Half of American voters oppose allowing states the option to opt-out of requiring health insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, while just 38 percent support the proposal, a Politico/Morning Consult poll reveals.
Reported by Newsmax 15 hours ago.
Poll: 50 Percent Against Pre-existing Condition Opt-Out
↧
↧
Health Insurance Innovations beats by $0.06, beats on revenue
Reported by SeekingAlpha 10 hours ago.
↧
Republicans Are Rushing To Pass Their Health Care Bill Before You Find Out What's In It
Once again, House Republicans are eyeing a vote on hastily cobbled together legislation to repeal and “replace” the Affordable Care Act.
They’re on the verge of doing this despite the evident lack of enthusiasm among GOP lawmakers themselves, widespread opposition from the health care industry and patient groups, and still no Congressional Budget Office evaluation of just what this bill would actually do to the health care system.
Oh, and all of this polls quite badly.
This is not how lawmakers legislate when they’re advancing a good policy. This is how they legislate when they’re afraid that the voters they represent will figure out the game and refuse to go along. That’s what happened in late March, the last time President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) tried to force their American Health Care Act through the lower chamber.
Republicans held no hearings then. They declined to seek the input of the people and companies that provide medical care and health insurance. They ignored the vocal opposition from those who represent patients themselves. And they ultimately pulled the bill before it came to a vote.
Instead of learning from that failure, they’re now doing it again. Republicans have faked their way through the process of rewriting health care policy, making promises that are directly contradicted by their bill and pushing the illusion that they’re fulfilling their pledge to eradicate Obamacare while preserving all its goodies. Promises and pledges are not actually being kept.
This mad scramble, by the way, is coming from a political party that accused Democrats of rushing the Affordable Care Act to passage. In fact, President Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress spent 14 months writing that bill in 2009 and 2010. They held dozens of hearings and committee markups. They waited for multiple Congressional Budget Office scores. They consulted with every part of the health care system and won support from hospitals and doctors.
According to Republicans, that constituted ramming Obamacare down America’s throat, whereas their own harried effort in a fraction of the time with nowhere near the public transparency is fine and normal.
Anyone wondering why Republicans are in such a big rush must remember two things. First, Trump suffered a humiliating loss with the first canceled vote and doesn’t like looking foolish, so he’ll do whatever he can to get a health care win. Second, Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) early this year set in motion a procedural course that makes repealing Obamacare a prerequisite for an even bigger GOP priority: permanent tax cuts for rich people and corporations.
Underlying all this is a problem that’s been clear since the beginning of the Affordable Care Act debate eight years ago, if not before: There is no conservative Republican consensus about what the health care system should look like and whom it should serve. Or at least, there isn’t an overarching principle that Republicans can articulate aloud without a backlash.
If your true position is that the rich shouldn’t be taxed to pay for other people’s health care needs and that the federal government shouldn’t have a role in providing health care to citizens, you’re admitting that you’re OK with the tradeoff of sick people going untreated and families going bankrupt when medical emergencies occur.
There have been a lot of fits and starts since the embarrassing collapse of that last health care push as the White House publicly announced various deadlines for a vote on a revised bill. But in fundamental ways, the bill remains the same.
The “new and improved” American Health Care Act still would increase the number of uninsured by more than 20 million.
It still would gut Medicaid — not just the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of the program, but the entire thing. It still would scrap the Affordable Care Act’s targeted financial assistance for low- and middle-income households and substitute generally smaller subsidies that vary by age, not income. It still would cause older consumers to pay more than they do today. It still would take the money it saved by not helping people obtain health insurance and give it to rich people and health care companies in the form of $1 trillion in tax cuts.
These basic facts may have been obscured by the drip-drip-drip of news about internal machinations within the House Republican Conference and alterations made to the legislation. But the truth remains.
Where the legislation has changed, it’s grown worse for the poor and sick.
The bill would now re-open the door for insurance companies to go back to rejecting coverage or charging higher premiums based on people’s pre-existing conditions, selling skimpy policies that don’t cover basic medical needs and jacking up rates on older people. The conservative House Freedom Caucus made sure of this by insisting that states get the power to get the power to rescind the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
To try to stop recalcitrant “moderate” Republicans from fleeing over this part of the deal, lawmakers have added a paltry sum of money to an already meager pot supposed to take care of those sickest, costliest patients. This doesn’t actually do much to improve the lot of people with pre-existing conditions under the American Health Care Act, but it could let Republicans say it does, which may be good enough for them.
Of course, it’s hard to say just what the revised American Health Care Act would do in any measurable way because Ryan plans to move forward without waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to analyze the bill. How many people would lose coverage? How much would insurance cost? What would the effect on federal spending be? Ryan doesn’t know and he doesn’t want anyone else to, either.
That’s not terribly surprising. This legislation fails to solve Obamacare’s problems and doesn’t live up to its own hype. Ryan’s website still claims the Republican bill won’t allow insurers to reject people or charge them more based on pre-existing conditions, which it plainly does under the deal with the House Freedom Caucus.
This isn’t exactly the “something terrific” Trump promised. This is what getting something done for the sake of getting it done looks like. The goal now seems to pass a bill ― any bill ― that the House can call “Obamacare repeal” so they can move on to cutting taxes on the rich and dumping this health care mess on the Senate’s lawn.
But if Trump and Ryan get their way and anything resembling the American Health Care Act becomes the law of the land, the American people are going to notice that it doesn’t make their lives any better ― and for millions, makes them worse. Perhaps next on voters’ agenda will be repealing and replacing Republicans.Politics hurt too much? Sign up for HuffPost Hill, a humorous evening roundup featuring scoops
from HuffPost’s reporting team and juicy miscellanea from around the web.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
They’re on the verge of doing this despite the evident lack of enthusiasm among GOP lawmakers themselves, widespread opposition from the health care industry and patient groups, and still no Congressional Budget Office evaluation of just what this bill would actually do to the health care system.
Oh, and all of this polls quite badly.
This is not how lawmakers legislate when they’re advancing a good policy. This is how they legislate when they’re afraid that the voters they represent will figure out the game and refuse to go along. That’s what happened in late March, the last time President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) tried to force their American Health Care Act through the lower chamber.
Republicans held no hearings then. They declined to seek the input of the people and companies that provide medical care and health insurance. They ignored the vocal opposition from those who represent patients themselves. And they ultimately pulled the bill before it came to a vote.
Instead of learning from that failure, they’re now doing it again. Republicans have faked their way through the process of rewriting health care policy, making promises that are directly contradicted by their bill and pushing the illusion that they’re fulfilling their pledge to eradicate Obamacare while preserving all its goodies. Promises and pledges are not actually being kept.
This mad scramble, by the way, is coming from a political party that accused Democrats of rushing the Affordable Care Act to passage. In fact, President Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress spent 14 months writing that bill in 2009 and 2010. They held dozens of hearings and committee markups. They waited for multiple Congressional Budget Office scores. They consulted with every part of the health care system and won support from hospitals and doctors.
According to Republicans, that constituted ramming Obamacare down America’s throat, whereas their own harried effort in a fraction of the time with nowhere near the public transparency is fine and normal.
Anyone wondering why Republicans are in such a big rush must remember two things. First, Trump suffered a humiliating loss with the first canceled vote and doesn’t like looking foolish, so he’ll do whatever he can to get a health care win. Second, Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) early this year set in motion a procedural course that makes repealing Obamacare a prerequisite for an even bigger GOP priority: permanent tax cuts for rich people and corporations.
Underlying all this is a problem that’s been clear since the beginning of the Affordable Care Act debate eight years ago, if not before: There is no conservative Republican consensus about what the health care system should look like and whom it should serve. Or at least, there isn’t an overarching principle that Republicans can articulate aloud without a backlash.
If your true position is that the rich shouldn’t be taxed to pay for other people’s health care needs and that the federal government shouldn’t have a role in providing health care to citizens, you’re admitting that you’re OK with the tradeoff of sick people going untreated and families going bankrupt when medical emergencies occur.
There have been a lot of fits and starts since the embarrassing collapse of that last health care push as the White House publicly announced various deadlines for a vote on a revised bill. But in fundamental ways, the bill remains the same.
The “new and improved” American Health Care Act still would increase the number of uninsured by more than 20 million.
It still would gut Medicaid — not just the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of the program, but the entire thing. It still would scrap the Affordable Care Act’s targeted financial assistance for low- and middle-income households and substitute generally smaller subsidies that vary by age, not income. It still would cause older consumers to pay more than they do today. It still would take the money it saved by not helping people obtain health insurance and give it to rich people and health care companies in the form of $1 trillion in tax cuts.
These basic facts may have been obscured by the drip-drip-drip of news about internal machinations within the House Republican Conference and alterations made to the legislation. But the truth remains.
Where the legislation has changed, it’s grown worse for the poor and sick.
The bill would now re-open the door for insurance companies to go back to rejecting coverage or charging higher premiums based on people’s pre-existing conditions, selling skimpy policies that don’t cover basic medical needs and jacking up rates on older people. The conservative House Freedom Caucus made sure of this by insisting that states get the power to get the power to rescind the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
To try to stop recalcitrant “moderate” Republicans from fleeing over this part of the deal, lawmakers have added a paltry sum of money to an already meager pot supposed to take care of those sickest, costliest patients. This doesn’t actually do much to improve the lot of people with pre-existing conditions under the American Health Care Act, but it could let Republicans say it does, which may be good enough for them.
Of course, it’s hard to say just what the revised American Health Care Act would do in any measurable way because Ryan plans to move forward without waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to analyze the bill. How many people would lose coverage? How much would insurance cost? What would the effect on federal spending be? Ryan doesn’t know and he doesn’t want anyone else to, either.
That’s not terribly surprising. This legislation fails to solve Obamacare’s problems and doesn’t live up to its own hype. Ryan’s website still claims the Republican bill won’t allow insurers to reject people or charge them more based on pre-existing conditions, which it plainly does under the deal with the House Freedom Caucus.
This isn’t exactly the “something terrific” Trump promised. This is what getting something done for the sake of getting it done looks like. The goal now seems to pass a bill ― any bill ― that the House can call “Obamacare repeal” so they can move on to cutting taxes on the rich and dumping this health care mess on the Senate’s lawn.
But if Trump and Ryan get their way and anything resembling the American Health Care Act becomes the law of the land, the American people are going to notice that it doesn’t make their lives any better ― and for millions, makes them worse. Perhaps next on voters’ agenda will be repealing and replacing Republicans.Politics hurt too much? Sign up for HuffPost Hill, a humorous evening roundup featuring scoops
from HuffPost’s reporting team and juicy miscellanea from around the web.
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
↧
Obamacare just suffered 2 big blows from insurance companies as repeal looms
As Republicans ready a new bid to repeal and replace Obamacare, two companies announced moves that could serve as significant blows to some of the law's individual health insurance exchanges.Aetna on Wednesday announced that it plans to exit the Virginia individual insurance market both for Affordable Care Act exchanges and off-exchange plans.
That will leave Aetna with just two states in which it is offering plans through the ACA exchanges.
"Despite significantly reducing our exchange footprint, our individual Commercial products could potentially lose more than $200 million in 2017," the company said in a statement. "Based on that financial risk, and growing uncertainty in the marketplace, we will not offer on- or off-exchange individual plans in Virginia for 2018."
Meanwhile, Medica — a smaller Minnesota-based insurer — said it is heavily considering abandoning the ACA exchanges in Iowa, which would leave all but five counties in the state without an insurer in the marketplace. Aetna and Wellmark, a Blue Cross Blue Shield system company, left Iowa's exchanges in April.
Medica cited political uncertainty as a major factor for its considerations to leave Iowa's exchanges.
"Without swift action by the state or Congress to provide stability to Iowa’s individual insurance market, Medica will not be able to serve the citizens of Iowa in the manner and breadth that we do today," Medica said in a statement. "We are examining the potential of limited offerings, but our ability to stay in the Iowa insurance market in any capacity is in question at this point."
In addition to the battle over the American Health Care Act, the GOP's bill to overhaul the US healthcare system, the Trump administration has not committed to funding cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments beyond May. Those payments help offset the cost of providing low-cost plans on the exchanges to poorer Americans. Without CSR payments, many insurers said they would be forced to leave the exchanges.
Aetna's situation is a bit more complicated, with the termination of a planned merger with rival Humana and shifts in its business likely contributing to its decision in Virginia along with political uncertainty.
The company did not give a firm commitment to stay in its last two Obamacare markets — Delaware and Nebraska.
"We will communicate decisions on our remaining states as appropriate," Aetna said.
*SEE ALSO: Republicans just moved closer than ever to passing their Obamacare overhaul*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Spicer struggles to clarify remarks after falsely claiming that Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons Reported by Business Insider 9 hours ago.
↧
Public Health: Extra Billions for Health Bill? Researchers Say It’s Still Not Enough
Adding $8 billion to a G.O.P. bill seems to fall short of ensuring that those with pre-existing conditions will still be able to get health insurance.
Reported by NYTimes.com 8 hours ago.
↧
↧
A Stupid Proposal For GOP To Save Face On Healthcare Reform
Congressional Republicans have now positioned themselves firmly between a rock and a hard place on healthcare reform. This would be highly amusing if it weren’t for the seriousness of the subject matter, which could accurately be described as a life-or-death subject for millions. Republicans now have the choice of voting for a bill which is massively unpopular with the public (increasingly so, as a matter of fact), or admitting to their own voting base that they’ve been flat-out lying about the evils of Obamacare for the past eight years. That’s a tough choice, because no matter what route they take, it is bound to cause anger among the voters ― at this point, it’s just a question of which particular voters (and how many of them) will be massively disappointed.
At the heart of the Republicans’ problem is the simple fact that they’re rushing headlong towards passing some bill ― any bill ― without even bothering to give lip service to “regular order” (which Paul Ryan and other Republicans used to profess to hold dear, it’s worth pointing out). The Obamacare bill took 14 months to pass. It had dozens upon dozens of hearings, committee meetings, efforts to reach out to the other side of the aisle, and amendments, as well as ample discussion and debate in Congress. At each and every stage along the way, the bill was sent to the Congressional Budget Office for “scoring.” Compare that to the two efforts that Paul Ryan has so far made towards their “repeal and replace” bill. No hearings, no committee meetings, no efforts whatsoever to reach out to the other side of the aisle, amendments solely designed to make the bill worse, and the only discussion and debate taking place is in the back rooms, far from the eyes of the public. Their first effort went down in flames after only 18 days. They allowed a C.B.O. score to be released during this brief period, but the score was devastatingly bad. The second go-round is being hustled through the House with similar haste, and this time they’re trying to avoid the C.B.O. altogether. And please remember, they’ve had seven full years after Obamacare passed to get their act together. During much of this time, they held control in the House of Representatives ― meaning there was nothing to stop them from taking their time and using regular order to put together a well-thought-out bill. They did not avail themselves of this opportunity, preferring instead to pass bills they knew full well would either die in the Senate or get vetoed by President Obama.
When either party tries to pass a major bill this quickly, the obvious question is: What are they trying to hide? Why are they trampling all over their own committee chairmen and refusing to allow the C.B.O. to score the bill before the vote? Where are the hearings with expert testimony about the affected industries? Why are the drafts of the bill held in secret rather than publicly posted? The obvious answer is: They’re definitely trying to hide something (or several things), because they know the public won’t approve.
The biggest secret ― and the real reason why there’s a lot of pressure to move hastily ― is that this entire effort is nothing short of a massive tax cut for the wealthy masquerading as healthcare reform. If Republicans can pass this bill before they tackle tax reform, then their “baseline” shifts, which will allow them to pass even bigger tax breaks for millionaires later (so their thinking goes). This is truly all Paul Ryan cares about ― it doesn’t really matter to him what’s in the bill itself, as long as the bottom line remains close to the same. Donald Trump, on the other hand, really doesn’t care what’s in the bill, he just wants a political victory to brag about. As long as he can stand up and claim “I repealed and replaced Obamacare,” nothing else matters. The urge to spike the political football is of far greater importance to Trump than how the bill will affect any of his voters, that’s for sure.
The big problem for Republicans is that they have now achieved something even Obama could not ― now that people are finally understanding exactly what Obamacare contains, it is becoming more and more popular. For the first time, a majority of the public approves of Obamacare ― something that had never been true before Trump was elected. All the news on the GOP efforts to repeal Obamacare has been about what guarantees the public is about to lose, which explains Obamacare’s new popularity. At the same time, the Republican efforts are not popular at all. Only 17 percent approved of the initial bill. The second iteration will likely be even less popular, once the public finds out what’s in it.
Which leaves Republicans betwixt a hard place and a rock. At this point, all their options look pretty bad, politically. Their best realistic option now would be to just table the entire bill and not hold a vote on it in the House. That way, at least, individual members wouldn’t face a slew of election ads from Democrats about all the various awful consequences of the bill: “Congressman Jones voted to let this retired woman choose between buying health care and eating.” With over 80 percent of the public disapproving of the bill, these ads will just about write themselves, really. In fact, Democrats would be guilty of political malpractice if they didn’t run such ads.
Republicans’ second option is to offer various deals and kickbacks to individual House members to get their vote count over the finish line. This is what is currently being attempted by Ryan. House Republicans may decide to pass the bill in the sincere hopes that the Senate saves them from their own political folly. This would allow them (so their thinking goes) to campaign on: “Don’t blame us, we tried ― but the Senate failed to repeal and replace Obamacare.” They could chalk up what would (for them) be a political victory, knowing that it would never actually become law. This worked wonders for them while Obama was still in office, but it’s dubious that it would work so well again with a Republican Senate and a Republican president.
Even if this did come to pass, the battle in the Senate is going to be a lot harder within the Republican caucus. The margin is thin ― only three GOP defections would mean the bill would go down. This would make exactly the same battle that’s playing out in the House ― Tea Partiers versus moderates ― even tougher. For some Republicans, even the bill the House is putting together simply isn’t ideologically pure enough, because it retains major portions of Obamacare. For the moderates, however, the results of the bill are so sobering (tens of millions thrown off health insurance) that they worry for their own political future if the bill actually becomes law.
The big focal point currently is on what Donald Trump calls “the pre-existing.” He swore, in a recent interview, that he’d “take care of the pre-existing,” which only served to shine a spotlight on the fact that the current Republican bill does no such thing. Republicans are now squirming after the revelation that they want to turn the guarantee that people with pre-existing conditions get affordable health insurance into a guarantee that people with pre-existing conditions will definitely be charged a whole lot more money, be forced into a doomed-to-fail high-risk pool, or be priced out of the market entirely. Ryan is trying to dance around this reality, but it’s catching up to him ― especially after Jimmy Kimmel’s on-air plea to Republicans not to kill the pre-existing condition guarantee. It’s pretty hard to argue that a newborn baby deserves to be denied health insurance because of “bad lifestyle choices,” after all. The pre-existing conditions debate, it should be mentioned, is just one awful part of the bill. There are plenty of others to spotlight, as well.
Which leaves Republicans in their tight spot. They’ve been promising ― and winning elections on ― the whole “repeal and replace” mantra for years. But the public’s mood is shifting in a big way. Now that average people are being educated about what Obamacare actually contains (instead of the fear-mongering lies Republicans have been spewing about it for eight years), Obamacare is suddenly popular. And taking things away from people is always a heavy lift for politicians. Republicans had hoped this would all happen so quickly that the public wouldn’t even have time to react, but that doesn’t appear possible anymore. To gain Tea Party votes, they’ve been trying to make their bill even worse, which certainly doesn’t help matters (outside of the floor of the House of Representatives, at any rate). They now are left with the choice of passing a massively-unpopular bill and then suffering the slings and arrows of the inevitable Democratic campaign ads, or admitting that their bill is too awful to pass and risking their own base voters becoming disgusted with being lied to for so long about how easy it would be for a conservative alternative that would achieve the same (or better) results as Obamacare. This has led to the amusing spectacle of Republican lawmakers now sheepishly admitting that Obamacare actually does a lot of good, in some cases. If it didn’t, why would they be concerned about getting rid of it all?
Republicans have only themselves to blame for their current lose-lose situation. Obamacare was, in reality, a very conservative way to address many of the problems in the healthcare industry. The idea was initially proposed by a conservative think tank, then was adopted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and Democrats bent over backwards to allow all sorts of Republican ideas into the final bill. It is a free-market solution to what was becoming an untenable problem with the health insurance marketplace. It demanded something that conservatives used to love ― “personal responsibility” ― in mandating that everyone purchase health insurance. It’s almost quaint nowadays, but conservatives used to decry poor people using emergency rooms for free and demanded that they put “some skin in the game” and buy their own health insurance. To top it all off, the Blue Dog Democrats killed any hint of a “public option” or “Medicare for all.”
Because Obamacare was built on such a conservative framework, it left Republicans with very little wiggle room in replacing it with something supposedly more ideologically pure. This is what they are now painfully figuring out. There is one obvious way out, but it’s a mighty stupid one. Politically, however, it just might work, because it would allow them to save face while still following the medical tenet of “first, do no harm.”
Republicans should get together and write up a list of all the lies they’ve been telling about Obamacare for so long. Then they should craft a piece of legislation that “repeals” all of these myths. Since none of these things ever actually existed, it wouldn’t change anybody’s healthcare at all. Start with Sarah Palin’s infamous complaint: “This bill will hereby ban all ‘death panels,’ because any baby born is a precious life and no government board should ever have the power to decide which babies are worthy to live and which will die. The penalty for any member of such a board making such a decision will be death by drawing and quartering.” This would also, conveniently, address Jimmy Kimmel’s heartfelt plea (at least rhetorically). From there, work down the list of all the mythological evils of Obamacare, and boldly ban each one. As icing on this cake, end with: “Any and all references to ‘Obamacare’ will be changed to refer to ‘Trumpcare,’ in all official documents.” That’ll guarantee a presidential signature. And since, like all the other myths on the list, it wouldn’t change a single thing (the official name is still the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” and never has been “Obamacare”), it could cap off the list of meaningless changes with a Trumpian flourish.
Such legislation would sail through the House. Democratic senators would likely not stand in the way of such idiocy, and allow Republicans to pass it through the Senate as well. In fact, Democrats would be doing well not to break out in gut-bursting laughter during these debates. Then Trump could triumphantly sign it, proclaim Trumpcare has replaced the evil Obamacare, and nobody in the real world would be affected in any way.
Rather than being trapped between a rock and a hard place, Republicans could claim they’d gotten something done and fulfilled their campaign promise in full. Sure, it’d be a monumentally stupid thing to do, but at least it wouldn’t harm anyone. That is the only reasonable way out of the conundrum for Republicans, since all their other attempts have been stupid things to do which would harm millions of Americans. Republicans should learn from Trump’s electoral victory ― style is much more important to Republicans these days than substance. Pass a stylistically-helpful bill that doesn’t actually harm anyone, and everyone from Trump on down to the Tea Partiers in the House can claim a big political victory. Even Sarah Palin would be happy!
Chris Weigant blogs at:
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.
At the heart of the Republicans’ problem is the simple fact that they’re rushing headlong towards passing some bill ― any bill ― without even bothering to give lip service to “regular order” (which Paul Ryan and other Republicans used to profess to hold dear, it’s worth pointing out). The Obamacare bill took 14 months to pass. It had dozens upon dozens of hearings, committee meetings, efforts to reach out to the other side of the aisle, and amendments, as well as ample discussion and debate in Congress. At each and every stage along the way, the bill was sent to the Congressional Budget Office for “scoring.” Compare that to the two efforts that Paul Ryan has so far made towards their “repeal and replace” bill. No hearings, no committee meetings, no efforts whatsoever to reach out to the other side of the aisle, amendments solely designed to make the bill worse, and the only discussion and debate taking place is in the back rooms, far from the eyes of the public. Their first effort went down in flames after only 18 days. They allowed a C.B.O. score to be released during this brief period, but the score was devastatingly bad. The second go-round is being hustled through the House with similar haste, and this time they’re trying to avoid the C.B.O. altogether. And please remember, they’ve had seven full years after Obamacare passed to get their act together. During much of this time, they held control in the House of Representatives ― meaning there was nothing to stop them from taking their time and using regular order to put together a well-thought-out bill. They did not avail themselves of this opportunity, preferring instead to pass bills they knew full well would either die in the Senate or get vetoed by President Obama.
When either party tries to pass a major bill this quickly, the obvious question is: What are they trying to hide? Why are they trampling all over their own committee chairmen and refusing to allow the C.B.O. to score the bill before the vote? Where are the hearings with expert testimony about the affected industries? Why are the drafts of the bill held in secret rather than publicly posted? The obvious answer is: They’re definitely trying to hide something (or several things), because they know the public won’t approve.
The biggest secret ― and the real reason why there’s a lot of pressure to move hastily ― is that this entire effort is nothing short of a massive tax cut for the wealthy masquerading as healthcare reform. If Republicans can pass this bill before they tackle tax reform, then their “baseline” shifts, which will allow them to pass even bigger tax breaks for millionaires later (so their thinking goes). This is truly all Paul Ryan cares about ― it doesn’t really matter to him what’s in the bill itself, as long as the bottom line remains close to the same. Donald Trump, on the other hand, really doesn’t care what’s in the bill, he just wants a political victory to brag about. As long as he can stand up and claim “I repealed and replaced Obamacare,” nothing else matters. The urge to spike the political football is of far greater importance to Trump than how the bill will affect any of his voters, that’s for sure.
The big problem for Republicans is that they have now achieved something even Obama could not ― now that people are finally understanding exactly what Obamacare contains, it is becoming more and more popular. For the first time, a majority of the public approves of Obamacare ― something that had never been true before Trump was elected. All the news on the GOP efforts to repeal Obamacare has been about what guarantees the public is about to lose, which explains Obamacare’s new popularity. At the same time, the Republican efforts are not popular at all. Only 17 percent approved of the initial bill. The second iteration will likely be even less popular, once the public finds out what’s in it.
Which leaves Republicans betwixt a hard place and a rock. At this point, all their options look pretty bad, politically. Their best realistic option now would be to just table the entire bill and not hold a vote on it in the House. That way, at least, individual members wouldn’t face a slew of election ads from Democrats about all the various awful consequences of the bill: “Congressman Jones voted to let this retired woman choose between buying health care and eating.” With over 80 percent of the public disapproving of the bill, these ads will just about write themselves, really. In fact, Democrats would be guilty of political malpractice if they didn’t run such ads.
Republicans’ second option is to offer various deals and kickbacks to individual House members to get their vote count over the finish line. This is what is currently being attempted by Ryan. House Republicans may decide to pass the bill in the sincere hopes that the Senate saves them from their own political folly. This would allow them (so their thinking goes) to campaign on: “Don’t blame us, we tried ― but the Senate failed to repeal and replace Obamacare.” They could chalk up what would (for them) be a political victory, knowing that it would never actually become law. This worked wonders for them while Obama was still in office, but it’s dubious that it would work so well again with a Republican Senate and a Republican president.
Even if this did come to pass, the battle in the Senate is going to be a lot harder within the Republican caucus. The margin is thin ― only three GOP defections would mean the bill would go down. This would make exactly the same battle that’s playing out in the House ― Tea Partiers versus moderates ― even tougher. For some Republicans, even the bill the House is putting together simply isn’t ideologically pure enough, because it retains major portions of Obamacare. For the moderates, however, the results of the bill are so sobering (tens of millions thrown off health insurance) that they worry for their own political future if the bill actually becomes law.
The big focal point currently is on what Donald Trump calls “the pre-existing.” He swore, in a recent interview, that he’d “take care of the pre-existing,” which only served to shine a spotlight on the fact that the current Republican bill does no such thing. Republicans are now squirming after the revelation that they want to turn the guarantee that people with pre-existing conditions get affordable health insurance into a guarantee that people with pre-existing conditions will definitely be charged a whole lot more money, be forced into a doomed-to-fail high-risk pool, or be priced out of the market entirely. Ryan is trying to dance around this reality, but it’s catching up to him ― especially after Jimmy Kimmel’s on-air plea to Republicans not to kill the pre-existing condition guarantee. It’s pretty hard to argue that a newborn baby deserves to be denied health insurance because of “bad lifestyle choices,” after all. The pre-existing conditions debate, it should be mentioned, is just one awful part of the bill. There are plenty of others to spotlight, as well.
Which leaves Republicans in their tight spot. They’ve been promising ― and winning elections on ― the whole “repeal and replace” mantra for years. But the public’s mood is shifting in a big way. Now that average people are being educated about what Obamacare actually contains (instead of the fear-mongering lies Republicans have been spewing about it for eight years), Obamacare is suddenly popular. And taking things away from people is always a heavy lift for politicians. Republicans had hoped this would all happen so quickly that the public wouldn’t even have time to react, but that doesn’t appear possible anymore. To gain Tea Party votes, they’ve been trying to make their bill even worse, which certainly doesn’t help matters (outside of the floor of the House of Representatives, at any rate). They now are left with the choice of passing a massively-unpopular bill and then suffering the slings and arrows of the inevitable Democratic campaign ads, or admitting that their bill is too awful to pass and risking their own base voters becoming disgusted with being lied to for so long about how easy it would be for a conservative alternative that would achieve the same (or better) results as Obamacare. This has led to the amusing spectacle of Republican lawmakers now sheepishly admitting that Obamacare actually does a lot of good, in some cases. If it didn’t, why would they be concerned about getting rid of it all?
Republicans have only themselves to blame for their current lose-lose situation. Obamacare was, in reality, a very conservative way to address many of the problems in the healthcare industry. The idea was initially proposed by a conservative think tank, then was adopted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and Democrats bent over backwards to allow all sorts of Republican ideas into the final bill. It is a free-market solution to what was becoming an untenable problem with the health insurance marketplace. It demanded something that conservatives used to love ― “personal responsibility” ― in mandating that everyone purchase health insurance. It’s almost quaint nowadays, but conservatives used to decry poor people using emergency rooms for free and demanded that they put “some skin in the game” and buy their own health insurance. To top it all off, the Blue Dog Democrats killed any hint of a “public option” or “Medicare for all.”
Because Obamacare was built on such a conservative framework, it left Republicans with very little wiggle room in replacing it with something supposedly more ideologically pure. This is what they are now painfully figuring out. There is one obvious way out, but it’s a mighty stupid one. Politically, however, it just might work, because it would allow them to save face while still following the medical tenet of “first, do no harm.”
Republicans should get together and write up a list of all the lies they’ve been telling about Obamacare for so long. Then they should craft a piece of legislation that “repeals” all of these myths. Since none of these things ever actually existed, it wouldn’t change anybody’s healthcare at all. Start with Sarah Palin’s infamous complaint: “This bill will hereby ban all ‘death panels,’ because any baby born is a precious life and no government board should ever have the power to decide which babies are worthy to live and which will die. The penalty for any member of such a board making such a decision will be death by drawing and quartering.” This would also, conveniently, address Jimmy Kimmel’s heartfelt plea (at least rhetorically). From there, work down the list of all the mythological evils of Obamacare, and boldly ban each one. As icing on this cake, end with: “Any and all references to ‘Obamacare’ will be changed to refer to ‘Trumpcare,’ in all official documents.” That’ll guarantee a presidential signature. And since, like all the other myths on the list, it wouldn’t change a single thing (the official name is still the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” and never has been “Obamacare”), it could cap off the list of meaningless changes with a Trumpian flourish.
Such legislation would sail through the House. Democratic senators would likely not stand in the way of such idiocy, and allow Republicans to pass it through the Senate as well. In fact, Democrats would be doing well not to break out in gut-bursting laughter during these debates. Then Trump could triumphantly sign it, proclaim Trumpcare has replaced the evil Obamacare, and nobody in the real world would be affected in any way.
Rather than being trapped between a rock and a hard place, Republicans could claim they’d gotten something done and fulfilled their campaign promise in full. Sure, it’d be a monumentally stupid thing to do, but at least it wouldn’t harm anyone. That is the only reasonable way out of the conundrum for Republicans, since all their other attempts have been stupid things to do which would harm millions of Americans. Republicans should learn from Trump’s electoral victory ― style is much more important to Republicans these days than substance. Pass a stylistically-helpful bill that doesn’t actually harm anyone, and everyone from Trump on down to the Tea Partiers in the House can claim a big political victory. Even Sarah Palin would be happy!
Chris Weigant blogs at:
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.
↧
Obamacare Implosion: Last Major Healthcare Provider Pulls Out Of Iowa Leaving No Options In 2018
For the past several months we've observed in complete amazement as Democrats have repeatedly hailed the 'great accomplishments' of Obamacare while the system was literally, and quite tangibly, collapsing in epic fashion all around them. The ability to blindly and shamelessly support a partisan cause irrestpective of overwhelming facts proving the ineffectiveness of that cause is truly a talent reserved only for politicians, on both sides of the aisle.The latest evidence of Obamacare's implosion comes from its stunning collapse in the state of Iowa in just a matter of a few weeks. Early last month, 2 of Iowa's 3 remaining healthcare providers, Aetna and Wellmark, announced they would not participate in the state's exchange in 2018. Per Bloomberg:
“Earlier today we informed the appropriate federal and state regulators that *Aetna will not participate in the Iowa individual public exchange for 2018 as a result of financial risk and an uncertain outlook for the marketplace,”* Aetna spokesman T.J. Crawford said in an email. “We are still evaluating Aetna’s 2018 individual product presence in our remaining states.”
*On Monday, Wellmark Inc. said it planned to give up on the Iowa Obamacare market in 2018*. Wellmark is one of the state’s largest insurers.
Those decisions left the overwhelming majority of Iowans with just one insurance option for 2018, Medica. *That is, until today when Medica also announced that, "due to instability in the market," they too would likely have to pull out of Iowa in 2018.* Per the Des Moines Register:
Medica, a Minnesota based health insurer, released a statement suggesting it was close to following two larger carriers in deciding not to sell such policies in Iowa for 2018, due to instability in the market.
*“Without swift action by the state or Congress to provide stability to Iowa’s individual insurance market, Medica will not be able to serve the citizens of Iowa in the manner and breadth that we do today.* We are examining the potential of limited offerings, but our ability to stay in the Iowa insurance market in any capacity is in question at this point,” the company’s statement said.
*Medica's exit is expected to leave roughly 70,000 Iowans without a single option to purchase a personal health insurance policy in 2018, even if they wanted to.* Unless a replacement carrier is found, the change also means moderate-income Iowans in most counties will not be able to use Affordable Care Act subsidies to help pay premiums for private insurance.
Medica is a relatively small carrier, which faced a daunting prospect in Iowa after Aetna and Wellmark announced they would no longer sell individual health insurance plans there. The two large carriers announced they had lost tens of millions of dollars in Iowa, largely because they covered too many older Iowans with chronic health problems and not enough young, healthy people. If Medica remains in the market, it would face the prospect of shouldering all of that risk by itself.
Of course, all of this should come as little surprise to our readers as we've been writing for years that the entire *Obamacare system was on the "verge of collapse" as premiums were soaring, risk pools were deteriorating and insurers were pulling out of exchanges all around the country leaving many Americans with just a single 'option' for health insurance* (see "Obamacare On "Verge Of Collapse" As Premiums Set To Soar Again In 2017").* In fact, the following charts provide a stunning illustration of that collapse *(charts per Bloomberg):
Unfortunately, things are likely to get even worse in 2018, even if Trump leaves subsidies in place. Humana has already announced they won't offer marketplace plans in 2018, a move which will result in 1,000s of people in Tennessee not having a single health insurance option starting 1/1/18.
Meanwhile, Anthem has also signaled they may exit all exchanges next year as well which would leave another 250,000 consumers with no health insurance options.
But sure, Republicans are trying to 'ruin' healthcare in America. Reported by Zero Hedge 5 hours ago.
↧
Trump Set To Sign A Religious Liberty Executive Order That Actually Leaves LGBTQ People Alone
WASHINGTON ― It appears that LGBTQ rights advocates can breathe a sigh of relief on Thursday, when President Donald Trump signs an executive order on religious liberty.
Rumors have been swirling for days that Trump was poised to sign an order to allow virtually any federally funded entity with a religious affiliation to refuse service to someone based on religious objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion or a transgender identity. Such an action would have, in effect, licensed the government to discriminate against LGBTQ people.
Instead, White House officials said Trump plans to sign an executive order to make it easier for churches to engage in politics without risking their tax-exempt status ― a controversial but far less extreme action than expected. The administration has not provided the text of the executive order, though, so its specific details remain unclear.
In a background call with reporters on Wednesday night, White House officials confirmed this would be the only executive action taken regarding religious liberty, for now. They tamped down on the idea that Trump had been planning to target the LGBTQ community.
“This [executive order] isn’t about discrimination. We don’t have any plans for discriminat[ion],” said one official, who spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity. “We’re about not discriminating against religious organizations.”
The official said the order does not relate to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a controversial state* *law that Vice President Mike Pence signed in 2015 as Indiana governor. That law, which allowed businesses to cite their religious freedom as a legal defense, was criticized nationwide for opening the door to blatant discrimination against LGBTQ people.
The president, instead, is focused on removing barriers to churches and religious organizations so they can get more involved in politics while maintaining their tax-exempt status. The official said Trump believes it’s “intolerant and un-American” for politicians and government officials “to shut up their critics just because they’re church leaders or charities.”
The order also will instruct the government to provide regulatory relief to organizations that object to the Affordable Care Act’s “burdensome preventive services mandate” ― the requirement that health insurance plans offered by for-profit companies to employees cover contraception. The Supreme Court already chipped away at that provision in a ruling allowing Hobby Lobby and other closely held for-profit organizations to deny contraception coverage if they said it violated their religious beliefs.
The White House official said the order will only instruct the government to provide regulatory relief, but didn’t say what that would actually mean.
Here’s what White House officials handed out to reporters on Wednesday night.
Here's the one-pager White House aides handed out in briefing room tonight on tomorrow's religious liberty executive order. pic.twitter.com/Bd8KF1KCbL
— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) May 4, 2017
It’s unclear how much of an effect Trump’s executive order will actually have. Congress would have to pass legislation to change the tax code provision, known as the Johnson Amendment, that prohibits churches and clergy from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Trump’s executive order simply directs the Internal Revenue Service to “exercise maximum enforcement discretion to alleviate the burden of the Johnson amendment.”
“All laws still apply,” the official said.
Trump is taking this action for two reasons: to fulfill a campaign promise to go after the Johnson Amendment, and to tie some kind of executive order on religious liberty to the National Day of Prayer, which is Thursday. He and Pence are hosting leaders of the White House evangelical advisory board for dinner, and they want to throw a bone to them and social conservatives.
-- 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 4 hours ago.
Rumors have been swirling for days that Trump was poised to sign an order to allow virtually any federally funded entity with a religious affiliation to refuse service to someone based on religious objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion or a transgender identity. Such an action would have, in effect, licensed the government to discriminate against LGBTQ people.
Instead, White House officials said Trump plans to sign an executive order to make it easier for churches to engage in politics without risking their tax-exempt status ― a controversial but far less extreme action than expected. The administration has not provided the text of the executive order, though, so its specific details remain unclear.
In a background call with reporters on Wednesday night, White House officials confirmed this would be the only executive action taken regarding religious liberty, for now. They tamped down on the idea that Trump had been planning to target the LGBTQ community.
“This [executive order] isn’t about discrimination. We don’t have any plans for discriminat[ion],” said one official, who spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity. “We’re about not discriminating against religious organizations.”
The official said the order does not relate to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a controversial state* *law that Vice President Mike Pence signed in 2015 as Indiana governor. That law, which allowed businesses to cite their religious freedom as a legal defense, was criticized nationwide for opening the door to blatant discrimination against LGBTQ people.
The president, instead, is focused on removing barriers to churches and religious organizations so they can get more involved in politics while maintaining their tax-exempt status. The official said Trump believes it’s “intolerant and un-American” for politicians and government officials “to shut up their critics just because they’re church leaders or charities.”
The order also will instruct the government to provide regulatory relief to organizations that object to the Affordable Care Act’s “burdensome preventive services mandate” ― the requirement that health insurance plans offered by for-profit companies to employees cover contraception. The Supreme Court already chipped away at that provision in a ruling allowing Hobby Lobby and other closely held for-profit organizations to deny contraception coverage if they said it violated their religious beliefs.
The White House official said the order will only instruct the government to provide regulatory relief, but didn’t say what that would actually mean.
Here’s what White House officials handed out to reporters on Wednesday night.
Here's the one-pager White House aides handed out in briefing room tonight on tomorrow's religious liberty executive order. pic.twitter.com/Bd8KF1KCbL
— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) May 4, 2017
It’s unclear how much of an effect Trump’s executive order will actually have. Congress would have to pass legislation to change the tax code provision, known as the Johnson Amendment, that prohibits churches and clergy from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Trump’s executive order simply directs the Internal Revenue Service to “exercise maximum enforcement discretion to alleviate the burden of the Johnson amendment.”
“All laws still apply,” the official said.
Trump is taking this action for two reasons: to fulfill a campaign promise to go after the Johnson Amendment, and to tie some kind of executive order on religious liberty to the National Day of Prayer, which is Thursday. He and Pence are hosting leaders of the White House evangelical advisory board for dinner, and they want to throw a bone to them and social conservatives.
-- 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 4 hours ago.
↧
Sean Spicer Responds To Jimmy Kimmel's Emotional Plea With Lame GOP Talking Points
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer reacted Wednesday to Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night monologue, saying babies in need of care is why the president is “fighting so hard” to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
The only problem is that the revised American Health Care Act that Republicans are rushing to vote on still has fundamental problems, and just this week Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) unveiled an amendment to the bill that would gut the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
“We’ve got a health care system that’s not doing what it’s supposed to,” Spicer said in response to a question about Kimmel’s comments. “It’s failing. It’s costing too much ... and what the president is trying to do by working with these members of Congress is to make sure we have the strongest possible health care system that covers [Americans], that gives them the care that they need, that allows them to go see a doctor, that covers pre-existing conditions and does so in a way that’s not going to be out of range and unaffordable for most Americans.”
On Tuesday night, Kimmel told the story of his son’s birth through tears, recounting how Billy was born April 21 with a heart problem and underwent emergency open-heart surgery. He’ll have to get two more heart surgeries in his life.
Kimmel ended his monologue with a plea to stop President Donald Trump and Congress from defunding the National Institutes of Health and passing health care legislation that would not cover people with pre-existing conditions.
“Before 2014, if you were born with congenital heart disease, like my son was, there was a good chance you’d never be able to get health insurance because you had a pre-existing condition,” Kimmel said. “And if your parents didn’t have medical insurance, you might not even live long [enough] to even get denied because of a pre-existing condition.”
Kimmel’s story went viral, with former President Barack Obama tweeting that situations like the Kimmels’ is why he fought to pass the Affordable Care Act, which includes protections for people with preexisting conditions.
Well said, Jimmy. That's exactly why we fought so hard for the ACA, and why we need to protect it for kids like Billy. And congratulations! https://t.co/77F8rZrD3P
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 2, 2017
-- 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 2 hours ago.
The only problem is that the revised American Health Care Act that Republicans are rushing to vote on still has fundamental problems, and just this week Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) unveiled an amendment to the bill that would gut the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
“We’ve got a health care system that’s not doing what it’s supposed to,” Spicer said in response to a question about Kimmel’s comments. “It’s failing. It’s costing too much ... and what the president is trying to do by working with these members of Congress is to make sure we have the strongest possible health care system that covers [Americans], that gives them the care that they need, that allows them to go see a doctor, that covers pre-existing conditions and does so in a way that’s not going to be out of range and unaffordable for most Americans.”
On Tuesday night, Kimmel told the story of his son’s birth through tears, recounting how Billy was born April 21 with a heart problem and underwent emergency open-heart surgery. He’ll have to get two more heart surgeries in his life.
Kimmel ended his monologue with a plea to stop President Donald Trump and Congress from defunding the National Institutes of Health and passing health care legislation that would not cover people with pre-existing conditions.
“Before 2014, if you were born with congenital heart disease, like my son was, there was a good chance you’d never be able to get health insurance because you had a pre-existing condition,” Kimmel said. “And if your parents didn’t have medical insurance, you might not even live long [enough] to even get denied because of a pre-existing condition.”
Kimmel’s story went viral, with former President Barack Obama tweeting that situations like the Kimmels’ is why he fought to pass the Affordable Care Act, which includes protections for people with preexisting conditions.
Well said, Jimmy. That's exactly why we fought so hard for the ACA, and why we need to protect it for kids like Billy. And congratulations! https://t.co/77F8rZrD3P
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 2, 2017
-- 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 2 hours ago.
↧
↧
Robert Reich: Trump’s Unnecessary Cruelty – OpEd
The theme that unites all of Trump’s initiatives so far is their unnecessary cruelty.
*1. His new budget comes down especially hard on the poor* – imposing unprecedented cuts in low-income housing, job training, food assistance, legal services, help to distressed rural communities, nutrition for new mothers and their infants, funds to keep poor families warm, even “meals on wheels.”
These cuts come at a time when more American families are in poverty than ever before, including 1 in 5 children. So, why is Trump doing this? To pay for the biggest hike in military spending since the 1980s – at a time when the U.S. already spends more on its military than the next 7 biggest military budgets put together.
*2. Trump and his enablers in the GOP are on the way to repealing the Affordable Care Act,* and replacing it in a way that could cause 14 million Americans to lose their health insurance next year, and 24 million by 2026.
Why is Trump doing this? To give $600 billion in tax cuts over the decade mostly to wealthy Americans, when the rich have accumulated more wealth than at any time in the nation’s history.
The plan reduces the federal budget by only $337 billion over the next ten years – that is a small fraction of the national debt, in exchange for the largest redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy in modern history.
*3. Trump is banning Syrian refugees* and slashing the total number of refugees this year by more than half. This comes just when the world is experiencing the worst refugee crisis since World War II.
So, why is he doing this? Your odds of dying by a lightening strike are higher than by an immigrant terrorist attack. No terrorist attacker inside the U.S. has come from Syria (nor, for that matter, from any of the 6 countries in Trump’s current travel ban.)
*4. Trump is rounding up undocumented immigrants helter-skelter* – including people who have been productive members of our society for decades, and young people who have been here since they were toddlers.
Why is Trump doing this? These actions come when unemployment is down, crime is down, and we have fewer undocumented workers in the U.S. today than we did ten years ago.
Trump is embarking on an orgy of cruelty for absolutely no reason. This is profoundly immoral. It is morally incumbent on all of us to stop it. Reported by Eurasia Review 1 hour ago.
*1. His new budget comes down especially hard on the poor* – imposing unprecedented cuts in low-income housing, job training, food assistance, legal services, help to distressed rural communities, nutrition for new mothers and their infants, funds to keep poor families warm, even “meals on wheels.”
These cuts come at a time when more American families are in poverty than ever before, including 1 in 5 children. So, why is Trump doing this? To pay for the biggest hike in military spending since the 1980s – at a time when the U.S. already spends more on its military than the next 7 biggest military budgets put together.
*2. Trump and his enablers in the GOP are on the way to repealing the Affordable Care Act,* and replacing it in a way that could cause 14 million Americans to lose their health insurance next year, and 24 million by 2026.
Why is Trump doing this? To give $600 billion in tax cuts over the decade mostly to wealthy Americans, when the rich have accumulated more wealth than at any time in the nation’s history.
The plan reduces the federal budget by only $337 billion over the next ten years – that is a small fraction of the national debt, in exchange for the largest redistribution from the poor and middle class to the wealthy in modern history.
*3. Trump is banning Syrian refugees* and slashing the total number of refugees this year by more than half. This comes just when the world is experiencing the worst refugee crisis since World War II.
So, why is he doing this? Your odds of dying by a lightening strike are higher than by an immigrant terrorist attack. No terrorist attacker inside the U.S. has come from Syria (nor, for that matter, from any of the 6 countries in Trump’s current travel ban.)
*4. Trump is rounding up undocumented immigrants helter-skelter* – including people who have been productive members of our society for decades, and young people who have been here since they were toddlers.
Why is Trump doing this? These actions come when unemployment is down, crime is down, and we have fewer undocumented workers in the U.S. today than we did ten years ago.
Trump is embarking on an orgy of cruelty for absolutely no reason. This is profoundly immoral. It is morally incumbent on all of us to stop it. Reported by Eurasia Review 1 hour ago.
↧
APRIL : The APRIL group diversifies its business in Brazil with the acquisition of Public Broker
Lyon, 4 May 2017
*The APRIL group diversifies its business in Brazil*
*with the acquisition of Public Broker*
*The APRIL group continues to expand its expertise abroad and therefore extends its operations in Brazil to group private insurance by acquiring a 60% equity stake in Public Broker, a company that distributes health and personal protection insurance products to businesses. Created in 2008, Public Broker currently employs around 100 people, mainly based in São Paulo and Campinas, and posts annual turnover of around €10m.*
Already present in the travel insurance market in Brazil, APRIL recently decided to diversify its operations in the country to include group health and personal protection insurance. In a fast-growing local market, APRIL has acquired a well-established supplier of small and medium-sized firms backed by a network of 5,000 brokers and a direct sales unit. Because Public Broker and APRIL have complimentary areas of expertise, this operation will enable the group to acquire a foothold in the Brazilian health and private protection insurance market by offering tailored group insurance solutions to professionals, SMEs and key accounts. The acquisition is also an opportunity to offer travel insurance via new channels of distribution (brokerage and large companies) as well as a possibility to develop high-end international health insurance solutions for businesses.
APRIL purchased 60% of shares in Public Broker, while the remaining 40% will be kept by its founding partners, who will retain their existing positions at the company. The transaction was financed with group cash.
"We are delighted to welcome the Public Broker teams within the APRIL group. This acquisition will give us access to new market segments in Brazil, where Public Broker's fast-growing business will be further boosted by APRIL's recognised expertise, while our local presence will be strengthened via complimentary products and distribution channels. We therefore confirm our strategy of reinforcing our global footprint through targeted acquisitions that will serve our priority growth levers and our growth dynamics", APRIL CEO Emmanuel Morandini commented.
Upcoming releases:
· Annual General Meeting: 4 May 2017, in Lyon
· 2017 Half-year results: 7 September 2017, after market close
· Q3 2017 sales: 24 October 2017, after market close
This release contains forward-looking statements that are based on assessments or assumptions that were reasonable at the date of the release, and which may change or be altered due to, in particular, random events or uncertainties and risks relating to the economic, financial, regulatory and competitive environment, the risks set out in the 2016 Registration Document, and any risks that are unknown or non-material to date that may subsequently occur. The Company undertakes to publish or disclose any adjustments or updates to this information as part of the periodical and permanent information obligation to which all listed companies are subject.
* Contacts: *
*Analysts and investors*
Guillaume Cerezo: +33 (0)4 72 36 49 31 / +33 (0)6 20 26 06 24 - guillaume.cerezo@april.com
*Press*
Samantha Druon: +33(0) 7 64 01 74 35 - samantha.druon@insign.fr
About APRIL
Established in 1988, APRIL is an international insurance services group with operations in 31 countries in Europe, North and South America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, and the leading wholesale broker in France. Listed on Euronext Paris (Compartment B), the group produced a turnover of €861.2 million in 2016. Its 3,800 staff members design, manage and distribute specialised insurance solutions (health and personal protection, property and casualty, mobility and legal protection) as well as assistance services for private individuals, professionals and businesses, while pursuing APRIL's ambition: to make insurance easier and more accessible to everyone. Driven by a strong enterprising ethos, the group aims to offer its customers an insurance experience which is easier, by means of tailored products and services and customised care.
Full regulated information is available on our website at www.april.com (Investors section).
PDF Version
--------------------This announcement is distributed by NASDAQ OMX Corporate Solutions on behalf of NASDAQ OMX Corporate Solutions clients.
The issuer of this announcement warrants that they are solely responsible for the content, accuracy and originality of the information contained therein.
Source: April via GlobeNewswire
HUG#2101723 Reported by GlobeNewswire 23 minutes ago.
*The APRIL group diversifies its business in Brazil*
*with the acquisition of Public Broker*
*The APRIL group continues to expand its expertise abroad and therefore extends its operations in Brazil to group private insurance by acquiring a 60% equity stake in Public Broker, a company that distributes health and personal protection insurance products to businesses. Created in 2008, Public Broker currently employs around 100 people, mainly based in São Paulo and Campinas, and posts annual turnover of around €10m.*
Already present in the travel insurance market in Brazil, APRIL recently decided to diversify its operations in the country to include group health and personal protection insurance. In a fast-growing local market, APRIL has acquired a well-established supplier of small and medium-sized firms backed by a network of 5,000 brokers and a direct sales unit. Because Public Broker and APRIL have complimentary areas of expertise, this operation will enable the group to acquire a foothold in the Brazilian health and private protection insurance market by offering tailored group insurance solutions to professionals, SMEs and key accounts. The acquisition is also an opportunity to offer travel insurance via new channels of distribution (brokerage and large companies) as well as a possibility to develop high-end international health insurance solutions for businesses.
APRIL purchased 60% of shares in Public Broker, while the remaining 40% will be kept by its founding partners, who will retain their existing positions at the company. The transaction was financed with group cash.
"We are delighted to welcome the Public Broker teams within the APRIL group. This acquisition will give us access to new market segments in Brazil, where Public Broker's fast-growing business will be further boosted by APRIL's recognised expertise, while our local presence will be strengthened via complimentary products and distribution channels. We therefore confirm our strategy of reinforcing our global footprint through targeted acquisitions that will serve our priority growth levers and our growth dynamics", APRIL CEO Emmanuel Morandini commented.
Upcoming releases:
· Annual General Meeting: 4 May 2017, in Lyon
· 2017 Half-year results: 7 September 2017, after market close
· Q3 2017 sales: 24 October 2017, after market close
This release contains forward-looking statements that are based on assessments or assumptions that were reasonable at the date of the release, and which may change or be altered due to, in particular, random events or uncertainties and risks relating to the economic, financial, regulatory and competitive environment, the risks set out in the 2016 Registration Document, and any risks that are unknown or non-material to date that may subsequently occur. The Company undertakes to publish or disclose any adjustments or updates to this information as part of the periodical and permanent information obligation to which all listed companies are subject.
* Contacts: *
*Analysts and investors*
Guillaume Cerezo: +33 (0)4 72 36 49 31 / +33 (0)6 20 26 06 24 - guillaume.cerezo@april.com
*Press*
Samantha Druon: +33(0) 7 64 01 74 35 - samantha.druon@insign.fr
About APRIL
Established in 1988, APRIL is an international insurance services group with operations in 31 countries in Europe, North and South America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, and the leading wholesale broker in France. Listed on Euronext Paris (Compartment B), the group produced a turnover of €861.2 million in 2016. Its 3,800 staff members design, manage and distribute specialised insurance solutions (health and personal protection, property and casualty, mobility and legal protection) as well as assistance services for private individuals, professionals and businesses, while pursuing APRIL's ambition: to make insurance easier and more accessible to everyone. Driven by a strong enterprising ethos, the group aims to offer its customers an insurance experience which is easier, by means of tailored products and services and customised care.
Full regulated information is available on our website at www.april.com (Investors section).
PDF Version
--------------------This announcement is distributed by NASDAQ OMX Corporate Solutions on behalf of NASDAQ OMX Corporate Solutions clients.
The issuer of this announcement warrants that they are solely responsible for the content, accuracy and originality of the information contained therein.
Source: April via GlobeNewswire
HUG#2101723 Reported by GlobeNewswire 23 minutes ago.
↧
Here's What's In The House-Approved Health Care Bill
The House GOP's bill to replace the Affordable Care Act would eliminate the requirement that people buy health insurance and shrink Medicaid coverage. It also cuts taxes for the wealthy.
Reported by NPR 12 hours ago.
↧
Trump Just Signed A 'Religious Liberty' Order Even Evangelicals Aren't Enthusiastic About
President Donald Trump signed a long-awaited executive order on religious liberty at the White House on Thursday ― a grand gesture that’s left some conservatives disappointed, and that most Americans don’t even want.
The executive order, timed to coincide with the National Day of Prayer, seeks to weaken a decades-old IRS regulation that prevents churches and other tax-exempt groups from endorsing political candidates. Trump has asked the IRS to use maximum enforcement discretion when applying this law, known as the Johnson Amendment.
“We are giving our churches their voices back. We are giving them back in the highest form,” Trump said during a gathering of religious leaders in the Rose Garden on Thursday.
The order also includes a vague promise of “regulatory relief” for employers with religious objections to offering employees birth control coverage as part of health insurance plans ― which is currently a requirement under the Affordable Care Act and was subject to a number of challenges in the Supreme Court. The Republican health care plan that the House is voting on Thursday appears to keep the contraception mandate intact. It’s unclear exactly how the executive order would impact that bill.
The document stops short of allowing federal contractors with religious affiliations to refuse service to people based on moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, or a transgender identity. Such a provision, which was included in a leaked version of the order in February, was strongly condemned by progressive religious clergy who believed it gave the businesses the license to discriminate on the basis of faith. It is not in the final version of Trump’s order.Trump met privately with members of his evangelical advisory board on Wednesday night, and with Catholic leaders on Thursday morning before signing the order, the AP reports.
The Johnson Amendment is a 1954 law that restricts institutions that are tax-exempt, such as churches, from actively campaigning for or against specific political candidates. It would require an act of Congress to fully repeal this rule.
But Trump seemed certain that his executive order would help American churches.
“This financial threat to the faith community is over,” Trump said on Thursday. “No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors.”
It’s difficult to know how many churches were actually penalized for failure to abide by the Johnson Amendment, since the IRS keeps its investigations private. Remarkably, over the past few decades, only one church is known to have lost its tax-exempt status because of the rule.
Most Americans are actually opposed to having their pastors or churches explicitly endorse political candidates. A Pew Research Center survey from 2016 found that while many Americans agreed that churches and other houses of worship should express their views on social and political matters (47 percent), a strong majority didn’t think churches should endorse specific political candidates (66 percent).
This holds true across many religious groups. Only 33 percent of Protestants, 28 percent of Catholics, and 26 percent of the religiously unaffiliated believe churches should endorse candidates during elections.
A coalition of 99 religious organizations sent a letter to members of Congress in April reiterating their opposition to “any effort to weaken or eliminate protections that prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses of worship, from endorsing or opposing political candidates.”
The signers included prominent national Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, and interfaith groups.
This week, more than 1,000 religious leaders signed a letter urging the president to “turn away from all proposals that would abuse religious freedom.”
Even white evangelical Protestants, who voted for Trump by an overwhelming majority (81 percent), are against the idea. Just 37 percent of white evangelicals think churches should endorse political candidates.
The National Association of Evangelicals, a network of 45,000 local churches from nearly 40 different evangelical denominations, conducted its own survey on the matter in February. After reaching out to its board of directors, which includes CEOs of denominations and representatives evangelical universities, publishers, churches, and other organizations, the NAE found that a whopping 89 percent of these evangelical leaders don’t think pastors should endorse politicians from the pulpit.
“Evangelicals emphasize evangelism, and pastors often avoid controversies that might take priority over the gospel message,” Leith Anderson, president of the NAE, said at the time. “Most pastors I know don’t want to endorse politicians. They want to focus on teaching the Bible.”American religious groups are more divided on the second issue that Trump’s executive order touches on ― whether employers with religious objections to contraception should be required to provide it in health insurance plans for their employees. But the overall, broad consensus among 67 percent of American adults is “Yes,” businesses should be required to include birth control in their employees’ insurance plans.
According to a PRRI analysis conducted in February, 81 percent of the religiously unaffiliated support the contraception mandate. Nonwhite Protestants (58 percent), Catholics (60 percent), and white mainline Protestants (75 percent) are also in favor.
And significantly, a slim majority of white evangelical Protestants (54 percent) are also supportive of requiring employers to provide employees with health care plans that cover contraception or birth control at no cost.
The Obama administration created a buffer for religious for-profit and nonprofit organizations who are opposed to providing contraception to their employees, but some of these groups felt the aaccommodation didn’t go far enough. The issues is still being resolved by the courts.
The stats suggest that Americans across the religious spectrum are opposed to allowing pastors to endorse candidates and employers to refuse including birth control in their health insurance plans.
Still, the order seemed to have pleased some of the prominent religious leaders who have the president’s ear ― people like the Texas pastor Dr. Robert Jeffress, the evangelist Franklin Graham and the televangelist Paula White.
Thank you @POTUS @realDonaldTrump for a great evening last night and fulfilling another pledge today with your religious liberty exec order. pic.twitter.com/8LAtz1mG4J
— Dr. Robert Jeffress (@robertjeffress) May 4, 2017
Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith & Freedom Coalition and a member of the president’s evangelical advisory board, told the AP that the order was an excellent “first step” towards protecting religious freedom.
Reed said that Trump’s order to relax IRS restrictions on pastors endorsing candidates was a “really big deal.”
“This administratively removes the threat of harassment,” Reed told the AP.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement saying that the organization welcomed a decision to provide a broad religious exemption to the contraception mandate, but “will have to review the details of any regulatory proposals.”
“We will continue to advocate for permanent relief from Congress on issues of critical importance to people of faith. Religious freedom is a fundamental right that should be upheld by all branches of government and not subject to political whims.”
But other American religious leaders weren’t as enthused. Gregory Baylor, senior counsel for the conservative Christian Alliance Defending Freedom criticized the “disappointingly vague” language around the contraception mandate and said that Trump’s actions on Thursday left his campaign promises unfulfilled.
“We strongly encourage the president to see his campaign promise through to completion and to ensure that all Americans — no matter where they live or what their occupation is — enjoy the freedom to peacefully live and work consistent with their convictions without fear of government punishment,” Baylor told the Washington Post.
Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, called the order a “symbolic act, voicing concern for religious liberty but offering nothing to advance it.”
“Worse, it is further evidence that President Trump wants churches to be vehicles for political campaigns,” Tyler said in a statement. “The vast majority of congregants and clergy from all religious groups oppose candidate endorsements in their houses of worship ... Getting rid of the protection in the law that insulates 501(c)(3) organizations from candidates pressing for endorsements would destroy our congregations and charities from within over disagreements on partisan campaigns.”
-- 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.
The executive order, timed to coincide with the National Day of Prayer, seeks to weaken a decades-old IRS regulation that prevents churches and other tax-exempt groups from endorsing political candidates. Trump has asked the IRS to use maximum enforcement discretion when applying this law, known as the Johnson Amendment.
“We are giving our churches their voices back. We are giving them back in the highest form,” Trump said during a gathering of religious leaders in the Rose Garden on Thursday.
The order also includes a vague promise of “regulatory relief” for employers with religious objections to offering employees birth control coverage as part of health insurance plans ― which is currently a requirement under the Affordable Care Act and was subject to a number of challenges in the Supreme Court. The Republican health care plan that the House is voting on Thursday appears to keep the contraception mandate intact. It’s unclear exactly how the executive order would impact that bill.
The document stops short of allowing federal contractors with religious affiliations to refuse service to people based on moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, or a transgender identity. Such a provision, which was included in a leaked version of the order in February, was strongly condemned by progressive religious clergy who believed it gave the businesses the license to discriminate on the basis of faith. It is not in the final version of Trump’s order.Trump met privately with members of his evangelical advisory board on Wednesday night, and with Catholic leaders on Thursday morning before signing the order, the AP reports.
The Johnson Amendment is a 1954 law that restricts institutions that are tax-exempt, such as churches, from actively campaigning for or against specific political candidates. It would require an act of Congress to fully repeal this rule.
But Trump seemed certain that his executive order would help American churches.
“This financial threat to the faith community is over,” Trump said on Thursday. “No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors.”
It’s difficult to know how many churches were actually penalized for failure to abide by the Johnson Amendment, since the IRS keeps its investigations private. Remarkably, over the past few decades, only one church is known to have lost its tax-exempt status because of the rule.
Most Americans are actually opposed to having their pastors or churches explicitly endorse political candidates. A Pew Research Center survey from 2016 found that while many Americans agreed that churches and other houses of worship should express their views on social and political matters (47 percent), a strong majority didn’t think churches should endorse specific political candidates (66 percent).
This holds true across many religious groups. Only 33 percent of Protestants, 28 percent of Catholics, and 26 percent of the religiously unaffiliated believe churches should endorse candidates during elections.
A coalition of 99 religious organizations sent a letter to members of Congress in April reiterating their opposition to “any effort to weaken or eliminate protections that prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, including houses of worship, from endorsing or opposing political candidates.”
The signers included prominent national Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, and interfaith groups.
This week, more than 1,000 religious leaders signed a letter urging the president to “turn away from all proposals that would abuse religious freedom.”
Even white evangelical Protestants, who voted for Trump by an overwhelming majority (81 percent), are against the idea. Just 37 percent of white evangelicals think churches should endorse political candidates.
The National Association of Evangelicals, a network of 45,000 local churches from nearly 40 different evangelical denominations, conducted its own survey on the matter in February. After reaching out to its board of directors, which includes CEOs of denominations and representatives evangelical universities, publishers, churches, and other organizations, the NAE found that a whopping 89 percent of these evangelical leaders don’t think pastors should endorse politicians from the pulpit.
“Evangelicals emphasize evangelism, and pastors often avoid controversies that might take priority over the gospel message,” Leith Anderson, president of the NAE, said at the time. “Most pastors I know don’t want to endorse politicians. They want to focus on teaching the Bible.”American religious groups are more divided on the second issue that Trump’s executive order touches on ― whether employers with religious objections to contraception should be required to provide it in health insurance plans for their employees. But the overall, broad consensus among 67 percent of American adults is “Yes,” businesses should be required to include birth control in their employees’ insurance plans.
According to a PRRI analysis conducted in February, 81 percent of the religiously unaffiliated support the contraception mandate. Nonwhite Protestants (58 percent), Catholics (60 percent), and white mainline Protestants (75 percent) are also in favor.
And significantly, a slim majority of white evangelical Protestants (54 percent) are also supportive of requiring employers to provide employees with health care plans that cover contraception or birth control at no cost.
The Obama administration created a buffer for religious for-profit and nonprofit organizations who are opposed to providing contraception to their employees, but some of these groups felt the aaccommodation didn’t go far enough. The issues is still being resolved by the courts.
The stats suggest that Americans across the religious spectrum are opposed to allowing pastors to endorse candidates and employers to refuse including birth control in their health insurance plans.
Still, the order seemed to have pleased some of the prominent religious leaders who have the president’s ear ― people like the Texas pastor Dr. Robert Jeffress, the evangelist Franklin Graham and the televangelist Paula White.
Thank you @POTUS @realDonaldTrump for a great evening last night and fulfilling another pledge today with your religious liberty exec order. pic.twitter.com/8LAtz1mG4J
— Dr. Robert Jeffress (@robertjeffress) May 4, 2017
Ralph Reed, founder of the Faith & Freedom Coalition and a member of the president’s evangelical advisory board, told the AP that the order was an excellent “first step” towards protecting religious freedom.
Reed said that Trump’s order to relax IRS restrictions on pastors endorsing candidates was a “really big deal.”
“This administratively removes the threat of harassment,” Reed told the AP.
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement saying that the organization welcomed a decision to provide a broad religious exemption to the contraception mandate, but “will have to review the details of any regulatory proposals.”
“We will continue to advocate for permanent relief from Congress on issues of critical importance to people of faith. Religious freedom is a fundamental right that should be upheld by all branches of government and not subject to political whims.”
But other American religious leaders weren’t as enthused. Gregory Baylor, senior counsel for the conservative Christian Alliance Defending Freedom criticized the “disappointingly vague” language around the contraception mandate and said that Trump’s actions on Thursday left his campaign promises unfulfilled.
“We strongly encourage the president to see his campaign promise through to completion and to ensure that all Americans — no matter where they live or what their occupation is — enjoy the freedom to peacefully live and work consistent with their convictions without fear of government punishment,” Baylor told the Washington Post.
Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, called the order a “symbolic act, voicing concern for religious liberty but offering nothing to advance it.”
“Worse, it is further evidence that President Trump wants churches to be vehicles for political campaigns,” Tyler said in a statement. “The vast majority of congregants and clergy from all religious groups oppose candidate endorsements in their houses of worship ... Getting rid of the protection in the law that insulates 501(c)(3) organizations from candidates pressing for endorsements would destroy our congregations and charities from within over disagreements on partisan campaigns.”
-- 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.
↧
↧
Celebrities Express Outrage After New Health Care Bill Passes
On Thursday, after months of delays and a previous failed attempt, House Republicans narrowly passed their bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. This puts the GOP one step closer to fulfilling its promise to totally reshape the federal statute that was signed into law by Barack Obama.
Not a single Democrat voted in favor of the bill, which was passed by the Republicans 217-213. There were also 20 Republicans who voted against it.
Upon hearing the news, celebrities like Patton Oswalt, Mark Ruffalo and Mae Whitman took to social media to express their disappointment.
“DONATE AND VOTE DONATE AND VOTE SHOW THE FUCK UP WE WILL NOT FORGET THIS YOU SHAMEFUL COWARDS,” wrote Whitman, while Billy Eichner had some choice words for President Donald Trump.
I'll do what I can to make November 6, 2018 a dawn-to-dusk nightmare for the GOP. Fuck these smirking, entitled frauds. Tick tick tick.
— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) May 4, 2017
Dear #Maga Americans. Making people die without insurance while the rest of the world enjoys coverage doesn't Make America Great Again. https://t.co/8RWSjHUccj
— Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) May 4, 2017
DONATE AND VOTE DONATE AND VOTE SHOW THE FUCK UP WE WILL NOT FORGET THIS YOU SHAMEFUL COWARDS https://t.co/rTMLgaQ9lX
— mae whitman (@maebirdwing) May 4, 2017
Celebrating millions of men, women and children losing health insurance. @realDonaldTrump is a SICK PIECE OF SHIT. https://t.co/R1nmoTkv4x
— billy eichner (@billyeichner) May 4, 2017
Trump is making his first trip back to NY tonight. @realDonaldTrump - on behalf of my fellow New Yorkers -YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE. #RESIST
— billy eichner (@billyeichner) May 4, 2017
Nice healthcare you got there, Congressman. Would be a shame if anything happened to it. pic.twitter.com/wP5ZiRpVPu
— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) May 4, 2017
Very smart for the Republicans to tie their futures to a bill almost no one likes just to appease the most unpopular president ever
— Ike Barinholtz (@ikebarinholtz) May 4, 2017
Please all parties watch this. Don't hate Obamacare bc Obama is in the name. It's the ACA! And it helps people stay alive y'all https://t.co/A5BbJmzrfb
— Sarah Silverman (@SarahKSilverman) May 4, 2017
The "health care" bill that Republicans passed today is an absolute disaster. https://t.co/cmGjw2vska
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 4, 2017
Again if you voted for @realDonaldTrump you voted for this.
— Kristen Schaal (@kristenschaaled) May 4, 2017
It sucks. It truly does. But they'll be out next year. There's that.
— Kumail Nanjiani (@kumailn) May 4, 2017
Sorry I'm re-tweeting up a storm, it's just that millions of people are going to die
— Mara Wilson (@MaraWilson) May 4, 2017
Alyssa Milano encouraged people to use their voices and challenge the bill, while John Legend chose to donate to Swing Left, a grassroots organization supporting Democratic candidates in swing districts.
Has someone put together a list of dem challengers I can donate to to oust republicans in swing districts?
— John Legend (@johnlegend) May 4, 2017
Just donated to @swingleft. Thanks for the input!
— John Legend (@johnlegend) May 4, 2017
USE YOUR VOICE AND SHOW UP TO A TOWN HALL MEETING NEXT WEEK. Find your town hall here: https://t.co/Fy2dVIS3lK #trumpcare
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) May 4, 2017
In 2018, when it comes time to vote, remember this day and how the American people have been ignored by the @GOP.
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) May 4, 2017
-- 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.
Not a single Democrat voted in favor of the bill, which was passed by the Republicans 217-213. There were also 20 Republicans who voted against it.
Upon hearing the news, celebrities like Patton Oswalt, Mark Ruffalo and Mae Whitman took to social media to express their disappointment.
“DONATE AND VOTE DONATE AND VOTE SHOW THE FUCK UP WE WILL NOT FORGET THIS YOU SHAMEFUL COWARDS,” wrote Whitman, while Billy Eichner had some choice words for President Donald Trump.
I'll do what I can to make November 6, 2018 a dawn-to-dusk nightmare for the GOP. Fuck these smirking, entitled frauds. Tick tick tick.
— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) May 4, 2017
Dear #Maga Americans. Making people die without insurance while the rest of the world enjoys coverage doesn't Make America Great Again. https://t.co/8RWSjHUccj
— Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) May 4, 2017
DONATE AND VOTE DONATE AND VOTE SHOW THE FUCK UP WE WILL NOT FORGET THIS YOU SHAMEFUL COWARDS https://t.co/rTMLgaQ9lX
— mae whitman (@maebirdwing) May 4, 2017
Celebrating millions of men, women and children losing health insurance. @realDonaldTrump is a SICK PIECE OF SHIT. https://t.co/R1nmoTkv4x
— billy eichner (@billyeichner) May 4, 2017
Trump is making his first trip back to NY tonight. @realDonaldTrump - on behalf of my fellow New Yorkers -YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE. #RESIST
— billy eichner (@billyeichner) May 4, 2017
Nice healthcare you got there, Congressman. Would be a shame if anything happened to it. pic.twitter.com/wP5ZiRpVPu
— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) May 4, 2017
Very smart for the Republicans to tie their futures to a bill almost no one likes just to appease the most unpopular president ever
— Ike Barinholtz (@ikebarinholtz) May 4, 2017
Please all parties watch this. Don't hate Obamacare bc Obama is in the name. It's the ACA! And it helps people stay alive y'all https://t.co/A5BbJmzrfb
— Sarah Silverman (@SarahKSilverman) May 4, 2017
The "health care" bill that Republicans passed today is an absolute disaster. https://t.co/cmGjw2vska
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 4, 2017
Again if you voted for @realDonaldTrump you voted for this.
— Kristen Schaal (@kristenschaaled) May 4, 2017
It sucks. It truly does. But they'll be out next year. There's that.
— Kumail Nanjiani (@kumailn) May 4, 2017
Sorry I'm re-tweeting up a storm, it's just that millions of people are going to die
— Mara Wilson (@MaraWilson) May 4, 2017
Alyssa Milano encouraged people to use their voices and challenge the bill, while John Legend chose to donate to Swing Left, a grassroots organization supporting Democratic candidates in swing districts.
Has someone put together a list of dem challengers I can donate to to oust republicans in swing districts?
— John Legend (@johnlegend) May 4, 2017
Just donated to @swingleft. Thanks for the input!
— John Legend (@johnlegend) May 4, 2017
USE YOUR VOICE AND SHOW UP TO A TOWN HALL MEETING NEXT WEEK. Find your town hall here: https://t.co/Fy2dVIS3lK #trumpcare
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) May 4, 2017
In 2018, when it comes time to vote, remember this day and how the American people have been ignored by the @GOP.
— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) May 4, 2017
-- 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.
↧
This Is What's In The Health Care Bill House Republicans Just Passed
The Republican-led House on Thursday narrowly passed legislation to repeal major parts of the Affordable Care Act and replace them with a new set of policies designed to significantly scale back the federal role in providing health coverage to Americans.
The Affordable Care Act ushered in a historic reduction in the national uninsured rate. By targeting assistance to low- and middle-income families that need health coverage and forbidding health insurance companies from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions, it expanded coverage to about 20 million people.
The American Health Care Act, which is the House Republican bill, would undo both of those things.
The legislation would end the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid to poor adults and drastically cut federal funding for Medicaid overall, jeopardizing coverage for children, people with disabilities and elderly people in nursing homes. The bill also would allow states to permit health insurers to go back to turning away customers because of their health status and medical histories, or charging them higher rates.
The American Health Care Act is also a vehicle for almost $600 billion in tax cuts for wealthy people and health care corporations.
With the support of President Donald Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) hurried this revised version of the legislation to the floor even though the Congressional Budget Office hasn’t completed its evaluation of how it would affect the number of Americans with health coverage, the cost of private insurance or the federal budget.
That makes it difficult to ascertain what the bill Republicans passed would actually do.
When the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed the original version of the bill in March, they projected it would lead to: 24 million fewer people covered over 10 years; higher premiums for older customers; and lower premiums for young and healthy people, achieved mainly by pricing out the sick and old. The new version of the bill could lead to even more uninsured and even worse access for people with pre-existing conditions.
Here are the key provisions of the American Health Care Act and what they would do:
Millions more uninsured
The American Health Care Act would reverse the Affordable Care Act’s gains in health coverage by getting rid of the two things that made it possible: expanded Medicaid and generous tax credits for private insurance available to low-income people. Without a CBO report on the language the House passed, there’s no official accounting of how many fewer people would be covered. However, the new version includes the same coverage provisions that the scorekeepers of the old one predicted would cause 18 million people to lose coverage over this year and next year and millions more during the coming decade.
Medicaid cuts
The bill would slash federal spending on Medicaid by $880 billion, or about one-quarter, over a 10-year period. It also would wind down the Medicaid expansion that has provided coverage to millions in the District of Columbia and 31 states that took advantage of this part of the Affordable Care Act.
Moreover, the American Health Care Act would fundamentally transform Medicaid into an entitlement program available to anyone who qualifies ― mostly poor children, pregnant women, people with disabilities and senior citizens ― by capping federal spending.
Instead of the federal government and the states sharing the expenses for covering these individuals, states would receive a smaller lump sum of money each year based on how many Medicaid enrollees they have. Faced with this shortfall, states would be forced to reduce benefits, the number of people they cover, how much they pay medical providers or some combination of those things.
Less help paying for health insurance
The Affordable Care Act provides tax credits that people can use to reduce their monthly health insurance premiums if they earn up to four times the federal poverty level ― which is $98,400 for a family of four. These credits vary not only by income but by geography to reflect variations in health care costs in different regions. The law also offers cost-sharing reductions to the lowest-income enrollees that shrink out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and copayments.
The American Health Care Act would get rid of both of those things. In their place, it offers much smaller tax credits that are pegged only to age, and don’t vary by income or geography.
No more mandates
The American Health Care Act would eliminate the individual mandate that says most Americans must obtain health coverage or face tax penalties and the mandate that says large employers must offer health benefits to works.
Weaker protections for pre-existing conditions
Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies are prohibited from rejecting applicants based on their health or medical history, and must charge everyone the same premiums for their policies regardless of pre-existing conditions.
The original version of the American Health Care Act left that popular rule in place, but the version the House passed doesn’t. Instead, states would be permitted to waive that rule for health insurance companies, and allow insurers to turn away people with pre-existing conditions or to charge them higher rates than healthy people. Anyone who experiences a gap in coverage ― say, because of a lost job ― would face these obstacles in states that waive the guarantee of coverage for pre-existing conditions, while people who maintain continuous coverage wouldn’t.
Skimpier insurance policies
The American Health Care Act would permit states to disregard the Affordable Care Act’s “essential health benefits” standards that require insurers to cover basic services like physician visits, hospitalizations and prescription drugs. This would free health insurance companies to sell policies that cover very little.
Higher deductibles
Deductibles in the thousands of dollars are one of the biggest consumer complaints about Affordable Care Act plans, but the GOP bill encourages health insurance companies to sell plans with even bigger deductibles, according to the CBO. The legislation would enable insurers to offer plans that cover a smaller percentage of a typical person’s medical costs, leaving patients on the hook for more out-of-pocket costs.
Higher premiums for older people
The American Health Care Act would enable states to loosen limits on how much extra customers in their 50s and 60s can be charged for health insurance. The Affordable Care Act caps this at three times what the youngest policyholder pays, and the GOP bill would let states increase it to five times a younger person’s premiums.
Lower premiums for younger people
Charging older people more could let insurers reduce rates for younger consumers. Even more than that, however, the CBO concluded that the primary reason some younger customers may pay less is that older, sicker people will find they can’t afford the insurance because the financial assistance is too meager. As a result, many would become uninsured. That takes their medical expenses out of the insurance pool, saving health insurers money and potentially letting them lower prices for healthier consumers. And younger adults would be subject to the same weakened protections for people with pre-existing conditions as older people.
Money for states
The American Health Care Act would provide $130 billion that states can use to strengthen their insurance markets. States, for example, could distribute money to health insurance companies that have sicker-than-expected patients. With the state absorbing some of insurers’ financial losses, companies could offer lower premiums to their customers.
The version of the bill approved by the House also includes an additional $8 billion earmarked for states that permit health insurance companies to reject people with pre-existing conditions or charge them higher premiums. The idea is that states could establish high-risk pools or some other mechanism to cover the sickest patients that insurers don’t want.
Combined, however, both these pots of money are inadequate to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
Tax cuts
Much of the money the Affordable Care Act spends to cover low- and middle-income people comes from taxes on wealthy people and health care companies. The American Health Care Act repeals all those taxes ― worth $592 billion.
Politics hurt too much? Sign up for HuffPost Hill, a humorous evening roundup featuring scoops from HuffPost’s reporting team and juicy miscellanea from around the web.
-- 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 Affordable Care Act ushered in a historic reduction in the national uninsured rate. By targeting assistance to low- and middle-income families that need health coverage and forbidding health insurance companies from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions, it expanded coverage to about 20 million people.
The American Health Care Act, which is the House Republican bill, would undo both of those things.
The legislation would end the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid to poor adults and drastically cut federal funding for Medicaid overall, jeopardizing coverage for children, people with disabilities and elderly people in nursing homes. The bill also would allow states to permit health insurers to go back to turning away customers because of their health status and medical histories, or charging them higher rates.
The American Health Care Act is also a vehicle for almost $600 billion in tax cuts for wealthy people and health care corporations.
With the support of President Donald Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) hurried this revised version of the legislation to the floor even though the Congressional Budget Office hasn’t completed its evaluation of how it would affect the number of Americans with health coverage, the cost of private insurance or the federal budget.
That makes it difficult to ascertain what the bill Republicans passed would actually do.
When the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed the original version of the bill in March, they projected it would lead to: 24 million fewer people covered over 10 years; higher premiums for older customers; and lower premiums for young and healthy people, achieved mainly by pricing out the sick and old. The new version of the bill could lead to even more uninsured and even worse access for people with pre-existing conditions.
Here are the key provisions of the American Health Care Act and what they would do:
Millions more uninsured
The American Health Care Act would reverse the Affordable Care Act’s gains in health coverage by getting rid of the two things that made it possible: expanded Medicaid and generous tax credits for private insurance available to low-income people. Without a CBO report on the language the House passed, there’s no official accounting of how many fewer people would be covered. However, the new version includes the same coverage provisions that the scorekeepers of the old one predicted would cause 18 million people to lose coverage over this year and next year and millions more during the coming decade.
Medicaid cuts
The bill would slash federal spending on Medicaid by $880 billion, or about one-quarter, over a 10-year period. It also would wind down the Medicaid expansion that has provided coverage to millions in the District of Columbia and 31 states that took advantage of this part of the Affordable Care Act.
Moreover, the American Health Care Act would fundamentally transform Medicaid into an entitlement program available to anyone who qualifies ― mostly poor children, pregnant women, people with disabilities and senior citizens ― by capping federal spending.
Instead of the federal government and the states sharing the expenses for covering these individuals, states would receive a smaller lump sum of money each year based on how many Medicaid enrollees they have. Faced with this shortfall, states would be forced to reduce benefits, the number of people they cover, how much they pay medical providers or some combination of those things.
Less help paying for health insurance
The Affordable Care Act provides tax credits that people can use to reduce their monthly health insurance premiums if they earn up to four times the federal poverty level ― which is $98,400 for a family of four. These credits vary not only by income but by geography to reflect variations in health care costs in different regions. The law also offers cost-sharing reductions to the lowest-income enrollees that shrink out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and copayments.
The American Health Care Act would get rid of both of those things. In their place, it offers much smaller tax credits that are pegged only to age, and don’t vary by income or geography.
No more mandates
The American Health Care Act would eliminate the individual mandate that says most Americans must obtain health coverage or face tax penalties and the mandate that says large employers must offer health benefits to works.
Weaker protections for pre-existing conditions
Under the Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies are prohibited from rejecting applicants based on their health or medical history, and must charge everyone the same premiums for their policies regardless of pre-existing conditions.
The original version of the American Health Care Act left that popular rule in place, but the version the House passed doesn’t. Instead, states would be permitted to waive that rule for health insurance companies, and allow insurers to turn away people with pre-existing conditions or to charge them higher rates than healthy people. Anyone who experiences a gap in coverage ― say, because of a lost job ― would face these obstacles in states that waive the guarantee of coverage for pre-existing conditions, while people who maintain continuous coverage wouldn’t.
Skimpier insurance policies
The American Health Care Act would permit states to disregard the Affordable Care Act’s “essential health benefits” standards that require insurers to cover basic services like physician visits, hospitalizations and prescription drugs. This would free health insurance companies to sell policies that cover very little.
Higher deductibles
Deductibles in the thousands of dollars are one of the biggest consumer complaints about Affordable Care Act plans, but the GOP bill encourages health insurance companies to sell plans with even bigger deductibles, according to the CBO. The legislation would enable insurers to offer plans that cover a smaller percentage of a typical person’s medical costs, leaving patients on the hook for more out-of-pocket costs.
Higher premiums for older people
The American Health Care Act would enable states to loosen limits on how much extra customers in their 50s and 60s can be charged for health insurance. The Affordable Care Act caps this at three times what the youngest policyholder pays, and the GOP bill would let states increase it to five times a younger person’s premiums.
Lower premiums for younger people
Charging older people more could let insurers reduce rates for younger consumers. Even more than that, however, the CBO concluded that the primary reason some younger customers may pay less is that older, sicker people will find they can’t afford the insurance because the financial assistance is too meager. As a result, many would become uninsured. That takes their medical expenses out of the insurance pool, saving health insurers money and potentially letting them lower prices for healthier consumers. And younger adults would be subject to the same weakened protections for people with pre-existing conditions as older people.
Money for states
The American Health Care Act would provide $130 billion that states can use to strengthen their insurance markets. States, for example, could distribute money to health insurance companies that have sicker-than-expected patients. With the state absorbing some of insurers’ financial losses, companies could offer lower premiums to their customers.
The version of the bill approved by the House also includes an additional $8 billion earmarked for states that permit health insurance companies to reject people with pre-existing conditions or charge them higher premiums. The idea is that states could establish high-risk pools or some other mechanism to cover the sickest patients that insurers don’t want.
Combined, however, both these pots of money are inadequate to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
Tax cuts
Much of the money the Affordable Care Act spends to cover low- and middle-income people comes from taxes on wealthy people and health care companies. The American Health Care Act repeals all those taxes ― worth $592 billion.
Politics hurt too much? Sign up for HuffPost Hill, a humorous evening roundup featuring scoops from HuffPost’s reporting team and juicy miscellanea from around the web.
-- 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.
↧
Pre-existing conditions and the health plan: Who's covered?
The Republican push to replace the Affordable Care Act was revived this week in Congress by a small change to their plan designed to combat concerns over coverage for those with pre-existing health problems. The bill proposes setting aside an additional $8 billion over five years to help states cover those who may be subject to higher insurance rates because they've had a lapse in coverage. The problem, experts say, is that the money is unlikely to guarantee an affordable alternative for those who get coverage under a popular provision of the Affordable Care Act that prevents insurers from rejecting people or charging higher rates based on their health. "Many people with pre-existing conditions will have a hard time maintaining coverage because it just won't be affordable," said Larry Levitt, a health insurance expert with the Kaiser Family Foundation, which studies health care issues. John S. Williams, an attorney in New Orleans whose multiple sclerosis medication costs $70,000 a year, buys insurance through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace. Without protections for pre-existing conditions he fears he would have to close his law practice and find a job with that offers a group insurance plan. WHAT MIGHT THIS MEAN FOR PATIENTS? Because the bill is expected to change, and because it leaves big decisions up to the states, it's hard to say now what it would mean.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 10 hours ago.
↧
'Handmaid's Tale' Memes Flood Twitter As Women Respond To Health Care Bill
On Thursday, House Republicans finally voted through legislation that would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), replacing it with a bill that would, among other consequences, make things like pregnancy, postpartum depression and rape pre-existing conditions.
As a result, the new American Health Care Act (AHCA) ― yet to be passed in the Senate ― could put women in particular at risk of being denied coverage or having to pay the higher premiums that Obamacare previously banned. According to HuffPost’s Catherine Pearson, an amendment to the bill “effectively gives states permission to discriminate against women.” (Though House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has denied this.)
It didn’t take long for people on Twitter to respond with a meme that’s become terrifyingly relevant to American politics: images from “The Handmaid’s Tale,” Hulu’s adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s eerily prescient 1985 novel.
Live from the WH Rose Garden pic.twitter.com/ASW2prWXVa
— jbperrone (@jenperrone) May 4, 2017
Screenshots of women in red robes and white bonnets began flooding social media, accompanied by chilling parallels between today’s health care chaos and the book’s depiction of a theocratic regime that subjugates women after taking control of their reproductive rights.
In The Handmaid’s Tale, Atwood’s dire account of a near-future United States called Gilead, an authoritarian government rises to power and quickly decides to drain women’s bank accounts, the first step in a series of shockingly quick policy moves that seem to strip women of their status as equal citizens before they even had a chance to fight back.
“I was asleep before,” Offred, played by Elisabeth Moss, proclaims in a trailer for the Hulu show. “That’s how we let it happen.”
Even Atwood herself has admitted that her book seems more relevant now than ever.
Instead of our bank account, they're taking away our health insurance; and you thought Handmaid's Tale was just a fictional story. #AHCA
— Sahaj Kohli (@SahajKohli) May 4, 2017
Women had already been protesting state senates by dressing as handmaids in an attempt to raise awareness of certain lawmakers’ pushes to limit reproductive health in states like Missouri, Minnesota and Texas. On Thursday, opponents of the AHCA followed suit, posting images and references to Gilead in the hours after the House decision in order to make their stance clear.
In a piece titled “Women In The U.S. Don’t Live In A Dystopian Hellscape. Yet,” HuffPost’s Emily Peck rightly pointed out that, despite the setbacks that have occurred under President Donald Trump’s administration, women in the U.S. have helped push for progress in 2017, too.
“The resistance in the U.S. is very much alive and well,” Peck wrote. “And in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, it’s been remarkably effective.” She cited the ousting of longtime Fox news host Bill O’Reilly, the “unprecedented” numbers of women considering running for office in upcoming elections, and the failure of other policies like Trump’s anti-immigration orders, which was fought by a huge number of female immigration lawyers.
Still, as Congress mulls a health care plan that could potentially put individuals’ lives at risk, women (and men!) are quick to voice their opposition to anything that resembles Gilead.
AHCA will directly punish women for their own rape / sexual assault / C-sections. Andddd we're one step closer to the Handmaid's Tale. https://t.co/px9E2fJURN
— Emily Calandrelli (@TheSpaceGal) May 4, 2017
And the tweets keep coming.
2016 vs 2017 pic.twitter.com/bbxQdMoLIh
— Sarah Cooper (@sarahcpr) May 4, 2017
Having read "The Handmaid's Tale" earlier this week, this all feels eerily similar... pic.twitter.com/1PXunB6Ejy
— Jessica Hessler (@jessicahessler) May 4, 2017
The Handmaid's tale is real. Thanks Paul Ryan. #AHCA #Resistance pic.twitter.com/KqCK2sGqKp
— Kelsey Hale (@agirlnamekelsey) May 4, 2017
I do not see a single woman in this photo. #misogyny #Gilead https://t.co/2sA4mC7Y1f
— Liz Rood (@netzardfan) May 4, 2017
"Handmaid's Tale will never happen in America."
Counterpoint: women who get sex assaulted will no longer be covered by health insurance.
— Alex Silva (@aadbfs) May 4, 2017
It's as if they read A Handmaid's Tale for inspiration and then wrote the AHCA https://t.co/v8mJErfpkR
— Mike SanClements (@msanclem) May 4, 2017
Reasons why I am not yet emotionally ready to watch The Handmaid's Tale. https://t.co/g9n2R7zS1i
— Bonnie O'Keefe (@bonnierok) May 4, 2017
If you're wondering why The Handmaid's Tale is relevant, take note of how many "prexisting conditions" in the AHCA only apply to women.
— Wesleigh Mowry (@hellowesleigh) May 4, 2017
This looks like an episode of The Handmaid's Tale -- scores of white men deciding whether to give women pregnancy healthcare. #AHCA pic.twitter.com/Gwy8dVLHb4
— pfishh (@pfishh) May 4, 2017
Curious about "The Handmaid's Tale" but don't want to pay to buy the book or watch it on Hulu? Don't worry! Soon you'll be LIVING IT!
— noah michelson (@noahmichelson) May 4, 2017
#AHCA has the votes it needs, rape is now a preexisting condition and America's LARPing of @MargaretAtwood 's The Handmaid's Tale begins.
— Ian Boothby (@IanBoothby) May 4, 2017
So thrilled to announce that we've all just been cast in Season 2 of The Handmaid's Tale
— Lauren (@lilwetblanket) May 4, 2017
2017 so far: pic.twitter.com/zu1UGUTdHL
— Jenna Amatulli (@ohheyjenna) May 4, 2017
Hulu has a documentary about the Trump administration called "The Handmaid's Tale."
— Quinn Sutherland (@ReelQuinn) May 4, 2017
BREAKING: Season 2 of 'The Handmaid's Tale' currently filming at the @WhiteHouse. #AHCA pic.twitter.com/kFft11j4op
— Tax March Chicken (@TaxMarchChicken) May 4, 2017
The Trump era is so far an experiment to see how close to "The Handmaid's Tale" we can get in real life. #AHCA #handmaidstale
— Andy Stravers (@ajstravs) May 4, 2017
Why watch the new Handmaid's Tale episode when I can just watch my own Twitter feed for all the dystopian horror we're now living in?
— Missy Peña (@misspenart) May 4, 2017
The Handmaid's Tale, now playing everywhere, outside your window. https://t.co/21Abl6JhCi
— Aaron Stewart-Ahn (@somebadideas) May 4, 2017type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=58d570c6e4b02a2eaab3de52,5909a595e4b02655f8424d2f,58ffb42de4b0073d3e7a1d0c,58fb61a3e4b00fa7de14b77d,58e7de23e4b058f0a02f0adb,58eb8840e4b00de141050bef,58c05330e4b0ed7182696155
-- 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.
As a result, the new American Health Care Act (AHCA) ― yet to be passed in the Senate ― could put women in particular at risk of being denied coverage or having to pay the higher premiums that Obamacare previously banned. According to HuffPost’s Catherine Pearson, an amendment to the bill “effectively gives states permission to discriminate against women.” (Though House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has denied this.)
It didn’t take long for people on Twitter to respond with a meme that’s become terrifyingly relevant to American politics: images from “The Handmaid’s Tale,” Hulu’s adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s eerily prescient 1985 novel.
Live from the WH Rose Garden pic.twitter.com/ASW2prWXVa
— jbperrone (@jenperrone) May 4, 2017
Screenshots of women in red robes and white bonnets began flooding social media, accompanied by chilling parallels between today’s health care chaos and the book’s depiction of a theocratic regime that subjugates women after taking control of their reproductive rights.
In The Handmaid’s Tale, Atwood’s dire account of a near-future United States called Gilead, an authoritarian government rises to power and quickly decides to drain women’s bank accounts, the first step in a series of shockingly quick policy moves that seem to strip women of their status as equal citizens before they even had a chance to fight back.
“I was asleep before,” Offred, played by Elisabeth Moss, proclaims in a trailer for the Hulu show. “That’s how we let it happen.”
Even Atwood herself has admitted that her book seems more relevant now than ever.
Instead of our bank account, they're taking away our health insurance; and you thought Handmaid's Tale was just a fictional story. #AHCA
— Sahaj Kohli (@SahajKohli) May 4, 2017
Women had already been protesting state senates by dressing as handmaids in an attempt to raise awareness of certain lawmakers’ pushes to limit reproductive health in states like Missouri, Minnesota and Texas. On Thursday, opponents of the AHCA followed suit, posting images and references to Gilead in the hours after the House decision in order to make their stance clear.
In a piece titled “Women In The U.S. Don’t Live In A Dystopian Hellscape. Yet,” HuffPost’s Emily Peck rightly pointed out that, despite the setbacks that have occurred under President Donald Trump’s administration, women in the U.S. have helped push for progress in 2017, too.
“The resistance in the U.S. is very much alive and well,” Peck wrote. “And in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, it’s been remarkably effective.” She cited the ousting of longtime Fox news host Bill O’Reilly, the “unprecedented” numbers of women considering running for office in upcoming elections, and the failure of other policies like Trump’s anti-immigration orders, which was fought by a huge number of female immigration lawyers.
Still, as Congress mulls a health care plan that could potentially put individuals’ lives at risk, women (and men!) are quick to voice their opposition to anything that resembles Gilead.
AHCA will directly punish women for their own rape / sexual assault / C-sections. Andddd we're one step closer to the Handmaid's Tale. https://t.co/px9E2fJURN
— Emily Calandrelli (@TheSpaceGal) May 4, 2017
And the tweets keep coming.
2016 vs 2017 pic.twitter.com/bbxQdMoLIh
— Sarah Cooper (@sarahcpr) May 4, 2017
Having read "The Handmaid's Tale" earlier this week, this all feels eerily similar... pic.twitter.com/1PXunB6Ejy
— Jessica Hessler (@jessicahessler) May 4, 2017
The Handmaid's tale is real. Thanks Paul Ryan. #AHCA #Resistance pic.twitter.com/KqCK2sGqKp
— Kelsey Hale (@agirlnamekelsey) May 4, 2017
I do not see a single woman in this photo. #misogyny #Gilead https://t.co/2sA4mC7Y1f
— Liz Rood (@netzardfan) May 4, 2017
"Handmaid's Tale will never happen in America."
Counterpoint: women who get sex assaulted will no longer be covered by health insurance.
— Alex Silva (@aadbfs) May 4, 2017
It's as if they read A Handmaid's Tale for inspiration and then wrote the AHCA https://t.co/v8mJErfpkR
— Mike SanClements (@msanclem) May 4, 2017
Reasons why I am not yet emotionally ready to watch The Handmaid's Tale. https://t.co/g9n2R7zS1i
— Bonnie O'Keefe (@bonnierok) May 4, 2017
If you're wondering why The Handmaid's Tale is relevant, take note of how many "prexisting conditions" in the AHCA only apply to women.
— Wesleigh Mowry (@hellowesleigh) May 4, 2017
This looks like an episode of The Handmaid's Tale -- scores of white men deciding whether to give women pregnancy healthcare. #AHCA pic.twitter.com/Gwy8dVLHb4
— pfishh (@pfishh) May 4, 2017
Curious about "The Handmaid's Tale" but don't want to pay to buy the book or watch it on Hulu? Don't worry! Soon you'll be LIVING IT!
— noah michelson (@noahmichelson) May 4, 2017
#AHCA has the votes it needs, rape is now a preexisting condition and America's LARPing of @MargaretAtwood 's The Handmaid's Tale begins.
— Ian Boothby (@IanBoothby) May 4, 2017
So thrilled to announce that we've all just been cast in Season 2 of The Handmaid's Tale
— Lauren (@lilwetblanket) May 4, 2017
2017 so far: pic.twitter.com/zu1UGUTdHL
— Jenna Amatulli (@ohheyjenna) May 4, 2017
Hulu has a documentary about the Trump administration called "The Handmaid's Tale."
— Quinn Sutherland (@ReelQuinn) May 4, 2017
BREAKING: Season 2 of 'The Handmaid's Tale' currently filming at the @WhiteHouse. #AHCA pic.twitter.com/kFft11j4op
— Tax March Chicken (@TaxMarchChicken) May 4, 2017
The Trump era is so far an experiment to see how close to "The Handmaid's Tale" we can get in real life. #AHCA #handmaidstale
— Andy Stravers (@ajstravs) May 4, 2017
Why watch the new Handmaid's Tale episode when I can just watch my own Twitter feed for all the dystopian horror we're now living in?
— Missy Peña (@misspenart) May 4, 2017
The Handmaid's Tale, now playing everywhere, outside your window. https://t.co/21Abl6JhCi
— Aaron Stewart-Ahn (@somebadideas) May 4, 2017type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=58d570c6e4b02a2eaab3de52,5909a595e4b02655f8424d2f,58ffb42de4b0073d3e7a1d0c,58fb61a3e4b00fa7de14b77d,58e7de23e4b058f0a02f0adb,58eb8840e4b00de141050bef,58c05330e4b0ed7182696155
-- 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.
↧
↧
Trump Supporters Celebrate Imminent Loss of Their Health Insurance
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Moments after House Republicans voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act on Thursday, millions of Trump supporters celebrated the imminent loss of their health insurance.
Reported by The New Yorker 8 hours ago.
↧
Paul Ryan Was Right: This Was A Defining Moment For The Republican Party
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) reportedly delivered a message to his colleagues earlier this week, seeking their support for the American Health Care Act: “This is who we are. This will define us.”
It was one of the more accurate things he’s said in a long time.
The AHCA would expose many millions of Americans, including some of society’s most vulnerable members, to the possibility of crippling medical expenses ― forcing them to choose between financial hardship, medical hardship or both.
At the same time, it would lower taxes for some of the wealthiest people in America.
Insurance for millions, or tax cuts for millionaires ― that was one of the choices House Republicans faced on Thursday when they voted on the bill. And, with just a small handful of exceptions, they chose the latter.
A $1 trillion cut to programs for the poor and middle class
Overall, the AHCA would drain nearly $1 trillion out of federal health care programs, with most of the money coming straight from people who need it to get health care.
The biggest chunk would come out of Medicaid, a federal-state program that provides comprehensive insurance to people with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, or $27,159 a year for a family of three. It’s a massive cut ― one that would force most states to roll back expansions that allowed millions to get insurance, and then gradually ratchet down the program’s funding even more.
The cuts would hit working-age adults hard, since they were among the groups Medicaid had historically excluded ― and, as a result, the group most likely to lose coverage if the AHCA were to become law. But the cuts would inevitably filter down to other groups, including the ones that the program has always targeted: children, elderly and the disabled.
One little-noticed provision would reduce funds that allow schools to cover health services for children who qualify for special education because of physical or mental impairments.
Yes, the AHCA would very literally take money away from disabled kids.Another chunk of money would come from people buying health insurance on their own, rather than through employers ― and who, for the last three years, have been eligible for tax credits that discount premiums and in some cases out-of-pocket costs as well. Some are relatively poor, others firmly in the middle class. The AHCA would junk those credits and introduce new ones, shifting assistance away from the people with lower incomes and higher insurance costs ― in other words, the very ones least able to pay for insurance on their own.
Some people would be better off ― primarily younger, more affluent people who don’t get much or any financial assistance.
But others would pay more for their insurance, more for their out-of-pocket medical expenses, or some combination thereof. Many would end up with no insurance at all, which is one reason that the Congressional Budget Office predicts the AHCA would deprive something like 24 million people of coverage.
An attack on people with pre-existing conditions
And then there is the matter of protection for people with pre-existing conditions ― the subject that has occupied so much attention in the last few weeks and especially the last few days, culminating in a monologue from the very apolitical late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, whose own newborn faced a life-threatening illness.
“If your baby is going to die and it doesn’t have to, it shouldn’t matter how much money you make,” he said, before expressing the hope that it was a principle on which all Americans ― and lawmakers from both parties ― could agree.
By voting for the AHCA, House Republicans proved how misplaced Kimmel’s faith in them was. Thanks in part to amendments that House leaders made in order to satisfy their most conservative colleagues, the AHCA would allow states to apply for special waivers, so that insurance companies could go back to the days of “medical underwriting” ― that is, hiking premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, making insurance impossible to afford.
In a sign of how far expectations of health insurance have shifted in the last few years, Republicans were desperate to deny that their proposal would harm people with serious medical problems. Just one day ago, White House press secretary Sean Spicer stood up in the briefing room and said flatly that people with pre-existing conditions would not be worse off.
To back up this claim, Republicans have pointed over and over again to provisions of the bill that would, in theory, protect people with pre-existing medical conditions. But their claims do not hold up to scrutiny.
People would not be subject to medical underwriting if they did not let their coverage lapse, Republicans have said ― neglecting to mention that, with the changes in tax credits, lapses in coverage would become much more common. Republicans have also promised a safety net, in the form of high-risk pools ― even though they have been tried before, never proved adequate, and under the AHCA would have inadequate funding.
A big tax giveaway for the very rich
The Affordable Care Act has real trade-offs: The protections for people with pre-existing conditions mean that people in relatively good health pay more for coverage. And the law is clearly struggling in some parts of the country ― as insurers, unable to cover costs in the newly reformed market, are hiking prices further or even leaving the markets altogether.
The latest sign of this came on Wednesday, as the last insurer offering individual coverage in Iowa announced it might abandon the market, leaving tens of thousands of residents with no options. The insurer was pleading for attention from the Trump administration, which has neglected and even tried to sabotage the law, but it was also looking for long-term modifications to help stabilize markets in places like Iowa where they are faltering.
One way to fix these problems would be to leave the law in place, while adding just a little more money ― whether through extra subsidies that could bring more young and healthy people into the insurance markets, or programs that reimburse insurers for people with unusually high claims.
But Republicans have not entertained the possibility of putting even a little more funding into the program, even as they have preparations for their next big legislative action ― which, it just so happens, is a massive tax cut that would give most of its benefits to corporations and the very wealthy.
Of course, the AHCA would be a big down payment on tax cuts for the rich, because it would roll back the tax increases that finance the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansion. All told, the bill includes $594 billion in tax breaks heavily skewed towards corporations and wealthy individuals, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The portion of those taxes that fall on individuals fall exclusively on the very top earners in the U.S. ― in fact, according to an estimate by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the wealthiest 400 households in America would get average tax breaks of $7 million each.
These people have no problem buying insurance, for what it’s worth. In fact, they are among that tiny group of Americans who could pay for even sustained medical care without coverage, straight out of their own pockets.
A revealing moment about Republican priorities
Watching the vote Thursday, I couldn’t help but think back to March 2010, when Democrats controlled the House and voted in similarly narrow fashion to enact the Affordable Care Act. I was there in the Capitol on that day, and there was a perceptible feeling of joy among House Democrats, even though many had misgivings about the bill and understood the vote was politically risky.
Undoubtedly some were happy simply because they’d won a partisan victory, or gotten a legislative favor that would help them back home. But many Democrats, particularly the leadership, clearly took satisfaction in the knowledge that the law would help spare millions of people from distress and even ruin ― and that it would do so right when these people, because of medical crisis, were at their most vulnerable moments in life.
Undoubtedly some believe their bill lives up to the party’s lofty rhetoric, and maybe they think it will really improve access for the poor while protecting the vulnerable. But it’s hard not to wonder how many of them simply haven’t bothered to learn how their proposal would shift resources from the have-nots to the haves ― and how many, perhaps, simply don’t care.
Thursday’s vote is not the end of the repeal story, of course, and not by a long shot. The Senate has not even begun to take up repeal seriously. Multiple Republican senators have spoken out forcefully against elements of the House bill, from the changes to pre-existing conditions to the cuts to Medicaid. And the party can only lose two senators’ votes. If somehow a bill gets through the Senate, it will likely look very different from its House counterpart, and finding a compromise could be elusive.
But whatever happens to the bill, the Thursday vote will represent a defining moment for Republicans. Just like Paul Ryan said.
-- 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.
It was one of the more accurate things he’s said in a long time.
The AHCA would expose many millions of Americans, including some of society’s most vulnerable members, to the possibility of crippling medical expenses ― forcing them to choose between financial hardship, medical hardship or both.
At the same time, it would lower taxes for some of the wealthiest people in America.
Insurance for millions, or tax cuts for millionaires ― that was one of the choices House Republicans faced on Thursday when they voted on the bill. And, with just a small handful of exceptions, they chose the latter.
A $1 trillion cut to programs for the poor and middle class
Overall, the AHCA would drain nearly $1 trillion out of federal health care programs, with most of the money coming straight from people who need it to get health care.
The biggest chunk would come out of Medicaid, a federal-state program that provides comprehensive insurance to people with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, or $27,159 a year for a family of three. It’s a massive cut ― one that would force most states to roll back expansions that allowed millions to get insurance, and then gradually ratchet down the program’s funding even more.
The cuts would hit working-age adults hard, since they were among the groups Medicaid had historically excluded ― and, as a result, the group most likely to lose coverage if the AHCA were to become law. But the cuts would inevitably filter down to other groups, including the ones that the program has always targeted: children, elderly and the disabled.
One little-noticed provision would reduce funds that allow schools to cover health services for children who qualify for special education because of physical or mental impairments.
Yes, the AHCA would very literally take money away from disabled kids.Another chunk of money would come from people buying health insurance on their own, rather than through employers ― and who, for the last three years, have been eligible for tax credits that discount premiums and in some cases out-of-pocket costs as well. Some are relatively poor, others firmly in the middle class. The AHCA would junk those credits and introduce new ones, shifting assistance away from the people with lower incomes and higher insurance costs ― in other words, the very ones least able to pay for insurance on their own.
Some people would be better off ― primarily younger, more affluent people who don’t get much or any financial assistance.
But others would pay more for their insurance, more for their out-of-pocket medical expenses, or some combination thereof. Many would end up with no insurance at all, which is one reason that the Congressional Budget Office predicts the AHCA would deprive something like 24 million people of coverage.
An attack on people with pre-existing conditions
And then there is the matter of protection for people with pre-existing conditions ― the subject that has occupied so much attention in the last few weeks and especially the last few days, culminating in a monologue from the very apolitical late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, whose own newborn faced a life-threatening illness.
“If your baby is going to die and it doesn’t have to, it shouldn’t matter how much money you make,” he said, before expressing the hope that it was a principle on which all Americans ― and lawmakers from both parties ― could agree.
By voting for the AHCA, House Republicans proved how misplaced Kimmel’s faith in them was. Thanks in part to amendments that House leaders made in order to satisfy their most conservative colleagues, the AHCA would allow states to apply for special waivers, so that insurance companies could go back to the days of “medical underwriting” ― that is, hiking premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, making insurance impossible to afford.
In a sign of how far expectations of health insurance have shifted in the last few years, Republicans were desperate to deny that their proposal would harm people with serious medical problems. Just one day ago, White House press secretary Sean Spicer stood up in the briefing room and said flatly that people with pre-existing conditions would not be worse off.
To back up this claim, Republicans have pointed over and over again to provisions of the bill that would, in theory, protect people with pre-existing medical conditions. But their claims do not hold up to scrutiny.
People would not be subject to medical underwriting if they did not let their coverage lapse, Republicans have said ― neglecting to mention that, with the changes in tax credits, lapses in coverage would become much more common. Republicans have also promised a safety net, in the form of high-risk pools ― even though they have been tried before, never proved adequate, and under the AHCA would have inadequate funding.
A big tax giveaway for the very rich
The Affordable Care Act has real trade-offs: The protections for people with pre-existing conditions mean that people in relatively good health pay more for coverage. And the law is clearly struggling in some parts of the country ― as insurers, unable to cover costs in the newly reformed market, are hiking prices further or even leaving the markets altogether.
The latest sign of this came on Wednesday, as the last insurer offering individual coverage in Iowa announced it might abandon the market, leaving tens of thousands of residents with no options. The insurer was pleading for attention from the Trump administration, which has neglected and even tried to sabotage the law, but it was also looking for long-term modifications to help stabilize markets in places like Iowa where they are faltering.
One way to fix these problems would be to leave the law in place, while adding just a little more money ― whether through extra subsidies that could bring more young and healthy people into the insurance markets, or programs that reimburse insurers for people with unusually high claims.
But Republicans have not entertained the possibility of putting even a little more funding into the program, even as they have preparations for their next big legislative action ― which, it just so happens, is a massive tax cut that would give most of its benefits to corporations and the very wealthy.
Of course, the AHCA would be a big down payment on tax cuts for the rich, because it would roll back the tax increases that finance the Affordable Care Act’s coverage expansion. All told, the bill includes $594 billion in tax breaks heavily skewed towards corporations and wealthy individuals, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The portion of those taxes that fall on individuals fall exclusively on the very top earners in the U.S. ― in fact, according to an estimate by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the wealthiest 400 households in America would get average tax breaks of $7 million each.
These people have no problem buying insurance, for what it’s worth. In fact, they are among that tiny group of Americans who could pay for even sustained medical care without coverage, straight out of their own pockets.
A revealing moment about Republican priorities
Watching the vote Thursday, I couldn’t help but think back to March 2010, when Democrats controlled the House and voted in similarly narrow fashion to enact the Affordable Care Act. I was there in the Capitol on that day, and there was a perceptible feeling of joy among House Democrats, even though many had misgivings about the bill and understood the vote was politically risky.
Undoubtedly some were happy simply because they’d won a partisan victory, or gotten a legislative favor that would help them back home. But many Democrats, particularly the leadership, clearly took satisfaction in the knowledge that the law would help spare millions of people from distress and even ruin ― and that it would do so right when these people, because of medical crisis, were at their most vulnerable moments in life.
Undoubtedly some believe their bill lives up to the party’s lofty rhetoric, and maybe they think it will really improve access for the poor while protecting the vulnerable. But it’s hard not to wonder how many of them simply haven’t bothered to learn how their proposal would shift resources from the have-nots to the haves ― and how many, perhaps, simply don’t care.
Thursday’s vote is not the end of the repeal story, of course, and not by a long shot. The Senate has not even begun to take up repeal seriously. Multiple Republican senators have spoken out forcefully against elements of the House bill, from the changes to pre-existing conditions to the cuts to Medicaid. And the party can only lose two senators’ votes. If somehow a bill gets through the Senate, it will likely look very different from its House counterpart, and finding a compromise could be elusive.
But whatever happens to the bill, the Thursday vote will represent a defining moment for Republicans. Just like Paul Ryan said.
-- 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.
↧
A Reminder That Today Is National Children's Mental Health Day
On Thursday, which happened to be National Children’s Mental Health Awareness Day, House Republicans passed legislation that could affect millions of young people who are dealing with psychological health issues.
If the American Health Care Act becomes law, people with pre-existing conditions like mental illness ― even mental illness that started in childhood ― might have to pay much more for health insurance. Additionally, states would be able to get waivers that could allow insurers to deny coverage for certain services, like mental health treatment.
Children’s health experts criticized the AHCA plan following the House’s vote on Thursday.
#AHCA just passed the House, reversing progress to #KeepKidsCovered. Our statement: https://t.co/ZnIhHStL29 pic.twitter.com/PYx1HGgKLE
— Amer Acad Pediatrics (@AmerAcadPeds) May 4, 2017
Mental health issues among children and teens are believed to be on the rise. Research from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that among children ages 2 to 8, 1 in 7 experiences a psychological disorder, which is classified as a mental, behavioral or development problem.
A separate report published in 2016 from the CDC found that deaths from suicide among young people are also increasing. Girls between the ages of 10 and 14* *saw the greatest rise in suicide rates during a 15-year period, at an alarming 200 percent.
Treating children for behavioral health issues is complex, and often requires methods like therapy to find the best course of action. Mental illness can only be diagnosed by a medical professional, and data shows that half of all lifetime cases of mental illness begin before or around the age of 14.
”AHCA is bad policy for children and dangerous policy for our country,” the American Academy of Pediatrics said in a statement.
The treatment rates for kids with these issues are already abysmal. Only half of children and adolescents with mental health issues get professional support in a given year, according to CDC data cited by the National Institute of Mental Health.
If health coverage becomes more difficult to obtain ― as would almost certainly happen should the AHCA become law ― it would likely worsen the growing public health issue of behavioral health disorders, according to Linda Rosenberg, president and CEO of the National Council on Behavioral Health.
“The truth is simple: when we fail to fund mental health and addiction treatment services, we all pay for it,” Rosenberg said in a statement Thursday. “We pay for it in uncompensated care, increased costs to the corrections and legal system and increased disruption in the lives of individuals and families who are unable to access the care they need to live successfully in their community.”
Under the right circumstances, most mental health issues are manageable. But professional support is almost always necessary. And that often requires adequate health coverage.
Just something for the Senate to consider as this bill moves forward.
If you or someone you know needs help, call 1-800-273-8255 for the
National
Suicide Prevention Lifeline.
You can also text HELLO to 741-741 for free, 24-hour support from the
Crisis Text Line.
Outside of the U.S., please visit the International Association for
Suicide Prevention for a database of resources.
-- 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.
If the American Health Care Act becomes law, people with pre-existing conditions like mental illness ― even mental illness that started in childhood ― might have to pay much more for health insurance. Additionally, states would be able to get waivers that could allow insurers to deny coverage for certain services, like mental health treatment.
Children’s health experts criticized the AHCA plan following the House’s vote on Thursday.
#AHCA just passed the House, reversing progress to #KeepKidsCovered. Our statement: https://t.co/ZnIhHStL29 pic.twitter.com/PYx1HGgKLE
— Amer Acad Pediatrics (@AmerAcadPeds) May 4, 2017
Mental health issues among children and teens are believed to be on the rise. Research from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that among children ages 2 to 8, 1 in 7 experiences a psychological disorder, which is classified as a mental, behavioral or development problem.
A separate report published in 2016 from the CDC found that deaths from suicide among young people are also increasing. Girls between the ages of 10 and 14* *saw the greatest rise in suicide rates during a 15-year period, at an alarming 200 percent.
Treating children for behavioral health issues is complex, and often requires methods like therapy to find the best course of action. Mental illness can only be diagnosed by a medical professional, and data shows that half of all lifetime cases of mental illness begin before or around the age of 14.
”AHCA is bad policy for children and dangerous policy for our country,” the American Academy of Pediatrics said in a statement.
The treatment rates for kids with these issues are already abysmal. Only half of children and adolescents with mental health issues get professional support in a given year, according to CDC data cited by the National Institute of Mental Health.
If health coverage becomes more difficult to obtain ― as would almost certainly happen should the AHCA become law ― it would likely worsen the growing public health issue of behavioral health disorders, according to Linda Rosenberg, president and CEO of the National Council on Behavioral Health.
“The truth is simple: when we fail to fund mental health and addiction treatment services, we all pay for it,” Rosenberg said in a statement Thursday. “We pay for it in uncompensated care, increased costs to the corrections and legal system and increased disruption in the lives of individuals and families who are unable to access the care they need to live successfully in their community.”
Under the right circumstances, most mental health issues are manageable. But professional support is almost always necessary. And that often requires adequate health coverage.
Just something for the Senate to consider as this bill moves forward.
If you or someone you know needs help, call 1-800-273-8255 for the
National
Suicide Prevention Lifeline.
You can also text HELLO to 741-741 for free, 24-hour support from the
Crisis Text Line.
Outside of the U.S., please visit the International Association for
Suicide Prevention for a database of resources.
-- 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.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
