likely what will happen.
Creating a budget does not have to be the daunting process that people make it out to be; in fact, managing your money can be quite simple with the proper resources and attitude.
Need ideas? Take a look at the insight offered by 14 regular people who keep diligent budgets.
-3. Overspending.-
Earning a first paycheck is liberating and thrilling, but it can be dangerous. As earnings go up, purchases tend to creep up as well, until we succumb to lifestyle inflation: living up to the ceiling of what our income will allow.
If you're an overspender who is lucky enough to avoid taking on debt, you're most likely living paycheck to paycheck. That makes it hard to plan and set aside money for the future, when you want to make a major purchase like a house, or take a trip, or retire.
Overspending habits can be tricky to break once they're formed, making it even more important to be a mindful spender from a young age. As a good rule of thumb, live below your means — not at or beyond your means.
If you're trying to break the habit — or keep it from developing — read up on the most common psychological overspending triggers, how stores trick you into parting from your cash, and what you can do to keep from spending.
-4. Refusing to pay a little more for quality.-
It's tempting to try to "save money" by buying inexpensive, low quality things, but oftentimes those cheap products will cost you in the long run.
Learn to invest in things that have value. They don't have to be big purchases, either; there are several everyday items that can pay for themselves, and you'll want to be careful of skimping on things like mattresses, computers, and more.
-5. Waiting too long to save for retirement.-
A Bankrate survey found that 69% of people ages 18 to 29 had no retirement savings at all. *
*
Retirement might seem too far off to start considering, but some experts say that if Millennials don't change their rocky savings habits and start investing, they'll miss the retirement boat completely. The earlier you start, the better, yet many young people are not harnessing the power of compound interest.
Of employees age 25 and under, less than one-third participate in a 401(k), one of the simplest ways to start investing. Start by contributing to your 401(k) if your employer offers one, and take full advantage of your company's 401(k) match program if it has one.
-6. Not getting a head start on investing.-
Investing can be considered the single most effective way to start building wealth and get rich.
As we've touched on, retirement savings are one way to invest, and you can explore other avenues by researching low-cost index funds, which Warren Buffett recommends, and looking into the online investment platforms known as "robo-advisers."
-7. Not establishing credit.-
Your credit score is a three-digit number between 301 and 850 based on how you've used credit in the past, and the higher, the better. Generally, you don't want your credit score to dip below 650, as potential creditors will consider you less trustworthy and less deserving of the best rates.
With a low credit score, you'll likely have to pay more for things such as insurance, financing a car, and mortgage rates, yet a surprising number of Americans have no idea how credit scores work.
Building good credit in your 20s will allow you to make big purchases later on. Start by selecting a good credit card and then focus on establishing smart credit card habits — and if you have debt already, be diligent in your payments.
-8. Not having an emergency fund.-
This is something people of all ages struggle with — 65% of Americans do not have sufficient emergency savings, according to a Bankrate survey — but it is important to understand the consequences of not have an emergency fund at a young age.
While many people tend to ignore the possibility of their car breaking down, a medical emergency, or losing their job, these are all scenarios that could quickly become expensive realities. Not setting aside money could ultimately land you in debt or force you to borrow from a long-term savings account if an emergency does arise.
The amount of savings you need is highly personal, so it isn't usually measured in terms of dollars; rather, it's months of living expenses that money could cover. A general rule is that it's smart to have six months' worth of savings tucked away, but you may need more or less depending on your situation.
-9. Living without health insurance.-
It's easy for young people to feel invincible when it comes to health, or to ignore the possibility of a medical emergency. This invincibility complex is costly, as medical bills are the biggest cause of personal bankruptcy. It's important to plan for the worst, as an unanticipated emergency could turn your life upside down instantaneously.
In fact, health insurance is mandatory in the US, and people who choose not to have it are required to pay a fee of 2% of your annual household income or $325 per person, per year — whichever is higher. If your employer doesn't provide it, you can search for an appropriate policy through Healthcare.gov.
Check out this young adult's guide to affordable health insurance to get started.
*SEE ALSO: 6 Things Every Functioning Adult Should Know About Credit Scores*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Forget the Apple Watch — here's the new watch everyone on Wall Street wants Reported by Business Insider 14 hours ago.
↧
New Canaan Police Sergeant to be Suspended
Patch New Canaan, CT -- He was also ordered to repay the town thousands of dollars after he reportedly kept his ex-wife on his health insurance plan.
Reported by Patch 13 hours ago.
↧
↧
In ACA's Fifth Year, Doctors Warm To Obamacare
Even as the Supreme Court weighs a challenge that could pull health insurance from millions of their patients, doctors are warming to life under the Affordable Care Act after five years, a new analysis indicates. Physician recruiting and staffing company The Medicus Firm said physicians still aren’t enamored with various aspects [...]
Reported by Forbes.com 11 hours ago.
↧
States Offer Mixed Picture on Health-Insurance Costs
Some states are grappling with higher costs for consumers while others are seeing record-low requests for premium increases in 2016 because of the Affordable Care Act, state insurance commissioners told Congress.
Reported by Wall Street Journal 2 hours ago.
↧
Justice Kagan brilliantly exposed a flaw in the huge challenge to Obamacare
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision any day now in a case that could severely damage healthcare reform in America, in a challenge that famously focuses on four words in the law.During oral arguments in March, Justice Elena Kagan asked a clever question that drew laughter in an apparent attempt to explain why four words in one section of the law shouldn't be read literally.
The case will determine whether the US can keep subsidizing health insurance for people in the roughly three dozen states states whose insurance exchanges are run by the federal government.
One part of the law specifically says the federal government can establish insurance exchanges on behalf of the state, but another section says people buying insurance through exchanges "established by the state" get subsidies. The law's opponents contend this means that those buying insurance through exchanges set up by the federal government don't get subsidies.
Kagan's question, however, seemed to suggest those four words should be read in context of the entire law, which clearly aims to provide insurance subsidies for people who need them. From the transcript:
So I have three clerks, Mr. Carvin [the lawyer for the challengers]. Their names are Will and Elizabeth and Amanda. Okay? So my first clerk, I say, Will, I'd like you to write me a memo. And I say, Elizabeth, I want you to edit Will's memo once he's done. And then I say, Amanda, listen, if Will is too busy to write the memo, I want you to write such memo.
Now, my question is: If Will is too busy to write the memo and Amanda has to write such memo, should Elizabeth edit the memo? [Laughter]
Kagan's question seems to imply the answer is yes, Elizabeth should edit the memo.
Here's Kagan's point: The ACA asked states (in her example, her clerk Will) to set up health exchanges that would get federal subsidies ("edits" by Elizabeth the clerk).
But the law also specified that the federal government (equivalent to Amanda) could step in and set up the marketplaces if the states couldn't. Those marketplaces still need the subsidies to operate in the same way the memo needed Elizabeth's edits.
Kagan was not the only justice who had tough questions for the lawyer opposing Obamacare. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing vote, said during oral arguments he saw a "serious Constitutional" issue with the position taken by the latest opponents of the ACA.
Here's Kennedy's problem: Under the interpretation put forth by the law's opponents, states will effectively be coerced into setting up their own exchanges if they want their citizens to have insurance.
"If that's Kennedy's view of the case, there's almost no chance that the challengers can win," UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler told Business Insider.A decision in this case is expected as soon as Thursday.
*SEE ALSO: This comment from Justice Kennedy could signal a win for Obamacare*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: 11 Facts That Show How Different Russia Is From The Rest Of The World Reported by Business Insider 12 hours ago.
↧
Justice Kennedy could save Obamacare, but he might end up screwing the US government in the long run
The Supreme Court is preparing to hand down a decision in the all-important King v. Burwell case, and Justice Anthony Kennedy could again play a key role in deciding the fate of healthcare reform.Kennedy made a comment during the case's oral arguments that led some observers to speculate that he was leaning toward siding with the Obama administration in the case, which centers on a key provision of the Affordable Care Act.
But Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute's director of health policy and a key architect of the current challenge before the court, said that even if Kennedy sides with the administration in this case, it could end up being a long-term loss for the federal government.
Kennedy, the court's traditional swing voter, said during the case's oral arguments that he saw a "serious constitutional question" with the challengers' interpretation of the Affordable Care Act.
The case revolves around the question of whether the federal government can hand out subsidies for health insurance in 34 states that have not set up their own insurance marketplaces. The challengers in King v. Burwell point to a part of the law that they say means Americans shouldn't be able to receive subsidies unless individual states have set up marketplaces. The part of the law in question is four words specifying that subsidies should be issued to plans through an exchange "established by the state."
But Kennedy expressed concern at invalidating that part of the law, for fear it would unfairly coerce states into setting up exchanges at the behest of the federal government. Here's what he told the challengers' lawyer, via the transcript:
"I fully understand that, but I think the Court and the counsel for both sides should confront the proposition that your argument raises a serious constitutional question. Now, I'm not sure that the government would agree with that, but it is in the background of how we interpret this statute."
If Kennedy does side with the government on those grounds, it would be a win for the administration in the case. But it could open a new can of worms for a slew of laws that require federal-state cooperation.
"If Kennedy says the exchange deal is coercive, then he will be signaling — and anyone who signs on to a concurring opinion will be signaling — that they are interested in lowering the bar for proving that a co-operative federal program is unconstitutionally coercive," Cannon told Business Insider.
"And that means that all sorts of federal/state programs could be vulnerable to be challenged as unconstitutional," he added.
Some of those programs that he predicts would become newly vulnerable: the Clean Air Act, No Child Left Behind, and more. Some federal gun and immigration laws could also theoretically be challenged.
That kind of decision could end up benefiting any state that doesn't want to participate in a joint federal program.
"If that happens, that’s a short-term win for the government but a long-term loss, if states can challenge all kinds of programs as unconstitutional," Cannon said.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Stunning video shows the earthquake damage across Nepal Reported by Business Insider 11 hours ago.
↧
↧
Capping Coinsurance on Pricey Meds -- Is This the Future of Health Insurance in America?
California's Covered California marketplace will limit coinsurance on expensive medicine beginning in 2016.
Reported by Motley Fool 11 hours ago.
↧
5 things to know about US public opinion on health care case
WASHINGTON (AP) — Most Americans want the Supreme Court to side with the government when it decides whether the feds can continue subsidizing insurance premiums in all 50 states under President Barack Obama's health care law, according to polls in recent months. Five things to know about public opinion on the Supreme Court's coming decision on the health care law: Most Americans (56 percent) would prefer that the court rule in favor of the Obama administration, allowing the government to continue subsidizing premiums in all states, according to an April Associated Press-GfK poll. On the other side, 39 percent would prefer that the court rule for the plaintiffs who brought the case, who say that the literal wording of the law limits the government to subsidizing premiums in states that have set up their own health insurance exchanges, rather than relying on the federal government exchange. Nearly three-quarters of Democrats and a slim majority of independents want the court to rule in favor of the government, while a majority of Republicans want the court to limit insurance subsidies under the law to states with their own exchanges. Among people who oppose the health care law generally, 58 percent want the court to limit the government to subsidizing premiums only in states with exchanges. A CBS News-New York Times poll released Monday found that three-quarters of Americans think that the justices sometimes let their personal or political views influence their decisions rather than deciding solely based on their legal analysis.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 10 hours ago.
↧
Obama May Have To Lean On Democratic Governors To Resell His Health Care Law
WASHINGTON -- If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare subsidies in two-thirds of the country, President Barack Obama won't be the only leader offering to assist states that want to undo the damage.
Officials in states that created their own health insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act -- thereby shielding their residents from the possible consequences of the lawsuit currently pending before the high court -- are standing by to help their counterparts in other states get marketplaces up and running that would allow subsidies in those states to flow again.
"If, for any reason, the court rules for the plaintiffs in this case, I'm going to be communicating with my fellow governors about exploring together what we might do," Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) told The Huffington Post. "I would be open to exploring any and all possibilities."
The Supreme Court could issue a ruling as soon as Thursday in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit brought by conservative and libertarian activists that alleges the Affordable Care Act doesn't permit subsidies for residents of any state where the federal government, and not the state itself, operates the health insurance exchange. If the challenge prevails, 6.4 million people in 34 states will lose the tax credits that help pay for their health coverage, and an even greater number of people are expected to become uninsured, because such a decision would roil the insurance markets in those states.
Kentucky is one of 16 states, plus the District of Columbia, that established health insurance exchanges under the law, so it wouldn't be affected by a ruling that erases subsidies elsewhere. Kentucky's marketplace, called Kynect, enjoyed a much smoother launch than the markets in most other states, and has experienced far fewer problems than the federal system using HealthCare.gov, which had an infamously rocky rollout in 2013. Kynect has proven popular with residents of the Bluegrass State.
"Ours is a national model," Beshear said. "We know how to do this, and there may be some scenarios where we can work together [with other states]."
Beshear said he hasn't talked with other governors about opportunities for Kentucky to collaborate with them in advance of the ruling. "I don't hear that discussed yet," he said, "because, for the most part, no one wants to discuss scenarios that are opposite of where they hope the court will come out."
The most important factor in each of the states with federally run exchange marketplaces will be whether leaders there have the political will to embark on the costly and risky mission of creating a new exchange. Every one of those states, except Delaware, has a Republican governor, legislature or both, which makes it highly uncertain that the necessary momentum would exist in many places. In states like Louisiana, Texas and Wisconsin, the Republican governors have made it clear that they won't seek a state exchange, and 11 states have already enacted laws making it harder to set up those marketplaces.
But given the turmoil that would result if the high court rules to eliminate subsidies, some other states may decide to act. Ten states using federal exchanges have asked the Supreme Court not to block subsidies for their residents, and seven states using the federal exchanges are doing so in formal "partnerships" with federal authorities.
Obama and his lieutenants have stressed that they wouldn't be able to undo a Supreme Court decision eliminating subsidies in federal exchange states without additional legislation -- and the distance between Democrats and Republicans on how to respond to such a ruling is vast. But Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell has said the administration will do what it can to help states seeking to get new exchanges online.
That's where states like Kentucky could come in. In addition to providing general guidance to leaders in other states looking to set up their own health insurance exchanges, Kentucky could, for example, lease out its enrollment technology or partner with other states on certain functions of the marketplace, like customer service. "Obviously, it would be easier today to know how to do this than it was two, three years ago," Beshear said.
Connecticut already took advantage of the success of its Obamacare portal, Access Health CT, by charging Maryland for its technology last year after the disastrous rollout of Maryland Health Connection in 2013. Connecticut is also reportedly in talks with the state-run exchanges in Rhode Island and Vermont about moneymaking and money-saving partnerships.
"We've been trying to help out other states," Connecticut Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman (D) told HuffPost. "We can hook up with another state and we can go in together and get a call center together. We can bring up their technology through our technology and we can work together that way. And then they will be recognized as an exchange."
The federal government has signaled its flexibility in advance of the court's ruling. New Mexico, Nevada and Oregon, all of which established exchanges but encountered significant problems, have already ceded the enrollment process to HealthCare.gov while continuing to perform other exchange functions, and Hawaii is poised to join them next year. The Department of Health and Human Services also quickly offered conditional approval this month to Delaware's and Pennsylvania's plans to set up marketplaces for 2016, and it did the same for Arkansas' proposal to do so the following year. But other states are essentially just waiting for the Supreme Court decision.
Collaboration between states that already operate exchanges and those hoping to do so could hasten the establishment of new exchanges, and provide opportunities for each state to spend less than they would going it alone. State-run exchanges have already been through two Obamacare enrollment periods, during which they have refined their activities and worked out many of their technical glitches.
"We know from the first go-around that starting this from scratch is very difficult, and at this stage of the game, there is no reason anyone should start from scratch," said Alan Weil, an expert on state health policy and editor-in-chief of the journal Health Affairs.
State leaders who want to create some form of exchange that would restore the subsidies if the Supreme Court takes them away have several ways of going about it, according to a brief published in March by the National Academy for State Health Policy.
The first option would be to set up a full state-run marketplace like those in Connecticut, Kentucky and 12 other jurisdictions. This would be the most expensive and most difficult route for states, because it would require building the entire regulatory and technological infrastructure to manage their new marketplaces.
Alternatively, states could copy Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada and Oregon by taking on some responsibilities for overseeing this part of the health insurance market but directing residents to the federal system to actually sign up for insurance. A third option would be to pay other states for the use of at least parts of their existing exchanges, akin to Maryland's deal with Connecticut. Some experts argue that states could take a similar tack and pay to use the federal system. Or multiple states could band together into a regional exchange, which is allowed under the Affordable Care Act.
None of these approaches would be easy, even with help from other states that have exchanges in place, Weil said. The technology that checks eligibility for subsidies and manages enrollments could easily be transferred to other states, and states could collaborate to handle features like customer support, but a new exchange would still take a lot of work to set up. For example, said Weil, states would continue to regulate insurance within their own borders and would have to integrate a newly created exchange with their Medicaid programs.
"This is sort of the transplant analogy, which is, you can take someone's heart and put it in, but it's all the connections that matter," Weil said.
And regardless of what states decide if the Supreme Court rules against subsidies in federal exchanges, residents are likely to lose their subsidies this year unless the court takes the unusual step of delaying the effective date of its decision. Governors and legislators in each state will have to debate what action, if any, to take, and only then could they begin the process of actually building any form of health insurance exchange. The odds of all those things happening before the end of the year appear slim.
*Read more on the latest Obamacare Supreme Court case below:*
This Is What The Latest Obamacare Supreme Court Case Is All About
The Supreme Court Case That Could Gut Obamacare, Explained In 2 Minutes
Republicans' Post-Supreme-Court Plan For Obamacare: Just Repeal It
Two-Thirds Of People Who Would Be Affected By Obamacare Ruling Live In Republican Districts
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
Officials in states that created their own health insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act -- thereby shielding their residents from the possible consequences of the lawsuit currently pending before the high court -- are standing by to help their counterparts in other states get marketplaces up and running that would allow subsidies in those states to flow again.
"If, for any reason, the court rules for the plaintiffs in this case, I'm going to be communicating with my fellow governors about exploring together what we might do," Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) told The Huffington Post. "I would be open to exploring any and all possibilities."
The Supreme Court could issue a ruling as soon as Thursday in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit brought by conservative and libertarian activists that alleges the Affordable Care Act doesn't permit subsidies for residents of any state where the federal government, and not the state itself, operates the health insurance exchange. If the challenge prevails, 6.4 million people in 34 states will lose the tax credits that help pay for their health coverage, and an even greater number of people are expected to become uninsured, because such a decision would roil the insurance markets in those states.
Kentucky is one of 16 states, plus the District of Columbia, that established health insurance exchanges under the law, so it wouldn't be affected by a ruling that erases subsidies elsewhere. Kentucky's marketplace, called Kynect, enjoyed a much smoother launch than the markets in most other states, and has experienced far fewer problems than the federal system using HealthCare.gov, which had an infamously rocky rollout in 2013. Kynect has proven popular with residents of the Bluegrass State.
"Ours is a national model," Beshear said. "We know how to do this, and there may be some scenarios where we can work together [with other states]."
Beshear said he hasn't talked with other governors about opportunities for Kentucky to collaborate with them in advance of the ruling. "I don't hear that discussed yet," he said, "because, for the most part, no one wants to discuss scenarios that are opposite of where they hope the court will come out."
The most important factor in each of the states with federally run exchange marketplaces will be whether leaders there have the political will to embark on the costly and risky mission of creating a new exchange. Every one of those states, except Delaware, has a Republican governor, legislature or both, which makes it highly uncertain that the necessary momentum would exist in many places. In states like Louisiana, Texas and Wisconsin, the Republican governors have made it clear that they won't seek a state exchange, and 11 states have already enacted laws making it harder to set up those marketplaces.
But given the turmoil that would result if the high court rules to eliminate subsidies, some other states may decide to act. Ten states using federal exchanges have asked the Supreme Court not to block subsidies for their residents, and seven states using the federal exchanges are doing so in formal "partnerships" with federal authorities.
Obama and his lieutenants have stressed that they wouldn't be able to undo a Supreme Court decision eliminating subsidies in federal exchange states without additional legislation -- and the distance between Democrats and Republicans on how to respond to such a ruling is vast. But Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell has said the administration will do what it can to help states seeking to get new exchanges online.
That's where states like Kentucky could come in. In addition to providing general guidance to leaders in other states looking to set up their own health insurance exchanges, Kentucky could, for example, lease out its enrollment technology or partner with other states on certain functions of the marketplace, like customer service. "Obviously, it would be easier today to know how to do this than it was two, three years ago," Beshear said.
Connecticut already took advantage of the success of its Obamacare portal, Access Health CT, by charging Maryland for its technology last year after the disastrous rollout of Maryland Health Connection in 2013. Connecticut is also reportedly in talks with the state-run exchanges in Rhode Island and Vermont about moneymaking and money-saving partnerships.
"We've been trying to help out other states," Connecticut Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman (D) told HuffPost. "We can hook up with another state and we can go in together and get a call center together. We can bring up their technology through our technology and we can work together that way. And then they will be recognized as an exchange."
The federal government has signaled its flexibility in advance of the court's ruling. New Mexico, Nevada and Oregon, all of which established exchanges but encountered significant problems, have already ceded the enrollment process to HealthCare.gov while continuing to perform other exchange functions, and Hawaii is poised to join them next year. The Department of Health and Human Services also quickly offered conditional approval this month to Delaware's and Pennsylvania's plans to set up marketplaces for 2016, and it did the same for Arkansas' proposal to do so the following year. But other states are essentially just waiting for the Supreme Court decision.
Collaboration between states that already operate exchanges and those hoping to do so could hasten the establishment of new exchanges, and provide opportunities for each state to spend less than they would going it alone. State-run exchanges have already been through two Obamacare enrollment periods, during which they have refined their activities and worked out many of their technical glitches.
"We know from the first go-around that starting this from scratch is very difficult, and at this stage of the game, there is no reason anyone should start from scratch," said Alan Weil, an expert on state health policy and editor-in-chief of the journal Health Affairs.
State leaders who want to create some form of exchange that would restore the subsidies if the Supreme Court takes them away have several ways of going about it, according to a brief published in March by the National Academy for State Health Policy.
The first option would be to set up a full state-run marketplace like those in Connecticut, Kentucky and 12 other jurisdictions. This would be the most expensive and most difficult route for states, because it would require building the entire regulatory and technological infrastructure to manage their new marketplaces.
Alternatively, states could copy Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada and Oregon by taking on some responsibilities for overseeing this part of the health insurance market but directing residents to the federal system to actually sign up for insurance. A third option would be to pay other states for the use of at least parts of their existing exchanges, akin to Maryland's deal with Connecticut. Some experts argue that states could take a similar tack and pay to use the federal system. Or multiple states could band together into a regional exchange, which is allowed under the Affordable Care Act.
None of these approaches would be easy, even with help from other states that have exchanges in place, Weil said. The technology that checks eligibility for subsidies and manages enrollments could easily be transferred to other states, and states could collaborate to handle features like customer support, but a new exchange would still take a lot of work to set up. For example, said Weil, states would continue to regulate insurance within their own borders and would have to integrate a newly created exchange with their Medicaid programs.
"This is sort of the transplant analogy, which is, you can take someone's heart and put it in, but it's all the connections that matter," Weil said.
And regardless of what states decide if the Supreme Court rules against subsidies in federal exchanges, residents are likely to lose their subsidies this year unless the court takes the unusual step of delaying the effective date of its decision. Governors and legislators in each state will have to debate what action, if any, to take, and only then could they begin the process of actually building any form of health insurance exchange. The odds of all those things happening before the end of the year appear slim.
*Read more on the latest Obamacare Supreme Court case below:*
This Is What The Latest Obamacare Supreme Court Case Is All About
The Supreme Court Case That Could Gut Obamacare, Explained In 2 Minutes
Republicans' Post-Supreme-Court Plan For Obamacare: Just Repeal It
Two-Thirds Of People Who Would Be Affected By Obamacare Ruling Live In Republican Districts
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
↧
There's a raging debate over whether startups are 'brutal' for employees who are parents
Long hours, hackathons on the weekends and staying up all night "crushing it" have become baked into the parts of startup culture.Even some of the perks, like free dinner in the office or beer after work, double as team-building tools and way to keep employees in the office later.
A free burrito isn't great though if you want to pick up your child from school then hear about their day at the dinner table.
Bryce Roberts, a venture capitalist for O'Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, sparked the debate when he asked on Twitter last night: "what message does early stage startup culture send to parents with kids? honest question for those wearing both hats."
What followed was a great debate, from both male and female tech workers, investors and executives, about what startups are doing to family life — and whether it's driving away some parents from that stage of company. (The conversation is still ongoing, so I recommend tuning into the whole thing here.)
Some entrepreneurs immediately came forward to explain how they are valuing parenting in their culture. Anil Dash, the co-founder and CEO of ThinkUp, showed how it's listed on the company website as a core value:
Tristan Walker, of Walker & Co, also said his company made it a priority and then follows through on it so it's more than just words.
While Dash and Walker might be good examples, many participants bashed companies that touted being family-friendly, only to ask employees to come in on weekends or stay late.
Former Foursquare executive Alex Reinert believes the situation for parents employed by startups is "generally not good" and that there is often an "unspoken disapproval" against them in their organizations.
It's not just bad for the working parent either. Former Googler Marc Hemeon says startups are also "brutal" for spouses and children.
Some recommended looking closely at health insurance policies, and whether they extend to dependents or not, as a good indicator when you're choosing a startup. Many parents responded that they just set strict work schedules, and then log back on for a "3rd shift" after the kids go to bed.
Thomas Goetz, co-founder and CEO of Iodine and formerly of Wired, said he thinks a startup's attitude towards parents likely depends on whether founders have kids or not, and even then admitted it was still hard to make time. Part of it, he said, was the notion of moving fast and "going for the kill."
In the end, there are some who have found the balance to be tipped for their kids before anything else.
Do you have stories to share about being a parent and managing your time at a startup? E-mail Biz Carson at bcarson AT businessinsider.com.
*SEE ALSO: 9 over-the-top perks that will make you want to work at these tech companies*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: XPRIZE founder Peter Diamandis: Here's what everybody gets wrong in their twenties Reported by Business Insider 9 hours ago.
↧
↧
Pending Obamacare U.S. Supreme Court decision won't affect Hawaii
A pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a provision of the Affordable Care Act that involves health insurance subsidies for millions of Americans won't affect Hawaii premium holders, according to a report by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The Supreme Court case affects 34 states that operate a federally facilitated marketplace, as challengers question the legality of insurance subsidies for low- and middle-income premium holders. Hawaii is marked as “non-applicable” in the report, which…
Reported by bizjournals 9 hours ago.
↧
Supreme Court Tees Up High-Stakes Cases For Grand Finale
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to issue decisions on major cases in the next few days that will have sweeping impacts for the entire nation. Earlier in the week, the justices decided cases involving the Fourth Amendment and patents. That leaves seven, highly anticipated decisions still to come, including blockbuster cases that could legalize same-sex marriage and gut President Barack Obama's health care law.
The justices are likely to issue decisions on Thursday, Friday, and perhaps next week. Here's a look at what’s still to come, and what’s at stake.
*1. The Affordable Care Act*
King v. Burwell
King v. Burwell may strike down a key Obamacare feature because of four words. The plaintiffs argue that federal tax credits are available for policies purchased on an exchange “established by the State,” and the federal government is not a state. That means subsidies used to buy health insurance from a federal exchange are illegal, the plaintiffs say. The government says the spirit of the law makes clear that subsidies are available to anyone who buys insurance on an exchange, whether established by the federal government or a state. If the court rules in the plaintiffs' favor, an estimated 8 million people would lose their subsidies, likely leaving them unable to afford health coverage.
Read more here.
*2. Same-Sex Marriage*
Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges could usher marriage equality to all 50 states. The justices will decide whether the Constitution permits states to prohibit same-sex marriage, and whether states can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state where it is legal. As most states now permit gay marriage, many expect the court to go along with the trend. Nationwide support for marriage equality is at record highs, and advocates said they hope the case will be the capstone to decades of litigation.
Read more here.
*3. Housing Discrimination*
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project
The case, closely watched by civil rights groups, will decide whether the Fair Housing Act of 1968 allows people to pursue lawsuits over housing practices that have a discriminatory effect, even if unintentional. This type of effectual but unintentional discrimination is referred to as “disparate impact.” The case stems from a lawsuit brought in 2008, when a Texas nonprofit organization sued a state agency, alleging tax subsidies it had distributed promoted segregation. Advocates say such claims are critical to address discrimination, while opponents argue that they are unfair and exceedingly costly to policymakers, housing administrators and property owners. Justices appeared divided during oral arguments. The Obama administration has voiced support for advocates of disparate impact claims.
Read more here.
*4. Lethal Injection*
Glossip v. Gross
How should a state execute a convicted murderer? The high court's ruling on lethal injection comes down to the whether a drug administered in executions -- midazolam -- causes cruel and unusual punishment banned by the Constitution. The plaintiffs are inmates on Oklahoma's death row, who argue that the drug is not "humane and effective" The state says the medicine does not induce "intense and needless pain and suffering." Experts predict the court's opinion will be written broadly, unlikely to stoke sweeping death penalty reforms.
Read more here.
*5. Congressional Redistricting*
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona's redistricting case stems from a ballot initiative from 2000 that established an independent redistricting commission to oversee complaints of legislative gerrymandering. What happened next was a partisan battle and a lawsuit by Republicans that argued the administration of federal elections should be decided by the "legislature." But what does "legislature" mean? The redistricting commission argues "legislature" means the legislative process, while the legislature says it refers to the legislative "body." The case could have consequences for a handful of other states, including California, that have election laws approved in a ballot initiative process.
Read more here.
*6. EPA Emissions Regulations*
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA et. al.
A coalition of 21 states, along with coal industry and power plant groups, are challenging Environmental Protection Agency rules meant to clean up dangerous air pollutants, including mercury, nickel and arsenic. Did the EPA not factor in costs -- nearly $10 billion annually -- when it issued new emission standards? A federal appeals judge said it didn't. The EPA says the agency only has to consider health risks, not costs, when regulating.
Read more here.
*7. Gun Laws and Criminals*
Johnson v. U.S.
A challenge to the Armed Career Criminal Act, which mandates a 15-year sentence for any federal firearms offender with three prior convictions for a "violent felony," contends the law is too vague. The law is a federal version of state "three strikes" rules for repeat offenders, The Wall Street Journal notes. The plaintiff, white supremacist Samuel Johnson, had his prison sentence bumped from 10 years to 15 years under the law.
Read more here.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 hour ago.
The justices are likely to issue decisions on Thursday, Friday, and perhaps next week. Here's a look at what’s still to come, and what’s at stake.
*1. The Affordable Care Act*
King v. Burwell
King v. Burwell may strike down a key Obamacare feature because of four words. The plaintiffs argue that federal tax credits are available for policies purchased on an exchange “established by the State,” and the federal government is not a state. That means subsidies used to buy health insurance from a federal exchange are illegal, the plaintiffs say. The government says the spirit of the law makes clear that subsidies are available to anyone who buys insurance on an exchange, whether established by the federal government or a state. If the court rules in the plaintiffs' favor, an estimated 8 million people would lose their subsidies, likely leaving them unable to afford health coverage.
Read more here.
*2. Same-Sex Marriage*
Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges could usher marriage equality to all 50 states. The justices will decide whether the Constitution permits states to prohibit same-sex marriage, and whether states can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state where it is legal. As most states now permit gay marriage, many expect the court to go along with the trend. Nationwide support for marriage equality is at record highs, and advocates said they hope the case will be the capstone to decades of litigation.
Read more here.
*3. Housing Discrimination*
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project
The case, closely watched by civil rights groups, will decide whether the Fair Housing Act of 1968 allows people to pursue lawsuits over housing practices that have a discriminatory effect, even if unintentional. This type of effectual but unintentional discrimination is referred to as “disparate impact.” The case stems from a lawsuit brought in 2008, when a Texas nonprofit organization sued a state agency, alleging tax subsidies it had distributed promoted segregation. Advocates say such claims are critical to address discrimination, while opponents argue that they are unfair and exceedingly costly to policymakers, housing administrators and property owners. Justices appeared divided during oral arguments. The Obama administration has voiced support for advocates of disparate impact claims.
Read more here.
*4. Lethal Injection*
Glossip v. Gross
How should a state execute a convicted murderer? The high court's ruling on lethal injection comes down to the whether a drug administered in executions -- midazolam -- causes cruel and unusual punishment banned by the Constitution. The plaintiffs are inmates on Oklahoma's death row, who argue that the drug is not "humane and effective" The state says the medicine does not induce "intense and needless pain and suffering." Experts predict the court's opinion will be written broadly, unlikely to stoke sweeping death penalty reforms.
Read more here.
*5. Congressional Redistricting*
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
Arizona's redistricting case stems from a ballot initiative from 2000 that established an independent redistricting commission to oversee complaints of legislative gerrymandering. What happened next was a partisan battle and a lawsuit by Republicans that argued the administration of federal elections should be decided by the "legislature." But what does "legislature" mean? The redistricting commission argues "legislature" means the legislative process, while the legislature says it refers to the legislative "body." The case could have consequences for a handful of other states, including California, that have election laws approved in a ballot initiative process.
Read more here.
*6. EPA Emissions Regulations*
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA et. al.
A coalition of 21 states, along with coal industry and power plant groups, are challenging Environmental Protection Agency rules meant to clean up dangerous air pollutants, including mercury, nickel and arsenic. Did the EPA not factor in costs -- nearly $10 billion annually -- when it issued new emission standards? A federal appeals judge said it didn't. The EPA says the agency only has to consider health risks, not costs, when regulating.
Read more here.
*7. Gun Laws and Criminals*
Johnson v. U.S.
A challenge to the Armed Career Criminal Act, which mandates a 15-year sentence for any federal firearms offender with three prior convictions for a "violent felony," contends the law is too vague. The law is a federal version of state "three strikes" rules for repeat offenders, The Wall Street Journal notes. The plaintiff, white supremacist Samuel Johnson, had his prison sentence bumped from 10 years to 15 years under the law.
Read more here.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 hour ago.
↧
Supreme Court rules ACA subsidies are here to stay
Salt Lake City, Utah- (ABC 4 Utah) – A ruling from the highest court in the land is a major victory for the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.
Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled tax subsidies for more than 6,000,000 Americans, including about 86,000 Utahns are here to stay.
"Great news for Utah families and those that have signed up for the Affordable Care Act. It means that the insecurity they might have been living with is gone. They can continue to use their insurance, they will receive their subsidies each month," said Jason Stevenson with Utah Health Policy Project.
The lawsuit questioned the legality of the federal government subsidizing participants in the 34 states, including Utah that opted to use the federal exchange instead of a state exchange.
Their argument focuses on four words in the law, "established by the state."
In a 6-3 vote the justices sided with what they saw as the intent of the law.
Utah Senator, Orrin Hatch says they are sending the wrong signal.
"Today's ruling failed to hold the Obama Administration responsible for its reckless execution of its own poorly crafted law," said Hatch, ( R ) Ut.
Hatch says congressional republicans will continue to push their own reform idea that gives patients and states more flexibility.
At the state level, this ruling provides clarity in the debate over Medicaid expansion.
But Speaker of the House, Greg Hughes says the group charged to come up with a solution is still working to find common ground.
"This ruling let's us really kind of ramp it up. It's not going to be in the next week or so, but now I think we're a lot closer than we were prior to knowing what the landscape would look like," said Hughes, ( R ) Draper.
In the meantime more than 50,000 Utahns still have no option for health insurance.
That's why house democrats say there is no excuse for putting a solution off any longer.
"This is costing lives, this is costing people access to health care that is going to save their lives or improve their lives significantly. So, we've waited now for a year and a half, there's absolutely no reason to wait any longer," said House Minority Leader, Brian King, (D) Salt Lake City.
This is the second time conservative Chief Justice John Roberts has sided with controversial portions of the law.
The first was in 2012 when the court ruled the individual mandate was constitutional, because it is a tax. Reported by abc4 8 hours ago.
Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled tax subsidies for more than 6,000,000 Americans, including about 86,000 Utahns are here to stay.
"Great news for Utah families and those that have signed up for the Affordable Care Act. It means that the insecurity they might have been living with is gone. They can continue to use their insurance, they will receive their subsidies each month," said Jason Stevenson with Utah Health Policy Project.
The lawsuit questioned the legality of the federal government subsidizing participants in the 34 states, including Utah that opted to use the federal exchange instead of a state exchange.
Their argument focuses on four words in the law, "established by the state."
In a 6-3 vote the justices sided with what they saw as the intent of the law.
Utah Senator, Orrin Hatch says they are sending the wrong signal.
"Today's ruling failed to hold the Obama Administration responsible for its reckless execution of its own poorly crafted law," said Hatch, ( R ) Ut.
Hatch says congressional republicans will continue to push their own reform idea that gives patients and states more flexibility.
At the state level, this ruling provides clarity in the debate over Medicaid expansion.
But Speaker of the House, Greg Hughes says the group charged to come up with a solution is still working to find common ground.
"This ruling let's us really kind of ramp it up. It's not going to be in the next week or so, but now I think we're a lot closer than we were prior to knowing what the landscape would look like," said Hughes, ( R ) Draper.
In the meantime more than 50,000 Utahns still have no option for health insurance.
That's why house democrats say there is no excuse for putting a solution off any longer.
"This is costing lives, this is costing people access to health care that is going to save their lives or improve their lives significantly. So, we've waited now for a year and a half, there's absolutely no reason to wait any longer," said House Minority Leader, Brian King, (D) Salt Lake City.
This is the second time conservative Chief Justice John Roberts has sided with controversial portions of the law.
The first was in 2012 when the court ruled the individual mandate was constitutional, because it is a tax. Reported by abc4 8 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
