Breast Milk is a Human Right; Stand Together as a Nation to Protect this Right

January 12, 2017, 9:31 am

≫ Next: ACA: A Natural Experiment In Healthcare

≪ Previous: People Are Freaking Out About Donald Trump's L.L. Bean Tweet

$

0

0

All families deserve the support and resources needed to nourish their children the way they choose. Aeroflow Healthcare is supporting the petition to keep these services available to families.

Asheville, NC (PRWEB) January 12, 2017

Women’s preventative care through the Affordable Care Act (or ACA) is on the chopping block as we speak. Currently, women are guaranteed to receive screenings for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and a number of other conditions through their insurance under a set of guidelines within the ACA. Additionally, pregnant and new mothers are covered for services such as breastfeeding support and screening for gestational diabetes, anemia, and Rh incompatibility. If these preventative care requirements are eliminated, millions of women and families will lose access to the care and services they need.

To this end, Aeroflow Healthcare’s Social Media Associate, Meghan Bausone, has created a petition to keep breastfeeding support as a women's preventative care guideline available through the ACA. This petition is fitting with the Aeroflow’s mission - “Ensuring quality care from the first breath of life to the last; we will be there every step of the way.” Aeroflow Healthcare, a medical equipment provider based out of Asheville NC, fully supports continuation of these preventative care rights. Through the Aeroflow Mom & Baby division, Aeroflow provides lactation support, breast pumps and pumping supplies, and assists women in having a successful breastfeeding experience.

Replacement insurance plans may still include preventative care in bits and pieces, but the most vulnerable populations — young mothers and the children they support — will likely be the hardest hit by elimination of these guidelines. In particular, the elimination of breastfeeding support, including coverage of lactation consultants and breast pumps, would be devastating. Breastfeeding strengthens immunities and provides long-term benefits including a reduced risk of diabetes, asthma, and childhood obesity.

On top of all this, breast milk is free, and saves working families from the burden of paying for formula: a cost that can add up to over $2,000 per year. An estimated 89% of women ages 19–64 benefit from a health insurance plan that includes these preventative health measures, which in total reaches up to 98 million Americans.

The pressure to return to work after a new baby arrives is enough for many mothers to throw in the towel on nursing. Breast pumps can be prohibitively expensive for low-income families, and without a reliable pump, the potential for returning to work and continuing to breastfeed is very low. Not being able to afford a breast pump adds more stress to an already difficult season of change and weakens the confidence of parents who only want the best for their children.

Working families are the backbone of our economy, and if we don’t protect the health of our mothers and children, our country will suffer greatly. With all the challenges new parents currently face, this is not the time to create more obstacles.

Show your support by signing the petition below and by calling your Senators and Representatives now to inform them of your concern.

https://www.change.org/p/health-protect-breast-milk-as-a-human-right

Aeroflow Healthcare is a Durable Medical Equipment (DME) provider headquartered in Asheville NC, with service nationwide. The Aeroflow Mom & Baby Division specializes in providing breastfeeding support services to pregnant and nursing women, including helping them to qualify for a breast pump through insurance. To learn more about Aeroflow Breastpumps, visit http://www.breastpumps.aeroflowinc.com or call (844) 867-9890. Reported by PRWeb 9 hours ago.

---

ACA: A Natural Experiment In Healthcare

January 12, 2017, 10:20 am

≫ Next: Consumer Health Alliance Releases Discount Health Care Programs Report

≪ Previous: Breast Milk is a Human Right; Stand Together as a Nation to Protect this Right

$

0

0

As the 115th Congress begins its efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (AAC) while promising "a stable transition to a better health care system", it is timely to review what exactly ACA was able to achieve so far in its 6+ years of existence. And why ensuring access to timely affordable and quality healthcare is critical to this nation's competitiveness and... no pun intended... economic health.

The cost of healthcare is, and continues to be, a principal concern of many US citizens. A recent Gallup poll indicated that healthcare costs top U.S. families' financial concerns; fully 15 percent of Americans stated that healthcare costs were their family's top financial concern. Greater than the 13 percent who considered lack of money/low wages, the 9 percent who worried about not having enough money to pay debts, the 9 percent who worried about college costs, and the 8 percent who considered the costs of owning/renting a home as their top financial priorities.

Who experiences trouble paying medical bills? A recent analysis reminds us that while significant proportions of the uninsured (53 percent) and the disabled (47 percent) are experiencing problems paying medical bills, this is an issue also for those individuals who earn less than $50,000 a year (37 percent) and even those earning $50,000 to $100,000 a year (26 percent). And having private insurance has not been the answer-all, as 26 percent of those who have private insurance with high-deductible plans and one-fifth (19 percent) of people with private insurance overall (19 percent) experienced problems paying medical bills in the past year.

The ACA signed into law March 2010 which among many other actions, expanded access by increasing insurability, and the subsequent June 2012 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the individual mandate while essentially making Medicaid expansion optional for individual states, created a natural experiment on the impact of legislation and insurability on health coverage and wellness outcomes. It is an experiment whose data is still being generated. But what have we learned so far?

Firstly that the ACA, as political and regulatory instrument, has been successful at achieving its immediate objective... that of reducing the number of uninsured. Roughly in the first quarter of 2016, there were 8.6 percent of Americans -- or about 27.3 million people -- who were uninsured, the first time in history that the nation's uninsured rate fell below 9 percent. In 2010, the year that the ACA became law, 48.6 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, lacked health insurance. Thus, passage of the ACA has cut the uninsured rate by almost half and the trend seems to be continuing.

However, it is also clear that between 24 and 27 million American adults remain uninsured, according to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund. A closer look at those who remain uninsured, such as the one drafted by the New York Times, is instructional in the setting of this natural experiment on the impact of legislation and insurability on health coverage. Firstly, they are increasingly Hispanic. In fact, 40 percent of the uninsured today are Hispanic, although the overall uninsured rate among this ethnic group has fallen to 29 percent, from 36 percent in 2013. However, we should also note that being uninsured is not only the problem of ethnic minorities or immigrants, as 41 percent of all uninsured are non-Hispanic Whites.

Almost half of the uninsured are young (ages 19 to 34 years), although again in this group the percentage of uninsured has also decreased, from 28 percent in 2013 to 18 percent currently.

And almost 40 percent of the remaining uninsured have incomes below the federal poverty level (i.e. $24,250 for a family of four), which conversely means that 60 percent of the uninsured do not fall in this category. In fact, as I have commented previously most of the uninsured are employed and work. About 57 percent of Americans who remain uninsured have jobs and most of these (57 percent again) work at small companies with fewer than 25 employees; companies that are exempt from ACA's requirement that employers offer health insurance to their full-time workers or pay a fine.

Finally, and most telling, the uninsured rate among adults with Medicaid-eligible income levels (under 138 percent of poverty) has fallen by half (from 30 percent in 2013 to 17 percent in 2016) in the 30 states and the District of Columbia that had expanded Medicaid at the time of the survey. The uninsured rate in this group of people in states that did not expand Medicaid funding declined only slightly and, at 35 percent, was the rate of Medicaid-eligible adults in expansion states.

Not surprising. A recent study has estimated that 63 percent of the gains by ACA in lowering the uninsured rate were achieved through Medicaid, with the other almost 40 percent attributable to the law implementing premium subsidies for coverage purchased on the newly created insurance exchanges. Thus, is clear that where the full impact of ACA was curtailed, either by regulation or state choice, the number of uninsured remained relatively high despite the availability of federally-managed insurance exchanges.

But what about health outcomes? While it seems now obvious that the implementation of the ACA achieved a significant lowering in the number of uninsured, particularly in states and in industries subject to the full impact of the regulation, what is more important is the answer to the question "Did decreasing the rate of uninsured improve the health of the insured and that of the nation?" And here the data is still scant, but suggestive. In an interesting analysis, Sommers and colleagues compared various health outcomes in two states where Medicaid was expanded under ACA (Kentucky) or Medicaid funds were able to be used to purchase private insurance for low-income adults (Arkansas) vs. a state where no such expansions were allowed (Texas). The investigators noted that by the second year of expansion, Kentucky's Medicaid program and Arkansas's private option, relative to the Texas non-expansion experience, were associated with significant increases in outpatient utilization, preventive care, and improved health care quality; reductions in emergency department use; and improved self-reported health. In another study ACA Medicaid expansions were associated with improved quality of coverage, increased utilization of some types of health care, and higher rates of diagnosis of chronic health conditions for low-income adults.

Thus, while it's too early to tell, and much needs to still be addressed, early results from the ACA 'natural experiment' suggest that it has done what it set out to do. That is, it has resulted in a significantly reduced rate of insured. And there are early, albeit still tenuous, signs that suggest that these reductions in the uninsured rate have resulted in improved individual medical and financial health. But like all experiments this is one whose outcome is not yet a certainty. These are lessons that the 115th Congress, while aiming to repeal ACA, should keep in mind as they craft and roll-out their promised health care reform replacement plan.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 9 hours ago.

Consumer Health Alliance Releases Discount Health Care Programs Report

January 12, 2017, 10:36 am

≫ Next: Aetna Launches $200m Vitality Re VIII Health Insurance Linked ILS

≪ Previous: ACA: A Natural Experiment In Healthcare

$

0

0

First-of-its-kind industry report highlights membership and value discount health care programs bring to consumers and providers.

Frisco, Texas (PRWEB) January 12, 2017

The Consumer Health Alliance (CHA) today released a discount health care industry report and survey which shows that nearly 27 million Americans are members of a non-insurance discount dental or discount vision program.

The report found that for 73 percent of discount vision plan members, a portion is paid for by their employer. For 57 percent of discount dental plan members, a portion of membership is paid for by their employer. These findings indicate that more employers offer discount programs as a supplemental cost-effective benefit in a time of rising health insurance premiums.

"Instead of eliminating their supplemental benefits, many employers are offering and paying for a portion of non-insurance discount health care programs," said Allen Erenbaum, President of CHA. "It helps employers provide a comprehensive package of benefits. It also helps employees and consumers bridge the gaps in insurance, access more affordable services, and save money on out-of-pocket health expenses."

Survey respondents cited, "the cost of services is too high" as the number one reason for not going to the dentist or eye doctor more often (44 percent for dental care, and 42 percent for vision). Non-insurance discount plans typically offer 20 to 60 percent savings off the regular fee of dental and vision procedures, in addition to discounts on many other services, including: chiropractic, hearing, alternative medicine, veterinary care, gym memberships and weight loss programs.

Among the most popular type of discount programs are discount dental plans, also referred to as dental savings plans. More than 60 percent of these plans cost less than $200 for an annual membership—compared to 37 percent of traditional dental insurance policies.

The report, titled, "Discount Health Care Programs: Evolution and Prospects for Continued Growth," features data from a consumer and provider survey which focuses on discount dental plans, discount vision plans, dental insurance and vision insurance. The first-of-its-kind national survey was commissioned by CHA, the national trade association for discount health care programs, and conducted by health care research and consulting firm Leavitt Partners.

Additional information and findings in the report include:· Membership demographics, how discount health care programs work, and the key differences between discount plans and insurance.
· Both consumers and providers report that a majority of members save 40 to 80 percent on dental and vision services, with median savings of 50 to 60 percent.
· Dentists estimate that 11 percent of all dental patients pay for procedures through a discount dental plan.

"Discount health care programs are easy to use, have a low-cost to join, and offer real value for members," said Erenbaum. "These programs are not about replacing medical insurance. They are about getting better prices on many of the supplemental services left out of most available insurance coverage."

"The reality is that discount health care programs have been around for nearly 30 years," added Erenbaum. "Today, these programs are offered by trusted discount plan companies, employers, banks, associations, state and local governments, and more. Meanwhile, programs are regulated in most states."    

As of 2016, 34 states directly regulate discount health care programs, of which 23 require programs to be licensed or registered with the state (typically with the state insurance department). High levels of consumer protection are written into these statutes and enforced by state insurance departments.

To download a complimentary copy of the report, please click here. For more information about CHA, go to http://www.ConsumerHealthAlliance.org.

Survey Methodology
To conduct the survey, Leavitt Partners screened a nationally representative panel of 18,489 consumers for membership in a discount dental or vision program—of which 1,109 qualifying consumers were surveyed online. In addition, nationally representative panels of 525 dental and vision providers participating in a discount provider network were assembled and then surveyed by a contracted call center. The margin of error for the full consumer sample was +/- 2.9 percent.

About the Consumer Health Alliance
The Consumer Health Alliance (CHA) is the national trade association for discount health care programs. Founded in 2001, CHA serves to educate consumers and regulators about the benefits of non-insurance discount health care programs, promote consumer-friendly business practices, and work with state legislators and regulators to ensure that regulation of the industry protects consumers' right to access affordable health care services at discounted rates. Reported by PRWeb 8 hours ago.

Aetna Launches $200m Vitality Re VIII Health Insurance Linked ILS

January 12, 2017, 2:11 pm

≫ Next: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Trickle Downer of the Week

≪ Previous: Consumer Health Alliance Releases Discount Health Care Programs Report

$

0

0

Reported by SeekingAlpha 5 hours ago.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Trickle Downer of the Week

January 12, 2017, 3:51 pm

≫ Next: What Happens To Drug Prices In A Trump Admnistration

≪ Previous: Aetna Launches $200m Vitality Re VIII Health Insurance Linked ILS

$

0

0

 

(Photo: AP/Jacquelyn Martin)

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue speaks at the State of American Business 2015 event in Washington. 

The mood was jubilant in the headquarters of the United States Chamber of Commerce, an impressive stone building that looms across the street from the White House, as longtime president Tom Donohue made his annual “State of American Business” address Wednesday morning.

After eight years of a Democratic president who implemented, in the face of unprecedented levels of political opposition, a series of powerful industry regulations—from Obamacare and Dodd-Frank to the Clean Power Plan, the fiduciary rule, and a new overtime threshold—the GOP has secured full control of the federal government. And the Chamber of Commerce could not be more excited.

“We see a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enact major reforms that could transform the American economy from a low-growth to a high-growth economy,” Donohue pronounced to a room packed full of business leaders. Donohue pledged the chamber would pursue only those policies and reforms that meet its cultish adherence to “growth”—that is, expansive tax cuts and deregulation for corporations, at the expense of workers and consumers. “Growth is a choice—and not always an easy choice,” Donohue continued. “It’s tempting, especially in politics, to put other priorities ahead of growth—priorities that may please the voters or satisfy the demands of one constituency or another.”

Despite initial concerns that a Trump presidency would be hostile to the chamber’s mission of international trade and free markets, Donohue seems—at least outwardly—confident that the White House will be a fruitful partner.

The chamber’s top priority going into the 2017 will be overturning the regulatory executive actions of Obama’s presidency. The chamber, along with most Republicans, wants Trump to immediately undo Obama’s orders and get to work on killing the overtime rule (which doubled the salary threshold), the Clean Power Plan, and Net Neutrality. The chamber also pledged to continue challenging those regulations in the courts.

“There is no justification for the regulatory overkill we have seen over the last eight years,” Donohue said. “An unelected fourth branch of government—the regulatory branch—is holding our small-business sector back while imposing unnecessary costs on larger companies, too.” (Actually, the officials of the “unelected regulatory branch” are appointed by the elected president and confirmed by the elected Congress. If Donohue believes that doesn’t make them a legitimate part of the government, the chamber should oppose all of Trump appointees.)

Donohue particularly singled out Obamacare and Dodd-Frank for repeal. Regardless of how it gets replaced, the group wants Obamacare’s employer mandate abolished, and with it the health insurance tax, the medical device tax, and the Cadillac tax.

The chamber also wants to roll back Obama’s financial regulations stemming from the passage of Dodd-Frank, including rules that limit banks from engaging in certain types of risky speculative investments and that require banks to adhere to stronger capital requirements. Additionally, it wants Congress to undercut the independent power of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

A sweeping attack on financial, labor, health, consumer, and environmental regulations is just the beginning. The chamber also wants a complete neutering of the federal regulatory agencies, through new legislation that would further bog down the rulemaking process with dozens of delaying requirements, and would give Congress near-complete veto power over the executive branch’s regulatory authority.

Of course, a true trickle-down agenda wouldn’t be complete without tax cuts. “A real chance at major tax reform only comes around once in a generation, if you’re lucky,” Donohue said. “We might get lucky this year and next.”

“Tax reform,” of course, is Chamber-speak for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. As a sacrifice at the altar of “growth,” the chamber wants corporate and individual tax rates drastically cut down, capital gains taxes slashed, and wants to permit corporations to bring back, tax-free, the billions in profits they’ve stashed abroad. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is one of the most powerful forces in Washington. In 2016, it spent nearly $80 million on lobbying. During the 2016 election cycle, it spent $30 million on 16 House and Senate races—all of which went to Republicans, the first-ever electoral sweep for the chamber’s picks. In 2017, the chamber could become an even more powerful presence on the Hill, as regulatory rollbacks and tax cuts top the GOP’s agenda.

Donohue also issued a clear threat to Democrats who, in the Senate, could block the most drastic deregulatory measures. “We believe many Democrats will want to be constructively involved as well. After all, 25 Democratic senators are up for re-election in two years,” Donohue pointed out. “That’s one good reason to be constructive rather than obstructive.”

For its strong-armed commitment to gutting business regulations and heaping tax breaks to the top—with blatant disregard for workers, consumers, and the public good—we dub the U.S. Chamber of Commerce our Trickle Downer of the Week.  Reported by The American Prospect 3 hours ago.

What Happens To Drug Prices In A Trump Admnistration

January 12, 2017, 3:40 pm

≫ Next: Early Colorado bills range from tax breaks to protections for oil/gas companies

≪ Previous: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Trickle Downer of the Week

$

0

0

The price of drugs remains out of control, and *President-elect Trump vowed to address high drug prices *during his campaign. But, with the Republican Congress set to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the drug companies are positioned to lose millions of customers with drug coverage. Since Congress does not intend to replace the ACA with equally robust insurance, many people will no longer be able to afford the drugs they need. So, what happens to the price of drugs in a Trump administration?Since passage of the ACA, *the drug industry has seen enormous profits. *Regardless, according to *StatNews*, Pharma is claiming that the ACA didn't help the industry as much as pharmaceutical executives expected. Drug makers had to pay billions in fees under the ACA. They also had to give drug discounts and rebates to people with Medicare through the *Part D drug benefit*.

Still, the ACA gave drug companies 22 million more customers with insurance to cover their drugs. So, the drug companies should be poised to lose significant revenue after the ACA is repealed and Congress imposes fewer requirements on the coverage health insurers offer.

Unfortunately, Pharma still has one card in its pocket. Drugmakers can raise drug prices further to compensate for their loss of customers. In fact, it is hard to imagine that they won't raise prices on many drugs significantly. And, notwithstanding *Trump's recent claim to Time Magazine that he is going to bring down drug prices*, it is equally hard to imagine that the Republican Congress will do what it would take to change this likely scenario.

Speaker Ryan and his Republican allies have never supported legislation that regulates drug prices. And, they are unlikely to repeal *laws that give drug companies monopoly power over prices* for many drugs. The only reason drug companies would not raise drug prices significantly is fear that, if they do, Congress would take some extreme action against them. That seems unrealistic.

Drug companies will also want to make up for the loss of sales that will no doubt come from the Republican leadership's desire to deregulate the health insurance industry. Laws that require insurers to provide more generous drug benefits are not on Speaker Ryan's or his Republican allies' agendas. So, it seems inevitable that *insurers will further restrict access to costly drugs*.

Health insurers would prefer to deter people with costly conditions who tend to use high-cost drugs from enrolling in their plans through a limited formulary or high cost-sharing. Indeed, they have many ways to cherry pick healthier enrollees. To keep premiums down and profits up, they will no doubt revert to using them as much as possible.

If the *Republican leadership opts not to privatize Medicare*, people with Medicare may be in slightly better shape than younger people with insurance. Some believe that even if the ACA is repealed, Congress will keep elements of the law that fill the gap in coverage under the *Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit*, known as the "donut hole." If drug costs continue to rise, however, it's a good bet that Pharma will benefit far more than older adults and people with disabilities.

If you want Congress to keep its hands off Medicare, *please sign this petition*. To date, *more than one million petitions have been delivered *to Congress**. Congressional Democrats are vowing to fight Medicare cuts.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.

Early Colorado bills range from tax breaks to protections for oil/gas companies

January 12, 2017, 4:34 pm

≫ Next: Just 3 Things

≪ Previous: What Happens To Drug Prices In A Trump Admnistration

$

0

0

While bills that would shut down Colorado’s health-insurance exchange and jump-start the process of construction-defects reform stole most of the attention on the first day of the 2017 legislative session Wednesday, elected officials from the House and Senate introduced 118 first-day bills overall, including quite a few that will affect business owners significantly. The measures affect everything from the amount of business personal property tax that companies pay, to the amount of time executives… Reported by bizjournals 2 hours ago.

Just 3 Things

January 12, 2017, 4:44 pm

≫ Next: St Louis archbishop foresees dire effects of proposed abortion law

≪ Previous: Early Colorado bills range from tax breaks to protections for oil/gas companies

$

0

0

Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

**Consumer Debt Surges In November**

Last week, I addressed the issue with consumer spending and the issue of consumer debt. To wit:



“Given the lack of income growth and rising costs of living, it is unlikely that Americans are actually saving more. *The reality is consumers are likely saving less and may even be pushing a negative savings rate.*

 

I know suggesting such a thing is ridiculous. However, the BEA calculates the saving rate as the difference between incomes and outlays as measured by their own assumptions for interest rates on debt, inflationary pressures on a presumed basket of goods and services and taxes. *What it does not measure is what individuals are actually putting into a bank saving or investment account. *In other words, the savings rate is an estimate of what is ‘likely’ to be saved each month.

 

However, as we can surmise, *the reality for the majority of American’s is quite the opposite as the daily costs of maintaining the current standard of living absorbs any excess cash flow.* This is why I repeatedly wrote early on that falling oil prices would not boost consumption and it didn’t.”



As shown in the chart below, consumer credit has surged in recent months and exploded in November rising $24.5 billion in the month alone.

More importantly, while consumer credit continued to# expand, PCE and Wages remain primarily stagnant.



“Here is another problem. While economists, media, and analysts wish to blame those ‘*stingy consumers’ for not buying more stuff, *the reality is the majority of American consumers have likely reached the limits of their ability to consume. *This decline in economic growth over the past 30 years has kept the average American struggling to maintain their standard of living.”*



As more evidence of consumer’s struggling to maintain their standard of living, while consumer credit has continued to climb, retail sales remain weak as shown below.

And as the astute Greg S. pointed out yesterday:



YoY % change in $ amount of consumer delinquencies is disturbing.@LanceRoberts @RaoulGMI @ttmygh https://t.co/sl4aGY5lDS #FRED @stlouisfed

— Greg S., CFA (@GS_CapSF) January 11, 2017



Rising credit and delinquency rates combined with stagnant wage growth and you have a wicked brew being mixed for the economy. Furthermore, once you strip out surging health care related costs the strength witnessed in economic and inflation related reports as of late seem much less optimistic. (This is an issue I have repeatedly warned of over the past several years.)

Despite surges in optimism, with roughly 70% of the economy dependent upon the consumer, the ability of consumers to continue leveraging consumption is limited. *As wage growth continues to stagnate, except for the top 20% of those employed, economic growth will likely remain sluggish which suggests the recent surges in optimism, as I will discuss in a minute, will likely fade as “Trump-uberence” reconnects with “economic realities.”*

**NFIB Optimism Explodes**

Besides the surge in consumer debt, *optimism has also exploded since the Presidential election. In the latest NFIB Small Business Survey, respondent’s confidence surged to levels only seen twice before in history.* Interestingly, this surge comes nearer the end of a long economic cycle versus a more expected post-recessionary rise seen previously. (In many cases, as noted by the vertical dashed lines, sharp spikes in confidence have coincided with short to intermediate-term market peaks.)

However, while the spike in confidence is certainly encouraging there are a couple of aspects about the survey that should be considered.

1. *Small business owners TEND to be more conservatively biased* politically speaking. Therefore, it is not surprising the “Trump win” has lifted their spirits.
2. Given that regulations, taxes and the Affordable Care Act have weighed heavily on small business owners, the *“hope” for any relief is certainly reason for a rise in expectations.*
3. *The survey sample was the smallest* of the entire year consisting of just a little more than 600 respondents.

Furthermore, if we use a 12-month average of the survey to smooth out the volatility, a very different picture emerges and one that is likely far more consistent with the current state of the economy.

Importantly, “expectations” have tended to run well ahead of reality. As shown below while spikes in expectations have corresponded to short-term rises in economic activity, such increases have generally been very short-lived. *This time around a much stronger dollar, rising interest rates, and plenty of potential policy missteps could quickly reverse “exuberance” back to “reality.” *

Increases in confidence are one thing, but actually committing capital to projects, expenditures, equipment and further employment are based on actual increases in demand, not hope.

For evidence of demand, we can look at sales “expectations” versus actual “sales.” Not surprisingly, since the election, “expectations” of increased sales have surged. *However, “actual sales” have been on the decline for several months due to the constriction of consumer demand due to increased debt and weak wage growth as noted above. *

This also shows up in actual real, inflation adjusted, retail sales data which shows little momentum.

While the surge in “optimism” is certainly welcome, there is a function of an economic cycle that must be dealt with. As I discussed previously:



“It is not just tighter monetary policy weighing on fiscal policy changes but the economic challenges as well. *As my partner Michael Lebowitz recently pointed out – ‘this ain’t the 1980’s.’*

 

‘Many investors are suddenly comparing Trump’s economic policy proposals to those of Ronald Reagan. *For those that deem that bullish, we remind you that the economic environment and potential growth of 1982 was vastly different than it is today.’*

 

*This also isn’t 2009 where economic activity and consumption is extremely depressed which gives tax cuts, incentives and regulatory reforms have a much bigger impact on economic and earnings growth.*

 

Will “Trumponomics” change the course of the U.S. economy? I certainly hope so.

 

However, as investors, we must understand the difference between a “narrative-driven” advance and one driven by strengthening fundamentals. *The first is short-term and leads to bad outcomes. The other isn’t, and doesn’t.”*



**So Does Policy Uncertainty**

While optimism and confidence has certainly surged over the last couple of months, something else has as well – *policy uncertainty.*

As I stated above, the surge in optimism from consumers, investors, and business owners has certainly lifted spirits, it hasn’t translated into fuel for economic growth as of yet. *Interestingly, as Nick Timiraos from the WSJ notes, with free-trade adversaries on one side of his economic team and market-oriented advisers from the Washington and Wall Street establishments on the other, Donald Trump has charted an unpredictable course.*



“*A flat organizational structure could set these and other individuals against each other as they compete for Mr. Trump’s support.* Uncertainty about his economic agenda is heightened by how Mr. Trump, who has never held public office,* has changed his mind on some policy issues while saying little about others.*

 

*Tensions are already surfacing now that Mr. Trump must translate campaign promises into a governing agenda.* Mr. Trump, and other Republican lawmakers, are voicing *concerns over how quickly to advance a repeal of Mr. Obama’s health-care overhaul, which could boost deficits and leave millions without health insurance.* The new administration also may ask for billions of dollars for border security after Mr. Trump repeatedly promised to make Mexico shoulder the cost of new security measures.

 

The nucleus of Mr. Trump’s economic team consists of two financiers, Mr. Cohn and Treasury secretary-designate Steven Mnuchin, who in 1994 both became partners at Goldman. They haven’t weighed in on the pitched partisan policy battles of the past decade, *making them more of a tabula rasa who advisers say can translate into policy Mr. Trump’s fusion of traditional GOP support for lower taxes and fewer regulations* with his calls to brand China as a currency manipulator and spend more on infrastructure.

 

*The elevation of Goldman Sachs alums also stands in contrast to Mr. Trump’s pointed attacks on the investment bank in last fall’s campaign.* In addition to Messrs. Cohn and Mnuchin, the transition team is considering Jim Donovan, a senior Goldman executive, to serve as undersecretary of domestic finance, a top Treasury Department post.

 

*Perhaps the starkest example of policy idiosyncrasy comes with Mr. Trump’s pick for budget director, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R., S.C.), a committed deficit hawk. He has been deeply critical of Republicans who have sought higher spending and spoke skeptically of Mr. Trump’s infrastructure-spending push just weeks after the November election.*

 

Throughout the campaign, *Mr. Trump championed more spending on everything from the military to infrastructure, veterans’ health care and border security while he also brushed aside calls to address to long-run solvency of popular benefit programs such as Medicare and Social Security.*

 

*One question now is whether Mr. Mulvaney will prevail on Mr. Trump to rein in his big-spending agenda, or whether he might be tasked by Mr. Trump to sell a short-term boost in federal outlays to his fellow, skeptical House conservatives.*

 

The organizational structure ‘may leave everyone guessing about who holds ultimate sway,’ said Jeb Mason, a Treasury Department official in the George W. Bush administration.”



Importantly, with economic growth anemic, consumers stretched and an economy heading into one of the longest post-recessionary expansions on record, *there is little room for a policy misstep at this juncture.*

Maybe Trump will be wildly successful and the economy will come roaring back. That is a possibility.

But there is also the risk it won’t.

Optimism is one thing. Your personal capital and financial health is quite another.

Just some things I am thinking about. Reported by Zero Hedge 2 hours ago.

---

St Louis archbishop foresees dire effects of proposed abortion law

January 12, 2017, 2:07 pm

≫ Next: U.S. judge blocks rule on financial assistance for dialysis patients

≪ Previous: Just 3 Things

$

0

0

St. Louis, Mo., Jan 12, 2017 / 03:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Giving civil rights protection to abortion would undermine respect for life and threaten the religious freedom of Catholic institutions, the Archbishop of St. Louis has said in a strong criticism of a proposed city bill.

“City ordinances should respect all people, including women facing unplanned pregnancies, unborn children, and people who desire to live their lives in accordance with their religious convictions,” Archbishop Robert J. Carlson said Jan. 10.

“Protection and care for human life at all stages of development from conception until natural death is a fundamental moral value shared by Catholics as well as many other people of faith,” he added.

The bill would add “reproductive health decisions” to the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance concerning housing and employment. If the proposal becomes law, the city Civil Rights Enforcement Commission would be empowered to consider complaints.

Archbishop Carlson said the bill is “vague and ambiguous” and could pose “terrible consequences” for religious institutions.

“For example, a Catholic school or Catholic Charities agency could be fined by the City of St. Louis for not employing persons who publicly promote practices such as abortion,” he said. Catholic institutions could also be fined for refusing to cover abortion in employee health insurance plans.

“This proposed ordinance seeks to make St. Louis a sanctuary city for abortion, an act that kills innocent unborn children,” the archbishop added. “This is not what our city should stand for; rather, St. Louis should be a sanctuary for life and compassion, especially compassion for mothers and their developing children.”

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen’s proposed city ordinance, Board Bill 203, specifically protects decisions “related to the use or intended use of a particular drug, device or medical service, including the use or intended use of contraception or fertility control or the planned or intended initiation or termination of pregnancy.”

Archbishop Carlson charged that the bill would “force the people of St. Louis to be complicit in the profound evil of abortion.”

“This would be a flagrant violation of religious liberty and individual rights of conscience,” he said, urging St. Louis citizens to oppose the proposal.

Alderman Megan-Ellyia Green, the bill sponsor, said the amendment would clarify that women “should be free to make reproductive choices they want to make without consequences from their employer or landlord,” the St. Louis Post-Dispatch says.

According to Green, the bill would not limit a religious institution from firing an employee who advocates abortion.

Archbishop Carlson, however, was adamant, saying the Archdiocese of St. Louis “cannot and will not comply with any ordinance like Board Bill 203 that attempts to force the Church and others to become unwilling participants in the abortion business.”

“There is no room for compromise on such a matter. This is a matter of fundamental religious and moral beliefs,” he said.

The archbishop added that archdiocese would help provide spiritual and material assistance to all in need, “especially the poor and those women facing crisis pregnancies who feel they have no one else to turn to for help.”

The bill is pending before the Housing Committee, though no hearing has been set. Reported by CNA 5 hours ago.

U.S. judge blocks rule on financial assistance for dialysis patients

January 12, 2017, 3:48 pm

≫ Next: CVS Boosts Access To EpiPen Rival That's 83 Percent Less

≪ Previous: St Louis archbishop foresees dire effects of proposed abortion law

$

0

0

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Thursday put on hold a new federal rule that dialysis providers have said would prevent dialysis patients from using charitable assistance to buy private health insurance. Reported by Reuters 3 hours ago.

CVS Boosts Access To EpiPen Rival That's 83 Percent Less

January 12, 2017, 6:13 pm

≫ Next: 5 tips for first-time income tax filers

≪ Previous: U.S. judge blocks rule on financial assistance for dialysis patients

$

0

0

Families who rely on an epinephrine auto-injector to prevent life-threatening allergic reactions now have a more cost-effective option.

CVS, the national pharmacy chain, will begin widely stocking the authorized generic version of Adrenaclick, an auto-injector that dispenses epinephrine. The package of two pens costs $109.99. That’s significantly cheaper than the controversial EpiPen, which now costs $649.99 for a two-pack and $339.99 for a generic version of the EpiPen two-pack.

People who qualify can get the CVS auto-injector price reduced even further if they use a coupon from Impax Laboratories (the creator of Adrenaclick), which offers a $100 discount per pack for up to three packs. 

CVS’ splashy news is just one of many signs that the health care industry is beginning to self-regulate as outrage over costs mount. Some pharmaceutical companies are pledging to limit annual price increases to under 10 percent, while a handful of state Medicaid programs are dropping coverage of brand-name epinephrine auto-injectors like EpiPen and Adrenaclick unless a patient gets authorization first. 

Five months ago, there was uproar over EpiPen’s 500 percent price hike, when it rose from $100 for a two-pack in 2009 to more than $600 in 2016. The public reaction forced manufacturer Mylan Pharmaceuticals to expand its coupon program and launch its first-ever generic version of the pen injector. 

“EpiPen is based on a century-old drug and a 40-year-old auto-injection technology, and there’s no reason it should cost $600 or even $300-plus,” said Peter Maybarduk, director of the Access to Medicines program at the consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen. 

Maybarduk praised CVS for its decision to stock a low-cost competitor to the EpiPen and said it was an example of the power of market competition to reduce drug prices.

“The most effective way of bringing prices down is through competition,” he said. “We need players like CVS and others to step in and work with alternatives to provide countervailing pressure on price through competition.”

Indeed, one of the EpiPen’s main competitors, the Auvi-Q, was recalled over inaccurate dosage issues in October 2015, which helped cement EpiPen’s place as one of the only options for people with life-threatening allergies. 

During his first news conference as president-elect, Donald Trump expressed a similar viewpoint, promising to take aim at pharmaceutical companies by creating “new bidding procedures.” This could mean allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with companies. Medicare is currently barred from doing this.

Not everyone will be able to make the switch 

While the wide availability of the Adrenaclick generic could mean a huge discount for the more than 4 million Americans who need to keep an injectable source of epinephrine with them at all times, it’s important to note that not everyone may be able to make the switch. 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not consider differing brands of epinephrine auto-injectors to be therapeutically equivalent to each other, despite the fact that they administer the same active ingredients in the same doses. This is because some, like the EpiPen and Adrenaclick, have injectors that work in slightly different ways from each other. Because of this classification, patients can’t easily substitute a cheaper pen for the brand they are prescribed unless they live in a state that has changed its own regulations to allow it. Alan Sager, professor of health law, policy and management at the Boston University School of Public Health, criticized the FDA’s drug classifications on this matter, calling the protections “anti-competitive.”

Because of this regulatory wrinkle, CVS is letting doctors know that the Adrenaclick generic is newly available at their pharmacies. Doctors can either write a prescription for an “epinephrine auto-injector” so patients can have access to the cheaper pen, explained a CVS spokeswoman, or CVS can reach out to a patient’s doctor to ask for permission to change the prescription if the patient requests it. 

CVS Pharmacy said it made this decision partly in response to public outcry over the skyrocketing cost of the EpiPen, but USA Today notes that the move could also be a sign of CVS’ expanding clout in negotiations with drugmakers, all in an effort to maintain competitive drug pricing compared with other national pharmacy chains. 

This is just one ‘drop in the bucket’  

Sager was much more skeptical about the move. Sager praised CVS’ decision to stock epinephrine auto-injectors that were much cheaper than the industry standard, but he also called it a “drop in the bucket” and said that, on the whole, the promise of market competition to lower drug prices is hollow.  

“We’ve been hearing about market forces pushing down drug prices for decades. Anybody see much progress?” Sager asked. “This one action will help some companies’ public relations, but it doesn’t signal more affordable meds.”

Soaring drug prices, coupled with the proliferation of high-deductible health insurance plans, are an increasing financial burden on the American people. Americans pay more for prescription drugs than people in any other country, and costs are continuing to rise. The reasons for this are complex, but one oft-stated reason is that U.S. pharmaceutical companies rely on the profits they earn from American patients to invest in the research and development of more drugs. President Barack Obama discussed this issue in a recent interview with Vox’s Ezra Klein and Sarah Kliff in which he called other countries who benefit from U.S. pharmaceutical innovation “free riders” on a system that American patients subsidize.

About eight in 10 Americans think that prescription drug prices are unreasonable, according to a September poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The survey respondents supported various cost-cutting measures, including drug importation, independent oversight and price regulation, to reduce costs. 

Sager is one of those Americans. To address the “free rider” problem, as Obama put it, Sager is in favor of a cost-sharing scheme among middle- and high-income democracies to more fairly distribute the burden of pharmaceutical research. He also hopes that the U.S. can start to enforce many of the other levers that other rich countries use to keep costs down, such as price caps on medicine.

“There are so many millions of Americans who continue to suffer, worry and even die prematurely because they can’t afford the meds their doctors prescribe,” Sager concluded. “It’s an intolerable tragedy, and we need to move on that very, very quickly.”
This reporting is brought to you by HuffPost’s health and science platform, The Scope. Like us on Facebook and Twitter and tell us your story: scopestories@huffingtonpost.com.  

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 44 minutes ago.

5 tips for first-time income tax filers

January 13, 2017, 9:58 am

≫ Next: Personalized IRS Letters Nudge Uninsured to Get Coverage

≪ Previous: CVS Boosts Access To EpiPen Rival That's 83 Percent Less

$

0

0

This article was written by PolicyGenius staff writer Paul Sisolak.

Tax time is here, and if this will be your first time filing paperwork for Uncle Sam, it can trigger dreaded thoughts of drowning in confusing paperwork, and then, after filling out something incorrectly, owing the IRS every cent to your name.

Not only is this worst case scenarios highly unlikely, in reality, filing your taxes is easier than you might think. All it takes is some prep work and gathering up the right basic information so you don't miss out on money you could be saving, not paying.
*What tax forms do I need to file my taxes?*
There are dozens of IRS tax forms, but to file your income taxes for the first, you'll only need these main documents:

*Form W-2 *

If you've been on the payroll of one or more employers this last year, you should be receiving a W-2 from each one. It will list all of your wages and earnings for 2016, plus any state and federal taxes paid from that particular employer. Your W-2 isn't a form you need to fill out; it's an informational form that you'll need to refer to when filling out your income tax return.

*Form 1099*

If you're a freelancer or independent, non-salaried contractor, you will receive a 1099 form from each client or employer you've been paid more than $600 in wages during the calendar year. Your 1099 form will list all of your annual gross earnings, but won't list any taxes deducted. Like the W-2, there's nothing to fill out or submit on your 1099; the information on it is provided for you for filing purposes.

*Form 1098*

Mortgage and student loan borrowers will need form 1098 to declare interest deductions on their payments. For home loan holders, you'll receive a standard 1098; for student loan holders (federal and private), the 1098-E is what you'll need.

*Form 1040*

Your 1040 is the form you'll use to file your tax return, where you'll list the income you've earned over the last year. This information is used to determine if you'll owe taxes or receive a tax return. In some circumstances, filers with zero dependents, single/married people filing jointly, or people who earn less than $100,000 can submit a simpler 1040EZ to the IRS. If you plan on claiming any deductions (more on that below), you'll need to complete a 4506T-EZ, a request form to obtain your 1040. You can get a copy direct from the IRS.

Your tax forms -- namely, W-2s or 1099s from employers -- have a due date of January 31 and should be postmarked and mailed to you before that date. However, if you haven't received yours by that time, don't assume it wasn't sent. It could be mixed up with other pieces of mail, or you may have at some point inadvertently specified paperless statements from the IRS, and your W-2 has been sitting in your email inbox the entire time. If for any reason you haven't received your W-2s, 1099s, or 1098s by the due date (or if there's erroneous or incorrect information on them), this guide will take you through the steps of following up with your employer(s) and the IRS, is necessary.
*What deductions should I be on the lookout for?*
Tax deductions are one way to reduce your taxable income. By reducing or adjusting your gross income, your net income is lowered, meaning you'll have fewer taxes to pay. In general, you can choose to file your deductions as standard or itemized.

Standard deductions are at a fixed dollar amount that help reduce the amount of taxes you'll pay. It's a way of bundling together you deductions together. Going the standard deduction route won't save you the most money on your taxes, but will save you time as you file. For 2016, tax filers under 65 can claim these standard deduction amounts:
· Single/married filing separately: $6,300· Married filing jointly or widowed: $12,600· Head of household: $9,300
You can also itemize your deductions line by line if they total more than going the standard deduction route, but you'll need to calculate each deduction individually. More than one-third of filers itemize their deductions. Tax deductions, both standard and itemized, range from the obvious to the obscure, but here are some common ones to start off with:
· *Mortgage interest*: This is where your 1098 form comes in handy. If you have a home loan, you can deduct the interest you make on your loan repayments, significantly reducing the amount of income taxes you'll owe this year.· *Medical/dental expenses*: If doctor's or dentist's expenses have exceeded 10 percent of your adjusted gross income, you can claim them as a tax deductions. These deductions can include everything from travel expenses to and from the doctor's office, medical equipment and supplies, and select uninsured, out-of-pocket expenses.· *Charitable donations*: Contributions and donations to nonprofit organizations and charities are eligible for tax deductions. When preparing your tax return, gather up receipts of cash and check donations you've made throughout the year. You may also be able to make a charitable deduction for the fair market value of goods donated.· *College loan interest*: Paying down your student loan interest while you're still in school is a way to reduce your debt in advance, but whether you're paying off your loans before or after graduation, you can file for a tax deduction on your interest, as well as the cost of your tuition and associated fees.*Should I do my taxes on my own or get help with them?*
Handling your taxes on your own for the first time takes time and patience. It's estimated that you'll need to set aside 16 hours to complete your tax returns from start to finish, roughly two full days of full-time work. Some people may prefer having a hand in every aspect of their tax filing process, and today, it's become easier with downloadable tax forms from the IRS and e-filing software to get the job done.

Hiring a professional ensures that your taxes will be filed in good hands, taking any of the guesswork (and legwork) out of going the DIY route. Plus, a tax professional can give you advice on deductions to make and other money-saving income tax filing hacks that you might not have thought of yourself. However, this won't come cheap; the average cost to hire a tax preparer is $273, and a slightly reduced $159 without itemized deductions, according to the National Society of Accountants. What you pay for convenience and expertise can cut into your tax refund, so weigh your options.
*How do I file my taxes?*
Filing your taxes is free, but some tax prep software will cost you a bit if you decide to e-file on your own. Our favorites are Intuit's TurboTax ($54.99 retail); H&R Block's e-filing software ($26.24 with 25 percent discount at checkout); TaxAct ($14.99); and TaxSlayer ($12.99). You can't go wrong with any of these user friendly services to guide you through the often labyrinthian maze of filing your taxes.

Or you could seek out tax professionals who are officially certified or accredited. A Certified Public Accountant with a Personal Financial Specialist, or PFS, designation and current licensure are titles to look for, as well as accredited tax advisers and preparers. Searching through the National Association of Tax Professionals database or the IRS' Directory of Federal Tax Return Preparers with Credentials and Select Qualifications are good places to start.

Tax filers will also want to interview candidates before hiring a professional to see what level of service or specialty they can provide; a full-service tax preparer will be able to calculate your taxes, fill out the forms and file the entire return in one (seemingly) fell swoop, though you may only need assistance with a portion of it. How much will they charge? Always check their credentials against resources like the American Institute of CPAs or other professional tax associations -- or even a simple Google search -- to see if customer complaints or past negative history with the IRS steers you clear of working with them or avoiding a tax scam in the making.
*What else should I know?*
Get to know the unique tax climate where you live. Your home state may have exemptions or exceptions that other states don't -- and if you're unaware of them, you might end up paying more in taxes than you'd hoped or projected.

For instance, did you know that New York City residents pay city and state income taxes? Or that states like Alaska, Nevada and Texas don't charge individual income taxes? Florida has no state property taxes, but homeowners in the Sunshine State will need to remember that high local property taxes are still levied. Several other states, as well as Washington, D.C. also charge estate taxes. If you've inherited property or assets from a deceased family member or loved one, you may owe the government taxes on the property's value.

While filing your own taxes for the first time may seem daunting, it's a prospect that comes down to a matter of perspective. By doing some research in advance of the forms and information you'll need, the resources you can tap into, and the tax professional help at your disposal, tax filing doesn't need to be a taxing experience.*****PolicyGenius is rethinking insurance from the consumer's perspective - because it's about time somebody did. We're making it easy to learn about, shop for and buy insurance. Our digital insurance advisor and online quote engines for life insurance, health insurance, pet insurance, renters insurance and long-term disability insurance will help you to get the coverage you need.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.

Personalized IRS Letters Nudge Uninsured to Get Coverage

January 13, 2017, 12:01 pm

≫ Next: Personalized IRS letters nudge uninsured to get coverage

≪ Previous: 5 tips for first-time income tax filers

$

0

0

WASHINGTON—If you haven’t signed up for health insurance, you may soon be getting a not-too-subtle nudge from the taxman.

The IRS is sending personalized letters to millions of taxpayers who might be uninsured, reminding them that they could be on … Reported by Epoch Times 7 hours ago.

Personalized IRS letters nudge uninsured to get coverage

January 13, 2017, 11:58 am

≫ Next: House Passes Budget Resolution Clearing Path For Obamacare Repeal

≪ Previous: Personalized IRS Letters Nudge Uninsured to Get Coverage

$

0

0

The administration is counting on IRS reminders to help sign up as many people as possible before open enrollment ends Jan. 31. Letters bearing the IRS logo will be sent to an estimated 7.5 million people who either claimed an exemption from the law's requirement that most Americans carry health insurance, or who paid a penalty for being uninsured during the 2015 tax year. The coverage requirement was included in the law as a way to get healthy people into the insurance pool, helping to keep premiums in check. "People receiving these letters have already made up their minds about Obamacare when they applied for an exemption or paid a penalty," said House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas. Supporters of the health care law say research has shown that many people who remain uninsured are still unaware that they can go to HealthCare.gov and qualify for government subsidies to help pay their premiums. Reported by SeattlePI.com 8 hours ago.

House Passes Budget Resolution Clearing Path For Obamacare Repeal

January 13, 2017, 12:44 pm

≫ Next: U.S. House takes first step toward Obamacare repeal

≪ Previous: Personalized IRS letters nudge uninsured to get coverage

$

0

0

After a tweet from the President-elect this morning promising that *"The "Unaffordable" Care Act will soon be history!"*, the *House of Representatives has just approved a budget resolution* that brings that promise one step closer to its fruition.  Although many speculated that House Republicans would splinter after weeks of bickering on the merits of a simultaneous repeal and replace versus repeal now and replace later strategy, the final vote came in at 227-198 with only 9 Republicans dissenting.



Congrats to the Senate for taking the first step to #RepealObamacare- now it's onto the House!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 12, 2017





The "Unaffordable" Care Act will soon be history!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2017



 

And here is the full official vote tally courtesy of CSPAN:

 

Of course, the House vote comes just one day after the Senate voted 51-48 to approve the budget resolution with Rand Paul being the only dissenting Republican vote.  Here's our summary from yesterday:



*Early on Thursday morning, in a 51-48 vote, the Senate took the first concrete step toward dismantling Obamacare*, when it voted to instruct key committees to draft legislation repealing Barack Obama's signature health insurance program. Republicans needed a simple majority to clear the repeal rules, instructing committees to begin drafting repeal legislation, through the upper chamber, with the vote falling largely along party lines.

 

*Rand Paul was the lone Republican to vote against the budget resolution because it didn’t balance.* Paul said in a statement after the vote that while he supports nixing ObamaCare "putting nearly $10 trillion more in debt on the American people’s backs through a budget that never balances is not the way to get there."



*The resolution passed by the Senate on Thursday instructs committees of the House and Senate to draft repeal legislation by Jan. 27.* Both chambers will then need to approve the resulting legislation before any repeal goes into effect.

With conflicting messages flooding the mainstream media about the timing of the Obamacare repeal versus the introduction of a plan for its replacement, *House Speaker Paul Ryan again noted that Congress is "in complete sync" with the Trump administration that the failed law should be repealed and replaced "concurrently."*  Per The Hill:



Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) insisted on Thursday that the House GOP and Trump are on the same page. The president-elect this week urged Congress to follow a repeal vote with a replacement as soon as possible.

 

*“We are in complete sync. We agree we want to make sure we move these things concurrently, at the same time repeal and replace,” *Ryan said at a Capitol news conference.

 

*Ryan said that Republicans will outline their strategy for replacing the law at the joint House-Senate GOP retreat in Philadelphia a week after the inauguration.*

 

*“Some of these steps will be taken by Congress; some of these steps will be taken by the incoming Trump administration”* after Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) is confirmed as Health and Human Services secretary, Ryan said. *“So this will be a thoughtful, step-by-step process. We’re not going to swap one 2,700-page monstrosity for another.”*



Of course not all Republicans were supportive of the budget resolution with a handful vowing to oppose the Obamacare repeal effort without first crafting a clear vision of a replacement plan. 



A handful of conservative lawmakers are already on record saying they will vote no on the GOP budget, griping that it doesn't do enough to tackle federal spending and debt or that leadership has not laid out enough details of how it will go about replacing ObamaCare. They include Freedom Caucus members like Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) and Ken Buck (R-Colo.), as well as another conservative, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

 

*“More people are reluctant to support it because they’re taking the first step on a journey and leadership won’t tell them where it’s going to end,”* Massie told The Hill on Thursday. “But for me, it’s the numbers.”

 

“The numbers are too high,” added Buck. “They say to me, ‘The number's not the important part; it's the repeal, the reconciliation.’ But if the number's not the important part, then make it lower.”

 

Centrist Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) said Thursday that he still had “serious reservations” about voting for the budget resolution without any concrete plans of how to replace ObamaCare.

 

*“Before we take this plane in the air, we better have a damn good idea where we’re gonna land it. Because right now, we’re not sure how we’re gonna land,” *Dent told reporters in the Capitol.



And while we're a big fan of metaphors, we would suggest to Mr. Dent that his particular example ignores the point that the Obamacare plane is already in-flight, both engines have failed and the plane is spiraling toward the ground.  So while we understand the desire to move forward thoughtfully, we would also suggest that almost anything would be better than the current healthcare calamity that is Obamacare. Reported by Zero Hedge 7 hours ago.

---

U.S. House takes first step toward Obamacare repeal

January 13, 2017, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: US House Takes First Step Toward Obamacare Repeal

≪ Previous: House Passes Budget Resolution Clearing Path For Obamacare Repeal

$

0

0

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives on Friday approved a measure making the first move toward scrapping Obamacare, joining the Senate in instructing key committees to write legislation repealing the health insurance law. Reported by Reuters 6 hours ago.

US House Takes First Step Toward Obamacare Repeal

January 13, 2017, 1:26 pm

≫ Next: US House Takes First Step Toward Repeal of Obamacare

≪ Previous: U.S. House takes first step toward Obamacare repeal

$

0

0

The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives on Friday approved a measure making the first move toward scrapping Obamacare, joining the Senate in instructing key committees to write legislation repealing the health insurance law. Eliminating Obamacare is a top priority of the Republican-majority Congress as well as President-elect Donald Trump, who has urged lawmakers to act quickly. The resolution passed on Friday instructs committees of the House and Senate to draft repeal... Reported by VOA News 6 hours ago.

US House Takes First Step Toward Repeal of Obamacare

January 13, 2017, 1:14 pm

≫ Next: What You Can Expect If The ACA Is Repealed Without A Replacement

≪ Previous: US House Takes First Step Toward Obamacare Repeal

$

0

0

The Republican-led U.S. Houseof Representatives on Friday approved a measure making the first move toward scrapping Obamacare, joining the Senate in instructing key committees to write legislation repealing the health insurance law. Eliminating Obamacare is a top priority of the Republican-majority Congress as well as President-elect Donald Trump, who has urged lawmakers to act quickly. The resolution passed on Friday instructs committees of the House and Senate to draft repeal... Reported by VOA News 6 hours ago.

What You Can Expect If The ACA Is Repealed Without A Replacement

January 13, 2017, 1:51 pm

≫ Next: House Republicans Take First Step To Repeal Obamacare, Rubber-Stamp $9 Trillion In New Debt

≪ Previous: US House Takes First Step Toward Repeal of Obamacare

$

0

0

During the presidential campaign, President-elect Trump promised to simultaneously repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). His promise was welcome news to congressional Republicans who have repeatedly tried to overturn the health care law, voting at least 62 times to repeal parts or all of the ACA. While there is a lot of talk about repealing the measure, little has been offered in the way of what a replacement might entail. We also don’t know how long it would take to roll out and implement an alternative to the AFA.

With far-reaching implications, the debate over repealing the Affordable Care Act will be one of the most significant moral and political showdowns of Trump’s administration. I call it a moral battle because the decision will impact millions of Americans and could mean the difference between life and death. Without health insurance, many Americans will die unnecessarily. See this site for more information on mortality rates for the uninsured.

In addition to rising mortality rates for the uninsured, here’s what you can expect if the health care law is repealed without a replacement. And don’t be fooled into thinking that just because you have employer-sponsored health insurance you’ll be immune if the signature domestic policy is repealed. Many people with employer-provided coverage will be adversely impacted.

*What Happens if the Affordable Care Act is Repealed without an Immediate Replacement?*

· If you have health insurance now, especially if your coverage is provided by your employer, you are in danger of losing it if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. The ACA includes a mandate that everyone have health insurance, and that employers of a certain size offer health care coverage. Prior to this mandate, employers were dropping health coverage left and right. Without the ACA’s mandate for employers, many may eliminate this critical lifeline.

· Without the individual mandate, which the ACA requires, health insurance companies will once again have the latitude to deny coverage to persons with pre-existing conditions. People needing medical care for cancer, diabetes, pregnancy or mental health challenges may be denied coverage.

· If the Affordable Care Act is repealed, up to 59 million Americans would lose, or be unable to obtain, health insurance. This includes people who currently have insurance as well as the 29 million Americans who do not have health insurance at this time. In other words, if the ACA is repealed, the uninsured rate would be higher than before the measure was implemented.

· Without the ACA, we’ll go back to the days when health insurance companies could discriminate against certain groups of people. We may return to the days of women paying more for health insurance than men. Seniors will be forced to ration their medication – perhaps by cutting pills in half or taking medication every couple of days rather than every day – because it will be too expensive to refill prescriptions. Many will be forced to choose between putting food on the table and paying for their prescription medication.

· Without the ACA, health care providers such as rural hospitals will lose millions of dollars, forcing many to close their doors. Shuttering rural hospitals will leave few options for sick Americans who live in these communities.

*Best Practices for Discussing the Affordable Care Act *

The repeal of the ACA is high stakes, and we must be careful how we discuss it.

· *Be mindful of language:* When discussing the Affordable Care Act, be mindful of language. Using the term “Obamacare” minimizes the significance of the policy and may fail to garner the sympathy needed to ensure its protection. Suffice it to say, when referring to the Affordable Care Act, consider using the policy’s full name; the “Affordable Care Act,” which, incidentally, describes what the measure does.

· *Simultaneous repeal and replace is infeasible:* Three days after his election, President-elect Trump said the Affordable Care Act would be repealed and replaced “simultaneously.” The problem is congressional Republicans have yet to detail what replacement might entail.

· *Put a face on the pain:* When discussing the significance of the Affordable Care Act, be sure to lead with testimonials. While numbers are important, highlighting the stories of real people is equally compelling. Here’s an example on how to use testimonials and stories in your writing on the ACA.

*What You Can Do Right Now to Protect the ACA*

· Contact your members of Congress to express the need to retain the Affordable Care Act. Elected officials should improve the measure, not gut it.

Jennifer R. Farmer is a strategic communicator and author of Extraordinary PR, Ordinary Budget. She is managing director for communications for PICO National Network.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

House Republicans Take First Step To Repeal Obamacare, Rubber-Stamp $9 Trillion In New Debt

January 13, 2017, 1:34 pm

≫ Next: Donald Trump’s Health Secretary Pick Is Dividing America’s Doctors

≪ Previous: What You Can Expect If The ACA Is Repealed Without A Replacement

$

0

0

WASHINGTON ― Without a single Democrat voting in support, the House narrowly advanced a budget blueprint on Friday intended to be the eventual vehicle for gutting Obamacare.

After conservatives and GOP moderates spent a week signaling that they might vote against the repeal vehicle, most Republicans fell in line, with the House voting 227-198 in support of the resolution. Only nine Republicans ultimately voted against it, joining 189 Democrats in opposition to a budget that deems it “appropriate” for U.S. debt to rise by more than $9 trillion over the next decade.

Among the Republicans who did vote against the resolution, most cited concerns over endorsing that amount of new debt. Three moderates also voted against the resolution, seemingly as a signal to GOP leadership that their votes shouldn’t be taken for granted in an eventual repeal or replacement.

Conservatives and moderates alike have been pushing House leaders for more specifics on what the eventual repeal would look like ― how long it would take to enact, how much of Obamacare it would revoke, how soon afterward a replacement would follow. But even without answers to most of their questions, Republicans feared voting against the budget would send a conflicted message to their constituents. Most Republicans in Congress spent years vigorously campaigning against Obamacare for years, and President-elect Donald Trump has left no mystery about his support for the resolution.

Now that the House has agreed to the reconciliation instructions, the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee in the House ― and the Finance and Health Committees on the Senate side ― will write bills to repeal Obamacare. Those bills would then go to the respective Budget Committees in both chambers, and the two chambers would either pass the same bill or go to a conference committee to work out the differences in the two versions. The resulting legislation would then only require simple majorities in the House and Senate before going to the president for his signature.

The whole point of the reconciliation exercise is to subvert the filibuster in the Senate with a 50-vote threshold for passage, in theory making this the easy part of the GOP plan to end the Affordable Care Act.

Most Republicans, though not everyone, agree they will need to replace Obamacare with something once it’s gone ― which is why Republicans are planning to delay the date of enactment on a repeal for a good long time.

While Democrats have been focused on the immediate effects of ending the health care law, Republicans claim they can mitigate those effects ― or even improve coverage ― with a new alternative, albeit one that might not have as many protections for the sick or the poor. Trump has promised to replace Obamacare with something “far less expensive and far better,” without offering specifics.

The policies the GOP favors would not be able to replicate what the Affordable Care Act offers, because Republicans don’t actually want to devote enough funding to help people afford insurance. They also don’t want to provide the same level of consumer protections the law includes, especially when it comes to guaranteed coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

Those policy deficiencies make it difficult to believe Republicans could find 60 votes in the Senate for a broad alternative. And if Democrats remain united against a Republican alternative, it’s anyone’s guess which side would break first in negotiations. Republicans are betting that once the health care law is gone, Democrats would have no choice but to help push a replacement across the finish line. Democrats are betting that Republicans might just extend Obamacare indefinitely, or else risk the political ramifications associated with changing people’s coverage, their costs and, indeed, the entire health care system.

The problem with the delayed enactment gambit is that as soon as Republicans repeal the law, health insurers would have little incentive to offer plans in the upcoming year, particularly if they’re losing money on the health insurance exchanges.

That would lead to higher prices and limited plan options, which would in turn limit the customer base for Obamacare to those who truly need health coverage. This would be the proverbial “death spiral” that politicians from both sides talk about.

The issue with a quick, or even immediate, enactment is that people already on their health care plans rely on that insurance, and the process for offering Obamacare exchange plans in future years begins well before open enrollment in the fall. Offering just a short delay could further exacerbate the death spiral, with insurers deciding to sit out the upcoming year and wait for the new health care system.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has taken to saying in recent weeks that Republicans don’t want to “pull the rug out” from people using Obamacare, which is why House Republicans say leaders are leaning toward a three-year delay for repeal enactment.

That’s a point of contention for conservatives, who want no more than a two-year delay. 

But those questions are nothing compared to the onslaught of issues Republicans face in coming up with an Obamacare alternative. And those issues are just the beginning of their problems. There is that pesky procedural complication of a 60-vote requirement in the Senate, and Republicans in the House who are certain to be upset with the final compromise. 

It’s part of the reason Trump has insisted this week that a replacement follow a repeal within a few days ― a timeline that Ryan has repeatedly endorsed despite the difficulty in Republicans coming up with an alternative so hastily.

During debate for the bill, Ryan seemed to reaffirm the idea of a quick timeline when he said that “in the weeks ahead,” Republicans would take “several steps” to address Obamacare.

“This experiment has failed,” Ryan said. “This law is collapsing as we speak.”

Ryan then read some data on possible premium increases in states, and said Republicans were on “a rescue mission” for people on Obamacare. 

Once Ryan finished his speech, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rose to slam Republicans for essentially cutting taxes for the richest Americans by repealing Obamacare.

“Show me your values,” Pelosi said. “Show me your budget.”

Before Pelosi was given the floor, however, the Democratic manager of the debate, top Budget Committee Democrat John Yarmuth of Kentucky, had to yield her time. And before he did that, Yarmuth continued a strategy he had adopted for every Republican speaker that day: reading off data from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Commonwealth Fund on the impact of repealing Obamacare in that Republican’s state.

“I remind the speaker that his vote today to repeal the Affordable Care Act will result in 211,000 people from his state of Wisconsin losing their health care coverage, 46,000 workers losing their jobs and an economic loss of $25.7 billion in gross state product in the state of Wisconsin,” Yarmuth said.

Jeffrey Young contributed to this report.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.