AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty

Governor Paul LePage delivers the State of the State address to the Legislature, Tuesday, February 7, 2017, at the State House in Augusta, Maine. 

Maine Governor Paul LePage has been never a fan of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion provisions, which he has long criticized as too costly. State lawmakers have disagreed, passing bills to expand Medicaid five times during LePage’s six-year tenure. The cranky Republican vetoed every one, and despite bipartisan support for the original proposals, the legislature has never mustered the votes to override his vetoes. Maine remains one of 19 states that have declined to accept new federal dollars to extend health insurance to more low-income people.

Exasperated by LePage’s opposition and the obstinacy of a small group of House Republicans, Mainers for Health Care, a statewide coalition of more than 100 health care, social services, and other organizations, has decided to bypass Augusta. In October, the organizers launched a campaign to put a Medicaid expansion ballot question before voters. If approved, the measure would mandate that Maine accept the federal dollars that would allow state officials to extend Medicaid coverage to individuals under age 65 with an income below or equal to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($32,252 annually for a four-person family).

The coalition collected most of the 61,123 signatures needed to advance the petition during an Election Day signature-gathering drive. This week, Maine’s secretary of state announced that organizers had gathered 66,434 signatures, more than enough to qualify the initiative for the November ballot. However, the next major hurdle for Maine is not at the ballot box but on Capitol Hill, courtesy of Republicans who are determined to obliterate Obamacare in its entirety, right along with the provisions that expand Medicaid to qualifying low-income people.

In Maine, more than 70,000 people stand to gain health insurance coverage under a Medicaid expansion. The move would also create about 3,000 new health sector jobs, establish a wider array of drug treatment programs in a state ravaged by the opioid epidemic, and provide more financial resources to struggling rural hospitals.

Robyn Merrill, executive director of Maine Equal Justice Partners, a nonprofit legal aid group that helped pull together the campaign, canvassed voters in the town of China near Augusta on Election Day. She found that despite the divisiveness of the presidential election, both Trump supporters and Clinton voters were enthusiastic about the ballot question. During the signature collection drive, Merrill and other canvassers heard many health-care horror stories, including a sobering tale from an uninsured woman who cut her hand and sewed the wound up herself rather than go to a hospital. Only when the wound became infected did a friend convince her to go an emergency room. She landed in serious debt after the treatment. Voters “recognized that the lack of affordable health care is just a problem that needs to get solved,” Merrill says.

State lawmakers have the opportunity to weigh in on the referendum before it goes to the ballot in November. If LePage vetoes the bill again and lawmakers fail to override, the measure would still go before voters in November. However, if Maine lawmakers pass the bill in the coming weeks and override LePage’s expected veto, the measure would become law and the question would not appear on the ballot.

The Maine Republican Party claims that the ballot question is “a moot point and a waste of state resources” since congressional Republicans plan to dismantle the ACA. In their “Obamacare Repeal and Replace” policy brief, House Republicans stipulate that expansion states would receive additional Medicaid money only for a limited time once a new law goes into effect; during that period, non-expansion states like Maine “could be eligible to receive additional temporary resources for safety net providers.”

If Maine passes an expansion measure in time, the state could receive federal funding under the ACA before any new law goes into effect. “At the very least, passing this referendum and putting it into law would put us into a much better bargaining position as a state to make sure that we are drawing down that money and covering these people even if [Congress does] something like put it into block grants,” argues Mike Tipping, of the Maine People’s Alliance, a economic and social justice organizing and education group backing the ballot question.

Nationwide, opponents of the current Republican “repeal and replace” strategy, such as the AARP and the U.S Conference of Mayors, have stepped up efforts to force the GOP to stand down from its assault on the law. Republican lawmakers, too, continue to hear from their own constituents who are outraged by the possible loss of newly acquired health insurance—another development that may further slow the Republicans’ march to repeal the ACA without having a comprehensive alternative in place.

Since he came into office in 2011, LePage has waged a relentless assault on services for low-income people in the poorest state in the Northeast. His fiscal 2018-2019 budget plan slashes $140 million from the state Department of Health and Human Services budget, a 4.5 percent decrease from the previous two-year budget, that includes a Medicaid eligibility change that would save $33 million but force about 20,000 people out of the program.

LePage has yet to weigh in on the Medicaid expansion ballot question, but he has expressed little faith in voters’ ability to make informed decisions on state policy issues. He continues to dismiss four successful ballot initiatives that voters passed in November, including a minimum wage increase and marijuana legalization. The governor has suggested that voters did not understand the questions and would like to see new curbs on the referendum process. Nevertheless, Mainers may indeed decide to overrule their term-limited, lame-duck governor by adding Medicaid expansion to the list of issues that are nudging the Pine Tree State in a more progressive direction.   Reported by The American Prospect 10 hours ago.

We finally have a more comprehensive idea of the Republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, the law better known as Obamacare.

Politico's Paul Demko released a draft Friday of the reconciliation bill designed by House Republicans that would repeal and replace the ACA.

The draft bill includes provisions repealing large swaths of the ACA, from Medicaid expansion to the penalty for Americans that don't purchase health insurance. And it calls for shifting payments for expanded coverage to more block-style grants for both individuals and state governments.

It is important to note that this is just a draft and there may be revisions to the bill before it is introduced.

Here's a quick rundown of the key parts of the draft bill:

· *Penalizes those that have a lapse in health coverage:* A person that goes without health insurance for a period of time will face a premium penalty up to 30% above the baseline. This is likely designed to encourage people to sign up for care without a mandate.
· *Shifts tax subsidies to block grants based on age: *Instead of tax subsidies based on income, as in the ACA, the House GOP plan would give every American a chunk of money to purchase insurance based on their age. The lowest amount would be for people under 30, who would receive $2,000 annually.
· *Eliminate Medicaid expansion by 2020: *Currently, the federal government provides states funding to expand Medicaid, the government program that provides insurance for low-income Americans. The bill would end that level of funding in 2020 and begin to provide lower amounts to states if they wish to continue covering people who have gained access to Medicaid under the ACA. Many Republican governors and senators do not want Medicaid expansion repealed.
· *Provide funding to states to establish high-risk pools and increase coverage:* The federal government would provide a total of $15 billion in 2018 and 2019 and $10 billion each year through 2026 for "State Innovation Grants" for things like "covering high-risk individuals,""stabilizing premiums" in the individual insurance market, and "promoting access to preventative services." This seems to be funding for high risk pools, essentially a seperate market for those with pre-existing conditions to get access to coverage.
· *Allow states to determine "essential health benefits":* Currently, the ACA has a list of benefits that must be covered by a plan on the exchanges to qualify for a metal level. The House bill would allow states to instead determine those essential benefits starting in 2020.
· *Change the age band for cost of coverage:* Currently, the ACA says premiums for elderly people can only be three times the cost of those for young people. The new plan would change that to five times.
· *Repeals the tax on tanning bed businesses:* A 10% tax on tanning bed locations would be repealed.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a press conference earlier this month that the plan was awaiting scoring from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. He also said the law should be introduced after Congress' current week-long break.

The bill has not yet been named.

-Here's the full PDF of the House Republican's plan, via Politico »-

*SEE ALSO: Obamacare just hit its highest popularity ever*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Merriam-Webster can’t stop trolling the Trump administration on Twitter Reported by Business Insider 10 hours ago.

Shortly before the close yesterday, retailers tanked when in a Reuters interview, Trump said that he supports "some form" of border tax without elaborating, sending the S&P Retail Sector tumbling.

"I certainly support a form of tax on the border," he told Reuters on Thursday.  "What is going to happen is companies are going to come back here, they're going to build their factories and they're going to create a lot of jobs and there's no tax." Trump also said his administration will tackle tax reform legislation after dealing with Obamacare, the health insurance system put in place by Obama.

Not even 24 hours later, the White House appears to have flip-flopped again because earlier today, according to Axios, Goldman's ex-president Gary Cohn, and chief economic advisor to President Trump, told a group of CEOs that the White House does not support the House GOP version of a border adjustment tax, according to an attendee.

The comment was made while Cohn was being interviewed by The Carlyle Group CEO David Rubenstein, at a private event hosted by The Business Counsel in Washington, D.C.

The result: A mirror image of yesterday's selloff, as now the market no longer has to fear Trump's tweets, but his staggering position reversals, now coming inside the span of a day. Reported by Zero Hedge 10 hours ago.

Let's zero in on the corporate-investor side of venture capital — those funds backed by big corporate bucks. The three most active firms in this particular class of investor are Intel Capital, Google Ventures (GV) and Salesforce Ventures, according to data firm CB Insights. New York-based unicorns Sprinklr and Oscar Health Insurance Co. both scored funding from Intel and GV, respectively. Both deals helped 2016's full-year CVC deal activity in N.Y.C. increase 22 percent over 2015. However, deal… Reported by bizjournals 10 hours ago.

During President Trump’s inaugural address, he spoke of a government that benefits working people—not wealthy insiders. He said: “The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. Everyone is listening to you now.” But if President Trump meant it, he would not be working with Republicans in Congress to rob working families of health care in order to give a big tax cut to the rich.

In January, both the House and Senate passed a budget resolution that starts the process of repealing the Affordable Care Act. For millions of American workers, the reality of an Affordable Care Act repeal would make the rich fabulously richer, while the middle class suffers through rising costs and greater uncertainty.

Who stands to benefit while millions of Americans lose their lifeline? I say follow the money. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, the 400 wealthiest families in the country would gain an average tax cut of $7 million a year from a repeal. Further, over the next ten years, it gives $345 billion in tax cuts to individuals with incomes over $200,000 and nearly $250 billion in tax cuts for health insurance companies and drug manufacturers.

Yet the roughly 160 million households with incomes below $200,000 would get nothing from the repeal of these taxes. In fact, the repeal would actually raise taxes on 7 million low and middle-income families due to the loss of the premium tax credits they use to purchase life-saving insurance for their families. While working Americans struggle with rising costs and greater uncertainty, the Trump Administration is throwing money at the wealthiest Americans.

Does that sound like the right priorities? Though the Trump Administration promises tax policies that would benefit everyone equitably, its actions speak volumes.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act will harm working people, low wage workers, children, and rural Americans. And every family is threatened by Republicans’ casualness about disrupting their healthcare. White Americans in rural areas and small cities—Trump’s own voters—will be especially hit hard by a repeal.

The Affordable Care Act was paid for in part by taxes on the wealthiest individuals, insurance corporations, and pharmaceutical companies. Yet the Republican plan to repeal would benefit those very same people. This is not right. We need a strategy for working Americans—and an economy that works for the middle class. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would fail both of these critical goals.type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=58af3855e4b060480e05ea39,58aaea1ce4b026a89a7a2df5

-- 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 5 hours ago.

Two Alabama doctors face up to 20 years in prison for running an opioid "pill mill" out of their two mobile clinics.

On Thursday Dr. Xiulu Ruan and Dr. John Patrick Couch were found guilty of over-prescribing addictive and sometimes deadly pain killers to their patients, receiving illegal kickbacks from drugmaker Insys Therapeutics, and engaging in insurance fraud.

The doctors were arrested back in 2015 in an ongoing, wide-ranging investigation called "Operation Pilluted," federal law enforcement's answer to the America's precription drug epidemic.

Insys makes fentanyl, one of the opioids Couch and Ruan were pushing on patients who didn't need them. In fact, it's only supposed to be prescribed to cancer patients.

Other drugs the doctors pushed included oxycodone (brand name: Oxycontin), oxycodone hydrochloride (brand name: Roxicodone), oxymorphone (brand name: Opana), hydromorphone (brand name: Dilaudid), morphine, and methadone, according to the Department of Justice.

A big reason why this was all possible was because the doctors owned their own pharmacy called C&R Pharmacy. There, patients were able to fill prescriptions over and over again without anyone batting an eye. 

At the same time, doctors were ripping off health insurance companies by ordering patients to take unnecessary, expensive urine tests. They also would claim that doctors had seen patients when they had actually been seen by nurse practitioners. Claiming that a doctor had seen a patient made the session more expensive.

The entire two month trial wasn't just about fraud either, it was about a culture of drug addiction. Not only were the patients being over-prescribed opioids, but employees at the clinics were also stealing them and taking them on the job too, according to the government's complaint.

Both Ruan and Couch made around $40 million with this scam. They will now have to pay the government $5 million in cash and give up property purchased with their ill gotten gains. Ruan also forfeited 20 luxury sports cars including two Ferraris and two Lamborghinis, according to the WSJ. They will be sentenced sometime in May.

** Insisting on damage **

There's another feature of the drug industry on trial here too, and that's the practice of pharmaceutical companies paying doctors to make speeches endorsing their products.

Back in February of 2016, an Insys sales rep named Natalie Perhacs pled guilty to paying kickbacks to Couch and Ruan. She disguised those payments as speaker fees as part of the company's speakers bureau of doctors, and said she was under constant pressure from management to book the doctors for speaking engagements.

Perhacs also testified that company executives met with the doctors back in 2014.

A year later, a Connecticut nurse practitioner participating in the speakers bureau pled guilty to engaging in a similar kickback scheme with Insys.

And back in December, 10 former employees including the company's former CEO, who met with Ruan and Couch, were arrested on charges of racketeering, paying kick backs, and insurance fraud.

For Insys, none of this over — not by a long shot. Here are a bunch of ongoing investigations the company disclosed in its annual report:

*State Related Investigations.* We have received CIDs from each of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Arizona, ODOJ, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Office of the Attorney General of Illinois and we have also received a subpoena from the Chief Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division of the State of New Hampshire.

In addition, we understand that numerous physicians practicing in New Jersey have received subpoenas from the Department of Justice of the State of New Jersey in connection with these physicians’ interactions with our company. These CIDs and subpoenas request documents regarding Subsys, including our sales and marketing practices related to Subsys in the applicable state, as well as our patient services hub. We are cooperating with each of these investigations and have produced documents in response to these CIDs and related requests for information from each office.

Oh, and the company also received requests from the "USAO of Eastern District of Michigan, Rhode Island, Florida (Jacksonville), Connecticut, New Hampshire, Southern District of Alabama regarding specific physicians that we have interacted with in those states."

So if you things are ugly now, just wait.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The best and worst months to rent an apartment in major US cities Reported by Business Insider 7 hours ago.

President Donald Trump is planning to hold a round-table meeting with health-insurance executives at the White House on Monday, according to people close to the planning, as the administration looks to encourage insurers to sign onto Republicans’ health-care overhaul efforts. Reported by Wall Street Journal 5 hours ago.

WASHINGTON ― A draft version of a House Republican bill to repeal and “replace” the Affordable Care Act shows how the move would weaken or eliminate coverage for an untold number of people on Medicaid and private health insurance.

House Republicans, led by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), appear to be putting the finishing touches on the legislative vehicle with which they intend to eliminate former President Barack Obama’s signature health care law and put in place a new system ― one that would provide significantly less funding for people seeking health benefits and for states providing Medicaid coverage. Ryan has said that he hopes the House can begin advancing legislation when it comes back from recess next week.

The draft bill, first reported by Politico’s Paul Demko, carries a Feb. 10 timestamp, and Republicans may have revised their proposal since then. The text does not indicate which lawmakers or committees are responsible for it, and there is a blank space where normally the legislation would include the bill’s title.

But the draft is consistent with the principles Ryan laid out in his “A Better Way” agenda over the summer, and the basic shape of legislation closely resembles a bill that Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price introduced when he served in the House.

Like those proposals, the draft legislation would generally reduce financial assistance for lower- and middle-income people buying private health insurance. It would also weaken standards for what those plans cover, roll back funding for the Medicaid expansion and create a new tax on employer-provided health insurance.

Taxes on wealthy people would fall, and the law’s controversial individual mandate ― a penalty for people who don’t get coverage ― would go away immediately, although most parts of the law with direct bearing on insurance coverage would not take effect until 2020.

Without a formal analysis from the Congressional Budget Office ― and without careful study by outside experts, most of whom hadn’t seen the legislation until Friday ― it’s difficult to say exactly how the law might affect premiums, generosity of coverage, the federal budget or the overall number of people with insurance.

Some people would clearly feel better off. Young people, for instance, could buy cheaper insurance ― particularly if they were willing to get less comprehensive coverage than the law currently requires.

But the number of uninsured Americans, currently at a historic low thanks to the 2010 law, would almost certainly rise if something like this proposal became law. Combined with changes to insurance benefits, the net result of the bill’s changes would likely be dramatically greater exposure to punishing medical bills and reduced access to care ― particularly for people who have serious health problems or who aren’t entirely able to pay for comprehensive coverage on their own.

This may not be what most people thought when they heard President Donald Trump’s promise that “everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

Of course, with Republicans still deeply divided on how to proceed, this proposal would be just an opening bid. Some conservatives in the House and Senate don’t even want to replace the Affordable Care Act, while another, larger faction objects to providing financial assistance at all and has sneered at proposals that include tax credits, calling them “Obamacare-lite.”

The Senate, for its part, has made no apparent progress on health care legislation and isn’t expected to simply accept what the House proposes.

The Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion poses more of a problem for the repeal effort in the Senate, as well. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), for example, has already said she can’t support a bill that would cut funding for her state’s Medicaid expansion, while conservatives like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) say they won’t support a bill that doesn’t end the expansion.

All of this is taking place in a political environment increasingly hostile for Republicans. Angry constituents are flooding lawmakers’ town halls demanding more details about the “replacement” plan, while polling shows a marked upswing in public approval for the Affordable Care Act and a notable decline in support for repeal.

Here are some of the biggest changes that would take place if something like the House GOP draft bill were to become law:

*Help paying for health insurance*

Financial assistance for people buying coverage would change dramatically. Instead of tax credits that vary based on income, people would be eligible for tax credits that vary based on age, with older customers getting bigger credits.

This would work out as a nice tax break for people whose incomes, today, qualify them for only a little assistance or none at all. But it means that working- and middle-class people would tend to lose assistance that currently makes it possible for them to buy coverage in the first place.

Critically, the GOP proposal would also eliminate extra subsidies, available under the Affordable Care Act, that reduce out-of-pocket expenses for people whose incomes are below 250 percent of the poverty line, or about $60,000 for a family of four.

*Younger versus older people*

The Affordable Care Act doesn’t allow health insurance companies to charge older people more than three times the price for a younger adult. The House GOP plan would increase that limit to five times, although states would have flexibility to set their own rules. This might mean lower premiums for some younger consumers, but older people could pay considerably more.

*Health insurance benefits*

Under the Affordable Care Act, all private plans must cover a variety of benefits, including hospitalizations, prescription drugs, contraception, mental health and maternity. Under the House GOP bill, states would be permitted to establish whatever “essential benefits” they wanted, and leave out the rest.

The bill also includes a clause that would allow insurers to continue offering “grandfathered” plans, which are exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s standards for benefits and pricing because insurers were selling them before the law took effect. It’s not clear whether these plans would be available to people not already enrolled in them. If they are, that could undermine other regulations on insurance.

*Pre-existing conditions and the individual mandate*

Insurers today cannot deny coverage or charge higher premiums because of health status, as long as people sign up during annual open enrollment or qualify for an exemption for a reason like a move or a new job. But under this proposal, insurers could increase premiums by 30 percent, for up to a year, on people who do not maintain “continuous coverage,” meaning that they let their coverage lapse for more than two months. This would have the biggest effect on lower-income people and people juggling jobs ― particularly because, under the GOP proposal, they would be getting less financial aid from the government.

The proposal would also eliminate the individual mandate. The mandate exists to make sure healthy people buy coverage, rather than waiting until they get sick. The continuous coverage provision is supposed to serve the same function, but many experts believe it is not as effective.

*Medicaid funding*

House Republicans propose repealing the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion by eliminating the additional federal funding for it. The federal government and states jointly finance Medicaid, and states historically paid 25 percent to 50 percent of the costs, but the Affordable Care Act provided at least 90 percent of the funding for the expansion population. This draft bill would reduce it to the share paid for other Medicaid beneficiaries.

The bill also calls for a far more radical change to Medicaid. Since its inception in 1965, Medicaid has been a federal entitlement like Medicare and Social Security, so the government has been obligated to cover the costs of any eligible person without limit. House Republicans want to eliminate this entitlement status and instead send states a flat sum ― known as a per-capita cap ― per enrollee.

This would leave states on the hook for any costs above that amount, which would be smaller than federal funding today. That would likely lead states to remove people from the rolls, trim benefits and/or cut payment rates to medical providers, reducing coverage and access to care.

*High-risk pools*

In an attempt to make up for scrapping the Affordable Care Act’s guarantee of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, the House Republican bill would set aside $100 billion over a decade to finance state programs that would cover people with the highest medical costs.

This could take the form of high-risk pools, which is a reform Republicans have long favored. Prior to the ACA making them obsolete, these high-risk pools existed in a majority of states, dating back to the 1970s. Inadequate funding, high premiums and lengthy waiting lists meant only a tiny percentage of people otherwise uninsurable had access to this coverage.

The proposed $100 billion investment would be substantially more than what previous proposals, such as Price’s, allocated. But even so, the investment would probably fall far short of providing coverage for all the people who need it. Both liberal and conservative health experts have speculated that high-risk pools really need more like $150 billion to $250 billion over that time period.

*Paying for the plan*

The proposal would wipe out much of the Affordable Care Act’s funding, including new payroll taxes that fall exclusively on the very wealthiest Americans. To make up for some of that loss, the bill would start subjecting a portion of the most generous health plans to taxes. Today the premiums for employer-sponsored insurance do not count toward taxes, so this would effectively be a new tax on the most expensive insurance policies, which many middle-class people hold.

Economists across the political spectrum have long called for such a change, and the Affordable Care Act actually has a version of this proposal, known as the “Cadillac tax.” But the idea of taxing health benefits is highly unpopular, which is one reason Congress voted two years ago to postpone introduction of the Cadillac tax.

** * **

One question looming over all of this is how these features could become law. In order to advance legislation in the Senate, where it would normally take 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster, Republicans hope to use the budget reconciliation process, in which a simple majority can pass a bill.

But reconciliation rules prohibit consideration of changes that don’t directly affect the federal budget, and some of the changes in the draft bill ― like those affecting insurance regulations ― might not pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, an adviser to the Senate who interprets those rules.

Another question is how long the transition to a new system would take. The draft bill envisions full implementation by 2020, but that’s not actually a lot of time for insurers to prepare for what would be an entirely new insurance market. And with the individual mandate coming off the books right away, insurers, who are right now making plans for 2018 and are already worried about covering their costs, might worry about attracting enough healthy customers to make their policies financially sound.

-- 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.

President Donald Trump is planning to hold a round-table meeting with health-insurance executives at the White House on Monday, according to people close to the planning, as the administration looks to encourage insurers to sign onto Republicans’ health-care overhaul efforts. Reported by Wall Street Journal 2 days ago.

The more you know about Medicare, the better use you can make of the health insurance program, keeping more of your dollars in your pocket and perhaps staying healthier and living longer, too. Reported by Motley Fool 2 days ago.

CHICAGO (AP) — As Republicans try to unite around a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, one of the most popular parts of the law will be among the most difficult to replace: the guarantee of health coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. The challenge of providing insurance for Americans who have no other alternative has some congressional Republicans considering whether to ask the states to reboot high-risk pools, an option with a rocky history. The health care law requires insurance companies to cover people with serious medical problems at the same premium prices as everyone else. People would have to maintain continuous coverage before earning the protection — for 18 months in the plan offered by former Rep. Tom Price, Trump's health secretary. Sick people with problems ranging from arthritis to congestive heart failure were placed in a separate insurance pool, with government and insurance companies helping to cover costs. [...] the health care overhaul, most states allowed insurers to quiz applicants for regular individual policies with lengthy questionnaires, including details about the health of each family member. Insurers automatically denied individual coverage for people with cancer, cerebral palsy, congestive heart failure and many other conditions. "High-risk pools have been government's attempt to get at the issue of access to health insurance," said Al Redmer Jr., Maryland's insurance commissioner and a leader in the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Under the law, the government set up a temporary program called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, to serve as a bridge until the phase-in of the requirement that insurers accept people with health problems. Reported by SeattlePI.com 2 days ago.

Republican Rep. Leonard Lance faced a raucous, record town-hall crowd in his New Jersey district this week, where he was constantly told that he needed to "do your job."

He said forcing President Donald Trump to turn over tax returns would be an "overreach from Congress" and that he didn't like Congress going after the "returns of a private individual." A constituent then yelled back: "He’s the president! He’s a public individual!"

He faced four questions on Russian interference in the election. Others came on Obamacare. On immigration. On press freedom.

Across the country this week, Republican lawmakers have faced down angry crowds of constituents questioning their policy proposals and support for Trump's administration. Congress was on a break for the week for a district work week, during which lawmakers leave Washington and meet with people in their home states.

But for Republicans, the week off meant they were faced with angry crowds in town-hall meetings in states from Kentucky to Virginia to Arkansas.

Republicans have denounced and Democrats have cheered the protests. To many, they resemble shades of the early days of the Tea Party movement after President Barack Obama's election.

*Getting angry*

Much of the concern and anger at the town halls has been directed at the imminent repeal of the Affordable Care Act. House Speaker Paul Ryan said last week that a bill to repeal and replace the law would come after the week-long break, and a version of the repeal bill leaked on Friday.

Some constituents were angry about the potential repeal of the law. At a Wednesday night town hall, an angry constituent confronted Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, saying her husband was dying and had Alzheimer's. She said coverage through the ACA was cheap for her and her family and was worried

"And you want to stand there with him at home, expect us to be calm, cool, and collected?" she asked Cotton. "Well, what kind of insurance do you have?"



Voter to @SenTomCotton: My husband is dying. We can't afford health insurance. What kind of insurance do you have? https://t.co/iYFiZtwJ1F

— CNN (@CNN) February 22, 2017

At another town hall, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa was told by a local farmer that he needed Obamacare. He referenced Grassley's infamous, and since disproven, idea that Obamacare would create "death panels."

"I'm on Obamacare. If it wasn't for Obamacare, we wouldn't be able to afford insurance," said Chris Peterson, Grassley's constituent. "With all due respect, sir, you're the man that talked about the death panel. We're going to create one big death panel in this country if people can't afford insurance."

Constituents at a town hall for Sen. Tim Scott and Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, meanwhile, held up signs at town halls reading "Save the ACA." 

 

*Shades of 2009 and Republican pushback*

To many observers, these protests have recent precedent: the rise of the conservative Tea Party after Obama's election in 2008.

"A lot of the tactics and a lot of the energy that we're seeing today focused at the Republican Congress in these town hall meetings is more than just reminiscent — it's downright deja vu," Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson told NPR.

Other Democrats, however, have been pushing back against the comparison, saying that the two instances are different.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the former Democratic presidential candidate, said the protests were different because "unlike the Tea Party, this is not being funded by the billionaire class."

While GOP lawmakers have been getting an earful, they have also sought to fight back against the protests.

Trump, for his part, tweeted a response to the protests on Tuesday night, calling them "Sad!"

"The so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists," Trump wrote.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer also denounced the protests during a press briefing this week, saying the protesters were just trying to get "media attention."

I think there’s a hybrid there," Spicer said in a briefing on Wednesday. "I think some people are clearly upset. But there is a bit of professional protester, manufactured base in there."

Grassley, for his part, was a bit more muted in his criticism, saying the protestors weren't fake and that the protests should be expected given the outcome of the election.

"I want to make clear it’s all legitimate," Grassley said. "If Hillary Clinton had been elected president, there’d be people from the conservative end of the spectrum to probably be doing the same thing."

Yet, whether or not these protests will lead to any policy differences is so far unclear.

Harvard professor and polling expert Robert Blendon, in an interview with Vox's Sarah Kliff, said that while overall approval of Obamacare has been improving to record levels recently, it remains deeply unpopular among Republicans.

"For people in the House or Senate, they know a general poll doesn’t reflect who voted for them," Blendon said. "So what’s important to me, if I’m in the House, is whether Republicans are changing their minds. That is really the key."

 

*SEE ALSO: Calls for Trump to be replaced by Alec Baldwin after boycotting White House press dinner*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how Attorney General Sessions could shut down the legal marijuana industry overnight Reported by Business Insider 17 hours ago.

To say that President Donald Trump has a casual relationship with the truth would be a gross understatement. He has repeatedly cited debunked conspiracy theories, pushed voter fraud myths, and embellished his record and accomplishments. The barrage of falsehoods has been so furious that journalists have taken to issuing instant fact-checks during press conferences and calling out false statements during cable news broadcasts.

All presidents lie, but lying so brazenly and so frequently about even silly factoids like his golf game has put Trump in his own category. His disregard for the truth is reflected in his top aides, who have inflated easily disproved figures like the attendance at his inauguration and even cited terror attacks that never happened.
The Huffington Post tracked the public remarks of Trump and his aides to compile a list of 100 incidents of egregious falsehoods. Still, it is likely the administration has made dozens of other misleading and exaggerated claims.2.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer falsely claimed the crowd on the National Mall was “largest audience to ever witness an inauguration.” (Jan. 21)4.
Trump falsely claimed that the crowd for his swearing-in stretched down the National Mall to the Washington Monument and totaled more than 1 million people. (Jan. 21)6.
As Trump fondly recalled his Inauguration Day, he said it stopped raining “immediately” when he began his speech. A light rain continued to fall throughout the address. (Jan. 21)8.
During his speech at CIA headquarters, Trump claimed the media made up his feud with the agency. In fact, he started it by comparing the intelligence community to “Nazi Germany.” (Jan. 21)10.
During his speech at CIA headquarters, Trump repeated the claim that he “didn’t want to go into Iraq.” He told Howard Stern in 2002 that he supported the Iraq War. (Jan. 21)12.
During his speech at CIA headquarters, Trump said he had the “all-time record in the history of Time Magazine. … I’ve been on it for 15 times this year.” Trump had been featured on the magazine a total of 11 times. (Jan. 21)14.
Trump claimed that his inauguration drew 11 million more viewers than Barack Obama’s in 2013. It didn’t, and viewership for Obama’s first inauguration, in 2009, was even higher. (Jan. 22) 16.
Spicer said during his first press briefing that there has been a “dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years.” This is false. (Jan. 23)18.
While pushing back against the notion of a rift between the CIA and Trump, Spicer claimed the president had received a “five-minute standing ovation” at the agency’s headquarters. He did not. The attendees were also never asked to sit down. (Jan. 23)20.
Spicer claimed that “tens of millions of people” watched the inauguration online. In fact, about 4.6 million did. (Jan. 23)22.
Trump told CBN News that 84 percent Cuban-Americans voted for him. It’s not clear where Trump got that number. According to the Pew Research Center, 54 percent of Cuban-Americans in Florida voted for him. (Jan. 23)24.
While meeting with congressional leaders, Trump repeated a debunked claim that he only lost the national popular vote because of widespread voter fraud. (Jan. 24)26.
In remarks with business leaders at the White House, Trump said, “I’m a very big person when it comes to the environment. I have received awards on the environment.” There is no evidence that Trump has received such awards. (Jan. 24)28.
In signing an executive memo ordering the construction of the Keystone pipeline, Trump said the project would create 28,000 construction jobs. According to The Washington Post Fact Checker, the pipeline would create an estimated 16,000 jobs, most of which are not construction jobs. (Jan. 25)30.
Spicer said in a press briefing that Trump received more electoral votes than any Republican since Ronald Reagan. George H.W. Bush won 426 electoral votes in 1988, more than Trump’s 304. (Jan. 24)32.
In remarks he gave at the Homeland Security Department, Trump said Immigration and Customs Enforcement and border patrol agents “unanimously endorsed me for president.” That’s not true. (Jan. 25)34.
Spicer said during a press briefing that a draft executive order on CIA prisons was not a “White House document.” Citing three administration officials, The New York Times reported that the White House had circulated the draft order among national security staff members. (Jan. 25)36.
In an interview with ABC, Trump again claimed he “had the biggest audience in the history of inaugural speeches.” False. (Jan. 25)38.
Trump claimed during an interview with ABC that the applause he received at CIA headquarters “was the biggest standing ovation since Peyton Manning had won the Super Bowl.” It wasn’t even a standing ovation. (Jan. 25)
40.
In an interview with ABC, Trump attacked the Affordable Care Act and said there are “millions of people that now aren’t insured anymore.” Twenty million people have gained health coverage because of the law so far. The estimated 2 million people who did not qualify under the law received waivers that kept the plans going until the end of 2017. (Jan. 25)42.
At the GOP retreat in Philadelphia, Trump claimed he and the president of Mexico “agreed” to cancel their scheduled meeting. Enrique Peña Nieto said he had decided to cancel it. (Jan. 26)44.
At the GOP retreat in Philadelphia, Trump said the national homicide rate was “horribly increasing.” It is down significantly. (Jan. 26)46.
On Twitter, Trump repeated his false claim that 3 million votes were illegal during the election. (Jan. 27)
48.
In an interview on “Good Morning America,” Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway said Tiffany Trump, the president’s daughter, had told her she was “not registered to vote in two states.” A local election official confirmed to NBC News twice that the younger Trump indeed was. (Jan. 27)50.
Trump said he predicted the so-called “Brexit” when he was in Scotland the day before the vote. He was actually there the day after the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. (Jan. 27)52.
Trump claimed The New York Times lost subscribers “because their readers even like me.” The Times experienced a sharp uptick in subscribers after Election Day. (Jan. 27)54.
Trump claimed two people were fatally shot in Chicago during Obama’s last speech as president. That didn’t happen. (Jan. 27)56.
Trump claimed that under previous administrations, “if you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible.” In fact, almost as many Christian refugees were admitted to the U.S. as Muslim refugees in fiscal year 2016. (Jan. 27)58.
Trump defended the swiftness of his immigration order on the grounds that terrorists would have rushed into the country if he had given the world a week’s notice. Even if terrorists wanted to infiltrate the refugee program or the visa program, they would have had to wait months or even years while being vetted to get into the country. (Jan. 30)60.
The White House maintained that Trump’s immigration order did not apply to green card holders and that was “the guidance from the beginning.” Initially, the White House said the order did include green card holders. (Jan. 30)62.
Trump said his immigration order was “similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” Obama’s policy slowed resettlement of refugees from Iraq, but did not keep them from entering the country. Moreover, it flagged the seven countries included in Trump’s order as places the U.S. considered dangerous to visit. (Jan. 30)64.
Spicer said that “by and large,” Trump has been “praised” for his statement commemorating the Holocaust. Every major Jewish organization, including the Republican Jewish Coalition, criticized it for omitting any specific references to the Jewish people or anti-Semitism. (Jan. 30)66.
A Trump administration official called the implementation of Trump’s travel ban a “massive success story.” Not true ― young children, elderly people and U.S. green card holders were detained for hours. Some were deported upon landing in the U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) even criticized the rollout as “confusing.” (Jan. 30)68.
Spicer equated White House adviser Steve Bannon’s appointment to the National Security Council Principals Committee with Obama adviser David Axelrod attending meetings pertaining to foreign policy. Axelrod, however, never sat on the Principals Committee. (Jan. 30)70.
Spicer said people would have “flooded” into the country with advance notice of Trump’s immigration order. Not true. (Jan. 30)72.
Spicer insisted that only 109 travelers were detained because of Trump’s immigration order. More than 1,000 legal permanent residents had to get waivers before entering the U.S. An estimated 90,000 people in total were affected by the ban. (Jan. 30)74.
Trump tweeted the false claim that “only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning.” (Jan. 30)76.
Trump took credit for cutting $600 million from the F-35 program. But Lockheed Martin already had planned for the cost reductions for the next generation fighter plane. (Jan. 31)78.
Trump accused China of manipulating its currency by playing “the money market. They play the devaluation market, and we sit there like a bunch of dummies.” According to The Washington Post, the United States is no longer being hurt by China’s currency manipulation, and China is no longer devaluing its currency. (Jan. 31)80.
In defending the GOP’s blockade of Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Spicer said no president had ever nominated a justice “so late” in his term. It previously happened three times. (Jan. 31)82.
Spicer repeatedly insisted during a press conference that Trump’s executive order on immigration was “not a ban.” During a Q&A event the night before, however, Spicer himself referred to the order as a “ban.” So did the president. (Jan. 31)84.
White House officials denied reports that Trump told Peña Nieto that U.S. forces would handle the “bad hombres down there” if the Mexican authorities don’t. It confirmed the conversation the next day, maintaining the remark was meant to be “lighthearted.” (Jan. 31)86.
Trump claimed that Delta, protesters and the tears of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) were to blame for the problems over his travel ban. In fact, his administration was widely considered to blame for problems associated with its rollout. (Jan. 31)88.
Trump said the Obama administration “agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia.” The deal actually involved 1,250 refugees. (Feb. 1)90.
Trump said the U.S. “has the most generous immigration system in the world.” Not really. (Feb. 2)92.
Trump said the U.S. was giving Iran $150 billion for “nothing” under the Iranian nuclear deal. The money was already Iran’s to begin with, and the deal blocks Iran from building a nuclear bomb. (Feb. 2)94.
Spicer called a U.S. raid in Yemen “very, very well thought out and executed effort” and described it as a “successful operation by all standards.” U.S. military officials told Reuters the operation was approved “without sufficient intelligence, ground support, or adequate backup preparations.” (Feb. 2)96.
Spicer said that Iran had attacked a U.S. naval vessel, as part of his argument defending the administration’s bellicose announcement that Iran is “on notice.” In fact, a suspected Houthi rebel ship attacked a Saudi vessel. (Feb. 2)98.
In his meeting with union leaders at the White House, Trump claimed he won union households. He actually only won white union households. (Feb. 2)100.
Conway cited the “Bowling Green massacre” to defend Trump’s travel ban. It never happened. (Feb. 3)102.
Conway said citing the nonexistent “Bowling Green massacre” to defend Trump’s immigration order was an accidental “slip.” But she had mentioned it twice prior to that interview. (Feb. 3)104.
Trump approvingly shared a story on his official Facebook page which claimed that Kuwait issued a visa ban for five Muslim-majority countries. Kuwait issued a statement categorically denying it. (Feb. 3)106.
Trump claimed people are “pouring in” after his immigration order was temporarily suspended. Travelers and refugees cannot simply rush into the U.S. without extensive and lengthy vetting. (Feb. 5)108.
After a judge halted his immigration ban, Trump claimed that “anyone, even with bad intentions, can now come into the U.S.” Not true. (Feb. 5)110.
Spicer said nationwide protests of Trump are not like protests the tea party held, and called them “a very paid AstroTurf-type movement.” Although Democrats have capitalized on the backlash against Trump by organizing, the massive rallies across dozens of cities across the country ―  which in some cases have been spontaneous ― suggests they are part of an organic phenomenon. (Feb. 6)112.
During an interview with Fox News before the Super Bowl, Trump repeated his debunked claim of widespread voter fraud during the presidential election. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Republican and Democratic state officials have said so, as have Trump’s own campaign attorneys. (Feb. 6)114.
During an interview with Fox News before the Super Bowl, Trump repeated his false claim that he has “been against the war in Iraq from the beginning.” (Feb. 6)116.
Conway said she would not appear on CNN’s “State of the Union” because of “family” reasons. CNN, however, said the White House offered Conway as an alternative to Vice President Mike Pence and that the network had “passed” because of concerns about her “credibility.” (Feb. 6)118.
Spicer claimed CNN “retracted” its explanation of why it declined to take Conway for a Sunday show appearance. CNN said it never did so. (Feb. 6)120.
Trump cited attacks in Boston, Paris, Orlando, Florida, and Nice, France, as examples of terrorism the media has not covered adequately. “In many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn’t want to report it,” he said at CENTCOM. Those attacks garnered wall-to-wall television coverage, as well as thousands of news articles in print and online. (Feb. 6)122.
The White House released a more expansive list of terrorist attacks it believed “did not receive adequate attention from Western media sources.” Again, the list includes attacks that were widely covered by the media. (Feb. 6)124.
Trump said sanctuary cities “breed crime.” FBI data indicates that crime in sanctuary cities is generally lower than in nonsanctuary cities. (Feb. 6)126.
Trump claimed The New York Times was “forced to apologize to its subscribers for the poor reporting it did on my election win.” The paper has not issued such an apology. (Feb. 6)128.
Trump claimed the murder rate is the highest it’s been in 47 years. The murder rate rose 10.8 percent across the United States in 2015, but it’s far lower than it was 30 to 40 years ago. (Feb. 7)130.
Spicer explained that the delay in repealing Obamacare was a result of the White House wanting to work with Congress. Unlike during the Obama administration, he asserted, the legislature ― not the White House ― was taking the lead on health care. Various congressional committees worked on drafting multiple versions of the bill that would become the Affordable Care Act ― a lengthy process that took over a year. (Feb. 7)132.
Trump accused Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) of misrepresenting “what Judge Neil Gorsuch told him” in response to the president’s attacks against the judiciary. Gorsuch called Trump’s tweets attacking federal judges “demoralizing.” A spokesman for Gorsuch confirmed the judge’s remarks. (Feb. 9)134.
Trump has repeatedly said he doesn’t watch CNN. But he had to in order to see and offer and opinion on the network’s interview with Blumenthal. (Feb. 9)136.
Former national security adviser Michael Flynn has said that phone calls he made to Russia prior to Trump’s inauguration were not related to sanctions. According to a Washington Post report, however, Flynn held private discussions with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, before Trump took office, suggesting that sanctions against Moscow would be eased by the incoming administration. (Feb. 9)138.
Trump took credit for Ford’s decision not to open an auto factory in Mexico and instead expand its Michigan plant. The company said Trump was not responsible for its decision. (Feb. 9)140.
Trump told a room full of politicians that “thousands” of “illegal” voters had been driven into New Hampshire to cast ballots. There is no evidence of such a claim. (Feb. 11)142.
During an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” White House senior policy aide Stephen Miller falsely said the “issue of busing voters into New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who’s worked in New Hampshire politics.” Again, not true. (Feb. 11)144.
Miller cited the “astonishing” statistic that 14 percent of noncitizens are registered to vote. The study the stat is based on has been highly contested. (Feb. 11)146.
Trump said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was “cut off” on CNN for “using the term fake news the describe the network.” The senator was joking and he was not cut off. (Feb. 12)148.
Trump accused the media of refusing to report on “big crowds of enthusiastic supporters lining the road” in Florida. There were a few supporters, but they were vastly outnumbered by hundreds of protesters. (Feb. 12)150.
White House officials told reporters that Flynn decided on his own to resign. However, Spicer said during a press briefing that the president asked Flynn to resign. (Feb. 13)152.
Trump denied in a January interview that he or anyone on his campaign had any contact with Russia prior to the election. However, The New York Times and CNN both reported that Trump campaign officials and associates “had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials” before Nov. 8. (Feb. 15)154.
Spicer denied in a daily briefing that anyone on the Trump campaign had had any contact with Russian officials. (Feb. 15)156.
Trump complained he “inherited a mess” upon being elected to office. The stock market is experiencing record highs, the economy is stable and growing, and unemployment is low. (Feb. 16)158.
Trump disputed the notion that his administration is experiencing turmoil, telling reporters it is working like a “fine-tuned machine.” His poorly executed travel ban has been suspended by the courts, a Cabinet nominee was forced to withdraw his nomination, and Trump’s national security adviser resigned after less than four weeks on the job. (Feb. 16)160.
Trump said his 306 Electoral College votes was the biggest electoral votes victory since Ronald Reagan. Obama got 332 votes in 2012. (Feb. 16)162.
Trump said his first weeks in office “represented an unprecedented month of action.” Obama accomplished much more during his first weeks in office. (Feb. 16)164.
Defending himself from charges of hypocrisy on the matter of leaks ― which he frequently celebrated when they pertained to his campaign opposition but now denounces ― Trump said that WikiLeaks does not publicize “classified information.” It does, often anonymously. (Feb. 16)166.
Trump repeated his claim that Hillary Clinton gave 20 percent of American uranium to the Russians in a deal during her tenure as secretary of state. Not true. (Feb. 16)168.
Trump said drugs are “becoming cheaper than a candy bar.” They are not. (Feb. 16)170.
Trump said his administration had a “very smooth rollout of the travel ban.” His immigration caused chaos at the nation’s airports and has been suspended by the courts. (Feb. 16)172.
Trump said the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is in “chaos” and “turmoil.” It is not. (Feb. 16)174.
Flynn lied to FBI investigators in a Jan. 24 interview about whether he discussed sanctions with Russian officials prior to Trump’s inauguration, according to The Washington Post. (Feb. 16)176.
Trump falsely suggested at a Florida rally that Sweden had suffered a terror attack the night before his speech. It had not, and Trump was likely referring to a Fox News segment on crime in Sweden. (Feb. 18)178.
During his Florida rally, Trump repeated his false claim that the United States has already let in thousands of people who “there was no way to vet.” Refugees undergo the most rigorous vetting process of any immigrants admitted to the United States, often waiting upwards of two years to be cleared for entry. (Feb. 18)180.
White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said in a “Fox News Sunday” interview that Trump “has accomplished more in the first 30 days than people can remember.” Obama accomplished much more during his first weeks in office. (Feb. 19)182.
Trump said during his campaign that he would only play golf with heads of state and business leaders, not friends and celebrities like Obama did. Trump has golfed with world leaders like Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Most recently, however, he hit the links with golf pro Rory McIlroy, International Sports Management’s Nick Mullen and his friend Rich Levine. (Feb. 19)184.
A White House spokesperson told reporters that Trump only played a “couple” of holes at his golf resort in Florida. A day later, as reports came out saying the president had played 18 holes with Mcllroy, the White House admitted he played “longer.” (Feb. 19)186.
Trump said the media is “trying to say large scale immigration in Sweden is working out just beautifully. NOT!” Sweden’s crime rate has fallen in recent years, and experts there do not think its immigration policies are linked to crime. (Feb. 20)188.
Spicer said Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) asked for a meeting with Trump at the White House. John Weaver, a former campaign aide of the governor, said the president asked for the meeting. (Feb. 21)190.
Vice President Mike Pence called Obamacare a “job killer.” Overall, job growth has been steady since it was signed into law. And the number of unwilling part-time jobs has also gone down, contrary to GOP claims. (Feb. 22)192.
Trump claimed that he negotiated $1 billion in savings to develop two new Boeing Co. jets to serve as the next Air Force One. The Air Force can’t account for that number. (Feb. 22)194.
During a meeting with the nation’s CEOs at the White House, Trump claimed his new economic adviser Gary Cohn “paid $200 million in tax” to take a job at the White House. Cohn didn’t have to pay taxes, he had to sell more than $200 million of Goldman Sachs stock. (Feb. 23)196.
Trump claimed there were “six blocks” worth of people waiting to get into the Conservative Political Action Conference to see him. People filled only  three overflow rooms. (Feb. 24)198.
At CPAC, Trump said that Obamacare covers “very few people.” Nearly 20 million people have gotten health insurance under the law. (Feb. 24)200.
At CPAC, Trump said companies like Intel were making business investments in the United States because of his election. The company planned their new investments before the election. (Feb. 24)
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.

Several days after Goldman Sachs explained in theory why hopes for a quick "repeal and replace" of Obamacare are now extinguished, and even "repair and rename" is looking bad, overnight state governors meeting in Washington got the bad news in practice, when a presentation from Avalere Health and McKinsey warned that the policies proposed by Republican congressional leaders to repeal and replace Obama's signature healthcare law would lead millions of people to lose their health coverage, whilse states lose billions in Federal funding.Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price exits a closed-door discussion on
health-care policy at the National Governors Association in Washington on Saturday

The presentation, reproduced below, estimates that the number of people covered by Obamacare through the individual insurance market could be reduced by as much as 51% in states that chose not to expand Medicaid coverage under Obamacare and by 30% in those that did expand the federal-state health program for the poor. The governors’ meeting came at a pivotal moment in the debate over the future of the health law, which Republicans have pledged to overturn.

The Republican party controls the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and 33 state governorships; it is also getting cold feet about repealing, replacing or even overhauling Obamacare out of concerns what it would mean for existing coverage, which would lead to millions of Americans losing insurance, and potentially truncating the careers of many politicians. It would also mean the end of millions in Federal government handouts to states coming to an end.

Roughly 12 million people gained Medicaid coverage after Obamacare broadened eligibility for the program. From 2014 through the middle of 2015, states got $79 billion of extra funding from the Medicaid expansion, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Under the health law, the federal government paid 100 percent of the cost of the expansion from 2014 to 2016. The government’s share fell to 95 percent this year and was scheduled to fall to 90 percent by 2020.

On the other hand, Obamacare premiums for those paying into the program have soared in the past two years, sucking up a substantial portion of US household disposable income, and leading to widespread displeasure among the US middle-class with the existing format of the healthcare law.

As a result, significant differences remain between GOP officials in the House, the Senate, and the states—most acutely, over the Medicaid insurance program for the poor and disabled, which is administered by the states and jointly funded by the federal and state governments. A summary of the various proposed plans was laid out last week by Goldman.

The debate over the future of Obamacare culminated on Saturday, when governors left a closed-door meeting at the National Governors Association’s winter meeting saying they hadn’t hammered out an answer that day. “We don’t want to create unequal treatment between all the different states,” said Republican Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma. “I don’t think we’ve reached a conclusion on that, other than to say it’s a priority that we find a way that we can cooperate.”

Democrats were more willing than their Republican colleagues to talk to reporters after the closed-door meeting. Vir*ginia Governor Terry McCauliffe called the presentation on what might happen if the ACA is repealed, or if Medicaid funding is limited, “scary.” *

“Tens of thousands who would not be able to afford their coverage and would lose their coverage,” Democratic Governor Jay Inslee of Washington said after the closed-door meeting. “*It was a pretty disturbing briefing.”*

According to the presenation, under the standard repeal and replace plane, the impact would vary by state, but as Axios summarized, in a sample state that expanded Medicaid, it's estimated that:

The state would lose $635 million in federal funding, a 65 percent decrease.

· 110,000 current enrollees would no longer be able to afford a plan.
· 20,000 currently uninsured people would buy a plan with the new tax credit provided by the GOP plan.
· Additionally, 115,000 low-income people may lose Medicaid coverage, with no affordable alternative on the individual market.
· A per capita cap — which would limit funding for each person in the program — would reduce federal spending by 24 percent over five years, requiring the state to spend $6.2 billion to close the gap.

In a sample non-expansion state, it's estimated that:

· The state would lose $885 million in federal funding, an 80 percent decrease.
· 130,000 current enrollees would no longer be able to afford a plan.
· 10,000 currently uninsured people would be able to buy coverage with the new tax credit.
· A per capita cap would reduce federal spending by 6 percent over five years, requiring states to spend $1.5 billion to close the gap.

While republicans have campaigned for years on a promise to repeal Obamacare, and Donald Trump’s election victory put that goal within reach, now they’re confronting the task of coming up with a replacement, mindful of the 20 million people who’ve gained health insurance under the law and the billions of dollars it sends each year to states.

Among the anecdotes laid out in the presentation, in one hypothetical example presented, a state that didn’t expand Medicaid and had 235,000 enrollees in Obamacare through the individual market would see the number of participants fall to 115,000. In a hypothetical state that did expand Medicaid coverage and had 300,000 enrollees in the individual market, the number would drop to 210,000, Bloomberg reported. 



The expansion state could see further losses in Medicaid, where another 115,000 would probably lose eligibility, without being able to find an affordable replacement plan. The presentation also revealed that a hypothetical state that expanded Medicaid could lose 24 percent of federal dollars spent on the program over five years, requiring $6.2 billion to make up the gap. The scenario would require Congress to repeal the expansion and implement a per-person funding mechanism. A hypothetical state that didn’t expand the program could lose 6 percent in federal spending.

 

The presentation is based on a plan by Republican leaders to eliminate income-based subsidies under Obamacare that help people afford insurance and replace them with age-based tax credits.



President Trump hasn’t weighed in publicly in the current fight. Members of the administration have been working to smooth the way for changing former President Barack Obama’s health-care law. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price attended the governors’ meeting Saturday afternoon. *At issue is whether to maintain significant federal funding for states that have expanded eligibility for Medicaid to include residents with income that is up to a third more than the federal poverty level. *GOP-led states split almost evenly in opting to take the funds to expand eligibility for their programs. States that didn’t have cited a concern about the impact on the federal budget and a desire to resist Mr. Obama’s health law.

Republican governors in states that expanded Medicaid have been telling their congressional delegations for months that repealing the health-care law without an adequate replacement would cost their budgets and hurt hospitals. While many say they support repealing Obamacare, they’ve advised a heavy dose of caution. Republican leaders in Washington are considering ending the Medicaid expansion, as well as setting per-person caps on federal funding of the program. “Governors know about 50 times more about Medicaid than anyone in Congress,” said Haley Barbour, the former Republican governor of Mississippi. “The idea that we’re going to repeal, repair, replace, redundant, whatever -- the idea that we’re going to do that in a matter of weeks just ignores the difficulty of doing it,” Barbour said.

As the WSJ adds, republican senators are similarly split. Several of them, including Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) have said they would take cues from their respective states’ preferences. Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who opted to expand Medicaid despite legal challenges from GOP legislators in his state, met with Mr. Trump on Friday and is trying to rally fellow governors behind a compromise in which states agree to pare back eligibility and funding to residents making up to the poverty level. Residents above that threshold would lose Medicaid, he has said, but likely get subsidized private coverage. A handful of states—such as Wisconsin and Arkansas—already have systems in place along those lines.

On Friday, Kasich called House Republicans’ initial plans to replace the health-care law “inadequate.” Kasich, a former Republican presidential candidate, didn’t go into details during brief remarks to reporters after a meeting Friday with President Donald Trump. “To me, it’s not acceptable,” Kasich said. The governor, who opened Ohio’s Medicaid program to more low-income people under Obamacare, has advocated maintaining the Medicaid expansion. He has said the income limit for the program should be lower.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, also a Republican, said he was open to finding a way to help states that expanded the program. But he said it couldn’t be one that came at the expense of states such as his that didn’t do an expansion. “There were 18 governors that fought the ACA and we actually need to be rewarded for that, not punished,” he said. “I have not seen that plan yet.”

Saturday’s meeting is one of several taking place between governors and federal officials.

Governors have been meeting with Trump as well, Bloomberg adds. On Saturday, the president discussed the Affordable Care Act with Florida’s Rick Scott and Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, both Republicans. The topic was “how best to solve the problems of Obamacare, with a special emphasis on the states role in health care,” according to information provided to reporters. Democratic governors are reaching out to Republican colleagues in states that expanded Medicaid and “now have a very sick feeling in their stomachs,” Malloy, who’s chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, told reporters Saturday at an earlier press conference. “I know that there is tremendous pressure on them, but we have to stand tall and make sure our fellow Americans have the coverage that they need.’’

The best summary of the current disarray, however, comes from Bloomberg which writes that former Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer, a Republican, asked why current governors aren’t coming together to develop a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

“For members of Congress, it’s primarily a political debate, not a health-care debate,” Geringer said. “Giving Congress cover is probably the best thing you can do right now.”

The full presentation governors were presented yesterday is below: Reported by Zero Hedge 14 hours ago.

WASHINGTON ― White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders declined to assure Americans on Sunday that anyone currently covered under the Affordable Care Act would not lose their coverage under President Donald Trump’s health care plan.

Sanders repeatedly dodged the question on ABC’s “This Week,” saying Trump had promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it “with something that’s better.”

Host George Stephanopoulos pressed Sanders on why, if Trump was so intent on replacing the law with something better, the White House couldn’t guarantee that everyone currently with insurance wouldn’t lose it. Sanders said it was “a goal” to make sure people didn’t lose coverage, but she stopped short of saying people would be able to keep their current insurance, or would even be offered similar plans.

“We cannot survive under the current system,” Sanders said. “We have to make a massive overhaul to the health care system in America, because it is simply just not sustainable, and everybody agrees with that.”

“There is nobody that argues that we’re on a track that we can maintain,” she continued. “So we’re looking at every possible way to do exactly that: repeal a terrible, failed system and replace with something better.”

When Stephanopoulos pressed again whether that meant Trump wouldn’t sign a replacement bill that would cause people to lose coverage, Sanders said she wouldn’t “speak specifically for the president on that topic.”

“What I can say is he’s made it a high priority and a No. 1 focus that we make sure that people that have insurance continue their insurance, particularly those in the highest need,” she said.

A consulting firm told governors Saturday that the Republican plan to replace Obamacare could lead to millions losing their health coverage, with many people covered under the Medicaid expansion suddenly unable to afford health insurance.

When he was running for president, Trump told “60 Minutes” in 2015 that everyone would win from his health care replacement.

“I am going to take care of everybody,” Trump said. “I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

More recently, in January, Trump vowed “insurance for everybody,” but congressional Republicans have taken to guaranteeing “access” to health care, rather than health care itself, meaning if individuals have the money to pay for insurance, they can get it.

According to the presentation given to governors on Saturday, the effect of the GOP replacement bill would be huge insurance enrollment losses and greater budget pressure on states to make up the loss in federal money for programs like the Medicaid expansion.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 13 hours ago.

Forget the banks, they're relative amateurs. If you want outrage, check out the private health insurance rip-off as demonstrated by NIB and Medibank. Reported by Brisbane Times 2 hours ago.

Here’s a sobering thought to consider for millions and millions of Americans about to be denied coverage: The Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or “Obamacare”) was the *conservative health care plan*, fulfilling all major conservative principles.

That is why they have never been able to craft an alternative—at least one that works. Former President Obama often said that, if they have a better plan, that achieves the same goals, he would sign it. No plan that is ‘more conservative’ works. Hence, no bill.

The only reason you will lose your coverage is because it was passed by President Obama.

The Affordable Care Act was created in the extreme conservative group called the Heritage Foundation (Jim DeMint now runs it). The notion that the Heritage Foundation would propose a “government takeover” of anything is absurd on its face.

It was first introduced into Congress by very conservative Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and several other Republican senators in the 1990s.

It was enacted first by Republican Governor, and 2012 Republican standard bearer, Mitt Romney (R-MA). He considered it the signature achievement of his term because it was a conservative program. Conservatives claim to favor testing policies in the “laboratories” of the states. Romney did.

The ACA includes as its lynchpin the “individual mandate”. That is, personal responsibility. It prevents “free-riders” on the system. Personal responsibility is touted as a core conservative principal. It was in the original Heritage Foundation plan and considered one of its key conservative elements.

Without the money the mandate provides, without everybody participating, those currently healthy as well as the ill, coverage cannot be provided at reasonable premium costs to those with prior illnesses. It evens out over time as we all are likely to be ill at some point and need care. Coverage facilitates earlier recognition of disease allowing more effective, less expensive, treatments. Not to mention the personal responsibility, non-freeloading, conservatives claim to champion.

The alternatives to “enforce” a mandate without calling it a mandate is smoke and mirrors, and totally unnecessary even for a conservative Congress because the mandate was the Heritage Foundation’s. Senator Ron Paul (R-KY) proposes denial of coverage for those who do not maintain continuous coverage. But, that approach penalizes someone when they are older and wiser for either unknowing or stupid decisions made when they were younger. Moreover, young people have a feeling of invincibility that is difficult to overcome by rational argument. If you doubt it, just ask the cigarette companies who preyed on this for half a century.

Medicare was due to become insolvent in 2016. Thanks to ACA Medicare will be solvent at least to 2028. One way it gets there is using market forces (i.e., incentives) to improve care and reduce costs. Conservatives repeatedly argue that market forces are the way to improve outcomes and reduce costs. The ACA has achieved that by providing accountable care organizations (“ACOs”) $0.50 of every $1.00 saved year-over-year on patient care, and, at the same time, making hospitals eat the cost of care of any patient re-admitted within 30 days. Hence, there are financial incentives to improve patients’ health before discharge, and to save money. It works. Tens of millions of dollars are already being saved with these incentives operative. Conservatives should be high-fiving.

The ACA closed the “doughnut hole” in Part D of Medicare. Part D was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president. The “doughnut hole” was one of its drawbacks. Without a dime of government spending, ACA reduces and eventually eliminates the doughnut hole, reducing out-of-pocket drug costs for senior citizens, so that their savings and their social security go further. Again, a plus for conservatives who want as little government support as possible.

The ACA provides free contraception. The safest and most effective contraceptives are the most expensive, but still much less expensive than pregnancy. Studies in Missouri and Colorado have shown a drastic reduction in abortion when women are given voluntary access to free contraception. Last I heard, conservatives don’t like abortions.

It also results in fewer unwanted children, fewer “children-having-children”, and enables young women to finish their educations, leading to healthier families and better incomes. That would lead to less crime arising from unstable family situations, and fewer people on welfare. Conservatives at least pay lip-service to the importance of strong families.

The ACA forbids annual and life caps on coverage. Hence, if a person experiences a serious illness, it does not force the family into personal bankruptcy. Prior to ACA, unpaid medical bills were one of the leading causes of personal bankruptcy. Rumor has it that conservatives do not like mortgage forfeitures or unpaid obligations, nor like having to support social support programs like food stamps and welfare that often are the consequence of personal bankruptcy. The ACA dramatically reduces the bankruptcies due to medical costs of illness, thus reducing food stamps and welfare needs. It also enables families to remain together under one roof.

The ACA was designed to create minimal additional federal bureaucracy—if, that is, states take the money provided to establish their own insurance marketplaces. Kentucky did that. Oddly, most Republican governors did not. The ACA established federal marketplaces only as a fall-back if states did not. Conservatives like minimal federal bureaucracy, but cannot blame the ACA for Republican governors not taking the costless opportunity to run it all at the state level.

The ACA expanded Medicaid. Now, granted, this may not be conservative, but, if so, it is the only provision thusfar that fails that test. Consider, nonetheless, the effects conservatives claim to love. If all governors had accepted the expansion, its citizens would have been covered, thus preventing costly long-term chronic diseases. For example, high blood pressure. One can have high blood pressure for years without realizing you have it. An annual check-up can discover it, and it is highly treatable. Without treatment, it causes stroke, heart disease, kidney damage, eye damage. In addition to pain and suffering from the illness and its effects, consider the costs of treating stroke, heart attack, kidney failure and visual problems, not to mention lost wages. Coverage and treatment prevents pain, suffering, death and saves money. Conservatives like to save money.

The ACA provides free mammograms. Conservatives claim they believe that children do better with two parents. Saving children’s mothers’ lives by catching breast cancer early would help achieve that goal.

Conservatives claim they try to create “more freedom”. What could be more enslaving than bad health? It saps strength, energy, and money. Obamacare is the most freedom-expanding law passed in decades. In addition to maintaining health, the existence of Obamacare enables greater job mobility (do not have to stay at a job to keep one’s health insurance), and frees resources to invest in one’s self or some venture or children’s education, and protects families against bankruptcies due to illness or accidents.

Then, of course, is the impact on the budget. The Congressional Budget Office predicted the ACA would save about $1 Trillion (yes, that is with a “T”) over the course of its second decade. One might wonder what problems conservatives have with saving taxpayers’ money.

There is a simple reason Republicans have been unable to craft a workable alternative—they had one in the 1990s, and Democrats enacted it as the ACA (“Obamacare”).

Republicans ought to embrace the ACA for what it is: their own program. They should claim credit for it, and work to improve it by, e.g., deepening the subsidies, restoring the risk corridors that were lifted from President George Bush’s Part D of Medicare, and vigorously sending out the message for more people to sign up for coverage.

Indeed, conservatives desperately need the ACA to work.

For conservatives to say that the ACA, their own plan, hatched in their Heritage Foundation, does not work is to state that market mechanisms do not work.

A very odd position indeed.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 14 hours ago.

Ez1095 2016 ACA software accommodates the February 28 IRS due dates for forms 1095 and 1094 with new instructions. Test drive the 30 day no cost or obligation trial at http://www.halfpricesoft.com.

Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) February 27, 2017

The IRS deadline to mailing out 1094 and 1095 forms is February 28, 2017. The latest ez1095 ACA software from Halfpricesoft.com has updated to accommodate the due date for business owners. The latest version allows for quickly and easily printing and filing all ACA forms as required by law.

ez1095 software allows customers to import data quickly from external file and makes it easy to print ACA forms for recipients and IRS. Priced from just $195 per installation, ez1095 can support multiple company accounts on the same machine at no extra charge.

“Ez1095 2016 ACA software accommodates deadlines released by the IRS on due dates for the 2016 information reporting requirements .” said Dr. Ge, the founder of Halfpricesoft.com.

Customers that need to file Form 1095C, 1094C, 1095B and 1094B can download and try out this ACA software from halfpricesoft.com before purchasing with no obligation by visiting http://www.halfpricesoft.com/aca-1095/form-1095-software-free-download.asp

The main features include but are not limited to :· Print ACA Form 1095-C, 1094-C, 1095-B and 1094-B on white paper for recipients and IRS with inkjet or laser printer.
· PDF print 1095-C and 1095-B recipient copies
· Efile version available at additional cost.
· Support unlimited companies.
· Support unlimited number of recipients.
· Print unlimited number of 1095 and 1094 forms.
· Fast data import feature
· Print Form 1095 C: Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Insurance
· Print Form 1094 C: Transmittal of Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Information Returns
· Print Form 1095-B: Health Coverage
· Print Form 1094-B: Transmittal of Health Coverage Information Return

ez1095 software is compatible Windows 10, 8.1, 8, 7, Vista, XP and other Windows systems. Designed with simplicity in mind, ez1095 software is easy to use and flexible. ez1095 software’s graphical interface leads customers step-by-step through setting up company, adding employees, add forms and print forms. Customers can also click form level help links to get more details regarding the software.

To learn more about ez1095 ACA software, customers can visit http://www.halfpricesoft.com/aca-1095/aca-1095-software.asp

About halfpricesoft.com
Founded in 2003, Halfpricesoft.com has established itself as a leader in meeting the software needs of small businesses around the world with its payroll software, employee attendance tracking software, check printing software, W2 software, 1099 software and barcode generating software. It continues to grow with its philosophy that small business owners need affordable, user friendly, super simple, and totally risk-free software. Reported by PRWeb 20 hours ago.

Humana Inc. president and CEO Bruce Broussard and other health insurance industry executives will meet with President Donald Trump today. Reuters reports that other companies sending their leaders to the meeting include Cigna Corp. and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Bloomberg also reported about the meeting, which had not been confirmed by the White House as of Friday afternoon. Trump has pledged to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. As Reuters reports, it is not clear yet what… Reported by bizjournals 17 hours ago.

Corporations to save thousands on health insurance continuation coverage for employees

San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) February 27, 2017

HealthSherpa, the premier health insurance enrollment company, today announced a new solution, COBRA Crosswalk™, for corporate partners to provide alternatives to COBRA health insurance continuation coverage for employees. The average COBRA enrollee typically incurs claims 50 percent higher than an active employee, costing employers thousands per enrollee per year.

“There’s no denying that COBRA is expensive for corporations and may not be the best solution for the former employees,” said George Kalogeropoulos, founder and CEO of HealthSherpa. “The average COBRA enrollee costs self-insured corporations thousands more per year than an active employee, and COBRA premiums are very high, making it a lose-lose for the employer and the former employee. There are other smart options to meet former employee’s healthcare needs and budgets. HealthSherpa’s new COBRA Crosswalk is a comprehensive solution that streamlines communication, enrollment, and utilization of COBRA-coverage alternatives. During this time of rapid regulatory and market change, our intuitive technology and knowledgeable customer advocates are invaluable for employers and former employees alike.”

Corporations benefit from the new COBRA Crosswalk because HealthSherpa supports the entire communications process with the affected employees. From customized notices to educational collateral, step-by-step instructions, user-friendly online tools and comprehensive customer service – HealthSherpa makes an often complicated, confusing process simple, streamlined and cost effective.

When separated employees choose COBRA, they must continue to pay the full monthly premium as well as an administrative fee. Using HealthSherpa’s COBRA Crosswalk allows employees to enroll in quality, affordable coverage that is up to 85 percent cheaper than COBRA coverage.

Alongside COBRA support, leading brands are partnering with HealthSherpa to offer cost-effective healthcare benefits to part-time, seasonal, temporary, 1099 and other non-benefits eligible employees.

About HealthSherpa
HealthSherpa is the best way to get individual health coverage, with experience enrolling over 800,000 people. HealthSherpa partners with large employers, insurers and more than 18,000 insurance agents to support consumers searching for, enrolling in, and utilizing high quality, affordable health insurance coverage. Backed by leading investors including Core Innovation Capital and Mitch Kapor (founder and CEO of Lotus, Kapor Center for Social Impact), HealthSherpa's mission is to help every American feel the comfort and security of having health coverage. The company delivers innovation, technology, and customer service by real people to make coverage easier to understand, faster to sign up for, and simpler to use. Learn more at http://www.HealthSherpa.com/employers. Reported by PRWeb 16 hours ago.