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

Dos and Don'ts of Itemized Deductions

$
0
0
*Dos and Don'ts of Itemized Deductions*

Itemized deductions can come and go like the weather: Each year Congress changes something, the Internal Revenue Service issues opinions, and tax courts make new rulings. If you like a challenge, learning this year's itemized deduction options is like playing an invigorating game of chess. If you don't, it's a tedious round of hide-and-seek. But either way, it's worth knowing the rules among more-common itemized deductions, as outlined in our dos and don'ts below.*Charitable donations*

*Do* pay attention to donation rules. The IRS requires receipts for all deductible donations. All charitable deductions, no matter how small, must be substantiated either by a canceled check; bank record containing the charity’s name, donation amount, and date; or a detailed receipt from the charity. Otherwise the contribution cannot be an itemized deduction.**

*Do *collect your charitable acknowledgements, receipts, and cancelled checks in one place. If you make cash donations, you'll need either a bank statement or a written communication from the charity noting the charity name, your donation amount, and the date. For more, check IRS Publication 526, "Charitable Contributions."

*Don't* claim donations of furniture, clothing, and other household goods that weren't in at least good condition when you gave them. While the IRS rule aims to weed out junk donations, taxpayers may claim an itemized deduction of more than $500 for any single item in any condition as long as a qualified appraisal is included with their return.*Medical expenses*

*Do* deduct premiums for the Medicare Part D prescription drug insurance program, as well as other health-insurance premiums you pay yourself. The premiums for long-term-care insurance are deductible on a sliding scale according to your age.**

*Do* deduct gas mileage expenses for your car when used for medical reasons. The 2015 rate for such deductions was 23 cents per mile for medical travel.

*Do* read the IRS list of deductible medical and dental expenses in IRS Publication 502, "Medical and Dental Expenses." The following costs, for example, are deductible to the extent that they address a health issue: wigs recommended by a doctor for the mental health of a patient suffering hair loss due to disease, special mattresses and bed boards, back supports, elastic hosiery, childbirth classes (fees for the mother only), and remedial reading instruction for dyslexic children.

*Don't* expect much. You can only deduct unreimbursed medical and dental expenses that exceed 10 percent of your adjusted gross income (for those age 65 and older, the threshold is 7.5 percent though 2016). But if you're self-employed, your health-insurance premiums may be 100 percent deductible. See Publication 502 for eligibility criteria.*Retirement accounts*

*Do* contribute to an IRA if you're eligible. Taxpayers younger than 50 can still put in up to $5,500 for 2015; those 50 and older can sock away $6,500. For 2015, if you're single and covered by a retirement plan at work, your deduction for contributions to a traditional IRA will be phased out if your adjusted gross income is more than $61,000 but less than $71,000; the limits are $98,000 but less than $118,000 for joint filers. (After those upper limits, you get no deduction.) You have until the filing deadline to make a contribution. See IRS Publication 590, “Individual Retirement Arrangements,” for more information.

*Do* fund a SEP IRA if you made money from self-employment last year. 

—Tobie Stanger (@TobieStanger on Twitter)

*See our Tax Guide for more advice and tips on preparing, filing and saving on your income tax return.*

*Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers on this website. Copyright © 2006-2016 Consumers Union of U.S.*

*Subscribe now!*
Subscribe to *ConsumerReports.org* for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
--------------------
Update your feed preferences
   
   
   
   
    Reported by Consumer Reports 20 hours ago.

PCC Issue Brief Highlights Importance of Proper Colonoscopy Preparation

$
0
0
Organization Aims to Educate Both Public and Private Stakeholders to Promote Effective Colorectal Cancer Screening

Annapolis, MD (PRWEB) February 11, 2016

Preventing Colorectal Cancer (PCC) has released the twelfth issue brief in a series that underscores the importance of increasing U.S. colorectal cancer screening rates and highlights the obstacles and opportunities that influence efforts to achieve this goal. Issue brief #12, T he Importance of Proper Colonoscopy Preparation, provides patients with an overview of what to expect from the colonoscopy preparation process and underscores the importance of following the steps to ensure the screening is as accurate as possible.

The new issue brief arms consumers, providers and others with information about patient colorectal health screening. “The best way to catch colorectal cancer—the Gold Standard method—is by having a colorectal cancer screening with propofol,” explains Stanford R. Plavin, MD, PCC board vice chair and co-founder, Ambulatory Anesthesia of Atlanta. “However, the patient must take an active role in following the preparation instructions in order for a screening to have optimal results. This issue brief will help patients understand what to expect and what options are available.”

By reviewing the process, prep options, dosage and timing and education and potential side effects, PCC aims to fulfill their mission to educate both public and private stakeholders about the opportunities to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer through promoting effective screening, prevention and care options for patients.

PCC launched the issue brief series to educate key stakeholders on the importance of increasing screening rates among the U.S. population. The series is a compelling resource for physicians, patients, payors, public policy experts and others who can take action to make a difference and serve as champions for patient safety.

Previous issue briefs in the series can be found here. Topics include:· Colonoscopies Prevent Colon Cancer
· Preventing Colorectal Cancer: The Benefit of Propofol
· Health Insurers Should Cover Propofol Sedation
· Why We Need Pricing Transparency
· The Impact of Health Insurance Reform on Colorectal Cancer
· FDA Approves SEDASYS Device
· Take Advantage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Preventive Care Clause, Get Screened for Colorectal Cancer via Colonoscopy
· Drug Shortages Impact Colorectal Cancer
· Colorectal Cancer Screening: The Genetic Factor
· Young Adults Face Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer
· Making an Informed Choice: Colonoscopy Screening Locations Explained

“A cancer prevented is better than a cancer cured,” Steven J. Morris, MD, FACP, PCC board chair and president, Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates. “We hope the issue brief series will save lives by providing information and guidance needed to educate the public, policymakers and other key stakeholders regarding colorectal cancer screening.”

Those interested in more information may visit http://www.preventingcolorectalcancer.org to sign up to receive the issue briefs as they become available via email. The website also contains other valuable resources and information on colorectal cancer and prevention efforts.

###
About Preventing Colorectal Cancer (http://www.preventingcolorectalcancer.org)
Headquartered in Annapolis, MD, Preventing Colorectal Cancer (PCC) preserves the tradition of safe, comfortable and quality-based medicine. PCC is a not-for-profit 501(c) 6 advocacy organization with the primary mission to educate both public and private stakeholders about the opportunities to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer through promoting effective screening, prevention and care options for patients. Membership is open to all individuals and groups. Reported by PRWeb 21 hours ago.

Why do so many N.J. kids not have health insurance?

$
0
0
Many of the state's uninsured children may actually qualify for some form of public insurance - but their parents may be wary of applying because of their immigration status. Reported by NJ.com 15 hours ago.

Wipro to Acquire HealthPlan Services, a Leading Technology and Business Process as a Service Provider in the US Health Insurance Market

$
0
0
Wipro to Acquire HealthPlan Services, a Leading Technology and Business Process as a Service Provider in the US Health Insurance Market BANGALORE, India & SOMERSET, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Wipro Limited announced it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire HealthPlan Services from Water Street Healthcare Partners, a strategic investor focused exclusively on the healthcare industry. Reported by Business Wire 15 hours ago.

United States: Subsidizing Student Health Insurance With Stipends – New Agency Guidance And Relief (Employment Matters) - Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

$
0
0
In a recent article by our colleague Patricia Moran of Mintz Levin's Employment Labor and Benefits practice, new light is shed regarding the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) effects on health insurance stipends Reported by Mondaq 14 hours ago.

Watertree Health® and Houston Food Bank Introduce Tools to Help Houstonians Get Affordable Heart Medications

$
0
0
Watertree Health and Houston Food Bank promote healthy hearts while providing nutritious meals during National Heart Health Month.

Houston, Texas (PRWEB) February 11, 2016

It's National Heart Health Month — a time to review how high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and other heart-related illnesses affect tens of thousands of people living in Houston. Heart disease accounts for almost 28% of Houston-area deaths each year, and recent reports have shown that the rising costs of the prescriptions taken monthly to treat this chronic ailment have become too high for many people, even for those individuals with health insurance.

To help address this issue, partners Houston Food Bank and Watertree Health® introduced tools to help people in their communities get affordable heart medications — the GPS Rx-price-lookup-tool and a texting code to immediately get a free Prescription Discount Card. As an added benefit, every time a person saves using this special card benefitting the Houston Food Bank, Watertree Health makes a donation to the organization to help fight hunger in their local areas.

“One in four children in southeast Texas struggles with hunger every day,” said Brian Greene, President and CEO of the Houston Food Bank. “This partnership with Watertree Health is a win-win. By using this Prescription Discount Card, Houstonians are saving money and helping feed chronically hungry children, struggling seniors and families in their local communities. To date, almost 320,000 meals have been provided through this partnership.”

Watertree Health introduced GPS to help people easily find the most up-to-date discounted prices on their prescriptions using the card, at pharmacies close to them — wtree.us/savingstool. By using the free Prescription Discount Card, individuals in Houston can save as much as 82 percent off the full retail price for Diovan and Simvastatin, two of the medications regularly prescribed to treat high blood pressure and high cholesterol, respectively.

“Many Houstonians, like millions of people in America, suffer from heart-related health issues, and take prescriptions monthly to treat these conditions,” said Watertree Health President Shane Power. “Helping people afford these medications they need to improve their cycle of health is precisely the reason Watertree Health was founded. We are very pleased to be working with our partner, the Houston Food Bank, to further our joint mission of building healthier communities in Houston.”

Texting for a card allows people to save money on their prescriptions when they’re at the register. The message provides pre-activated codes and card image that can be presented to the pharmacist for immediate discounts.

The card saves users up to 75 percent off prescriptions. Eligible Rx medications include those frequently prescribed for heart, hypothyroid, stomach acid, asthma, migraine and other common ailments. It is accepted at over 62,000 pharmacies across the country including local, regional and national chains, such as Kroger, CVS, Walmart, Target and Walgreens. The card can be used by people with health insurance to complement their plans—to help fill in gaps of prescription coverage—or by the uninsured.

To get a card, visit: WatertreeHealthCard.com/FEEDHOUTX or text FEEDHOUTX to 95577. The card image in this story can also be presented to the pharmacist to obtain Rx savings.

For more information about the card, watch this short FAQ video: Wtree.us/video/FEEDHOUTX.

About Watertree Health:
Watertree Health was founded in 2010 to address the growing need for more accessible health care products and services in America. The Company’s mission is to help people improve their lives by improving their cycle of health. Watertree Health’s founders believe everyone should be able to afford their medicines. The Company launched the free Prescription Discount Card in 2011 to help the tens of millions of people in America without adequate prescription coverage. For more information, visit WatertreeHealth.com.

About Houston Food Bank:
In fall 2008, the Houston Food Bank merged with End Hunger Network, a Houston-area food rescue organization, thus making more effective use of community resources by working together as one. In fiscal year 2014-2015, the Houston Food Bank distributed 74,000,000 nutritious meals. The vision for the future is to expand service to the community to 100,000,000 nutritious meals by 2018. Every dollar donated to the Houston Food Bank provides the equivalent of three meals for an individual. We calculate this by dividing total meals provided by total adjusted costs, using a Feeding America formula. The number does not include the meals provided through SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly food stamps) benefits. Reported by PRWeb 14 hours ago.

AIS Webinar Will Feature Intel Exec Discussing Direct-to-Employee Health Benefits Model

$
0
0
In a Feb. 23 webinar sponsored by Atlantic Information Services, top managers for Intel and Providence Health & Services will discuss their innovative direct-to-employee ACO benefits model.

Washington, DC (PRWEB) February 11, 2016

Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is pleased to announce an upcoming Feb. 23 webinar, “Intel’s Direct-to-Employee Benefit Model: A Case Study for Plans and Purchasers.” Executives from Intel Corp. and Providence Health & Services, a not-for-profit Catholic health care system that’s partnering with Intel on value-based health benefits program Connected Care, will discuss the challenges they faced (and how they addressed them) when implementing and refining their unique direct-to-employee model.

Angi Frary, Senior Manager of ACO Clients Oregon Region, Providence Health & Services, and Angela Mitchell, U.S. Healthcare Delivery Program Manager for Intel Corp., will offer insider perspectives on key questions such as:· What are the pros and cons of this direct-to-employee arrangement versus other accountable care organization (ACO) models?
· What were the major problems to resolve in launching the Intel program?
· What are the keys to success for employers, providers and health plans?
· What is the administrator’s role in a direct-to-employee model?
· What incentives are offered to providers and members in Connected Care? What effect are they having?
· What impact has Connected Care had on the broader marketplace?

Visit https://aishealth.com/marketplace/c6m03_022316 for more details and registration information.

About AIS
Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is a publishing and information company that has been serving the health care industry for nearly 30 years. It develops highly targeted news, data and strategic information for managers in hospitals and health systems, health insurance companies, medical group practices, purchasers of health insurance, pharmaceutical companies and other health care organizations. AIS products include print and electronic newsletters, databases, websites, looseleafs, strategic reports, directories, webinars and virtual conferences. Reported by PRWeb 13 hours ago.

Health care battle brewing between governors in Kentucky

$
0
0
Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear launched a major effort to thwart his Republican successor's health care policies, a move he described as an act of conscience that would protect his legacy and health insurance for more than half a million people. Reported by MyNorthwest.com 13 hours ago.

The Urgent Need for Silicon Valley to Lead a Smart and Civil Conversation on Inequality

$
0
0
There are very few issues that Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, and Hillary Clinton all agree on. One of them is the growing problem of inequality in income and wealth. From the extreme left to the extreme right, everyone is angry about the one percent who have the majority of the wealth. There has always been an income and wealth gap, but the divide between average worker and the very wealthy has not been so great since the Roaring Twenties. This is fueling the rise of both the Tea Party and the socialists.

Income equality is not going to improve; technology is about to make things much worse. It will, over the next decade, begin to disrupt almost every industry, wipe out millions of jobs, and make the rich even richer. Even though everyone will be able to live better and healthier lives and benefit from the technology advances, the widening gap will cause greater resentment and create a larger cauldron of dissent. This is something we need to be prepared for.

Already, in Silicon Valley, the Google bus has become a symbol of inequity. These ultra-luxurious, Wi-Fi-connected buses take workers from the Mission district to the GooglePlex, in Mountain View. The Google Bus is not atypical; most major tech companies offer such transport now. But so divisive are they that in normally liberal San Francisco, activists scream angrily about the buses using city streets and bus stops, completely ignoring the fact that they take dozens of cars off the roads. Teslas have also become symbols of the obnoxious technoelite -- rather than being celebrated for being environmentally game-changing electric vehicles. In short, there's very little logic to the emotionally charged discussions.

Intellectuals are trying to build frameworks to understand why the divide, which first opened up in the 1990s, continues to worsen. Thomas Piketty explained in his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century that the economic inequality gap widens if the rate of return on invested capital is superior to the rate at which the whole economy grows. His proposed response is to redistribute income via progressive taxation. A competing theory, by an MIT graduate student, holds that much of the wealth inequality can be attributed to real estate and scarcity. Silicon Valley has both: an explosion in wealth for investors and company founders, and a real-estate market constrained by limits on development.

So far, the Valley's moguls have largely been in denial that technology will wipe out millions of jobs and increase inequity. They prefer to believe they are building a utopia that doesn't have a dark side. But one of the most influential people in Silicon Valley, Paul Graham, broke ranks and wrote an essay about the role of start-ups in income inequality. It created a firestorm and started an important debate.

Graham explained that income inequality is an inevitable outcome of start-ups, and asked what choices we want to make. He acknowledged that dire poverty co-exists alongside astounding wealth and that resentment is building. He voiced concerns about the backlash and its potential to generate unwise government policies to more heavily tax start-ups. He argued that this could smother growth and stifle innovation.

Almost every aspect of Graham's essay was criticized by fellow venture capitalists, angry socialists, and the press. But his concerns are valid. There is a very good reason for which Silicon Valley remains home to the majority of the dynamic technology companies on the planet. As Graham notes, many start-ups do produce enormous value for society.

The best of these disruptive start-ups create far more value than they capture, even as they disrupt or even destroy older, less efficient industries. Uber may generate much controversy, but no one would disagree that the old ways of moving people around densely populated areas can be improved. This goes beyond taxis and towards a future of weaving all transportation systems into a single intelligent, flexible service that makes it much easier to move around at a lower cost, with lesser environmental impact. Twitter and Facebook may deserve criticism, but these social platforms were primary information-distribution mechanisms that fueled the Arab Spring, and they continue to power other democratic uprisings around the world.

Yes, the economy's digital transition is amplifying globalization and affecting American workers. Automation is already decimating the global manufacturing sector, transforming a reliable mass employer providing middle-class income into a much smaller employer of people possessing higher-level educations and skills. The growth of the "Gig Economy" is shifting businesses towards the goal of part-time, on-demand employment, with aggressive avoidance of obligations for health insurance and longer-term benefits. The winner-takes-all nature of the tech industry explains why only a few giant digital companies compete with each other to dominate the global economy. A substantial part of the value they capture is concentrated at the center and mostly benefits a few shareholders, executives, and employees. With technology advances and convergence, we are in the middle of a gold rush. Tech is making amazing things possible, but it is also widening the economic gulf.

We need to have open discussions about the good and bad of technology and soften its negative impact. With robots and artificial intelligence increasingly doing the jobs of human workers and multiple industries being simultaneously disrupted, we are heading into a jobless future and need to rethink the nature of capitalism itself. This cannot be only about taxing the rich, because that is not what Americans want. They have never demanded income equality and have always been fans of the entrepreneur, the Henry Fords and the Mark Zuckerbergs alike. What Americans really want is economic security. What makes us unequal is not so much the money we have at any given moment but our capacity to face critical adversarial events such as having cancer or falling behind on mortgage payments. Advancing technologies can make it possible to provide for the basic needs of every human being--so that a job isn't about survival or subsistence any more.

A more fruitful discussion would be about how we can ease the impact of technology and social change. We need to discuss safety nets, the retraining of workers, and the concept of a universal basic income for everyone. We need a nationwide dialogue on how we can distribute the new prosperity we are creating. Equally importantly, we need to create equity and fairness in our legal, justice, and economic systems -- which are badly lacking. Otherwise we will see even more anger, and unrest nationwide.

-- 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 13 hours ago.

Will HealthCare.gov Get A California-Style Makeover?

$
0
0
The feds propose taking a page out of Covered California's book and moving to a simplified marketplace for health insurance. Reported by NPR 12 hours ago.

Health Care Battle Brewing Between Governors in Kentucky

$
0
0
Kentucky's two most recent governors went to war over health insurance Thursday, raising the stakes in a battle to remake the state's health care system that could tarnish the legacy of President Obama's signature health care law Reported by ABCNews.com 7 hours ago.

Number of Colorado kids without insurance dropped by 35,000

$
0
0
The number of Colorado kids without health insurance dropped by 35,000 after federal health care reform, according to a new report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Reported by Denver Post 7 hours ago.

Blue Cross to 'evaluate' its Affordable Care Act participation in 2017

$
0
0
Losses related to Affordable Care Act health insurance plans led Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina to reconsider the scope of plans it might offer on HealthCare.gov in 2017 and beyond. “We are doing everything we can to participate in the exchange, but must evaluate the sustainability and affordability of any plans we offer our customers for 2017,” according to a statement released by BCBSNC on Thursday. One of the widely debated provisions in the ACA saw private health insurers… Reported by bizjournals 6 hours ago.

Hawaii attorney general files to dissolve Hawaii Health Connector

$
0
0
Hawaii Attorney General Douglas Chin has filed a complaint in 1st Circuit Court seeking to officially dissolve the defunct Hawaii Health Connector, citing that its assets are being "misapplied or wasted." The complaint, which was filed late Wednesday, requests judicial dissolution of the former state health insurance exchange, and asks that the court appoint a receiver for the remaining charitable assets of the exchange. "The Connector is insolvent, in that its liabilities exceed its assets," according… Reported by bizjournals 3 hours ago.

Another Debate Kicks Off With A Sharp Clash Over Health Care

$
0
0
For the second Democratic presidential debate in a row, health care came up right away.  And for the second debate in a row, what followed was a serious, substantive discussion that put the different perspectives of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton into sharp relief.

In the end, their big dispute wasn't really over whether a single-payer system is a good idea in principle. It was whether such a system could actually work in the U.S.

To review: Sanders wants to create an entirely new health care system, replacing the current patchwork of private and public plans with one, government-run insurance program. The insurance he envisions would wipe out nearly all out-of-pocket spending, and give government more power to set prices, in order to hold down the cost of health care.

To finance this plan, Sanders would impose new taxes, some on the wealthy and some on the middle class. But the typical American would actually save money, Sanders says, because the new tax burden would be less than what the typical American now pays in private insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-pays.

Clinton prefers to build incrementally on the Affordable Care Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law six years ago and has now reduced the proportion of Americans without health insurance to about 10 percent. She has called for modestly improving protection from out-of-pocket costs and giving government more leverage with the prescription drug industry.

These are not major initiatives and Clinton has not specified how, exactly, she would get the country to 100 percent coverage -- something a single-payer plan would in theory achieve right away, because it would enroll people automatically. But Clinton has warned that creating a single-payer system would be highly disruptive, since it would mean changing everybody's insurance.

Clinton also has warned that Sanders’ plan would almost certainly cost a great deal more than Sanders says -- an argument with which most (but not all) well-known health policy experts agree. As a result, Clinton says, the number of people worse off after the transition could be much larger than Sanders has indicated.

The (somewhat) novel twist in Thursday’s discussion came in the sharp, but respectful back-and-forth that followed the initial question. In order to defend his claim about savings from single-payer, Sanders noted that every other country in the world manages to cover nearly all people while paying less -- and frequently far less -- than the U.S. does. He is absolutely correct about that. It's proof that, over the long haul, universal coverage doesn't require higher spending.

But Clinton had an answer ready: Most of those other countries built their universal coverage programs decades ago, as their health care systems were first evolving. It would be far more difficult to impose such a system on the existing U.S. health care infrastructure, she said.

To take one example: A plan like Sanders envisions would almost certainly require deep cuts in payments to hospitals. The hospitals would fight those cuts and, if somehow the cuts made it through Congress, many would probably suffer financially -- leading to shortages and closures. That would cause either hardship, a severe political backlash, or some combination of the two.

The plan that Sanders has sketched out will appeal to many voters. And while the systems abroad with single-payer have their pluses and minuses, overall they really do perform quite well.

But the transitional hazards that Clinton described are very real, and something that might give many Americans serious pause.

*More coverage of the Democratic debate:*-- 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.

Democratic Debate Exposes The Real Divide Between Clinton And Sanders

$
0
0
Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate began with a dispute over health care policy and ended with an argument about President Barack Obama’s legacy.

But in each of those moments, and at several points in between, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) were really arguing over something very basic.

Can the next president eliminate, or at least weaken substantially, the political obstacles that block a liberal agenda?

Sanders thinks the answer is yes. Clinton thinks the answer is no. 

At the start of the debate, hosted by PBS NewsHour, Sanders made his now-familiar case for replacing existing private and public insurance plans with one government-run program. Such systems work really well overseas, Sanders said, so there’s no reason such a system can’t work here. The big impediment, he said, would be lobbying from the health care industry, because drug and insurance companies would perceive such a plan as a threat to their profits.

“If -- and here's the if -- we have the courage to take on the drug companies, and have the courage to take on the insurance companies, and the medical equipment suppliers, if we do that, yes, we can guarantee health care to all people in a much more cost effective way,” Sanders said.

Clinton, in her portion of the discussion, made some of the same arguments she has before -- suggesting, among other things, that the Sanders plan would be far more expensive than he has claimed. But she really stressed another point -- that enacting health care reform is difficult. Getting the Affordable Care Act through Congress required a massive, politically draining effort -- and it very nearly failed. Starting a new fight now, she said, would probably not work and might even backfire.

It’s a lesson she said she learned firsthand in the 1990s, when she was first lady and in charge of President Bill Clinton’s failed attempt to pass health care reform then. “You know, before it was called Obamacare, it was called Hillarycare,” Clinton said. “And I took on the drug companies and I took on the insurance companies to try to get us universal health care coverage. And why I am [such] a staunch supporter of President Obama's principal accomplishment -- namely the Affordable Care Act -- is because I know how hard it was to get that done.”

The end of the debate got a little nastier, as Clinton cited a few recent instances when Sanders appeared to be making statements critical of Obama and his accomplishments. Clinton noted that Sanders had given a favorable blurb to a book called Buyer’s Remorse: How Obama Let Progressives Down. She also cited an interview, which aired on MSNBC on Thursday, in which Sanders implied that Obama hadn’t done enough to rally the grassroots behind his causes.

“This is not the first time that he has criticized President Obama,” Clinton said. “And I just couldn't ... disagree more with those kinds of comments. You know, from my perspective, maybe because I understand what President Obama inherited, not only the worst financial crisis, but the antipathy of the Republicans in Congress, I don't think he gets the credit he deserves for being a president.”

Sanders responded angrily, saying that Clinton had taken his comments out of context -- and making clear that, of course, he admires and supports the president. But Sanders also acknowledged that he sometimes has been critical of Obama. “I have voiced criticisms,” Sanders said. “You're right. … But ... you know what the blurb said? The blurb said that the next president of the United States has got to be aggressive in bringing people into the political process. That's what I said. That is what I believe.”

The difference here is real, if subtle. Sanders, in his speeches and campaign material, spends very little time talking about what was done during the Obama presidency. His focus is almost entirely on what he wants to do next -- about how a grassroots movement can deliver programs like government-run health insurance, free public college tuition, and a minimum wage that goes all the way up to $15 an hour. He praises Obama, but he is also promising something new.

Clinton has said she supports the same goals -- making sure everybody has health insurance, more affordable college tuition, a higher minimum wage. But she spends a lot more time touting what Obama has done and pledging to defend it against Republican attacks. She casts herself as the heir to Obama, as somebody who will carry on the crusade he started.

Sanders’ argument is a lot more inspiring. It promises big changes -- a revolution, literally. It suggests that progressives can realize their goals if they only put in enough effort, and build a coalition large enough to overcome the power of special interests. It’s precisely the kind of message that resonates with idealists, which probably helps explain why Sanders has been such a hit on college campuses and with young voters.

But Sanders’ vision also requires a big leap of faith. While mass movements have changed American politics before -- the Civil Rights movement comes quickly to mind -- it’s taken years and sometimes decades of organizing and fighting. Even then, progress was slow, painful, and disheartening to many of its proponents.

Clinton’s argument, by contrast, isn’t likely to excite anybody. It amounts to saying that the future is limited, rather than limitless -- and that best hope for the next four years is to avoid backtracking, rather making great strides forward. That’s not a lot of comfort to people struggling with tuition or medical bills, or unable to find a good job.

But Clinton’s argument also recognizes that money in politics isn’t the only obstacle to sweeping change. Progressives also face tough resistance from conservative ideologues -- starting with the ones who run Congress -- and would need to win over a public that is frequently ambivalent about, or even hostile to, big government initiatives. And that’s to say nothing of prejudices, like sexism and racism and anti-immigrant sentiment, that make progressive policies even more difficult sell. Clinton wants to overcome these obstacles, but she believes it's going to be a long-term project -- with mostly incremental victories for now.

Just like Sanders' pitch is a natural fit for his constituency of younger voters, the Clinton argument probably resonates with older voters who have lived through the same political battles she has. They might like what Sanders is promising. They just don't believe he can deliver it.

*Also on HuffPost:*

-- 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 22 hours ago.

ReThink Review: Where to Invade Next -- Michael Moore's Promised Land(s)

$
0
0
For a lot of republicans, documentarian and activist Michael Moore is the worst, most dishonest, and most dangerous filmmaker ever. But when looking at his filmography, no one can dispute his track record for shining a light on issues several years before they're noticed by the corporate media or adopted by politicians.

With his first film, 1989's Roger & Me, Moore showed the devastating effects of offshoring and corporate callousness on his hometown of Flint, Michigan. Bowling For Columbine in 2002 drew attention to America's uniquely insane gun obsession and its consequences years before mass shootings became commonplace. Moore slammed the door on the Bush administration's response to 9/11, the catastrophic Iraq war, and the media's complicity in both with Fahrenheit 9/11 in 2004, and three years before Obamacare was signed into law, Moore skewered the cartoonish cruelty of the health insurance industry in 2007's Sicko while making a demand for universal healthcare. And two years before Occupy Wall Street, Moore called out an economy rigged for the rich in 2009's Capitalism: A Love Story, with the housing meltdown and subsequent bailout as the ultimate crime scene.

And now in 2016, with either a woman or a self-proclaimed democratic socialist destined to be the Democratic presidential nominee, Moore is back with Where to Invade Next, perhaps his best, most hopeful, and solution-based film yet, which posits that America would be a much better place if it copied some of Europe's more humane, socialist-inspired solutions and had more female leaders in politics and business. Watch the trailer for Where to Invade Next below.
Where to Invade Next's premise is typical Moore silliness, with a fictional meeting where Moore proposes to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that, after decades of failed wars, Moore invade other countries as an army of one. But instead of coming for these nations' oil or land, Moore will steal their successful solutions to a wide range of problems plaguing America today. And by doing so, Moore manages to address and show working solutions for nearly every issue he's taken on in his over 25-year career.

While Moore's previous films utilized satire and gallows humor to show how bad things in America really are, Where to Invade Next smartly assumes you already know America's pain points and doesn't dwell on them long. So instead of explaining how bad workers have it in the U.S., the film has Italians describe how many months of government-mandated, paid vacation and maternity/paternity leave they get (along with two-hour lunch breaks), which are supported by both strong unions and management. Workers and management at a German pencil factory explain the benefits to all of having workers represented on their company's board and ending the workday early (with emails after office hours forbidden) so people can socialize, spend time with their families, and enjoy their off hours.

France demonstrates what school meals and sex education are like if you really care about kids' health, while Finland and Slovenia show how an education system that values a happy, fulfilled, productive citizenry treats students (hint: less homework, a wide array of subjects, shorter school days, and free college). Portugal and Norway provide lessons in valuing human dignity in their approaches to the war on drugs (decriminalizing drug use and treating it as a health issue) and incarceration (focus on preparing inmates for the real world, not punishing them). Iceland exemplifies the value of female leadership in the political and business realms, and the important message Iceland sent to the financial sector by jailing bankers whose reckless behavior cratered the country's economy. And in the film's one jaunt outside of Europe, we see how even a Muslim country like Tunisia got behind government-funded women's clinics (which also provide abortions) after a largely bloodless revolution wrested control from the country's religious conservative leadership.

For me, the question at the core of Moore's previous movies has always been: "As a nation, who are we?" For thoughtful people, it's an extremely difficult and possibly uncomfortable question given our country's many institutionalized, systemic problems. Moore's approach to answering that question has been to use humor to show how ridiculously awful and corrupted various aspects of American politics, corporate culture, race relations, etc. can be, with hopes of providing a wake-up call that angers viewers so much that they rise up and manifest change...somehow. While liberals like myself admired Moore for opening our eyes to ugly truths, his films were often short on solutions, which I've found to be an issue in most left-leaning documentaries that usually try to cram in a hopeful message in their last five minutes. And for unthoughtful republicans who would simply answer, "Who are we? We're America! The best damn country in the world!" Moore was simply labeled an America-hating liberal and demonized/dismissed for even bringing it up.

But Where to Invade Next asks a slightly different, more hopeful, more aspirational question that assumes "Who are we?" but goes further to ask: "As a nation, who do we want to be?"

By showing how workers are treated in Europe, Moore can make the selfish pitch to Americans by saying, "Doesn't that look nice? Wouldn't you like two months of paid vacation, longer lunch breaks, and shorter workdays?" But stated another way, Where to Invade Next asks: "Are we a nation that wants to treat workers as badly as a government corrupted by big business allows? Or do we want to be a nation that treats our fellow American workers with dignity, respect, and concern for their well-being?" And if that isn't convincing enough, the film has European business owners explain that treating workers better is actually just good business because happier, more rested employees increases productivity, reduces sick leave, and improves employee retention.

Do we want to be a country that makes it possible for new parents to be with their newborn babies for their all-important first months of life? Or will we force parents who can't afford childcare out of the workforce? With education, do we want to be a nation that truly treats young people as if they are our future and most valuable resource, providing them with the best education without forcing students (or their parents) into endless debt? Or are we a nation content to "educate" our children with standardized tests in underfunded, crumbling, prison-like schools while feeding them garbage that will eventually kill them? And if you claim America can't afford it, how come so many other countries can? And how come we keep finding trillions of dollars to spend on wars, the military, and tax cuts for the rich?

Are we a nation whose prison system is meant solely to punish and dehumanize while almost guaranteeing that criminals become repeat offenders who endanger our communities? Or do we want to be a nation like Norway that seeks to rehabilitate criminals, providing them with needed life and job skills so they have a chance at becoming productive members of society instead of returning to a life of crime? And while we're at it, don't we want to be a country that makes sure that megacriminals -- like the ones who stole billions of dollars by crashing the world's economy -- are prosecuted and serve some time the way Iceland did?

Do we want to be a nation that is honest about the darkest moments in our history, like slavery, racism, and the near genocide of Native Americans, so we can learn from it and move beyond it as Germany has with the Holocaust? Or will we continue to sweep them under the rug, underplay them, and learn nothing?

Don't we want to be a nation that doesn't just say, but shows that men and women deserve to be treated equally, and that women are more than capable of leading corporations, and even countries?

That last point obviously seems like an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, even though her name is never mentioned in the film. However, much of Where to Invade Next is studded with ideas that Bernie Sanders champions and that Clinton derides as being too idealistic, divisive, expensive, or naïve. If so, then why do all these other countries have them? Is there something wrong with America that we can't achieve them? Why are they out of reach for the greatest, richest country in the world? What kind of country do we want to be? And for republicans who would scoff at the idea that America should do anything (even good things) like any European nation, the film smartly reminds us that all of these "socialist", "unrealistic" programs have deep American roots.

Where to Invade Next is Moore's best, most ambitious, most powerful film to date because it shows Americans not how crummy things are, but how great they could be. And how might we get there? Lucky for us, there's an election coming up.Follow ReThink Reviews on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

-- 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.

AIS Webinar Will Provide Strategies for Managing High-Cost Drug Categories

$
0
0
An experienced benefits consultant and a specialty pharmacy expert will review strategies health plans and PBMs are employing — and the results they are achieving — to maintain affordability and access in big-dollar therapeutic categories, in an upcoming webinar sponsored by Atlantic Information Services.

Washington, DC (PRWEB) February 12, 2016

Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is pleased to announce “Managing High-Cost Drug Categories: Strategies for Health Plans and PBMs,” an upcoming Feb. 24 webinar that will discuss ways health plans and PBMs are employing strategies to maintain affordability and access in big-dollar therapeutic categories, such as the $1,000-per-pill hepatitis C treatment Sovaldi and high-cost PCSK9 inhibitors to treat cholesterol.

Steve Avey, vice president, specialty pharmacy, for MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc., and Josh Golden, practice leader, employer consulting, with Pharmaceutical Strategies Group LLC, will discuss the various strategies being deployed in some of these high-cost categories and their financial results. Participants will:· Hear how the hepatitis C “price wars” changed the landscape for negotiating rebates and making formulary decisions, especially as new PCSK9 inhibitors enter the market.
· Learn how MedImpact uses a scientific, evidence-based approach to ensure that the right patient gets the right drug at the right time.
· Gain insights into strategies other PBMs and their clients have adopted to manage high-cost drugs and what results they are achieving.
· Learn what major pipeline developments for hepatitis C, cancer and other big-dollar categories are on the way and how they can impact a health plan or PBM’s bottom line.

Visit https://aishealth.com/marketplace/c6p06_022416 for more details and registration information.

About AIS
Atlantic Information Services, Inc. (AIS) is a publishing and information company that has been serving the health care industry for nearly 30 years. It develops highly targeted news, data and strategic information for managers in hospitals and health systems, health insurance companies, medical group practices, purchasers of health insurance, pharmaceutical companies and other health care organizations. AIS products include print and electronic newsletters, databases, websites, looseleafs, strategic reports, directories, webinars and virtual conferences. Reported by PRWeb 18 hours ago.

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders Gloss Over Context, Disagree On Details In Democratic Debate

$
0
0
This story was originally published on FactCheck.org.

*Summary*

One week after their last meeting, the Democratic presidential candidates debated in Milwaukee. We found:
· Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said his bill on Social Security would extend the life of the trust funds by 58 years. It’s 40 years, according to the Social Security Administration’s chief actuary.· Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Affordable Care Act “has helped more African Americans than any other group to get insurance.” But the Obama administration’s own figures show a larger drop in the uninsured among Latinos.· Clinton repeated a claim that “Americans haven’t had a raise in 15 years.” Real weekly earnings went up 9.2 percent in that time frame.· Both candidates glossed over some context during a disagreement about whether Sanders had once advocated regime change in Libya and Iraq.· Sanders inflated unemployment figures, including the “real” unemployment rate for African American youth, which he says is more than 50 percent. The official rate for blacks age 16 to 19 is half that.· The candidates disagreed over whether Sanders had been critical of Obama’s leadership, specifically in a blurb for a new book. Both made some accurate statements, but we provide context.
*Analysis*

The sixth Democratic debate, and the second between only Clinton and Sanders, was hosted by PBS and held at the University of Wisconsin.
-Extending the Life of Social Security-

Sanders said his legislation to lift the cap on payroll taxes and expand benefits would extend the life of the Social Security trust funds by 58 years. Not quite. The Social Security Administration’s chief actuary said this month that Sanders’ bill would extend the trust funds by 40 years, from 2034 to 2074.

Sanders is the sponsor of the Social Security Expansion Act. To pay for an expansion in benefits, the bill would lift the contribution limit on the Social Security payroll tax, which now applies to earnings up to $118,500.

The Vermont senator challenged Clinton to support his legislation.

*Sanders*: And here’s an area where Secretary Clinton and I believe we have a difference. I have long supported the proposition that we should lift the cap on taxable income coming into the Social Security Trust Fund, starting at $250,000. And when we — and when we do that, we don’t do what the Republicans want, which is to cut Social Security. We do what the American people want, to expand Social Security by $1,300 a year for people under $16,000, and we extend the life of Social Security for 58 years.

Stephen Goss, chief actuary for the Social Security Administration, twice has looked at the financial impact of Sanders’ bill on the combined Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance trust funds.

In a March 26, 2015, letter to Sanders, Goss projected that under Sanders’ bill, “the year of reserve depletion for the combined OASDI Trust Funds would be extended by 32 years, from 2033 under current law to 2065.”

A year later, Goss increased the projected lifespan of the trust funds by another eight years to 40 years.

“Assuming enactment of the proposal, we estimate the funding for the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds would be sufficient to extend the projected year of reserve depletion from 2034 to 2074,” Goss wrote in a Feb. 4 letter to Sanders.

Under current law, full scheduled benefits would continue through 2033 and then drop to 79 percent in 2034, 74 percent in 2074 and 73 percent in 2089, Goss wrote. But under Sanders’ bill, full benefits would be paid through 2073, with benefits being reduced to 88 percent in 2074 and 87 percent beginning in 2089.

A Sanders spokesman told us the senator was referring to “58 years from now,” meaning from 2016 to 2074. But Sanders said “we extend the life of Social Security for 58 years,” taking credit for 18 years when the Social Security trust funds will pay out full benefits whether his bill passes or not.

-*African Americans and the ACA*-

Clinton said that “the Affordable Care Act has helped more African Americans than any other group to get insurance, to be taken care of.” But the Obama administration’s own figures show a larger drop in the uninsured among Latinos.

The Department of Health and Human Services released an analysis in late September, saying 17.6 million had gained health insurance coverage under the ACA. The administration said that figure included three groups: young adults who were able to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26, those who signed up for the Medicaid expansion and those who gained coverage through the state and federal insurance marketplaces.

The rate of uninsured African American adults dropped by 10.3 percentage points, a greater decline than among whites but not as much as the rate drop for Latinos. Here are the HHS figures for the decline in the uninsured between October 2013 and Sept. 12, 2015:
· 4 million Latino adults gained coverage, with the uninsured rate dropping 11.5 percentage points to 30.3 percent· 2.6 million African American adults gained coverage, with the uninsured rate dropping 10.3 percentage points to 12.1 percent· 7.4 million white adults gained coverage, with the uninsured rate dropping 6 percentage points to 8.3 percent
An HHS fact sheet, also released in September 2015, said generally that “the Affordable Care Act is working to increase access to affordable, quality health care. This is especially true of the African-American Community.” But in terms of the uninsured, the coverage gains have been greater for Latinos.

A December 2014 Urban Institute report projected the ACA could “substantially narrow differences in uninsurance rates between whites and all racial/ethnic minorities, except blacks,” because blacks disproportionately live in states that did not expand Medicaid.

-Clinton Still Wrong on Wages-

Clinton repeated a bogus claim that “Americans haven’t had a raise in 15 years.”

*Clinton:* I know a lot of Americans are angry about the economy. And for good cause. Americans haven’t had a raise in 15 years.

Back in November, she said essentially the same thing at the second Democratic debate. Her claim fell short of being accurate at the time, and it’s even further short of the mark today.

The most recent figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show real weekly earnings in December 2015 were 9.2 percent higher than they were 15 years earlier. That includes a 2.3 percent jump last year. (“Real” earnings are inflation-adjusted.)

It may well be so that many voters are “angry about the economy.” But the fact is, wages are rising faster than inflation.

Clinton went on to say that “[t]here aren’t enough good-paying jobs, especially for young people.”

How many job openings are “enough” is a matter of opinion, as is what pay level is high enough to be considered “good.”

But the fact is, the number of job openings was more than 5.6 million last December, according to BLS data. That’s nearly the highest in the 15 years the BLS has tracked job openings. It is just shy of the record of nearly 5.7 million set in July 2015.

As for “young people,” it’s true that, in January, the 10.3 percent jobless rate for those 16 to 24 years old was more than double the 4.9 percent rate for all adults. But the youth rate is always higher than the rate for older, more experienced adults. And the rate for 16- to 24-year-olds has now dropped back down to where it was in January 2007, before the Great Recession sent it soaring to nearly 20 percent.

-*Sanders on Regime Change*-

In heated foreign policy exchanges, Sanders and Clinton disagreed about whether Sanders had once advocated regime change in Libya and Iraq. Both sides glossed over some of the context.

The disagreement on Libya was part of an exchange initiated by Sanders, who criticized Clinton for being too eager to advocate regime change in countries, which he said has often led to “unintended consequences.”

“And in Libya, for example, the United States, Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, working with some other countries, did get rid of a terrible dictator named [Moammar] Gadhafi,” Sanders said. “But what happened is a political vacuum developed. ISIS came in, and now occupies significant territory in Libya, and is now prepared, unless we stop them, to have a terrorist foothold.”

Clinton responded that Sanders, himself, “voted in favor of regime change with Libya, voted in favor of the Security Council being an active participant in setting the parameters for what we would do, which of course we followed through on.”

Sanders said that the resolution “was a virtually unanimous consent. Everybody voted for it wanting to see Libya move toward democracy, of course we all wanted to do that. That is very different than talking about specific action for regime change, which I did not support.”

Clinton then reiterated that Sanders “did support a U.N. Security Council approach, which we did follow up on.”

As we said, both sides are glossing over some important context.

It is true that on March 1, 2011, Sanders not only voted in favor of Senate Resolution 85, he also cosponsored it. The resolution, which was nonbinding and passed by unanimous consent, called on Gadhafi “to desist from further violence, recognize the Libyan people’s demand for democratic change, resign his position and permit a peaceful transition to democracy. …” So Sanders is correct that the resolution did not authorize or advocate for military action, though it did call for Gadhafi to resign his position.

In an interview with Fox News in March 2011, Sanders said, “Look, everybody understands Qaddafi is a thug and murderer. We want to see him go, but i think in the midst of two wars, I’m not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly.”

However, as Clinton said, the resolution Sanders cosponsored also urged the United Nations Security Council “to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory.” Indeed, a couple weeks later, the Security Council did approve a resolution calling for a no-fly zone and called on members “to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country.”

Earlier in the same debate exchange, Sanders wagged his finger and mouthed the word “no” when Clinton said, “Senator Sanders voted in 1998 on what I think is fair to call a regime change resolution with respect to Iraq, calling for the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime.” He did.

While it’s true, as Sanders said, that he opposed the war in Iraq under President Bush (and that then Sen. Clinton voted in favor of authorizing the use of force), Clinton was referring to votes cast by Sanders in 1998 when Bill Clinton was president. Sanders voted in favor of theIraq Liberation Act of 1998, which included a “sense of the Congress” statement that “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” He also voted in favor of a resolution that similarly stated, “Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic  government to replace that regime.”-*Inflated Unemployment Numbers*-

Sanders padded his numbers when speaking of the unemployment rate.

*Sanders: *Who denies that real unemployment today, including those who have given up looking for work and are working part-time is close to 10 percent? Who denies that African American youth unemployment, real, is over 50 percent.

What Sanders refers to as “real” unemployment actually includes — as he admits — a lot of people who have jobs, plus a lot more who aren’t currently looking for work.

He is referring to one of several “alternative” measures of labor “underutilization” published each month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The U-6 measure starts with those the BLS officially classifies as unemployed — meaning those who say they have looked for a job at least once in the past four weeks, but don’t have one.

To that is added those “marginally attached” to the labor force, meaning those who say they want work and have looked for a job in the past year, but aren’t currently looking. Also added are those who say they want a full-time job but are forced to work part time because full-time work isn’t available, or their employer has cut back their hours.

It’s true that the U-6 rate was 9.9 percent in January, which indeed is “close to 10 percent.” But Sanders fails to mention that the rate has dropped substantially since hitting more than 17 percent in 2009 and 2010, and is not far above the 8.4 percent rate that prevailed in January 2007, before the recession. In fact, it’s almost exactly the median rate for all the months since the BLS began publishing the figures in 1994 — which is 9.8 percent.

As for African American youth, the official unemployment rate for blacks age 16 to 19 was 25.2 percent — half the figure cited by Sanders. The U-6 rate for black teens isn’t readily available on the BLS website, and it could well be more than 50 percent, as Sanders claims. But even so it would still include many who have part-time jobs, and many more who aren’t actually looking for work.

-*Sanders’ Book Blurb*-

Clinton and Sanders disagreed over whether Sanders had been critical of Obama’s leadership, in particular in a forward or a blurb for a new book. We’ll lay out what exactly Sanders said.

Here’s that exchange:

*Clinton:* But I want to — I want to follow up on something having to do with leadership, because, you know, today Sen. Sanders said that President Obama failed the presidential leadership test. And this is not the first time that he has criticized President Obama. In the past he has called him weak. He has called him a disappointment.

He wrote a forward for a book that basically argued voters should have buyers’ remorse when it comes to President Obama’s leadership and legacy. …

*Sanders:* Madam Secretary, that is a low blow. I have worked with President Obama for the last seven years. … As a result of his efforts and the efforts of Joe Biden against unprecedented, I was there in the Senate, unprecedented Republican obstructionism, we have made enormous progress.

But you know what? Last I heard we lived in a democratic society. Last I heard, a United States senator had the right to disagree with the president, including a president who has done such an extraordinary job.

So I have voiced criticisms. You’re right. Maybe you haven’t. I have. But I think to suggest that I have voiced criticism, this blurb that you talk about, you know what the blurb said? The blurb said that the next president of the United States has got to be aggressive in bringing people into the political process.

That’s what I said. That is what I believe.


Sanders didn’t write a forward for the book by liberal radio and TV host Bill Press, but he did write a blurb of praise. Press’ book, titled “Buyer’s Remorse: How Obama Let Progressives Down,” carries a much-shortened version of Sanders’ quote. The blurb across the top is: “Bill Press makes the case … Read this book.”

But Sanders didn’t say that Press made the case that Obama had “let progressives down,” as that blurb may lead some to believe. Sanders’ full quote is close to what he described in the debate. He wrote: “Bill Press makes the case why, long after taking the oath of office, the next president of the United States must keep rallying the people who elected him or her on behalf of progressive causes. That is the only way real change will happen. Read this book.”

We’ve written before about Sanders calling Obama “weak” and a “disappointment.” He said in a July 2011 radio interview: “I think that there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president, who believe that with regard to Social Security and a number of other issues, he said one thing as a candidate and is doing something very much else as a president, who cannot believe how weak he has been — for whatever reason — in negotiating with Republicans, and there’s deep disappointment.”

Clinton also mentioned a more recent Sanders comment, saying that “today Sen. Sanders said that President Obama failed the presidential leadership test.” Sanders didn’t say Obama had failed a “test,” but did say Obama hadn’t succeeded in terms of presidential leadership.

In an interview for MSNBC’s “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell,” Sanders said: “There’s a huge gap right now between Congress and the American people. What presidential leadership is about is closing that gap.”

Asked if he thought President Obama had succeeded in closing that gap, Sanders said: “No, I don’t. I mean, I think he has made the effort. But I think what we need, when I talk about a political revolution, is bringing millions and millions of people into the political process in a way that does not exist right now.”

For sources, go to FactCheck.org.

*Also on HuffPost:*

-- 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.

Obamacare Delivers Health Insurance to Low-Income Whites

$
0
0
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, has reduced racial disparities in health insurance coverage rates between whites and people of color. I and others have discussed the historic increase in health insurance coverage for Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans. These findings should not obscure the fact that Obamacare has also led to a historic increase in health insurance coverage for whites and, in particular, for low-income whites.

The decline in the non-Hispanic white uninsured rate under Obamacare from 2013 to 2014 was significantly greater than in the immediately preceding years. Based on American Community Survey data, figure A shows that, in the wake of the Great Recession, from 2008 to 2010, the white uninsured rate rose. As the economy recovered, the uninsured rate fell. The average annual rate of decline from 2010 to 2013 was 0.3 percentage points. After Obamacare, from 2013 to 2014, however, the rate of decline was 2.4 percentage points--eight times the prior rate of decline. Thanks to Obamacare, over 3 million more whites had health insurance than would have otherwise.

An important factor in this growth of health insurance coverage for whites was the expansion of Medicaid. States that expanded Medicaid saw a decline in the white uninsured rate of 3 percentage points, but states that did not expand Medicaid only had a decline of 2 percentage points.

The impact of the Medicaid expansion is easier to see when we look directly at the change in the white uninsured rates of low-income whites in expansion and non-expansion states. In expansion states, the uninsured rate of low-income whites dropped 7.7 percentage points. In non-expansion states, the reduction was only half as large, 3.8 percentage points (Figure B).

Significant reductions in the uninsured rate for low-income whites occurred even in non-expansion states because of what health policy analysts call the "welcome mat" effect. With the Affordable Care Act came more discussions about health insurance coverage--in newspapers, on TV and among people from all walks of life. Additionally, some uninsured individuals who were eligible for Medicaid may have had friends or family members who obtained health insurance through the health exchanges or through Medicaid in expansion states. All of this additional attention raised public awareness, creating a "welcome mat" that encouraged some people who were already eligible but not enrolled in Medicaid to sign up. Thus, Obamacare boosted Medicaid enrollment even in states that did not expand Medicaid. But, as Figure B illustrates, the increase would have been larger had the states expanded Medicaid.

Recently, Governor John Bel Edwards of Louisiana expanded Medicaid in his state. This action made 300,000 more Louisianians eligible for Medicaid. It is a positive move for Louisianians of all races.This post first appeared on GlobalPolicy.TV. Algernon Austin is the author of America Is Not Post-Racial: Xenophobia, Islamophobia, Racism, and the 44th President which is the only book to analyze the 25 million Obama Haters in America.

-- 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 14 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images