HARRISBURG - Philadelphians will have the chance Friday to comment on Gov. Corbett's controversial proposal to expand health coverage for low-income residents using federal money to pay for private insurance.
Reported by philly.com 14 hours ago.
Hearing in Phila. Friday on Corbett health insurance plan
↧
↧
U.S. Uninsured Rate Obamacare Exchange Experience Negatively
A new Gallup Daily Poll tracking more than 1500 uninsured Americans in December found that out of the roughly 450 respondents who visited a health insurance exchange website, 59% had a negative experience and only 39% had a positive one.
The December poll showed only a tiny improvement from Gallup’s October and November polling during which 63% said their experience was negative and 33% said it was positive.
Of the uninsured Americans who checked out the exchanges, 24% visited a federal exchange, 20% tried a state exchange, 17% tried both, and 37% were unsure.
The December respondents were interviewed after the Obama administration’s November 30 deadline for fixing the glitches with federal exchanges. Although some respondents may have tried the exchanges before the deadline, Gallup suggests that the poll reflects a lack of an improved customer experience since the fixes.
Only 26% of uninsured Americans answered that they have tried a health insurance exchange website.
Reported by Breitbart 13 hours ago.
The December poll showed only a tiny improvement from Gallup’s October and November polling during which 63% said their experience was negative and 33% said it was positive.
Of the uninsured Americans who checked out the exchanges, 24% visited a federal exchange, 20% tried a state exchange, 17% tried both, and 37% were unsure.
The December respondents were interviewed after the Obama administration’s November 30 deadline for fixing the glitches with federal exchanges. Although some respondents may have tried the exchanges before the deadline, Gallup suggests that the poll reflects a lack of an improved customer experience since the fixes.
Only 26% of uninsured Americans answered that they have tried a health insurance exchange website.
Reported by Breitbart 13 hours ago.
↧
It's Really Hard To Add A Baby To Obamacare
WASHINGTON (AP) — There's another quirk in the Obama administration's new health insurance system: It lacks a way for consumers to quickly and easily update their coverage for the birth of a baby and other common life changes.
With regular private insurance, parents just notify the health plan. Insurers will still cover new babies, the administration says, but parents will also have to contact the government at some point later on.
Right now the HealthCare.gov website can't handle such updates.
It's a reminder that the new coverage for many uninsured Americans comes with a third party in the mix: the feds. And the system's wiring for some vital federal functions isn't yet fully connected.
It's not just having a new baby that could create bureaucratic hassles, but other life changes affecting a consumer's taxpayer-subsidized premiums. The list includes marriage and divorce, a death in the family, a new job or a change in income, even moving to a different community.
Such changes affect financial assistance available under the law, so the government has to be brought into the loop.
At least 2 million people have signed up for private health policies through new government markets under President Barack Obama's overhaul. Coverage started Wednesday, and so far things appear to be running fairly smoothly, although it may take time for problems to bubble up. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius calls it "a new day in health care" for millions of Americans.
Insurers say computerized "change in circumstance" updates to deal with family and life developments were supposed to have been part of the federal system from the start.
But that feature got postponed as the government scrambled to fix technical problems that overwhelmed the health care website during its first couple of months.
"It's just another example of 'We'll fix that later,'" said Bob Laszewski, an industry consultant who said he's gotten complaints from several insurer clients. "This needed to be done well before January. It's sort of a fly-by-night approach."
"We are currently working with insurers to find ways to make changing coverage easier while we develop an automated way for consumers to update their coverage directly," responded an administration spokesman, Aaron Albright.
A Dec. 31 circular from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services addressed the problem.
In questions and answers for insurers, the government said that the federal insurance marketplace will not be able to add a child until the system's automated features become "available later." It does not provide any clue as to when that might take place.
The federal marketplace serves 36 states through HealthCare.gov and call centers. The Medicare agency, which runs the government's other major health programs, is also responsible for expanded coverage under Obama's law.
The question-and-answer circular says parents with a new baby will be told to contact their insurer directly "to include the child immediately" on their existing policy.
After the federal system is ready to process changes, parents will have to contact the government to formally bring their records up to date. Albright said parents will be able to add a new child to their policy for 30 days.
Having a baby could increase a family's monthly premiums, but it could also mean that the parents are eligible for a bigger tax credit to help with the cost. Under some circumstances, it could make the child or the family eligible for Medicaid, a safety-net program that is virtually free of cost to low-income beneficiaries.
"Add it to the list that shows HealthCare.gov is not done," Laszewski said. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
With regular private insurance, parents just notify the health plan. Insurers will still cover new babies, the administration says, but parents will also have to contact the government at some point later on.
Right now the HealthCare.gov website can't handle such updates.
It's a reminder that the new coverage for many uninsured Americans comes with a third party in the mix: the feds. And the system's wiring for some vital federal functions isn't yet fully connected.
It's not just having a new baby that could create bureaucratic hassles, but other life changes affecting a consumer's taxpayer-subsidized premiums. The list includes marriage and divorce, a death in the family, a new job or a change in income, even moving to a different community.
Such changes affect financial assistance available under the law, so the government has to be brought into the loop.
At least 2 million people have signed up for private health policies through new government markets under President Barack Obama's overhaul. Coverage started Wednesday, and so far things appear to be running fairly smoothly, although it may take time for problems to bubble up. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius calls it "a new day in health care" for millions of Americans.
Insurers say computerized "change in circumstance" updates to deal with family and life developments were supposed to have been part of the federal system from the start.
But that feature got postponed as the government scrambled to fix technical problems that overwhelmed the health care website during its first couple of months.
"It's just another example of 'We'll fix that later,'" said Bob Laszewski, an industry consultant who said he's gotten complaints from several insurer clients. "This needed to be done well before January. It's sort of a fly-by-night approach."
"We are currently working with insurers to find ways to make changing coverage easier while we develop an automated way for consumers to update their coverage directly," responded an administration spokesman, Aaron Albright.
A Dec. 31 circular from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services addressed the problem.
In questions and answers for insurers, the government said that the federal insurance marketplace will not be able to add a child until the system's automated features become "available later." It does not provide any clue as to when that might take place.
The federal marketplace serves 36 states through HealthCare.gov and call centers. The Medicare agency, which runs the government's other major health programs, is also responsible for expanded coverage under Obama's law.
The question-and-answer circular says parents with a new baby will be told to contact their insurer directly "to include the child immediately" on their existing policy.
After the federal system is ready to process changes, parents will have to contact the government to formally bring their records up to date. Albright said parents will be able to add a new child to their policy for 30 days.
Having a baby could increase a family's monthly premiums, but it could also mean that the parents are eligible for a bigger tax credit to help with the cost. Under some circumstances, it could make the child or the family eligible for Medicaid, a safety-net program that is virtually free of cost to low-income beneficiaries.
"Add it to the list that shows HealthCare.gov is not done," Laszewski said. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.
↧
It's Surprisingly Difficult To Add A Baby To Obamacare
APNewsBreak: Gov't lacks automated system for adding babies; making other health plan updatesWASHINGTON (AP) — There's another quirk in the Obama administration's new health insurance system: It lacks a way for consumers to quickly and easily update their coverage for the birth of a baby and other common life changes.
With regular private insurance, parents just notify the health plan. Insurers will still cover new babies, the administration says, but parents will also have to contact the government at some point later on.
Right now the HealthCare.gov website can't handle such updates.
It's a reminder that the new coverage for many uninsured Americans comes with a third party in the mix: the feds. And the system's wiring for some vital federal functions isn't yet fully connected.
It's not just having a new baby that could create bureaucratic hassles, but other life changes affecting a consumer's taxpayer-subsidized premiums. The list includes marriage and divorce, a death in the family, a new job or a change in income, even moving to a different community.
Such changes affect financial assistance available under the law, so the government has to be brought into the loop.
At least 2 million people have signed up for private health policies through new government markets under President Barack Obama's overhaul. Coverage started Wednesday, and so far things appear to be running fairly smoothly, although it may take time for problems to bubble up. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius calls it "a new day in health care" for millions of Americans.
Insurers say computerized "change in circumstance" updates to deal with family and life developments were supposed to have been part of the federal system from the start.
But that feature got postponed as the government scrambled to fix technical problems that overwhelmed the health care website during its first couple of months.
"It's just another example of 'We'll fix that later,'" said Bob Laszewski, an industry consultant who said he's gotten complaints from several insurer clients. "This needed to be done well before January. It's sort of a fly-by-night approach."
"We are currently working with insurers to find ways to make changing coverage easier while we develop an automated way for consumers to update their coverage directly," responded an administration spokesman, Aaron Albright.
A Dec. 31 circular from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services addressed the problem.
In questions and answers for insurers, the government said that the federal insurance marketplace will not be able to add a child until the system's automated features become "available later." It does not provide any clue as to when that might take place.
The federal marketplace serves 36 states through HealthCare.gov and call centers. The Medicare agency, which runs the government's other major health programs, is also responsible for expanded coverage under Obama's law.
The question-and-answer circular says parents with a new baby will be told to contact their insurer directly "to include the child immediately" on their existing policy.
After the federal system is ready to process changes, parents will have to contact the government to formally bring their records up to date. Albright said parents will be able to add a new child to their policy for 30 days.
Having a baby could increase a family's monthly premiums, but it could also mean that the parents are eligible for a bigger tax credit to help with the cost. Under some circumstances, it could make the child or the family eligible for Medicaid, a safety-net program that is virtually free of cost to low-income beneficiaries.
"Add it to the list that shows HealthCare.gov is not done," Laszewski said.
Copyright (2014) Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Join the conversation about this story »
Reported by Business Insider 11 hours ago.
↧
New Addition? Good Luck Adding Baby Under Obamacare
There's another quirk in the Obama administration's new health insurance system: It lacks a way for consumers to quickly and easily update their coverage for the birth of a baby and other common life changes.With regular private insurance, parents just notify the health...
Reported by Newsmax 10 hours ago.
↧
↧
HolaDoctor: Enrolling in insurance market takes average 90 minutes
Atlanta-based HolaDoctor, a website that provides health information to Hispanics, found in tests it takes a family an average of 90 minutes to enroll in some of the country’s largest health insurance markets. The company tested markets in New York and California. Among key points that were analyzed: attention in Spanish by advisers, recommendations given, and the level of care. The testing was conducted by health promoters at HolaDoctor who are familiar with the details of the Affordable Care…
Reported by bizjournals 10 hours ago.
↧
APNewsBreak: Adding a baby to health plan not easy
WASHINGTON -- There's another quirk in the Obama administration's new health insurance system: It lacks a way for consumers to quickly and easily update their coverage for the birth of a baby and other common life changes. With regular private insurance, parents just notify the health plan. Insurers will still cover new babies, the administration says, but parents will also have to contact the government at some point later on.
Reported by azcentral.com 8 hours ago.
↧
Zane Benefits Publishes New Information on Health Insurance Solutions for Small Law Firms
Law Firms Are an Early Adopter of Defined Contribution Solutions
Park City, Utah (PRWEB) January 03, 2014
Today, Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, published new information on health insurance solutions for small law firms.
According to Zane Benefits’ website, as small firm health insurance costs continue to rise, employers are looking for ways to offer health insurance coverage at a sustainable cost. One of these new strategies is defined contribution healthcare. And, one of the industries early to adopt defined contribution healthcare has been small law firms, legal offices, and legal clinics.
That’s because, according to Zane Benefits’ website, defined contribution small legal firms to set and control all health benefits costs. This feature alone allows many small firms to offer formal health benefits for the first time. Additionally, there are other benefits of defined contribution that fit well with small law firms, such as compliance, employee classes, and employee choice. Here's a look at those benefits and why they fit well with small legal firms.
Click here to read the full article.
--
About Zane Benefits
Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, was founded in 2006 to revolutionize the way employers provide employee health benefits in America. We empower employees to take control over their own healthcare, while helping employers recruit and retain the best talent. Our online solutions allow small and medium-sized businesses to successfully transition to a health benefits program that creates happier employees, reduces costs and frees up more time to serve their customers. For more information about ZaneHealth, visit http://www.zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 8 hours ago.
Park City, Utah (PRWEB) January 03, 2014
Today, Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, published new information on health insurance solutions for small law firms.
According to Zane Benefits’ website, as small firm health insurance costs continue to rise, employers are looking for ways to offer health insurance coverage at a sustainable cost. One of these new strategies is defined contribution healthcare. And, one of the industries early to adopt defined contribution healthcare has been small law firms, legal offices, and legal clinics.
That’s because, according to Zane Benefits’ website, defined contribution small legal firms to set and control all health benefits costs. This feature alone allows many small firms to offer formal health benefits for the first time. Additionally, there are other benefits of defined contribution that fit well with small law firms, such as compliance, employee classes, and employee choice. Here's a look at those benefits and why they fit well with small legal firms.
Click here to read the full article.
--
About Zane Benefits
Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, was founded in 2006 to revolutionize the way employers provide employee health benefits in America. We empower employees to take control over their own healthcare, while helping employers recruit and retain the best talent. Our online solutions allow small and medium-sized businesses to successfully transition to a health benefits program that creates happier employees, reduces costs and frees up more time to serve their customers. For more information about ZaneHealth, visit http://www.zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 8 hours ago.
↧
UNCONSCIONABLE
Shame on Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for allowing the Little Sisters of the Poor to continue denying birth control coverage to their employees while the Court considers whether bosses should be able to restrict their women workers' access to contraception. The common-sense answer is: Bosses have a lot of power over their workers, but they shouldn't have that kind of power.
Contraception is basic reproductive health care for women. Basic - as in life-saving. Unintended pregnancy is a well-known driver of maternal and infant mortality. Women who are able to control the number and spacing of their pregnancies are healthier and, when and if they decide to bear children, so are their kids. Such women are not just physically better off, but psychically as well. There's a lot to be said for being able to trust that your community respects your capacity and your right to plan your own family and make your own health care decisions.
I don't doubt that the individuals who control the Little Sisters of the Poor are entitled to religious freedom. I wish they could recognize that their First Amendment right to practice their own religion doesn't trump women's basic rights. Don't women have a First Amendment right not to have another's religious belief forced on them? What about women's right of privacy, to determine whether and when to use contraception or terminate a pregnancy? What about a woman's right to be free from workplace discrimination?
Why would we even consider subordinating the fundamental rights of half the population to the religious zeal of a few?
Surely it comes as no surprise to bosses, politicians and jurists that birth control is both universally used and wildly popular in this country. About 99 percent of sexually active women, including about 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women, have used contraception at some point. On average, women use birth control for 30 years over their lifetimes. According to a 2012 poll, 67 percent agree that "all workers should be allowed to access health care services regardless of their employers' beliefs." And 56 percent of voters support the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health care plans cover prescription birth control with no deductibles or co-pays.
A 2012 study conducted at Washington University in St. Louis confirmed that the cost of birth control matters - a lot. In the four-year study, women and teens in St. Louis were able to select the contraceptive method that was best for them at no cost.
As described by Tara Culp-Pressler of ThinkProgress:
Researchers found that when women weren't prohibited by cost, they chose more effective, long-lasting forms of birth control and experienced many fewer unintended pregnancies as a result
. . .
Women of reproductive age currently spend about 68 percent more than men do on out-of-pocket health care costs, partly because of high contraception costs -- for example, a year's supply of oral birth control pills typically costs over $1,200 out of pocket. Nearly one in three U.S. women report they have stopped using their preferred contraceptive method, or used it less consistently and effectively, because they could not afford it.
If the benefits of the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health insurance plans include birth control as basic preventive health care aren't already obvious, consider this: According to the Guttmacher Institute, some 95 percent of unintended pregnancies occur to women who did not use contraception consistently and correctly. Knowing the risk of maternal and infant mortality that accompanies unintended pregnancies, who but fanatics actually want to restrict women's ability to access and use contraceptives consistently and correctly?
Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act's birth control requirement doesn't apply to all employers. Religious organizations - those that predominantly serve and employ members of their faith - are given carte blanche to withhold birth control from their employees' health insurance. The Little Sisters of the Poor wants to use that exemption but doesn't qualify it because it holds itself out to nonbelievers, providing services and employment without regard to their customers' or workers' religious affiliation, traditions or beliefs.
Nonetheless (in a move my organization strenuously opposed) the Department of Health and Human Services created a special rule for religious hospitals, schools and other organizations like the Little Sisters: They don't have to pay a dime for their employees' birth control coverage. Not one dime.
Their insurance carrier must cover birth control without deductibles or co-pays, but a rabidly misogynist religiously affiliated employer like the Little Sisters can rest easy knowing its money is not being used to protect women's health and lives through access to birth control.
But this special rule isn't enough for the folks who control the Little Sisters of the Poor. It turns out that they don't just want the freedom to practice their religion; they also want the power to impose their religious views on their employees, believers and nonbelievers alike. Including views rejected in practice by the vast majority of their own faith community.
That has nothing to do with morality. It's just unconscionable. Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
Contraception is basic reproductive health care for women. Basic - as in life-saving. Unintended pregnancy is a well-known driver of maternal and infant mortality. Women who are able to control the number and spacing of their pregnancies are healthier and, when and if they decide to bear children, so are their kids. Such women are not just physically better off, but psychically as well. There's a lot to be said for being able to trust that your community respects your capacity and your right to plan your own family and make your own health care decisions.
I don't doubt that the individuals who control the Little Sisters of the Poor are entitled to religious freedom. I wish they could recognize that their First Amendment right to practice their own religion doesn't trump women's basic rights. Don't women have a First Amendment right not to have another's religious belief forced on them? What about women's right of privacy, to determine whether and when to use contraception or terminate a pregnancy? What about a woman's right to be free from workplace discrimination?
Why would we even consider subordinating the fundamental rights of half the population to the religious zeal of a few?
Surely it comes as no surprise to bosses, politicians and jurists that birth control is both universally used and wildly popular in this country. About 99 percent of sexually active women, including about 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women, have used contraception at some point. On average, women use birth control for 30 years over their lifetimes. According to a 2012 poll, 67 percent agree that "all workers should be allowed to access health care services regardless of their employers' beliefs." And 56 percent of voters support the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health care plans cover prescription birth control with no deductibles or co-pays.
A 2012 study conducted at Washington University in St. Louis confirmed that the cost of birth control matters - a lot. In the four-year study, women and teens in St. Louis were able to select the contraceptive method that was best for them at no cost.
As described by Tara Culp-Pressler of ThinkProgress:
Researchers found that when women weren't prohibited by cost, they chose more effective, long-lasting forms of birth control and experienced many fewer unintended pregnancies as a result
. . .
Women of reproductive age currently spend about 68 percent more than men do on out-of-pocket health care costs, partly because of high contraception costs -- for example, a year's supply of oral birth control pills typically costs over $1,200 out of pocket. Nearly one in three U.S. women report they have stopped using their preferred contraceptive method, or used it less consistently and effectively, because they could not afford it.
If the benefits of the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health insurance plans include birth control as basic preventive health care aren't already obvious, consider this: According to the Guttmacher Institute, some 95 percent of unintended pregnancies occur to women who did not use contraception consistently and correctly. Knowing the risk of maternal and infant mortality that accompanies unintended pregnancies, who but fanatics actually want to restrict women's ability to access and use contraceptives consistently and correctly?
Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act's birth control requirement doesn't apply to all employers. Religious organizations - those that predominantly serve and employ members of their faith - are given carte blanche to withhold birth control from their employees' health insurance. The Little Sisters of the Poor wants to use that exemption but doesn't qualify it because it holds itself out to nonbelievers, providing services and employment without regard to their customers' or workers' religious affiliation, traditions or beliefs.
Nonetheless (in a move my organization strenuously opposed) the Department of Health and Human Services created a special rule for religious hospitals, schools and other organizations like the Little Sisters: They don't have to pay a dime for their employees' birth control coverage. Not one dime.
Their insurance carrier must cover birth control without deductibles or co-pays, but a rabidly misogynist religiously affiliated employer like the Little Sisters can rest easy knowing its money is not being used to protect women's health and lives through access to birth control.
But this special rule isn't enough for the folks who control the Little Sisters of the Poor. It turns out that they don't just want the freedom to practice their religion; they also want the power to impose their religious views on their employees, believers and nonbelievers alike. Including views rejected in practice by the vast majority of their own faith community.
That has nothing to do with morality. It's just unconscionable. Reported by Huffington Post 8 hours ago.
↧
↧
Unconscionable
Shame on Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor for allowing the Little Sisters of the Poor to continue denying birth control coverage to their employees while the Court considers whether bosses should be able to restrict their women workers' access to contraception. The common-sense answer is: Bosses have a lot of power over their workers, but they shouldn't have that kind of power.
Contraception is basic reproductive health care for women. Basic -- as in life-saving. Unintended pregnancy is a well-known driver of maternal and infant mortality. Women who are able to control the number and spacing of their pregnancies are healthier and, when and if they decide to bear children, so are their kids. Such women are not just physically better off, but psychically as well. There's a lot to be said for being able to trust that your community respects your capacity and your right to plan your own family and make your own health care decisions.
I don't doubt that the individuals who control the Little Sisters of the Poor are entitled to religious freedom. I wish they could recognize that their First Amendment right to practice their own religion doesn't trump women's basic rights. Don't women have a First Amendment right not to have another's religious belief forced on them? What about women's right of privacy, to determine whether and when to use contraception or terminate a pregnancy? What about a woman's right to be free from workplace discrimination?
Why would we even consider subordinating the fundamental rights of half the population to the religious zeal of a few?
Surely it comes as no surprise to bosses, politicians and jurists that birth control is both universally used and wildly popular in this country. About 99 percent of sexually active women, including about 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women, have used contraception at some point. On average, women use birth control for 30 years over their lifetimes. According to a 2012 poll, 67 percent agree that "all workers should be allowed to access health care services regardless of their employers' beliefs." And 56 percent of voters support the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health care plans cover prescription birth control with no deductibles or co-pays.
A 2012 study conducted at Washington University in St. Louis confirmed that the cost of birth control matters -- a lot. In the four-year study, women and teens in St. Louis were able to select the contraceptive method that was best for them at no cost.
As described by Tara Culp-Pressler of :
Researchers found that when women weren't prohibited by cost, they chose more effective, long-lasting forms of birth control and experienced many fewer unintended pregnancies as a result...Women of reproductive age currently spend about 68 percent more than men do on out-of-pocket health care costs, partly because of high contraception costs -- for example, a year's supply of oral birth control pills typically costs over $1,200 out of pocket. Nearly one in three U.S. women report they have stopped using their preferred contraceptive method, or used it less consistently and effectively, because they could not afford it.
If the benefits of the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health insurance plans include birth control as basic preventive health care aren't already obvious, consider this: According to the Guttmacher Institute, some 95 percent of unintended pregnancies occur to women who did not use contraception consistently and correctly. Knowing the risk of maternal and infant mortality that accompanies unintended pregnancies, who but fanatics actually want to restrict women's ability to access and use contraceptives consistently and correctly?
Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act's birth control requirement doesn't apply to all employers. Religious organizations -- those that predominantly serve and employ members of their faith -- are given carte blanche to withhold birth control from their employees' health insurance. The Little Sisters of the Poor wants to use that exemption but doesn't qualify it because it holds itself out to nonbelievers, providing services and employment without regard to their customers' or workers' religious affiliation, traditions or beliefs.
Nonetheless (in a move my organization strenuously opposed) the Department of Health and Human Services created a special rule for religious hospitals, schools and other organizations like the Little Sisters: They don't have to pay a dime for their employees' birth control coverage. Not one dime.
Their insurance carrier must cover birth control without deductibles or co-pays, but a rabidly misogynist religiously affiliated employer like the Little Sisters can rest easy knowing its money is not being used to protect women's health and lives through access to birth control.
But this special rule isn't enough for the folks who control the Little Sisters of the Poor. It turns out that they don't just want the freedom to practice their religion; they also want the power to impose their religious views on their employees, believers and nonbelievers alike. Including views rejected in practice by the vast majority of their own faith community.
That has nothing to do with morality. It's just unconscionable. Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.
Contraception is basic reproductive health care for women. Basic -- as in life-saving. Unintended pregnancy is a well-known driver of maternal and infant mortality. Women who are able to control the number and spacing of their pregnancies are healthier and, when and if they decide to bear children, so are their kids. Such women are not just physically better off, but psychically as well. There's a lot to be said for being able to trust that your community respects your capacity and your right to plan your own family and make your own health care decisions.
I don't doubt that the individuals who control the Little Sisters of the Poor are entitled to religious freedom. I wish they could recognize that their First Amendment right to practice their own religion doesn't trump women's basic rights. Don't women have a First Amendment right not to have another's religious belief forced on them? What about women's right of privacy, to determine whether and when to use contraception or terminate a pregnancy? What about a woman's right to be free from workplace discrimination?
Why would we even consider subordinating the fundamental rights of half the population to the religious zeal of a few?
Surely it comes as no surprise to bosses, politicians and jurists that birth control is both universally used and wildly popular in this country. About 99 percent of sexually active women, including about 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women, have used contraception at some point. On average, women use birth control for 30 years over their lifetimes. According to a 2012 poll, 67 percent agree that "all workers should be allowed to access health care services regardless of their employers' beliefs." And 56 percent of voters support the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health care plans cover prescription birth control with no deductibles or co-pays.
A 2012 study conducted at Washington University in St. Louis confirmed that the cost of birth control matters -- a lot. In the four-year study, women and teens in St. Louis were able to select the contraceptive method that was best for them at no cost.
As described by Tara Culp-Pressler of :
Researchers found that when women weren't prohibited by cost, they chose more effective, long-lasting forms of birth control and experienced many fewer unintended pregnancies as a result...Women of reproductive age currently spend about 68 percent more than men do on out-of-pocket health care costs, partly because of high contraception costs -- for example, a year's supply of oral birth control pills typically costs over $1,200 out of pocket. Nearly one in three U.S. women report they have stopped using their preferred contraceptive method, or used it less consistently and effectively, because they could not afford it.
If the benefits of the Affordable Care Act's requirement that health insurance plans include birth control as basic preventive health care aren't already obvious, consider this: According to the Guttmacher Institute, some 95 percent of unintended pregnancies occur to women who did not use contraception consistently and correctly. Knowing the risk of maternal and infant mortality that accompanies unintended pregnancies, who but fanatics actually want to restrict women's ability to access and use contraceptives consistently and correctly?
Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act's birth control requirement doesn't apply to all employers. Religious organizations -- those that predominantly serve and employ members of their faith -- are given carte blanche to withhold birth control from their employees' health insurance. The Little Sisters of the Poor wants to use that exemption but doesn't qualify it because it holds itself out to nonbelievers, providing services and employment without regard to their customers' or workers' religious affiliation, traditions or beliefs.
Nonetheless (in a move my organization strenuously opposed) the Department of Health and Human Services created a special rule for religious hospitals, schools and other organizations like the Little Sisters: They don't have to pay a dime for their employees' birth control coverage. Not one dime.
Their insurance carrier must cover birth control without deductibles or co-pays, but a rabidly misogynist religiously affiliated employer like the Little Sisters can rest easy knowing its money is not being used to protect women's health and lives through access to birth control.
But this special rule isn't enough for the folks who control the Little Sisters of the Poor. It turns out that they don't just want the freedom to practice their religion; they also want the power to impose their religious views on their employees, believers and nonbelievers alike. Including views rejected in practice by the vast majority of their own faith community.
That has nothing to do with morality. It's just unconscionable. Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.
↧
No, Obamacare Wasn't a "Republican" Proposal
The filmmaker Michael Moore has, through his fine documentary Sicko and other public arguments, done a great deal to bring attention to the deficiencies of the American health-care system. His New York Times op-ed on the occasion of the first day of the Affordable Care Act's exchanges repeats some of these important points. However, his essay also repeats a pernicious lie: the idea that the Affordable Care Act is essentially a Republican plan based on a Heritage Foundation blueprint. This argument is very wrong. It is both unfair to the ACA and far too fair to American conservatives.
Before explaining why a central premise of Moore's argument is wrong, let me emphasize our points of agreement. It is true that the health-care system established by the ACA remains inequitable and extremely inefficient compared to the health-care systems of every other comparable liberal democracy. Moore, unlike some critics of the ACA from the left, is also careful to note that the ACA is a substantial improvement on the status quo ante: if it's "awful" compared to the French or Canadian or British models, it's a "godsend" for many Americans. Moore also has some sensible suggestions for improving the ACA in the short term—most notably, a public option and state-level experiments in more public health care where it's politically viable.
Where Moore goes wrong is in this paragraph:
What we now call Obamacare was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and birthed in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, then the governor. The president took Romneycare, a program designed to keep the private insurance industry intact, and just improved some of its provisions. In effect, the president was simply trying to put lipstick on the dog in the carrier on top of Mitt Romney’s car. And we knew it.
The assertion that the ACA was "conceived" at the Heritage Foundation is simply false. I say this with no little humility—since Republicans at the national level have never actually favored any significant plan for health-care reform, I thought the content of the Heritage Plan was irrelevant, but didn't think to question claims that it was fundamentally similar to the ACA. When I actually took the time to read the Heritage plan, what I found was a proposal that was radically dissimilar to the Affordable Care Act. Had Obama proposed anything like the Heritage Plan, Moore would have been leading daily marches against it in front of the White House—and I would have been right there with him.
The argument for the similarity between the two plans depends on their one shared attribute: both contained a "mandate" requiring people to carry insurance coverage. But this basic recognition of the free-rider problem does not establish a fundamental similarity between the two plans. Compulsory insurance coverage as a way of preventing a death spiral in the insurance market when regulations compel companies to issue insurance to all applicants is hardly an invention of the Heritage Foundation. Several other countries (including Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany) have compulsory insurance requirements without single-payer or socialized systems. Not only are these not "Republican" models of health insurance, given the institutional realities of American politics they represent more politically viable models for future reform than the British or Canadian models.
The presence of a mandate is where the similarities between the ACA and the Heritage Plan end, and the massive remaining differences reveal the disagreement between Democrats and Republicans about the importance of access to health care for the nonaffluent. The ACA substantially tightens regulations on the health-care industry and requires that plans provide medical service while limiting out-of-pocket expenses. The Heritage Plan mandated only catastrophic plans that wouldn't cover basic medical treatment and would still entail huge expenditures for people afflicted by a medical emergency. The Affordable Care Act contained a historic expansion of Medicaid that will extend medical coverage to millions (and would have covered much more were it not for the Supreme Court), while the Heritage Plan would have diminished the federal role in Medicaid. The ACA preserves Medicare; the Heritage Plan, like the Paul Ryan plan favored by House Republicans, would have destroyed Medicare by replacing it with a voucher system.
The Affordable Care Act was not "conceived" by the Heritage Foundation: the plans are different not in degree but in kind.
Because the Heritage Foundation plan and the ACA are so different, to make his case that the ACA is fundamental plan Moore pulls a subtle bait-and-switch, comparing the ACA not only to the Heritage Plan but to the health-care reform plan passed in Massachusetts. Unlike the Heritage plan, the Massachusetts law is quite similar to the ACA, but as an argument against the ACA from the left this is neither here nor there. The problem with the comparison is the argument that the Massachusetts law was "birthed" by Mitt Romney. What has retrospectively been described as "Romneycare" is much more accurately described as a health-care plan passed by massive supermajorities of liberal Massachusetts Democrats over eight Mitt Romney vetoes (every one of which was ultimately overridden by the legislature.) Mitt Romney's strident opposition to the Affordable Care Act as the Republican candidate for president is far more representative of Republican attitudes toward health care than Romney acquiescing to health-care legislation developed in close collaboration with Ted Kennedy when he had essentially no choice.
In fairness, many liberals repeating the dishonest spin that the ACA was conceived by the Heritage Foundation have good intentions. Some, like Moore, want to emphasize the extent to which American health-care policy remain suboptimal. Some wanted to attack the ad hoc constitutional arguments developed against the individual mandate by noting that conservatives never noticed that the mandate was the greatest threat to human liberty ever conceived when the nominally favored it. But, especially with the constitutional challenge to the mandate having been resolved, the argument that the ACA is the "Heritage Plan" is not only wrong but deeply pernicious. It understates the extent to which the ACA extends access to medical care, including through single-payer insurance where it's politically viable. And it gives Republicans far, far too much credit. The Republican offer to the uninsured isn't anything like the ACA. It's "nothing." And the Republican offer to Medicare and Medicaid recipients is to deny many of them access to health care that they now receive. Progressive frustration with the ACA is understandable, but let's not pretend that anything about the law reflects the priorities of actually existing American conservatives. Reported by The American Prospect 8 hours ago.
Before explaining why a central premise of Moore's argument is wrong, let me emphasize our points of agreement. It is true that the health-care system established by the ACA remains inequitable and extremely inefficient compared to the health-care systems of every other comparable liberal democracy. Moore, unlike some critics of the ACA from the left, is also careful to note that the ACA is a substantial improvement on the status quo ante: if it's "awful" compared to the French or Canadian or British models, it's a "godsend" for many Americans. Moore also has some sensible suggestions for improving the ACA in the short term—most notably, a public option and state-level experiments in more public health care where it's politically viable.
Where Moore goes wrong is in this paragraph:
What we now call Obamacare was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and birthed in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, then the governor. The president took Romneycare, a program designed to keep the private insurance industry intact, and just improved some of its provisions. In effect, the president was simply trying to put lipstick on the dog in the carrier on top of Mitt Romney’s car. And we knew it.
The assertion that the ACA was "conceived" at the Heritage Foundation is simply false. I say this with no little humility—since Republicans at the national level have never actually favored any significant plan for health-care reform, I thought the content of the Heritage Plan was irrelevant, but didn't think to question claims that it was fundamentally similar to the ACA. When I actually took the time to read the Heritage plan, what I found was a proposal that was radically dissimilar to the Affordable Care Act. Had Obama proposed anything like the Heritage Plan, Moore would have been leading daily marches against it in front of the White House—and I would have been right there with him.
The argument for the similarity between the two plans depends on their one shared attribute: both contained a "mandate" requiring people to carry insurance coverage. But this basic recognition of the free-rider problem does not establish a fundamental similarity between the two plans. Compulsory insurance coverage as a way of preventing a death spiral in the insurance market when regulations compel companies to issue insurance to all applicants is hardly an invention of the Heritage Foundation. Several other countries (including Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany) have compulsory insurance requirements without single-payer or socialized systems. Not only are these not "Republican" models of health insurance, given the institutional realities of American politics they represent more politically viable models for future reform than the British or Canadian models.
The presence of a mandate is where the similarities between the ACA and the Heritage Plan end, and the massive remaining differences reveal the disagreement between Democrats and Republicans about the importance of access to health care for the nonaffluent. The ACA substantially tightens regulations on the health-care industry and requires that plans provide medical service while limiting out-of-pocket expenses. The Heritage Plan mandated only catastrophic plans that wouldn't cover basic medical treatment and would still entail huge expenditures for people afflicted by a medical emergency. The Affordable Care Act contained a historic expansion of Medicaid that will extend medical coverage to millions (and would have covered much more were it not for the Supreme Court), while the Heritage Plan would have diminished the federal role in Medicaid. The ACA preserves Medicare; the Heritage Plan, like the Paul Ryan plan favored by House Republicans, would have destroyed Medicare by replacing it with a voucher system.
The Affordable Care Act was not "conceived" by the Heritage Foundation: the plans are different not in degree but in kind.
Because the Heritage Foundation plan and the ACA are so different, to make his case that the ACA is fundamental plan Moore pulls a subtle bait-and-switch, comparing the ACA not only to the Heritage Plan but to the health-care reform plan passed in Massachusetts. Unlike the Heritage plan, the Massachusetts law is quite similar to the ACA, but as an argument against the ACA from the left this is neither here nor there. The problem with the comparison is the argument that the Massachusetts law was "birthed" by Mitt Romney. What has retrospectively been described as "Romneycare" is much more accurately described as a health-care plan passed by massive supermajorities of liberal Massachusetts Democrats over eight Mitt Romney vetoes (every one of which was ultimately overridden by the legislature.) Mitt Romney's strident opposition to the Affordable Care Act as the Republican candidate for president is far more representative of Republican attitudes toward health care than Romney acquiescing to health-care legislation developed in close collaboration with Ted Kennedy when he had essentially no choice.
In fairness, many liberals repeating the dishonest spin that the ACA was conceived by the Heritage Foundation have good intentions. Some, like Moore, want to emphasize the extent to which American health-care policy remain suboptimal. Some wanted to attack the ad hoc constitutional arguments developed against the individual mandate by noting that conservatives never noticed that the mandate was the greatest threat to human liberty ever conceived when the nominally favored it. But, especially with the constitutional challenge to the mandate having been resolved, the argument that the ACA is the "Heritage Plan" is not only wrong but deeply pernicious. It understates the extent to which the ACA extends access to medical care, including through single-payer insurance where it's politically viable. And it gives Republicans far, far too much credit. The Republican offer to the uninsured isn't anything like the ACA. It's "nothing." And the Republican offer to Medicare and Medicaid recipients is to deny many of them access to health care that they now receive. Progressive frustration with the ACA is understandable, but let's not pretend that anything about the law reflects the priorities of actually existing American conservatives. Reported by The American Prospect 8 hours ago.
↧
The nuns' Obamacare contraception lawsuit isn't about religious freedom | Jill Filipovic
Catholic groups claim that filling out a form violates their beliefs. But they really want to mandate that we share the same values
Does religious liberty extend to the right to not have to fill out paperwork? That's the latest position religious organizations are taking against the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It's crazy, yes. But, welcome to the future of "religious freedom" litigation.
On New Years Eve, supreme court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an injunction blocking the Obama administration from implementing the aspect of the ACA known as the "contraception mandate", which requires employee insurance plans to cover a range of preventative women's health needs. The government has until today to respond. The injunction itself is standard legal procedure, and says little about how Sotomayor or the rest of the court will rule on the merits of the case. But the lawsuit itself, and the related suits challenging the contraception mandate, offer an increasingly troubling look at just how far peddlers of far-right ideology will go not just to claim their own right to live according to their beliefs, but to mandate that you and I do the same.
The ACA has a series of outs for religious employers who say medication like contraception violates their moral beliefs. It's essentially three-tied: for-profit organizations have to cover contraception in their health plans; explicitly religious organizations like churches don't have to provide contraception if they believe birth control is morally wrong; and religiously-affiliated non-profits that are neither owned nor controlled by religious groups do not have to provide contraception either, but they have to fill out a form certifying that they are religiously-affiliated, and then a third party administrator makes sure that employees can get contraception if they need it. The third-party administrator, and not the employer, pays for contraception coverage.
In the case that led Sotomayor to issue the injunction, an organization called the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged objected to the ACA's contraception requirement. All the Little Sisters have to do is fill out a form and the organization will be under no obligation to pay for birth control for its many employees – which include home health aides, nurses, administrators and a variety of women who may not be Catholic or, like 98% of sexually active Catholic women, may choose to use a birth control method other than natural family planning – but apparently a form is too great an intrusion on their religious liberty.
Worth noting: the Little Sisters and other groups opposing the ACA contraception mandate claim that the hormonal contraceptives covered function as "abortifacients", preventing an embryo from implanting in the uterus. That may be their sincerely-held belief, but it's not a scientific one. In fact, studies indicate that the methods at issue prevent fertilization, not implantation. But facts and science are no match for faith.
The Becket Fund, a conservative organization representing the Little Sisters, claims (pdf) that the ACA restricts the religious freedom of the Sisters because the Sisters rely on a Catholic insurance company, the Christian Brothers Trust, for their company health insurance. The Christian Brothers Trust doesn't provide coverage for hormonal birth control, IUDs or sterilization.
According to the Becket Fund, the Sisters are stuck between a rock and a hard place: they could continue to participate in the Christian Brothers Trust insurance coverage and refuse to designate the Christian Brothers as a contraception provider, which the Becket Fund says would result in ACA-related fines, or they could designate the Christian Brothers Trust to provide contraception coverage, violating both groups' deeply-held religious beliefs. Alternately, they could drop health coverage all together, which would also put them at risk for fines. Or, they could ditch the Christian Brothers Trust and designate new group insurance coverage, which would cover contraception for employees without making the Sisters pay for or negotiate a single thing, but would again require them to fill out a form that supposedly violates their belief that employees shouldn't be allowed to get contraception.
The Little Sisters aren't paying for contraception even through a third-party-secured insurance plan; they certainly aren't being asked to distribute it, and Catholic nuns aren't being force-fed birth control pills. They simply have to sign a piece of paper saying they're a religious group, and then turn to a third party to negotiate all the details.
Their claim that even this accommodation violates their religious liberty is telling. These ACA-related "religious liberty" arguments aren't actually about the freedom to exercise your own religion, or the right to be free of doing something that violates your conscience. These assertions are about an overwhelming sense of entitlement on behalf of religious organizations to force anyone within their reach to adhere to their beliefs.
After all, the religious groups that oppose contraception have lost the cultural battle – overwhelming numbers of women rely on methods that these groups deem immoral. It's not enough to simply encourage religious adherents to take sexual health advice from celibate old men. They have to use coercion and force.
The Little Sisters case is extra rich because, as it turns out, the Christian Brothers Trust insurance group can refuse to provide contraception and will face no fines or consequences. That's because the Trust is a self-insured "church plan", which means that the Little Sisters can designate the Christian Brothers as the third-party administrators, and if the Brothers still refuse to provide contraception coverage, the government can't fine them (pdf). In other words: the Little Sisters can continue operating exactly as before, and nothing will happen.
The religious cases against the ACA pit two different interests against each other: the desire of religious organizations to have their employees adhere to a set of religious principles, and the interest of women to obtain a full range of basic healthcare. Contraception is one of the most commonly prescribed medications, and the consequences of denying it are stark – lack of contraception access can mean everything from serious health complications to economic hardship to death.
Religious liberty is also of fundamental importance. But religious liberty should end at your own nose, and not entitle you to demand that anyone within your reach adhere to your same principles. It certainly should not give any religiously affiliated organization carte blanche to argue that filling out a form is a substantial burden, and the form requirement itself is tantamount to religious discrimination. The American legal system privileges religious belief over many other kinds of deeply-held moral values, so while this line of argument wouldn't hold up in court, it's still worth asking: how is filling out a form a more substantial burden than, say, having to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket for birth control, or having to travel a substantial distance and spend thousands on an abortion, or raising a child?
All the Little Sisters and religiously affiliated groups like them have to do is fill out a piece of paper. They will not have to pay for or in any way facilitate contraception access to their employees. That's at least less of a burden than a lawsuit. Reported by guardian.co.uk 7 hours ago.
Does religious liberty extend to the right to not have to fill out paperwork? That's the latest position religious organizations are taking against the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It's crazy, yes. But, welcome to the future of "religious freedom" litigation.
On New Years Eve, supreme court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued an injunction blocking the Obama administration from implementing the aspect of the ACA known as the "contraception mandate", which requires employee insurance plans to cover a range of preventative women's health needs. The government has until today to respond. The injunction itself is standard legal procedure, and says little about how Sotomayor or the rest of the court will rule on the merits of the case. But the lawsuit itself, and the related suits challenging the contraception mandate, offer an increasingly troubling look at just how far peddlers of far-right ideology will go not just to claim their own right to live according to their beliefs, but to mandate that you and I do the same.
The ACA has a series of outs for religious employers who say medication like contraception violates their moral beliefs. It's essentially three-tied: for-profit organizations have to cover contraception in their health plans; explicitly religious organizations like churches don't have to provide contraception if they believe birth control is morally wrong; and religiously-affiliated non-profits that are neither owned nor controlled by religious groups do not have to provide contraception either, but they have to fill out a form certifying that they are religiously-affiliated, and then a third party administrator makes sure that employees can get contraception if they need it. The third-party administrator, and not the employer, pays for contraception coverage.
In the case that led Sotomayor to issue the injunction, an organization called the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged objected to the ACA's contraception requirement. All the Little Sisters have to do is fill out a form and the organization will be under no obligation to pay for birth control for its many employees – which include home health aides, nurses, administrators and a variety of women who may not be Catholic or, like 98% of sexually active Catholic women, may choose to use a birth control method other than natural family planning – but apparently a form is too great an intrusion on their religious liberty.
Worth noting: the Little Sisters and other groups opposing the ACA contraception mandate claim that the hormonal contraceptives covered function as "abortifacients", preventing an embryo from implanting in the uterus. That may be their sincerely-held belief, but it's not a scientific one. In fact, studies indicate that the methods at issue prevent fertilization, not implantation. But facts and science are no match for faith.
The Becket Fund, a conservative organization representing the Little Sisters, claims (pdf) that the ACA restricts the religious freedom of the Sisters because the Sisters rely on a Catholic insurance company, the Christian Brothers Trust, for their company health insurance. The Christian Brothers Trust doesn't provide coverage for hormonal birth control, IUDs or sterilization.
According to the Becket Fund, the Sisters are stuck between a rock and a hard place: they could continue to participate in the Christian Brothers Trust insurance coverage and refuse to designate the Christian Brothers as a contraception provider, which the Becket Fund says would result in ACA-related fines, or they could designate the Christian Brothers Trust to provide contraception coverage, violating both groups' deeply-held religious beliefs. Alternately, they could drop health coverage all together, which would also put them at risk for fines. Or, they could ditch the Christian Brothers Trust and designate new group insurance coverage, which would cover contraception for employees without making the Sisters pay for or negotiate a single thing, but would again require them to fill out a form that supposedly violates their belief that employees shouldn't be allowed to get contraception.
The Little Sisters aren't paying for contraception even through a third-party-secured insurance plan; they certainly aren't being asked to distribute it, and Catholic nuns aren't being force-fed birth control pills. They simply have to sign a piece of paper saying they're a religious group, and then turn to a third party to negotiate all the details.
Their claim that even this accommodation violates their religious liberty is telling. These ACA-related "religious liberty" arguments aren't actually about the freedom to exercise your own religion, or the right to be free of doing something that violates your conscience. These assertions are about an overwhelming sense of entitlement on behalf of religious organizations to force anyone within their reach to adhere to their beliefs.
After all, the religious groups that oppose contraception have lost the cultural battle – overwhelming numbers of women rely on methods that these groups deem immoral. It's not enough to simply encourage religious adherents to take sexual health advice from celibate old men. They have to use coercion and force.
The Little Sisters case is extra rich because, as it turns out, the Christian Brothers Trust insurance group can refuse to provide contraception and will face no fines or consequences. That's because the Trust is a self-insured "church plan", which means that the Little Sisters can designate the Christian Brothers as the third-party administrators, and if the Brothers still refuse to provide contraception coverage, the government can't fine them (pdf). In other words: the Little Sisters can continue operating exactly as before, and nothing will happen.
The religious cases against the ACA pit two different interests against each other: the desire of religious organizations to have their employees adhere to a set of religious principles, and the interest of women to obtain a full range of basic healthcare. Contraception is one of the most commonly prescribed medications, and the consequences of denying it are stark – lack of contraception access can mean everything from serious health complications to economic hardship to death.
Religious liberty is also of fundamental importance. But religious liberty should end at your own nose, and not entitle you to demand that anyone within your reach adhere to your same principles. It certainly should not give any religiously affiliated organization carte blanche to argue that filling out a form is a substantial burden, and the form requirement itself is tantamount to religious discrimination. The American legal system privileges religious belief over many other kinds of deeply-held moral values, so while this line of argument wouldn't hold up in court, it's still worth asking: how is filling out a form a more substantial burden than, say, having to pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket for birth control, or having to travel a substantial distance and spend thousands on an abortion, or raising a child?
All the Little Sisters and religiously affiliated groups like them have to do is fill out a piece of paper. They will not have to pay for or in any way facilitate contraception access to their employees. That's at least less of a burden than a lawsuit. Reported by guardian.co.uk 7 hours ago.
↧
Why Medicaid Patients Using the ER More Isn't a Bad Thing
As they argued that we needed to get coverage for the millions of Americans without health insurance, one of the problems advocates pointed to was the fact that many of the uninsured ended up showing up at the emergency room with relatively minor ailments, because they don't have regular doctors they can see and they know the hospital will have to treat them regardless of whether they'll be able to pay. This leads to crowded ERs and lots of uncompensated care, which is bad for everybody. So what happens when you give a bunch of formerly uninsured people Medicaid? According to a new study from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, a unique data set around a randomized experiment made possible a few years back when the state of Oregon distributed new Medicaid enrollments by lottery, people went to the ER more once they got on Medicaid.
Liberals might find this disheartening. But not only is it not all that surprising, it doesn't undermine the case for Medicaid expansion at all.
Keep in mind that this study concerned people with very low incomes in the first 18 months after they got coverage. Why might they go to the ER more often? There are a number of reasons. The most important is that they now know that they have insurance, so they seek all kinds of care, including physician office visits, more. That isn't a bad thing. Second, since they're newly insured, some don't have a longstanding relationship with a doctor, but they know where the hospital is. They're also likely to be working for hourly wages, so going to the doctor during business hours means losing pay. The ER, on the other hand, is open 24 hours and you don't need an appointment.
The best way to understand this study may be as a demonstration of what happens when people with very low incomes who have been uninsured first get coverage. It's possible that over time, their medical use will end up looking much like that of other insured people.
It's also important to remember that the point of getting an individual person insured isn't to save money on that person, particularly in the short run. If somebody never goes to a doctor for their entire life and dies young of a preventable illness, the system has saved money on them, but that's not a good thing. We sometimes forget, as we're talking about health-care costs, that we get something for what we pay on health care: health! Of course we want to make our total costs as low as possible, but one of the most important ways to do that over the long term is to adjust the system so money moves through it in a more sane fashion than it does now.
Recall that when a low-income person who doesn't have insurance goes to the emergency room, they're going to be presented with a huge bill. This bill will be far, far in excess of what the hospital negotiates with insurance companies or programs like Medicaid for the same services, which is why people end up getting charged thousands of dollars for getting a couple of stitches. They'll probably be unable to pay, though the hospital and its debt collectors will hound them, making them miserable. Eventually, the cost will be picked up through a combination of state and local programs that repay the hospital for uncompensated care, with some costs being passed along to everybody else via higher prices. In contrast, when a person with Medicaid goes to the ER, they get care, and Medicaid pays the bill. It's a lot simpler.
Obviously, for something like a kid's ear infection or a broken finger, it makes more sense if people go to a family physician or an urgent-care center than the ER. But in the big picture of health care overspending, insured people going to the ER instead of a slightly cheaper alternative is a drop in the bucket compared to things like needless treatment given to patients in their last weeks of life. And most important, we shouldn't forget that somebody getting medical care when they need it is something to be glad about.
If you want to read more about the context for this study and how we should think about it, see Harold Pollack. Reported by The American Prospect 6 hours ago.
Liberals might find this disheartening. But not only is it not all that surprising, it doesn't undermine the case for Medicaid expansion at all.
Keep in mind that this study concerned people with very low incomes in the first 18 months after they got coverage. Why might they go to the ER more often? There are a number of reasons. The most important is that they now know that they have insurance, so they seek all kinds of care, including physician office visits, more. That isn't a bad thing. Second, since they're newly insured, some don't have a longstanding relationship with a doctor, but they know where the hospital is. They're also likely to be working for hourly wages, so going to the doctor during business hours means losing pay. The ER, on the other hand, is open 24 hours and you don't need an appointment.
The best way to understand this study may be as a demonstration of what happens when people with very low incomes who have been uninsured first get coverage. It's possible that over time, their medical use will end up looking much like that of other insured people.
It's also important to remember that the point of getting an individual person insured isn't to save money on that person, particularly in the short run. If somebody never goes to a doctor for their entire life and dies young of a preventable illness, the system has saved money on them, but that's not a good thing. We sometimes forget, as we're talking about health-care costs, that we get something for what we pay on health care: health! Of course we want to make our total costs as low as possible, but one of the most important ways to do that over the long term is to adjust the system so money moves through it in a more sane fashion than it does now.
Recall that when a low-income person who doesn't have insurance goes to the emergency room, they're going to be presented with a huge bill. This bill will be far, far in excess of what the hospital negotiates with insurance companies or programs like Medicaid for the same services, which is why people end up getting charged thousands of dollars for getting a couple of stitches. They'll probably be unable to pay, though the hospital and its debt collectors will hound them, making them miserable. Eventually, the cost will be picked up through a combination of state and local programs that repay the hospital for uncompensated care, with some costs being passed along to everybody else via higher prices. In contrast, when a person with Medicaid goes to the ER, they get care, and Medicaid pays the bill. It's a lot simpler.
Obviously, for something like a kid's ear infection or a broken finger, it makes more sense if people go to a family physician or an urgent-care center than the ER. But in the big picture of health care overspending, insured people going to the ER instead of a slightly cheaper alternative is a drop in the bucket compared to things like needless treatment given to patients in their last weeks of life. And most important, we shouldn't forget that somebody getting medical care when they need it is something to be glad about.
If you want to read more about the context for this study and how we should think about it, see Harold Pollack. Reported by The American Prospect 6 hours ago.
↧
↧
Start of 2014: The Beginning of the End of Obamacare
*Sotomayor doesn't drop the ball twice on New Year's Eve.*U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor came home Tuesday night to New York City to ceremonially push the button to drop the crystalline orb and lead more than a million revelers in Times Square in celebrating the New Year.
It was her second defining moment of the day and the beginning of 2014.
Soon before her appearance in Times Square, Sotomayor issued an order that temporarily halted one of the most controversial mandates of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) from taking effect on Jan. 1. The requirement would have forced some religious affiliated employers opposed to birth control to provide their employees health insurance that includes contraceptive coverage.
Her order is another indication of just how flawed the ACA is. The implementation of Obamacare, with its tremendous impact on the cost and delivery of medical care to all Americans, now faces major legal objections and procedural problems. These challenges show the need for major legislative reform and judicial restraint in the near future.
Sotomayor's ruling stemmed from an emergency appeal from lawyers of the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged in Denver, a Catholic charitable agency, who had requested and were denied by the Obama Administration an exemption from providing such contraceptive coverage. The Little Sisters' request was similar to exemptions already granted to churches and other religious groups.
Lawyers for the Little Sisters argued that their client faced "draconian fines" of "$100 a day per affected beneficiary" and stated that if they drop their healthcare coverage, "they will be subject to an annual fine of $2,000 per full-time employee after the first 30 employees, and/or face ruinous practical consequences due to their inability to offer a crucial health care benefit to employees."
The Justice Department has until Friday to respond to the Little Sisters' request.
The requirement to provide free contraceptive coverage has already faced opposition from religious groups and employers that lead the Obama Administration to compromise and allow them to opt out from such coverage. But the White House refused to extend the exemption to secular businesses whose owners have religious objections to contraception, such as the craft chain Hobby Lobby.
The Little Sisters controversy highlights the major weakness of Obamacare as a socio-economic means to dictate leftist and feminist behavior, mores and practices for citizens and businesses to follow without choice.
This mindset to readjust the birth control customs of our county was highlighted on Dec. 31 by Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who couched the ACA in empowering sexist terms.
"With the implementation of the ACA, being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition," Sebelius said.
Well, Sotomayor also ensured that on Jan. 1, albeit temporarily, that a religious employer was not going to have to provide nonessential medical coverage that blatantly runs against traditional religious beliefs.
And that ruling spells the true beginning of the end of the ACA as it exists in present form.
The forced payment for contraceptives that are readily and cheaply available on the open market is just one of many inherent weaknesses that promise to bring down Obamacare.
Obamacare still fails to control high medical costs arising from defensive medicine and malpractice litigation. There's also the inherent unfairness and political nature of exemptions already granted to major employers and unions (and even the churches, too), and the failure to break down monopolistic barriers toward healthcare insurance.
The question now is whether Sotomayor and her fellow justices, and the GOP and Congress, too, will drop the ball in limiting the big government aspects of Obamacare and focusing instead on reforming healthcare to improve coverage, reduce cost and making us a healthier nation.
Published in Context Florida on January 3, 2014 Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.
It was her second defining moment of the day and the beginning of 2014.
Soon before her appearance in Times Square, Sotomayor issued an order that temporarily halted one of the most controversial mandates of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) from taking effect on Jan. 1. The requirement would have forced some religious affiliated employers opposed to birth control to provide their employees health insurance that includes contraceptive coverage.
Her order is another indication of just how flawed the ACA is. The implementation of Obamacare, with its tremendous impact on the cost and delivery of medical care to all Americans, now faces major legal objections and procedural problems. These challenges show the need for major legislative reform and judicial restraint in the near future.
Sotomayor's ruling stemmed from an emergency appeal from lawyers of the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged in Denver, a Catholic charitable agency, who had requested and were denied by the Obama Administration an exemption from providing such contraceptive coverage. The Little Sisters' request was similar to exemptions already granted to churches and other religious groups.
Lawyers for the Little Sisters argued that their client faced "draconian fines" of "$100 a day per affected beneficiary" and stated that if they drop their healthcare coverage, "they will be subject to an annual fine of $2,000 per full-time employee after the first 30 employees, and/or face ruinous practical consequences due to their inability to offer a crucial health care benefit to employees."
The Justice Department has until Friday to respond to the Little Sisters' request.
The requirement to provide free contraceptive coverage has already faced opposition from religious groups and employers that lead the Obama Administration to compromise and allow them to opt out from such coverage. But the White House refused to extend the exemption to secular businesses whose owners have religious objections to contraception, such as the craft chain Hobby Lobby.
The Little Sisters controversy highlights the major weakness of Obamacare as a socio-economic means to dictate leftist and feminist behavior, mores and practices for citizens and businesses to follow without choice.
This mindset to readjust the birth control customs of our county was highlighted on Dec. 31 by Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who couched the ACA in empowering sexist terms.
"With the implementation of the ACA, being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition," Sebelius said.
Well, Sotomayor also ensured that on Jan. 1, albeit temporarily, that a religious employer was not going to have to provide nonessential medical coverage that blatantly runs against traditional religious beliefs.
And that ruling spells the true beginning of the end of the ACA as it exists in present form.
The forced payment for contraceptives that are readily and cheaply available on the open market is just one of many inherent weaknesses that promise to bring down Obamacare.
Obamacare still fails to control high medical costs arising from defensive medicine and malpractice litigation. There's also the inherent unfairness and political nature of exemptions already granted to major employers and unions (and even the churches, too), and the failure to break down monopolistic barriers toward healthcare insurance.
The question now is whether Sotomayor and her fellow justices, and the GOP and Congress, too, will drop the ball in limiting the big government aspects of Obamacare and focusing instead on reforming healthcare to improve coverage, reduce cost and making us a healthier nation.
Published in Context Florida on January 3, 2014 Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.
↧
Gov't: Birth control mandate should not be blocked
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration says a Supreme Court justice should stop blocking the new health care law's requirement that some religion-affiliated organizations provide health insurance that includes birth control. Government lawyers say the nuns' insurance is a "church plan" that is not required to provide contraception coverage and has decided not to, so they have no legal basis to complain.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 6 hours ago.
↧
Adding baby to Obamacare health plan isn't easy
There's another quirk in the Obama administration's new health insurance system: It lacks a way for consumers to quickly and easily update their coverage for the birth of a baby and other common life changes. With regular private insurance, parents just notify the health plan.
Reported by msnbc.com 5 hours ago.
↧
11 GOP Attorneys General Criticize Obama For 'Flatly Illegal' Obamacare Fixes
Eleven GOP attorneys general have joined the chorus of Republican lawmakers arguing that the Obama administration’s changes to the Affordable Care Act are “flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law."
The Dec. 26 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius specifically criticizes President Barack Obama's executive decision to give insurance companies another year to continue offering health plans that had been canceled for not meeting ACA standards. That decision came after the political turmoil surrounding hundreds of thousands of canceled insurance plans.
“We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action,” states the letter, authored by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. “The illegal actions by this administration must stop.”
In addition to Morrisey, the attorneys general of Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia cosigned the letter.
The officials argue that Obama’s changes to the ACA were not approved by Congress and exceed the legal limits set in 1985 by Heckler v. Chaney, in which the Supreme Court ruled that some enforcement discretion might be subject to judicial review.
White House press secretary Jay Carney responded to claims that ACA changes exceeded executive power during a daily press briefing in November.
“The secretary’s authority can be used in narrow circumstances to ease implementation short of legislative changes. This is one of those instances,” Carney said. “There are individuals for who[m] the implementation of new consumer protections without a transition will result in a loss of an existing plan even though the law includes a section on the preservation of the right to maintain new coverage.”
Carney argued that the Obama administration’s fixes to the new health law were granted through Congress, comparing the decision to extend canceled policies to the Department of Homeland Security’s 2012 decision to refrain from legal action against undocumented immigrants who meet certain requirements.
“So this type of action was used last year in the administration’s policy on deferred action for childhood arrivals on immigration,” Carney said. “That’s something that DHS did. This is authority that exists for the secretary to use to help smooth the implementation of this policy.
The authors of the legal commentary also took issue with the online implementation of state and federal health care exchanges, citing the vulnerability of personal information and identity theft as critical security and legal issues.
“HHS's regulations continue to ignore the widespread public outcry over the security of consumers' private information throughout the enrollment process on the healthcare exchanges,” the state officials wrote.
The attorneys general outlined a series of policy recommendations to safeguard the health care marketplaces against security threats, including “rigorous background checks on all persons with access to private consumer information.”
*Read the full letter from the group of attorneys general here.*
(h/t The Hill) Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.
The Dec. 26 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius specifically criticizes President Barack Obama's executive decision to give insurance companies another year to continue offering health plans that had been canceled for not meeting ACA standards. That decision came after the political turmoil surrounding hundreds of thousands of canceled insurance plans.
“We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action,” states the letter, authored by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. “The illegal actions by this administration must stop.”
In addition to Morrisey, the attorneys general of Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia cosigned the letter.
The officials argue that Obama’s changes to the ACA were not approved by Congress and exceed the legal limits set in 1985 by Heckler v. Chaney, in which the Supreme Court ruled that some enforcement discretion might be subject to judicial review.
White House press secretary Jay Carney responded to claims that ACA changes exceeded executive power during a daily press briefing in November.
“The secretary’s authority can be used in narrow circumstances to ease implementation short of legislative changes. This is one of those instances,” Carney said. “There are individuals for who[m] the implementation of new consumer protections without a transition will result in a loss of an existing plan even though the law includes a section on the preservation of the right to maintain new coverage.”
Carney argued that the Obama administration’s fixes to the new health law were granted through Congress, comparing the decision to extend canceled policies to the Department of Homeland Security’s 2012 decision to refrain from legal action against undocumented immigrants who meet certain requirements.
“So this type of action was used last year in the administration’s policy on deferred action for childhood arrivals on immigration,” Carney said. “That’s something that DHS did. This is authority that exists for the secretary to use to help smooth the implementation of this policy.
The authors of the legal commentary also took issue with the online implementation of state and federal health care exchanges, citing the vulnerability of personal information and identity theft as critical security and legal issues.
“HHS's regulations continue to ignore the widespread public outcry over the security of consumers' private information throughout the enrollment process on the healthcare exchanges,” the state officials wrote.
The attorneys general outlined a series of policy recommendations to safeguard the health care marketplaces against security threats, including “rigorous background checks on all persons with access to private consumer information.”
*Read the full letter from the group of attorneys general here.*
(h/t The Hill) Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.
↧
↧
Fox News Falsely Claims You Can't Add Baby to Health Insurance Policy Under Obamacare (Video)
Fox News Falsely Claims You Can't Add Baby to Health Insurance Policy Under Obamacare (Video)Health
Politics
TV
Fox News Baby Obamacare
One of the most popular features of Obamacare is a rule that allows children to stay on their parent's health insurance plan until age 26.
However, Fox News tried to scare people this morning by claiming it's more difficult to go through labor than to add a newborn baby to a health insurance plan under Obamacare, if at all (video below).
As MediaMatters.org notes, parents can simply add their children, even babies, to their health insurance plan by contacting their health insurance company.
But because adding kids to your health coverage plan via the Obamacare website, HealthCare.gov, is not possible yet, drama went into full gear on Fox & Friends this morning.
"A lot of people think having a baby's tough," stated co-host Brian Kilmeade." Know what's harder? Under Obamacare, getting that baby insured. So labor might be easier than getting insurance paperwork done."
"You might have a new dependent who's dependent on you and dependent on health care, but right now, you can't put them in on the Affordable Care Act," added co-host Steve Doocy.
However, according to the Associated Press, parents can directly contact their health insurance company "to include the child immediately" on their policy. At some point in the future, parents will have to notify the federal government about their new child and its insurance status.
The Associated Press adds:
Having a baby could increase a family's monthly premiums, but it could also mean that the parents are eligible for a bigger tax credit to help with the cost. Under some circumstances, it could make the child or the family eligible for Medicaid, a safety-net program that is virtually free of cost to low-income beneficiaries.
Sources: Associated Press and MediaMatters.org
1 Reported by Opposing Views 1 hour ago.
↧
Policy & Action year in review
*Policy & Action year in review*
At Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, we fight for stronger consumer-focused legislation and safer products in the marketplace. Last year—2013—was another busy and important year for our organization. Here are some of the highlights of consumer victories over the past 12 months:
*Auto safety: *We joined with other safety advocates in filing a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Transportation for failing to set standards to prevent vehicle backover accidents. which cause more than 200 deaths and 18,000 injuries each year. Congress enacted a law five years ago to require these standards, but after the DOT delayed the standards four separate times, we asked a court to order the agency to promptly set the rules as the law mandates. A court date is pending.
*Energy efficiency and fuel economy: *Ohio lawmakers took up a controversial bill backed by utility companies that would gut the state’s energy-efficiency programs. These programs were designed to save customers money on their utility bills and conserve energy. We rallied our activists in Ohio, who flooded the in-boxes of their representatives with messages opposing the bill. Following our efforts, the legislature decided to cancel hearings on the bill—not once, but twice. This bill will likely resurface again in 2014, but we will keep fighting the good fight.
We also held a special forum on the latest innovations in fuel-efficient cars, where we unveiled a national study (PDF) that found car owners will save thousands of dollars over the lifetime of their new vehicles under the latest fuel economy standards.
*Financial protection:* We generated more than 200,000 signatures, e-mails, and phone calls in support of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the consumer watchdog created to police banks, lenders, and other financial services. When industry lobbyists and lawmakers tried to muzzle the agency and stop Director Richard Cordray from carrying out the CFPB’s mission, we fought back on several fronts, including a telephone town hall meeting to rally people to contact their senators. The Senate ultimately approved Cordray, giving the CFPB its first full-fledged director.
*Food safety: *The Food and Drug Administration banned the use of BPA in infant-formula packaging, following last year’s ban of its use in baby bottles and sippy cups. We continue to lobby to have BPA removed from all food and beverage containers. Following our report on arsenic in apple juice, the FDA proposed a limit on arsenic in apple juice. The FDA also released data showing levels of arsenic found in rice samples, with a pledge to study the long-term effects of arsenic on public health, in response to Consumer Reports' findings on arsenic levels in rice. Also, states are passing laws requiring genetically modified foods to be labeled; Connecticut has one on the books, and Maine and Vermont are close. And so far, we’ve beaten back attempts in Congress to kill country-of-origin labels on supermarket meat.
*Health care: *Health insurance companies can no longer can deny you coverage if you have a preexisting condition, get really sick, or need a lot of care. And this year insurers had to give back $500 million to 8.5 million Americans because the companies spent too much on things such as advertising, overhead and CEO salaries. Half the states expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income working families and adults, with most of the cost covered through the Affordable Care Act. We fought attempts to pass a new bill in Washington state that aimed to lessen accountability for hospital-acquired infections, and we persuaded lawmakers to amend the bill to promote greater transparency and protections. To help people understand how health-care reform impacts them personally, we also launched the free Health Law Helper tool.
*Telecommunications:* A change in federal rules left consumers unable to legally “unlock” their cell phones so they could use a different wireless service on their handset. We pressed companies and regulators to find a solution that would restore the right in order to give customers more flexibility and choices. The Federal Communications Commission recently announced a voluntary industry agreement with major carriers that would give consumers the ability and information to unlock their mobile devices.
In 2014 we'll keep fighting to make sure consumers get a fair shake in the marketplace. We invite you to learn at ConsumersUnion.org.
-This feature is part of a regular series by Consumers Union, the public-policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports. The nonprofit organization advocates for product safety, financial reform, safer food, health reform, and other consumer issues in Washington, D.C., the states, and in the marketplace.-
-Read other installments of our Policy & Action feature.-
*Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers or sponsors on this website. Copyright © 2007-2013 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 16 minutes ago.
At Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, we fight for stronger consumer-focused legislation and safer products in the marketplace. Last year—2013—was another busy and important year for our organization. Here are some of the highlights of consumer victories over the past 12 months:
*Auto safety: *We joined with other safety advocates in filing a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Transportation for failing to set standards to prevent vehicle backover accidents. which cause more than 200 deaths and 18,000 injuries each year. Congress enacted a law five years ago to require these standards, but after the DOT delayed the standards four separate times, we asked a court to order the agency to promptly set the rules as the law mandates. A court date is pending.
*Energy efficiency and fuel economy: *Ohio lawmakers took up a controversial bill backed by utility companies that would gut the state’s energy-efficiency programs. These programs were designed to save customers money on their utility bills and conserve energy. We rallied our activists in Ohio, who flooded the in-boxes of their representatives with messages opposing the bill. Following our efforts, the legislature decided to cancel hearings on the bill—not once, but twice. This bill will likely resurface again in 2014, but we will keep fighting the good fight.
We also held a special forum on the latest innovations in fuel-efficient cars, where we unveiled a national study (PDF) that found car owners will save thousands of dollars over the lifetime of their new vehicles under the latest fuel economy standards.
*Financial protection:* We generated more than 200,000 signatures, e-mails, and phone calls in support of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the consumer watchdog created to police banks, lenders, and other financial services. When industry lobbyists and lawmakers tried to muzzle the agency and stop Director Richard Cordray from carrying out the CFPB’s mission, we fought back on several fronts, including a telephone town hall meeting to rally people to contact their senators. The Senate ultimately approved Cordray, giving the CFPB its first full-fledged director.
*Food safety: *The Food and Drug Administration banned the use of BPA in infant-formula packaging, following last year’s ban of its use in baby bottles and sippy cups. We continue to lobby to have BPA removed from all food and beverage containers. Following our report on arsenic in apple juice, the FDA proposed a limit on arsenic in apple juice. The FDA also released data showing levels of arsenic found in rice samples, with a pledge to study the long-term effects of arsenic on public health, in response to Consumer Reports' findings on arsenic levels in rice. Also, states are passing laws requiring genetically modified foods to be labeled; Connecticut has one on the books, and Maine and Vermont are close. And so far, we’ve beaten back attempts in Congress to kill country-of-origin labels on supermarket meat.
*Health care: *Health insurance companies can no longer can deny you coverage if you have a preexisting condition, get really sick, or need a lot of care. And this year insurers had to give back $500 million to 8.5 million Americans because the companies spent too much on things such as advertising, overhead and CEO salaries. Half the states expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income working families and adults, with most of the cost covered through the Affordable Care Act. We fought attempts to pass a new bill in Washington state that aimed to lessen accountability for hospital-acquired infections, and we persuaded lawmakers to amend the bill to promote greater transparency and protections. To help people understand how health-care reform impacts them personally, we also launched the free Health Law Helper tool.
*Telecommunications:* A change in federal rules left consumers unable to legally “unlock” their cell phones so they could use a different wireless service on their handset. We pressed companies and regulators to find a solution that would restore the right in order to give customers more flexibility and choices. The Federal Communications Commission recently announced a voluntary industry agreement with major carriers that would give consumers the ability and information to unlock their mobile devices.
In 2014 we'll keep fighting to make sure consumers get a fair shake in the marketplace. We invite you to learn at ConsumersUnion.org.
-This feature is part of a regular series by Consumers Union, the public-policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports. The nonprofit organization advocates for product safety, financial reform, safer food, health reform, and other consumer issues in Washington, D.C., the states, and in the marketplace.-
-Read other installments of our Policy & Action feature.-
*Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers or sponsors on this website. Copyright © 2007-2013 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 16 minutes ago.
↧
President Obama's Health Care Wipeout
When most people think of Hawaii, they think of luaus, amazing beaches, and eruptions (the volcanic sort, not Van Halen, unfortunately). But Hawaii has recently sparked some other sentiments, as President Obama has decided to begin the new year in the Aloha State after ending 2013 with Politifact's "Lie of the Year."
His lie to the American people, "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it," has wrought havoc on private health insurance for millions of Americans.
With only 2 million federal and state signups for Obamacare so far, the Obama Administration is still at a net loss of 2.7 million insurance plans because of the 4.7 million cancellation notices.
With such tumult occurring within Obamacare, it's no wonder that a new Associated Press poll shows that "70 percent lack confidence in the government's ability 'to make progress on the important problems and issues facing the country in 2014.'"
To accompany President Obama on his Hawaiian vacation, YG Network has launched a new web video, "Aloha!," in order to draw attention to the fact that Obamacare is hurting millions of Americans and to highlight reports that the "Hawaii Obamacare exchange [is] not fiscally sustainable."
The ad does not portray mere "inside-the-beltway" issues -- the problems with Obamacare are rampant and the American people have taken notice. According to a new poll from YG Network, almost six in ten respondents said that Obamacare will raise their health care costs, and more than eight in ten respondents believe that the law will not increase the availability of medical benefits provided by insurance.
As we look to the rest of 2014, it's important to note that these millions of insurance cancellations are on Americans' minds: nearly six in ten respondents said that it will be an important issue this year. And it's not just the cancellations that will hurt hard-working Americans.
Julie Appleby of Kaiser Health News recently warned that, "If you're one of the 150 million Americans who get health insurance through your job, prepare to pay more." This is not some tiny subset of the population whose concerns President Obama can merely whisk away with a campaign-style rally. On the contrary, this is a serious problem for millions of American families, and it's exacerbated by the Affordable Care Act.
With a plagued rollout, millions of insurance cancellations, and cost increases for hardworking Americans, President Obama will have lots to think about on that long trip back to Washington. Reported by Huffington Post 43 minutes ago.
His lie to the American people, "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it," has wrought havoc on private health insurance for millions of Americans.
With only 2 million federal and state signups for Obamacare so far, the Obama Administration is still at a net loss of 2.7 million insurance plans because of the 4.7 million cancellation notices.
With such tumult occurring within Obamacare, it's no wonder that a new Associated Press poll shows that "70 percent lack confidence in the government's ability 'to make progress on the important problems and issues facing the country in 2014.'"
To accompany President Obama on his Hawaiian vacation, YG Network has launched a new web video, "Aloha!," in order to draw attention to the fact that Obamacare is hurting millions of Americans and to highlight reports that the "Hawaii Obamacare exchange [is] not fiscally sustainable."
The ad does not portray mere "inside-the-beltway" issues -- the problems with Obamacare are rampant and the American people have taken notice. According to a new poll from YG Network, almost six in ten respondents said that Obamacare will raise their health care costs, and more than eight in ten respondents believe that the law will not increase the availability of medical benefits provided by insurance.
As we look to the rest of 2014, it's important to note that these millions of insurance cancellations are on Americans' minds: nearly six in ten respondents said that it will be an important issue this year. And it's not just the cancellations that will hurt hard-working Americans.
Julie Appleby of Kaiser Health News recently warned that, "If you're one of the 150 million Americans who get health insurance through your job, prepare to pay more." This is not some tiny subset of the population whose concerns President Obama can merely whisk away with a campaign-style rally. On the contrary, this is a serious problem for millions of American families, and it's exacerbated by the Affordable Care Act.
With a plagued rollout, millions of insurance cancellations, and cost increases for hardworking Americans, President Obama will have lots to think about on that long trip back to Washington. Reported by Huffington Post 43 minutes ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
