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

Facts

0
0
As a physician, student of health policy, and human being, I depend on facts. Here are some examples.

As a physician:
2. Treating high blood pressure prevents heart attacks and strokes and prolongs life.4. Treating diabetes prevents blindness, kidney failure, and amputations (as well as heart attacks and strokes) and prolongs life.6. Antibiotics cure many infections.8. Vaccination has eliminated the scourge of smallpox, and nearly that of polio, from the face of the Earth.10. Chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery can cure some cancers.12. Depression is a mostly treatable illness.
As a student of health policy:
2. Since 2010, the proportion of working-age Americans without health insurance has dropped from 20 percent to 12 percent.4. The United States spent $3.2 trillion on health care in 2015, which was more than the gross domestic products of all but four nations.6. Life expectancy at birth in the United States was 79.3 years in 2015, which ranked 31st in the world according to the World Health Organization.8. The cost and quality of health care vary enormously among states and localities in the United States.
As a human being:
2. Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius).4. Eleven Americans have walked on the moon and returned safely.6. Humans have 46 chromosomes that contain the DNA comprising our genes.8. The universe is expanding. 10. E = mc^2
Facts light the way through darkness. They are the basis for civilization as we know it. The Commonwealth Fund will continue to uncover and celebrate facts about our health care system because without them, we cannot make that system better—and we cannot have better lives. Without facts, we are lost.

-- 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.

Insurers could bolt, depending on what form an ACA 'repeal and replace' takes

0
0
Health insurance companies could run for the exits if federal lawmakers repeal all or parts of the Affordable Care Act without a concrete replacement plan or allow time to adjust, a new study from the Urban Institute found. Congress and President Trump appear committed to repealing the health care law but haven’t come forth with details. Researchers asked executives of 13 insurance companies participating in the individual market in 28 states about potential repeal scenarios. Read more about… Reported by bizjournals 2 hours ago.

NYC Medical Students Won't Accept Obamacare Repeal Without A Fight

0
0
NEW YORK CITY ― Three hundred medical professionals, about 200 of them medical students, gathered in front of the News Corp. building in Manhattan on Jan. 30 to protest Republicans’ plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

Following chants of “Everybody in, nobody out, that’s what health care’s all about,” and “Patients, not profits,” the protesters staged what’s known as a die-in, lying down on the ground to simulate death. (Similar actions took place across the country that day.)

It lasted 4 minutes and 30 seconds, symbolizing the 43,000 lives that The Washington Post reports will be lost annually if former President Barack Obama’s health care law, commonly known as Obamacare, is repealed. “As current and future health care providers, we see the repeal of the ACA ― although it is not a perfect piece of legislation ― as a direct threat to the health of our patients,” Mollie Nisen, a third-year medical student at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, told The Huffington Post.

Indeed, the dangers of repealing Obamacare have become a common talking point for health care providers, particularly those who treat vulnerable populations.

Repealing the law could affect millions: The number of uninsured Americans would rise to 18 million the first year the ACA is repealed and to 32 million in 2026, after legislators eliminate the Medicaid expansion and insurance subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

“We couldn’t stand by, because we took an oath to do no harm,” Kamini Doobay, a fourth-year medical student at Mount Sinai Hospital and one of the organizers of the NYC die-in, told HuffPost. “As the next generation of health care providers, we are here united in our commitment to protect our patients.”It’s a sentiment policymakers would do well to heed over the next four years. While physicians remain divided about the nomination of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) as head of the department of the Department of Health and Human Services, a small but vocal cohort, the newly formed Clinician Action Network, has vowed to advocate for patients beyond the exam room. 

“We’re going to be very responsive to legislation that is being introduced and voted on in Congress, both at the state level and the national level,” Dr. Jane Zhu of the University of Pennsylvania, one of CAN’s founders, told HuffPost in December. “This is the time for clinicians to take part actively in a process that’s always been dominated by politicians.”

Among the group’s demands: barring insurance companies from discriminating against patients with disabilities, maintaining subsidies to keep health insurance affordable for vulnerable populations, expanding Medicaid coverage and ― at the top of CAN’s to-do list ― maintaining essential health benefits, such as mental health services, treatment for opioid use disorder, prenatal and reproductive care and access to contraception.Regardless of their politics, health care providers want patients to know they support them.

“People need to know that we’re not going to go away, we’re not going to stop resisting. We’re a loud voice, and we hold a lot of power as clinicians and we’re here for the long haul,” Nisen said. 

“These people, these are the future of medicine,” she said, referring to the protesters around her. “These are students and young doctors. That gives me hope.”

How will Trump’s first 100 days impact you? Sign up for our weekly newsletter and get breaking updates on Trump’s presidency by messaging us here.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 hour ago.

New Study: Pet Industry is Economic Powerhouse

0
0
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council and Pet Leadership Council announce pet industry’s economic impact of more than $221 billion

LAGUNA BEACH, CA (PRWEB) February 02, 2017

The pet industry generated more than $221 billion in direct, indirect and induced economic impact, according to a new study conducted by George Mason University and released today at the Pet Industry Leadership Conference in Laguna Beach, California. The economic analysis also showed the pet industry supported over 1.3 million U.S. jobs in 2015 that paid more than $60 billion in salaries, wages and benefits.

“While annual spending for the pet industry is reported each year, this is the first time that anyone has looked at the widespread impact of the pet industry as a whole on the U.S. economy,” said Dr. Terry L. Clower, Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government and Director of its Center on Regional Analysis, who headed the study. “Not only does the pet industry contribute more than $221 billion to the economy, but that also includes an impressive $23 billion in federal, state and local taxes.”

Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) President Mike Bober said that the study proves taking compassionate care of pets is also good business.

“As we continue our efforts to provide for and protect the health and well-being of our companion animals, this report is an encouraging sign that responsible pet ownership is on the rise and that this industry is having a positive impact on our country, both in terms of the benefits we derive from pets and those that we provide them in return,” said Bober, whose group funded the independent study in partnership with the Pet Leadership Council (PLC). Bober joined Dr. Clower and PLC Chair Bob Vetere to present the study’s results to hundreds of industry leaders at the pet industry’s annual leadership conference.

To determine the industry’s total economic impact, Clower and his team analyzed data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Pet Owners Survey conducted biannually by APPA, and other resources using the IMPLAN economic model. This analysis yielded estimates of direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts resulting from initial industry spending.

“We’ve always known that the pet industry is a significant one, but this study solidifies exactly just how big of an impact it has not only on pet owners but the country as a whole,” said Vetere. “Beyond the well-known benefits pets provide of love, companionship, fun, joy and health, they also help our country’s economic vitality.”

According to this report, consumers spend over $77 billion on their pets annually. Pet food and veterinary services are the two leading sources of spending within the industry. Other sectors considered in the study include manufacturing of pet supplies and toys, pet pharmaceuticals, grooming, boarding and other services, wholesale and retail trade involving pet products, and the emerging pet health insurance industry.

The study is the second conducted by Dr. Clower and the Center for Regional Analysis showing benefits derived from the pet industry. In late 2015, Dr. Clower found that the pet industry saves $11.7 billion in healthcare costs as a result of pet ownership.

“The pet industry is one of the fastest growing industries in large part because Americans are becoming increasingly aware of how pets improve our lives; mentally, physically and emotionally,” added Doug Poindexter, PLC trustee. “We are committed to continuing efforts to promote and advance the responsible pet industry.”

The study will help to inform legislators, regulators, and consumers about the role the pet industry plays in state and local economies, as well as at the national level.

An executive summary of the report can be found on the PIJAC website, http://www.pijac.org.

###

George Mason University’s Center for Regional Analysis is the premier university-based regional economic research center in the National Capital Region. The Center provides economic analysis and forecasting services to decision-makers in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. George Mason University is the largest public research university in Virginia.

Since 1970, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has protected pets, pet owners and the pet industry – promoting responsible pet ownership and animal welfare, fostering environmental stewardship, and ensuring the availability of pets. PIJAC members include retailers, companion animal suppliers, manufacturers, wholesale distributors, manufacturers’ representatives, pet hobbyists, and other trade organizations. http://www.pijac.org

The Pet Leadership Council is made up of pet industry leaders, animal welfare, veterinarians and academia and advocates for pets and those who serve and support them by promoting responsible pet ownership and educating the public on efforts to improve the health and well-being of companion animals. http://www.petleadershipcouncil.org Reported by PRWeb 41 minutes ago.

Vaccination funding may be cut if Obamacare ends, public health experts warn

0
0
Many worry that up to 1 million Illinois consumers could lose their health insurance if Obamacare is repealed.

But Chicago Department of Public Health leaders aren't just worried about that part of the Affordable Care Act being repealed. They're also concerned about the possible loss of funds used... Reported by ChicagoTribune 20 hours ago.

Can California Fight Trump’s Threats?

0
0
AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli

California Governor Jerry Brown discusses his 2017-2018 state budget plan he released at a news conference. 

This article originally appeared at The Los Angeles Times. Subscribe here.

We’ve seen states fight the federal government before. In 1860 and 1861, it was the states that set off the conflict, taking up arms to oppose the new president. Today, it’s the new president who has initiated the break, vowing to punish states and cities that treat immigrants with respect and the environment with care, and against California and Los Angeles most of all.

In his first weeks in office, Donald Trump took dead aim at the policies that state and local governments have put in place to enhance public health and safety. He threatened them with withdrawal of federal funds if they remain sanctuary cities—and no major city has claimed that status longer than Los Angeles, which has barred its police from cooperating in deportation operations since 1979. Trump also has pledged to abolish regulations that he claims hamper business, and he is almost certain to go after California’s ability to impose emission standards on cars and trucks that are stricter than federal requirements.

Since the day after the election, when Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and State Senate leader Kevin de León announced they would resist Trump’s attempts to impose nativist and racist policies on California, state leaders have almost welcomed the confrontation. Certainly they haven’t dodged it. Governor Jerry Brown, in his State of the State address, said he would oppose the president’s oppressive initiatives. Mayors up and down the coast have promised to preserve their cities’ sanctuary status, even in the face of Trump’s threats to reduce their federal funding.

Any such reductions will encounter a multitude of court challenges, many of them focusing on the question of which federal funds the administration can withhold. Cutting funds that bolster police work will likely pass muster with the courts, though the amount the feds currently devote to such work isn’t all that large. Eliminating the more considerable funds that go to cities for other purposes—say, community development grants—may not be legal. In South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court ruled that conditions on federal spending “might be illegitimate if they are unrelated” to the purpose for which the funds are designated. That could pose a problem for Trump, since deportation efforts seem distinctly unrelated to, for instance, road building or research at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge.

The logic behind sanctuary cities couldn’t be more clear. Contrary to Trump’s alternative facts, the great wave of immigration over the last 30 years coincides with an epochal decline in crime. The numbers of murders in Los Angeles County fell from 1,944 in 1993 to 681 last year. As a study from the National Academy of Sciences concluded, “Immigrants are in fact much less likely to commit crime than natives, and the presence of large numbers of immigrants seems to lower crime rates.” One way to ensure that crime rates rise in a city like Los Angeles is to make many of its residents afraid to report dangerous behavior to the police, which, as LAPD Chief Charlie Beck has stated, is exactly what compelling the police to engage in deportation activities would do.

Trump’s efforts to weaken the state’s fuel emission standards could be more difficult to forestall than his assault on sanctuary cities. Should the state fail to blunt that attack in the courts, the legislature could devise a way around it by, say, enacting a higher sales tax on any new cars that exceed what the state standards would have been. Calling it the Trump Tax wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Ultimately California’s defenses against the president’s policies will have to be just as extraordinary as Trump’s attacks.

Let’s say the courts grant the administration the authority to withhold all manner of federal funds from sanctuary states and cities. The most devastating move Trump could make would be to hold back California’s share of Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance funding, which in 2015 came to roughly $55 billion, and today helps cover the health costs of more than 12 million state residents. California could then redirect tax payments from Washington to Sacramento—that is, by increasing state taxes to cover the federal shortfall. Simultaneously, millions of Californians could decline to pay a commensurate amount on their federal income taxes (on the admittedly untested theory that massive coordinated tax evasion provides a level of safety-in-numbers that individual tax evasion does not).

An extreme response, to be sure, to an extreme provocation. But when it comes to dividing the nation in two, Trump’s only peer as an American president—note I didn’t say a president of the United States—is Jefferson Davis. Reported by The American Prospect 14 hours ago.

MTV News Staff Announces Majority Supports Unionizing

0
0
The majority of digital staff of MTV News has opted to unionize, leaders of the organizing drive said Friday, joining a growing roster of digital publications that have unionized in the past two years.

“There has never been a more critically important time in our lives to have the protections of a union, especially for those of us in media,” the committee said in a statement announcing the vote.

The statement was also an homage to the MTV brand, waxing nostalgic about childhoods spent watching “The Real World” and “Total Request Live.”

“There’s never been a more necessary time for MTV News to talk about music, pop culture, and politics with the teenagers of America,” the statement said.

More than 80 percent  of MTV News’ approximately 50 eligible writers, reporters, producers and social media professionals signed cards electing the Writers Guild of America, East, as their representative in collective bargaining, according to culture writer Teo Bugbee, a member of the organizing committee.

MTV and its parent company, Viacom, will now decide whether to recognize the union voluntarily and begin collective bargaining talks, or demand a secret-ballot union election. Companies that request an election sometimes take advantage of the delay to hold closed-door meetings with staff trying to dissuade them from joining.

Staff demands include access to “adequate” health care and benefits, a role in crafting editorial policy, an “equitable and transparent compensation” policy, and a “fair” severance package, the organizing committee said in its statement. Health insurance for all staff is a particularly important demand, since the majority of workers are full-time freelancers without access to such coverage and other benefits. Staff members also are seeking legal protection for the era of President Donald Trump, according to the statement.

Bugbee emphasized that she and her colleagues are happy with their jobs and are merely looking to make them “better.”

“It’s relatively rare to encounter a situation in which what is morally right is also what is practically expedient, and I think we’ve found ourselves in that situation,” Bugbee said. “That’s one of the foundational reasons we’ve moved forward with this union.” 

Viacom launched an effort to rebrand MTV News for the digital era with major hiring and investment beginning in the fall of 2015. Many employees participating in the union drive have joined the site in the past year.

Since June 2015, over half a dozen digital media outfits have unionized, including the group of sites formerly known as Gawker Media, Vice Media, Salon, ThinkProgress, The Guardian U.S., and Law 360. 

The Huffington Post, the largest such workplace to unionize, on Monday ratified its first collective bargaining contract under the representation of the Writers Guild of America, East.

-- 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.

The rise of the printed tweet in American politics

0
0
The rise of the printed tweet in American politics At the beginning of January, during a Senate discussion about the future of Obamacare, Bernie Sanders brought a visual aid to the floor. It wasn’t a pie chart or health insurance statistics. It was a tweet.

In the missive from May 2015, Donald Trump announced that under his presidency, there would be no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. Appealing to other Senators, Sanders read the tweet aloud as a direct quote from Trump like a lawyer presenting evidence. “[Trump] didn’t say it once in the middle of the night,” Sanders said. “He didn’t say it in an interview. This was a central part of his campaign.”

"A tweet on paper, not on screen"

Sanders argued that when it comes to Trump, who uses Twitter like a press room, every tweet... Reported by The Verge 5 hours ago.

Health Insurers Say They Don't Want To Go Back To Being The Bad Guys

0
0
Researchers asked health insurance executives what worries them most about Republican plans to repeal and replace Obamacare. They said incentives to keep healthy people enrolled need to be stronger. Reported by NPR 3 hours ago.

‘Obamacare’ sign-ups show slippage in preliminary report

0
0
WASHINGTON (AP) — The government says about 9.2 million people signed up for coverage this year through HealthCare.gov, the health insurance website serving most states. The preliminary numbers out Friday don’t include figures from 11 states that run their own health insurance markets, so the final national number will be higher. Nonetheless, the report shows […] Reported by Seattle Times 3 hours ago.

'Obamacare' sign-ups show slippage in preliminary report

0
0
WASHINGTON (AP) — The government says about 9.2 million people signed up for coverage this year through HealthCare.gov, the health insurance website serving most states. The insurance markets created by former President Barack Obama's law provide subsidized coverage for people who don't have access to health care through their jobs. Reported by SeattlePI.com 2 hours ago.

Trump on jobs report: 'It's going to continue, big league'

0
0
Flanked by leading CEOs who met with him at the White House, Trump suggested that his November election victory had lifted America's morale — and emboldened many employers to step up hiring. Trump has argued that rising confidence among employers and investors in the past couple of months stems from the widespread belief that he can deliver lower taxes, fewer regulations and more good-paying jobs, even for people without a college degree or specialized training. To most analysts, an unemployment rate that low means that so many people who want jobs already have them that eventually hiring will slow naturally — a trend that's usually beyond the direct influence of a president. Protests at airports followed the administration's suspensions of travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, prompting statements of concern from such tech giants as Amazon, Microsoft and Uber. [...] small business owners who met with Trump on Monday said they felt that he heard their concerns about regulations and the costs of health insurance because of the health care law known as the Affordable Care Act. Reported by SeattlePI.com 1 hour ago.

More than 9.2 million sign for Obamacare during open enrollment

0
0
(Reuters) - More than 9.2 million consumers signed up for health insurance using the Healthcare.gov website during the open enrollment period between November and Jan. 31, the U.S. government said on Friday. Reported by Reuters 1 hour ago.

Obamacare Sign-Ups Through Healthcare.Gov Fall Slightly

0
0
More than 9 million people signed up for insurance through healthcare.gov this year, the Department of Health and Human Services announced on Friday.

The number is slightly lower than last year’s enrollment figures, and HHS, now under Trump administration management, was quick to point out that this year’s markets featured premiums that were, on average, substantially higher than last year’s.

Implication: The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is already starting to falter on its own.

But the difference between this year’s and last year’s enrollment figures is small ― just 400,000 people. And a drop-off in the final two weeks of enrollment, during which the Trump administration yanked some last-minute advertising, accounts for nearly all of that total.

Implication: The Trump administration tried to undermine Obamacare, and had at least some success.

Whatever the explanation for the slight drop-off, one thing is clear: A significant number of Americans are relying on the Affordable Care Act for their health insurance. Repealing the law puts their coverage into jeopardy.

According to the final HHS figures, 9.2 million people signed up for an insurance plan in the 38 states that use healthcare.gov. That’s down from 9.6 million who signed up last year.

The figures do not include the statistics from states that run their own markets and websites ― and handle their own outreach efforts. Two of those states, New York and Washington, have already reported more sign-ups than last year.

Last fall, when the Obama administration was in charge, officials predicted that enrollment through healthcare.gov states would also increase this year. And as of early January, sign-ups were in fact running ahead of last year’s pace.

But in the final week of open enrollment, when interest typically surged, the Trump administration canceled much of the outreach the Obama administration had planned. Paul Demko of Politico reported that spending on television ads plummeted to $250,000 a day, down from $1 million. 


https://t.co/glEwLdPkfq tv ads plummeted in final days of open enrollment: from $1 mil per day to less than $250k https://t.co/1SBdvV2I89

— Paul Demko (@pauldemko) February 1, 2017


At the time, a Trump administration official defended that decision as an effort to spend government money more efficiently. “We aren’t going to continue spending millions of taxpayers’ dollars promoting a failed government program,” the spokesperson said.

Former officials from the Obama administration challenged that argument, pointing to research that suggested outreach efforts had worked and boosted enrollments ― particularly among young and healthy customers, whom insurers need in order to keep plans financially stable.

Those are precisely the people who tend to sign up at the last minute. 

“Final sign-ups are down from last year, after being up as of a few weeks ago,” Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, told The Huffington Post. “There was a much smaller surge in enrollment in the final week than last year. The only thing that really changed was the pulling of ads, which likely ended up depressing enrollment.”

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 hour ago.

Colorado health exchange a political football in debate about Obamacare repeal

0
0
The leaders at Colorado’s health insurance exchange are working to keep alive the online marketplace, even if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, while Republican state lawmakers want to shut it down now. Reported by Denver Post 23 minutes ago.

Friday Talking Points -- Media Missing A Big Point On Trump's Muslim Ban

0
0
Before we launch in to this week's screed, we're going to shamelessly begin with a plug. Yesterday, we published a first-person account of what it was like to protest during Donald Trump's Inauguration weekend. There are some excellent photos of the demonstrations and an inspiring narrative by University of Maryland student Teresa Johnson. We urge everyone to check it out!

Moving right along, we're going to ignore (for a moment) all the shiny distractions that have vomited forth from the White House this week, and instead attempt to draw attention to an aspect of Donald Trump's Muslim ban that few in the media seem to be noticing. [We should add an editorial aside here: Yes, our editorial policy from now on will be to use Donald Trump's own language in the term "Muslim ban." Sean Spicer can insist until he's blue in the face that it's not a Muslim ban, but Trump promised to ban Muslims on the campaign trail, so who are we to argue with the term? Also, to do so would be to succumb to political correctness, something Trump loathes. So the Muslim ban will forever (in these pages) be the Muslim ban.]

But we digress. Donald Trump's Muslim ban, signed into existence as we were writing last week's column, was certainly the biggest story of the week. Spontaneous protests sprang up at international airports across the country as the chaotic implementation made it plain that this executive order just wasn't thought through all that much. Nobody knew what the order did cover and didn't cover, all the way from White House officials down to the border guards who were expected to somehow implement this vague and badly-defined policy. Clarifications had to be issued on a daily basis. The draft of the order simply did not go through any of the normal vetting channels, with some cabinet-level officials only seeing it hours before it was signed. The Trump administration is now starting to resemble (take your pick) either the gang who couldn't shoot straight or the Keystone Kops.

At first, green card holders were stopped at the border, turned around, and sent back. Then there was confusion within the White House whether the order applied to green card holders. Green card holders could individually apply for "waivers" from the order, it was decided upon. In the midst of all this came an order from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Edward Ramotowski, which claimed: "I hereby provisionally revoke all valid nonimmigrant and immigrant visas of nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen."

Later in the week, it was announced that the order didn't actually apply to green card holders, therefore waivers weren't even necessary, and also added a few other exceptions as well:



The Department of Homeland Security announced additional exceptions to the ban on Tuesday, including Iraqis who worked for the U.S. government in positions such as translators. Officials also said the ban does not apply to dual nationals of the seven countries. For example, someone with Syrian and French nationality can enter the U.S. using their French passport.



This was clearly in response to all those media reports of translators who had been in the vetting process for years -- and who finally got an immigrant visa -- only to get the door slammed in their face at the airports. That's fairly bad optics for the White House, considering these people not only risked their own lives to help the United States military out in Iraq, but also risked the lives of their entire families. America promised them sanctuary, and Trump broke that promise.

Now, the Trump administration seems to be furiously backpedaling. Part of the reason is that federal judges are now involved, meaning honest answers must be given under oath. One of these cases was brought by two Yemeni brothers who were not only turned away last Saturday and sent back to Ethiopia, but actually coerced into signing away their green cards before being unceremoniously booted out. Thankfully, we have a system of federal courts to address such governmental actions:



During the hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie M. Brinkema said she was heartened to see the government was working to return the brothers, Tareq and Ammar Aqel Mohammed Aziz, to the United States and reinstate their visas in exchange for dropping their case. The government appears to be attempting a similar case-by-case reprieve across the nation.



Translation: the government knows it screwed up, and is attempt to sweep it all under the rug by promising that the people -- with valid visas -- would now be welcome back in and the visas reinstated, in return for making the Trump administration's federal court embarrassments go away.

The judge also rebuked the government: "This order was issued quite quickly. It's quite clear that not all the thought went into it that should have gone into it. It was chaos." But the most interesting thing to come out of the courthouse was how vast the number of people affected actually is. Contrary to what Donald Trump and all his spokesfolk have been insisting, "109 people" were not the only ones affected -- that was merely the number detained at airports on the first day of implementation. The real number?



Over 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump's ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government asserted in Alexandria, Va. federal court Friday.

. . .

That figure was immediately disputed by the State Department, which said the number of visas revoked was roughly 60,000. A spokeswoman said the revocation has no impact on the legal status of people already in the United States. If those people leave the United States, though, their visas would no longer be valid.



Initial estimates were that 90,000 people were affected, comfortably in the middle of those two figures.

But here's where we get to the big story everyone in the media seems to be missing. When Republicans used to speak of immigration, they would swear up and down that they were only against illegal immigration. They fully supported people who had "followed the rules and immigrated legally." Fully!

What's getting lost in the coverage of Trump's Muslim ban, however, is that his first action against immigration was targeted solely towards legal immigrants. Fully legal. One hundred percent. Green card holders. People with refugee visas -- fully vetted in a process that can take years. People with tourist visas -- also fully vetted (although not technically "immigrants").

Trump himself is a little unclear on the concept, as evidenced by his confusion after speaking with the head of the Australian government. Trump was pressed on whether he would honor an agreement President Obama had reached with the Aussies, to take in -- legally, as refugees -- half of the 2,500 people Australia was currently holding, or 1,250 refugees. Trump referenced these people (in a tweet, naturally) as "thousands" of "illegal immigrants." This is just flat-out incorrect. Refugees -- who aren't even here yet -- are not "illegal immigrants" in any way, shape, or form.

Another possible dot to connect was leaked this week as well. Trump's next possible executive action on immigration would deal, again, only with legal immigrants. Trump is contemplating whether to order that any fully legal immigrant who was receiving public assistance of any type to be targeted for deportation. Illegal immigrants are already barred from getting any aid, so this would be targeted only at legal immigrants. Also, the order would instruct immigration officials to try to determine which prospective legal immigrant might wind up on public assistance, and deny them papers. Trump is also reportedly considering what to do about the H1-B visa program, which allows skilled workers (such as computer programmers) to legally work in America.

In contrast to all this fevered activity on restricting legal immigration, Trump has so far been completely silent on undocumented immigrants. He made some rather breathtaking promises on the campaign trail, about how he'd send all 11 million of them home (later watered down to immediately sending all the "bad hombres" home). He also promised to end the DACA program, which affects "DREAMers" -- people who were brought to this country as children. But, so far, not a peep on what Trump is going to do about DACA. Or his promised "deportation force" for the 11 million.

Why isn't the media noticing this rather large disconnect? We have no idea. Trump forcefully promised to deal with all those millions of undocumented people in this country, over and over again while running for president. Now that he's taken office, it is becoming obvious that what is much more important to the Trump administration is to severely restrict legal immigration. Every Republican officeholder who has ever been quoted strongly denying they were "anti-immigrant" and loudly proclaiming their support for those who "followed the law and stood in line" -- and that means just about every prominent Republican politician, we should point out -- should now be asked about the Trump administration's disconnect with their stated position. Why are legal immigrants the first ones to be targeted? Why has Trump not followed through on any of his promises about undocumented immigrants, while focusing solely on those who did follow the rules?

Important questions we are waiting for someone to ask. Inquiring minds want to know.

As is becoming usual, so much else was happening in politics this week that we're going to have to deal with it all in whirlwind fashion. So hold onto your hats, here we go.

Donald Trump is also on the attack against Dodd-Frank, because as we all know, he promised over and over again on the campaign trail to be Wall Street's best friend and give the little guy less and less control over how the big banks screw them over. Yeah, sure... everyone remembers that Trump promise, right?

Trump also signaled his approval for Congress to get rid of an Obama rule which would have taken into account whether a person had been formally classified as too mentally incompetent to handle their own finances when they want to purchase a gun. Because, you know, what could possibly go wrong with allowing such people as many guns as they desire?

Also in the "what could possibly go wrong" file, Trump just tapped a woman for the post of Deputy C.I.A. Director who had previously run one of the C.I.A.'s "black site" prisons. No red flags there, folks!

Sean Spicer had a pointed message for anyone at the State Department who found themselves in disagreement with Donald Trump -- "get with the program or go." No authoritarian worries there, mate!

That last sentence was a blatant attempt at a segue into the story of Trump getting testy with the leader of Australia, which (astonishingly) was almost immediately leaked to the media. Later, Trump aides tried to brush off the embarrassing international incident as merely Trump being tired after a long day. So maybe he should be getting more sleep and not tweeting so much in the wee hours? Just a thought.

And a final Trump note, speaking to all the black people he knows (it was a small meeting), Trump tried to riff on what a great guy that Frederick Douglass is. Is? Trump seems to think ol' Fred's still alive and doing great work... at whatever it is that he does. Perhaps Ben Carson should have a little talk with Trump about Douglass? Just a thought....

We're going to end this already-too-long intro with two bits of good news, albeit with a sad note in between.

The "Grab Your Wallet" movement seems to be growing, as corporations learn how dangerous it is to their bottom line to pander to the Trump administration. Uber was the biggest casualty so far, although Disney and Harley Davidson are also apparently taking note. Oh, and Nordstrom just dropped all their Ivanka Trump merchandise, citing "poor sales" as their reason.

One sad note this week, to follow up on last week's sad note. Two days after Mary Tyler Moore died, the artist who cast the statue of her (as Mary Richards, flinging her hat in the air in a Minneapolis intersection) also died. When her statue was dedicated, sculptor Gwendolyn Gillen said, of the famous Mary Tyler Moore Show character: "She helped break the stereotype of womanhood that our generation grew up believing was our destiny. She was the light breeze that blew through our minds and left us with the feeling that we could do anything we wanted to."

And finally, a feel-good story in the tradition of local news shows everywhere -- an endearing animal story! This week in Washington, Ollie the bobcat decided to take a stroll outside his fenced-in area at the National Zoo. He went on the lam (but not, thankfully, on anybody's actual lamb) for almost three days, but then after the official search for him was ended, he showed up back at the zoo, near the bird enclosure (naturally!). So count us as glad Ollie's safe and sound once again, because Washington's a real jungle to survive in, these days.

 

This one's pretty easy to call, this week. We do have an *Honorable Mention* for Nancy Pelosi, for calling Steve Bannon a white supremacist this week (which was the old term, before "alt-right" was coined) -- nothing like speaking truth to power, Nancy!

But this week's *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* is none other than former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, for speaking some truth to power herself.

Yates was a holdover from the Obama administration, warming the chair at the Justice Department while Jeff Sessions wends his way through the Senate confirmation process. But when she got wind of Trump's Muslim ban, she felt she had to do something drastic. She shot off a memo to all Justice Department lawyers, stating in no uncertain terms:



At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful. Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.



The responsibilities she was speaking of were that the Justice Department must determine whether such orders are "legally defensible" and "consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right."

Well put! All federal officials, of course, take an oath to uphold and support not the whims of the sitting president, but the U.S. Constitution.

President Trump, of course, didn't take this challenge sitting down. He not only immediately fired her, but had to go full Trump tantrum on her in his public announcement, which said she had "betrayed the Department of Justice," and called her "weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration."

Sally Yates thus becomes not only the first high-ranking official to be explicitly fired by Donald Trump, but also the first one to get personally smeared and attacked on the way out the door. We say "only the first" because we fully expect there to be a continuing stream of such firings, over the course of the Trump presidency.

For valiantly standing up for what she believed to be her constitutional duty, for speaking truth directly to Trump, for being, in short, a profile in courage, there was simply no other choice this week than Sally Yates for the *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* award.

[Sally Yates is now a private citizen, and it is our policy not to provide contact information for people who are no longer in office.]

 

While we can't be sure if they even identify as Democrats, we have to condemn the violence at University of California, Berkeley this week. A rabid right-winger was scheduled to speak and a non-violent protest against the event was hijacked by a small group who set fires, lit off fireworks (at police, reportedly), and smashed windows.

Violence definitely gets media attention at protests, but it also is just as counterproductive, since it rarely (if ever) convinces anyone of the righteousness of your cause -- no matter how noble that cause might be.

Aside from hotheaded small-time vandals, however, what was much more important this week was a more widespread approval of corporate ecological vandalism -- Congress voting to strip an Obama regulation aimed at insuring clean water where coal mining takes place (especially mountaintop removal mining, which is just as bad as it sounds). This is an enormous issue to millions of people who live near such mining operations, who see their creeks and streams and rivers turned into nothing short of toxic-waste heavy-metal-laden sewers. Obama tried to change this, and now Congress is voting to overturn such changes. It was to be expected that Republicans would all vote for coal profits over clean water, but, shamefully, the following also happened:



The four Democratic senators who voted to overturn the rule -- Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) -- face reelection in conservative-leaning states next year.



So we're sending out *MDDOTW* awards to all four. No profiles in courage to be found here, to be brutally honest.

[Contact Senator Joe Donnelly on his Senate contact page, Senator Heidi Heitkamp on her Senate contact page, Senator Joe Manchin on his Senate contact page, and Senator Claire McCaskill on her Senate contact page, to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

*Volume 423* (2/3/17)

Because we spent most of the introduction today ranting about the media's lack of focus on Trump's attack on legal immigration, we've got a lot of diverse subjects to cover in today's talking points. While most are self-explanatory (as usual), because we had an old chart lying around we're going to give the first one a bit of context. So here's the background:

When Barack Obama reached his first crossover point in public opinion polling -- where his job approval polling numbers fell "underwater" (more people disapproved of his job than approved) -- we compared his record to his predecessors, and ran the following chart showing Obama's approval and disapproval lines crossing, as well as the point where all previous presidents reached this gloomy milestone (apologies for the lack of labels; the y-axis is the percent approval/disapproval, and the x-axis is months in office):

[Click graph to see larger-scale version]

At the time, we provided data, broken down by how many months in office the first crossover happened, for every president back to Eisenhower:



*Eisenhower* -- (never)
*Kennedy* -- (never)
*Nixon* -- 53 months into his presidency, in June 1973
*G.W. Bush* -- 40 mo., May '04
*Johnson* -- 37 mo., Dec. '66 (or 45 mo., Aug. '67)
*G.H.W. Bush* -- 36 mo., Jan. '92
*Obama* -- 18 mo., Jul. '10
*Carter* -- 16 mo., May '78
*Reagan* -- 15 mo., Apr. '82
*Ford* -- 5 mo., Jan. '75
*Clinton* -- 4 mo., May '93



OK, that's enough context. Just wanted to point out our previous chart, to better show what a breathtaking record Donald Trump just set. It'd be hard to even accurately place Trump on that chart, since the scale is measured in months, not days.

 *   Eight days a week*Trump just set a new presidential record. Big league!

"Did you see the Gallup polling data out this week? Donald Trump has become an unpopular president at a breathtaking rate, when measured historically. Bill Clinton enjoyed 573 days in office before his job approval rating measured lower than his job disapproval rating. Ronald Reagan spent almost a full two years in office -- 727 days -- before he reached this crossover point. Barack Obama got close to three years, at 936 days. Both Bushes set very impressive records -- George W. went 1,205 days before this happened, and his dad went a whopping 1,336 days before going underwater in the polls. But Donald Trump set a record that likely will never be broken by any future president -- it only took him eight days in office before the number of people who disapprove of the job he's doing rose above the number who approved. Eight days! It's the shortest presidential 'honeymoon' in history."

 *   That was fast (part 2)*That wasn't the only bad news from the polls this week for Trump.

"A recent PPP poll showed just how deeply the public disapproves of Trump's presidency, so far. He's only been in office two weeks, remember. During his first week in office, over a third of the public -- 35 percent -- wanted to see him impeached. This number actually jumped upwards during his second week in office and now 40 percent of the public wants Trump removed from office. That's four out of every ten Americans, and climbing fast."

 *   Like a broken sieve*This new reality has been astonishing journalists for the past two weeks, and it doesn't seem like it'll be changing any time soon.

"What's extraordinary to me is how much the new Trump administration is already leaking. So many leaks appear in the media on a daily basis that it's hard to keep track. Transcripts of private phone calls with world leaders are made available hours later. Infighting among top administration officials makes it into the newspapers right after it happens. The most astonishing thing is the negative nature of most of these leaks. These aren't officially sanctioned 'run it up the flagpole' types of leaks, these are nothing short of embarrassing evidence that the Trump White House operates in a state of constant chaos. Maybe top Trump advisors are just following Kellyanne Conway's lead, since sometimes the easiest way to get Trump to pay attention to something is to talk about it on Fox News, but I have to say this is the leakiest ship I've seen since the U.S.S. Minnow set sail on its fateful trip."

 *   Bowling Green massacre!*Speaking of Kellyanne, she fell flat on her face this week with one of those "alternative facts."

"One thing I can admit about the Trump administration is that they are proving to be comedy gold. Comedians everywhere had a field day on Twitter after Kellyanne Conway chided the media for not reporting on the entirely-fictional 'Bowling Green massacre,' saying: 'Most people don't know that because it didn't get covered.' Well, um, that's because it didn't happen, Kellyanne. Comedians quickly responded, from: 'Brian Williams won a Purple Heart for his service at the Bowling Green Massacre,' to: 'One still shudders to think how bad the Bowling Green massacre would've been if not for the heroic intervention of Fred Douglass.' In other words, Twitter had a big laugh at Conway's expense. My favorite? 'Finding these Bowling Green Massacre jokes to be a little too soon. Out of respect, we should wait until it takes place.' So the Trump administration is indeed providing job security for one segment of the economy, because comedians will have easy pickings for the next four years."

 *   Repair is the new GOP talking point*It's always worthwhile to keep an eye on what Frank Luntz is doing, because it always foreshadows a Republican blizzard of talking points. So be ready!

"I notice that after Republicans held their retreat and heard from spinmeister Frank Luntz, they're rolling out a new way of talking about the mess they've gotten into over Obamacare. Turns out 'repeal and replace' is a dandy political slogan, but not so operative in real life. Obamacare -- much to Republicans' astonishment -- not only has beneficial parts to it, but coming up with a Republican replacement plan is necessarily going to mean keeping large portions of Obamacare itself, or else throwing millions off their health insurance. So the new talking point is to, quote, repair, unquote, Obamacare. Seems 'repair' poll-tests better with the public than 'repeal' or 'replace' -- especially when it's becoming more and more obvious that the GOP has absolutely nothing to replace it with. So look for the new 'repair' weasel-word coming from a GOP politician near you, folks!"

 *   The people have spoken*The stench of hypocrisy hangs over Senate Republicans like a miasmic swamp-gas fogbank. So point it out!

"For ten months, Senate Republicans held up the nomination of an eminent jurist to serve on the Supreme Court -- an unprecedented bout of obstructionism. Even Robert Bork got an up-or-down vote, but Merrick Garland didn't. 'We have to let the people decide,' Republican senators piously pronounced, in direct contradiction with what the U.S. Constitution lays out as their duty. Now, these senators seem astonished that Democrats are equally as adamant about not confirming Trump's pick. They're the ones who wrote this playbook, so their hypocrisy is notable. You know what? The people did speak. They said they wanted Hillary Clinton to pick the next Supreme Court nominee. So to be true to their own stated high-minded standards, Republican senators should really be demanding that President Trump nominate a justice that Clinton chooses. After all, the people have spoken, right?"

 *   Pray for us all, instead*Arnold Schwarzenegger was not our favorite California governor, by a long shot, but he certainly deserves credit where credit is due this week. When Trump used the national prayer breakfast meeting (!) to make a joke that everyone should pray for Schwarzenegger's ratings as the successor to Trump on The Apprentice, Arnie shot back within hours with a videotaped message that is absolutely priceless:



Hey Donald, I have a great idea. Why don't we switch jobs? You take over TV, because you're such an expert in ratings, and I take over your job -- and then people can finally sleep comfortably again.



 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

 

-- 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 20 hours ago.

Obamacare Enrollment Down From Last Year, But Higher Than Expected

0
0
U.S. federal officials say more than 9.2 million people signed up for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act during open enrollment from November to January, despite Republican efforts to repeal the program then replace it with an alternative health care plan. The total number of enrollees was down a half-million from the open enrollment period for last year. Yet, in the turmoil over the future of the program widely known as Obamacare, the decline was smaller than... Reported by VOA News 21 hours ago.

Fixed-Dollar Tax Credits Would Reduce Individual Health Insurance Premiums – OpEd

0
0
Sonia Jaffe and Mark Shepard of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) have written a new paper, which compares the effects of fixed-dollar subsidies for health insurance to subsidies that are linked to premiums. She concludes that fixed-dollar subsidies reduce taxpayers’ costs and improve access. Unfortunately, the structure of subsidies in U.S. health insurance has moved in the other direction.

Tax credits that subsidize health insurance offered in Obamacare’s exchanges are based on the second-lower cost Silver-level plan in a region. Intuitively, this implies insurers will not compete too much because that would drive down subsidies. As long as subsidies chase insurance premiums, premiums will be higher than otherwise.

Jaffe looks at evidence from Massachusetts’ health reform (“Romneycare”), which dates to 2006. Its costs are still spiraling, and Jaffe estimates one factor is its design of subsidies, which is similar to Obamacare’s:



Across several simulation years and assumptions, we find a non-trivial upward distortion in the price of the cheapest plan (to which Massachusetts’ subsidies are linked) of $4-26 per month, or 1-6% of baseline prices. Although modest, these effects imply meaningful increases in government costs. For instance, the $24/month subsidy distortion (in our simulations for 2011) would translate into $46 million in annual subsidy costs for Massachusetts, and over $3 billion if extrapolated nationally to the ACA. We show that absent uncertainty, shifting to fixed subsidies could let the government achieve the same coverage at 6.1% lower taxpayer cost, or 1.3% greater coverage at the same cost.

(Sonja Jaffe, Price-Linked Subsidies and Health Insurance Markups, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 23104, January 2017)



The paper is a heavy read, full of PhD-level economic theory and modelling. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that replacing Obamacare’s tax credits with a fixed-dollar tax credit to subsidize health coverage is as close to a free lunch as is possible in health reform.

This article was published at The Beacon Reported by Eurasia Review 17 hours ago.

Black Women Face Devastating Losses If Obamacare Is Repealed

0
0
Bianca Adams worked part-time jobs as a spa professional, sometimes juggling two or three at a time, for years. But none of them offered her insurance, which meant that the 47-year-old with diabetes often went to the emergency room for care.

“I was one of those people that had to go to the emergency when my blood sugar got too high and I needed fluids,” Adams told The Huffington Post. “There was really no one managing my health at that point.”

When her Medicaid coverage through the Affordable Care Act began in 2014, Adams, who has been disabled* *with severe knee problems for 25 years, underwent three major surgeries in six months: a partial hysterectomy to remove a large tumor in June, a total right knee replacement in September and a left knee replacement in November.

“It was brutal, but everything needed to be done. I was very, very sick — and had I not done it then, I’d probably be on a walker right now,” she said.

But that wasn’t her only concern. “I felt like once Republicans got back into office, it would be repealed,” she said. “That was literally the first thing on my mind — to get everything done as soon as possible.”

Black women stand to lose the most if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. This demographic is more susceptible to diabetes, uterine fibroids, obesity, high-blood pressure, domestic abuse and sexual assault than any other. Many black women also have children who depend on them for their health care, since black women are more likely to be sole providers for their household. 

Obamacare reduced coverage disparities for a number of black women, allowing them to access routine health care treatment and check-ups with a primary care physician. The preventive care clause in the ACA has been life-changing for many black women: It gives them better access to early cancer screenings. Black women are twice as likely as white women to die of cervical cancer and twice as likely to be diagnosed in the later stages of breast cancer.

Historically, the government has paid attention to black women’s health only when it’s convenient, said Joan Faber McAlister, an associate professor at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.

“Black women’s health has been pretty much the lowest priority, almost has been completely invisible,” McAlister said. “The only time we see a lot of attention to black women’s health is when it’s being misrepresented to undermine social programs that don’t even primarily benefit black women.”

As of Jan. 1, 32 states had expanded Medicaid to include most low-income Americans. If President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans move forward with their plans to repeal Obamacare, that coverage will go away. So will the tax credits that help lower- and middle-class families afford insurance. Many of the people hit hardest will be black women.

Here are some of their stories.*Karla Baptiste, 43, DeSoto, Texas*

After moving to the San Francisco Bay Area for a new job in late September 2007, Karla Baptiste was diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer at age 34. A mastectomy that October determined that Baptiste’s cancer was worse than doctors had thought ― it was present in 14 of her lymph nodes and had progressed to stage 3.

She began chemotherapy that November. She would later have three reconstructive surgeries on her breast, six weeks of daily radiation and take regular doses of Tamoxifen, a cancer treatment drug, for four years.

Baptiste was declared cancer free in 2008. But in July 2014, a lesion was found on her vertebrae. The cancer had metastasized to her spine. After another round of treatments, the lesion was gone by February 2015.

Baptiste shows no cancer activity in her body now but is still considered to be a high cancer risk. “I’m cancer free now, but I have stage 4 cancer, and there is no stage 5. I don’t want to go back to a time when insurance companies can deny me just because they decide they don’t want to pay for something.”

“And then I die,” she continued. “It’s that serious for me.”

Baptiste won’t be able to pay for the medicine she needs to survive without the ACA. Her insurance was billed $426,702 last year for her care. She paid $2,500 of that.

“If the ACA is repealed and not replaced with something that has guardrails for insurance companies, patients like me with pre-existing conditions are the ones they will drop or deny coverage for,” she said. “We cost them too much. The ACA gives me peace of mind that I will receive the care that I need.”

“I’m in a situation where I’m going to be treated indefinitely,” she added. “It’s not something like I get chemo and I’m done ― having my medication is that important to me. It’s keeping me alive.”*Aitza Burgess Reynolds, 22, Chapel Hill, North Carolina*

When Aitza Burgess Reynolds’ mom started receiving disability payments in 2015, the 22-year-old college senior was no longer covered under her mother’s plan. She signed up for health care through the ACA marketplace based on her stepfather’s experiences with the program. When he was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, the insurance he obtained through the ACA helped the family financially by covering most of his treatments before he died.

The health insurance offered by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which is just over $1,100 a semester, was too expensive for Burgess Reynolds. It didn’t include dental or eye care. She has to have her eyes checked every six months and needs prescription glasses and contacts costing over $500 to keep from being legally blind.

If the law is repealed and her mom loses disability, Burgess Reynolds would become the sole provider for her household, having to insure herself and her mother. She’d also have to delay going back to graduate school to obtain her doctorate.  

“It’s a great injustice to us, and it’s a failure of our system ― maybe not even a failure because, from what I’ve learned, it was systematically designed to be that way,” she said, with the cards stacked against black women.

*Akosua, 37, Dallas *

Akosua, who did not want her real name published, owns a photography business with her husband. The ACA helps them remain covered since they are self-employed. Akosua and her husband also have pre-existing conditions (she is overweight and he has diabetes).

“The Obama administration really seemed to think about people’s lives and really have compassion for the choices people want to make to be better,” she said.

Akousa was a teacher before opening her own business ― and she was miserable. Obamacare gave her a chance to pursue her dream job. But, she says, politicians want to create an underclass in which people don’t have access to health care and can’t be healthy physically or emotionally.

“We’re moving from the Obama administration to one where people have open disdain for their own citizens ― and that is a major issue to me,” she said. “There’s a great deal of cruelty, and I believe that the repeal of the ACA is not really to [balance the] budget. It’s deliberate social destruction.”*Sandra Thornton, 60, West Point, Georgia*

Sandra Thornton is a divorced mom with three kids. She worked for a company called Wide Open West for 37 years before being diagnosed with severe carpal tunnel syndrome. She worked for seven more years after a surgery on her wrist in 2007, then was laid off in August 2014 after a short medical leave.

The following April, Thornton was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer. “Without the health care, I wouldn’t be talking to you today,” she said.

Thornton, who is now cancer free, underwent a mastectomy, reconstructive surgery, 38 rounds of radiation and six rounds of chemotherapy. Sickness from the chemotherapy landed her in the hospital after each treatment.

Chemo cost more than $6,000 each time, Thornton said. “Who can afford this? No one.”  

“You’ve got to have quality health care. Some of the people wouldn’t even take the insurance because it was affordable health care.” Thornton said that initially she couldn’t find a doctor within 100 miles who would take her insurance, until the insurer helped her find a physician.

“You’re already fighting to get well, but then you got to fight the insurance company? It’s pitiful,” she said. *Aisha Crossley, 38, Las Vegas*

Aisha Crossley is the head of her household. The 38-year-old casualty specialist for AAA doesn’t qualify for any public assistance and, while she’s covered through her employer, her four children are insured through the Affordable Care Act.

Crossley’s oldest son, 21, has severe asthma. He’s been seeing a pulmonary specialist regularly since he was 2 and is on four medications that need to be refilled each month. Crossley said it’s a blessing to be able to pay an $80 quarterly premium and take him to the doctor on a regular basis.  

Without insurance, Crossley says, her oldest son would be in the hospital with pneumonia and probably close to dying. “I also have to be concerned if my child is going to have access to the medication that has allowed him to be alive and control his asthma on a daily basis.”

Crossley herself needs monthly medications, her other son sees a dermatologist regularly for a skin condition and her 7-year-old daughter had surgery in October.

This is why a potential repeal of the ACA scares her. She could put her children on her employer’s insurance, but it would cost at least $500 a month, leaving Crossley with a maddening decision.

“I’d have to decide on if I want to go with the employer-driven insurance or have my kids be uninsured so we can still eat,” she said.  

Faber likened such choices to those that women face in third-world countries.

“You’re facing a choice of which child is going to live in the United States. In a country this wealthy and advanced, we can have a space program but we can’t help women keep their children alive?”
[FORM: https://tinyletter.com/juliacraven]

If you're always angry about politics, sign up for bruh., a sporadic newsletter by Julia Craven.

[INPUT]

[INPUT]

powered by TinyLetter

-- 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 11 hours ago.

More Than 9.2M Enroll in Obamacare Despite GOP Repeal Push

0
0
More Than 9.2M Enroll in Obamacare Despite GOP Repeal Push More than 9.2 million U.S. consumers signed up for health insurance using the... Reported by WorldNews 8 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images