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

Trump Obamacare repeal's toll on N.J.: 470K more residents without health insurance

0
0
The GOP measure is so unpopular that just 20 percent of voters said they'd be more likely to back a lawmaker who supported it. Reported by NJ.com 2 hours ago.

How The Trump Budget And The AHCA Are Dismantling America's Safety Net

0
0
*By Simon Haeder, West Virginia University*

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on May 24 released its long-awaited analysis of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) passed by the House of Representatives three weeks ago.

While the score was not dramatically different from an earlier one, it nonetheless drew a significant amount of news coverage. Countless articles talk about the AHCA’s dramatic effects on insurance coverage and premiums.

However, this focus is decidedly too narrow and missed the larger endeavor by President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan to initiate a dramatic disinvestment from the nation’s disadvantaged, particularly in terms of health care.Working in one of the nation’s poorest states, West Virginia, I encounter the challenges of poverty firsthand. It complements my academic work on the historic development of the American safety net and the historic role of public hospitals. The combination of the AHCA and the Trump administration’s budget would hollow out America’s safety net that has evolved since the New Deal and the Great Society.

*The Congressional Budget Office and the American Health Care Act*

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a nonpartisan congressional agency created in the early 1970s during the Nixon administration. It was envisioned as a counterweight to the dominance of the executive branch and the president in policymaking, particularly when it comes to budgeting. It was also supposed to infuse policy decisions with nonpartisan, analytical information. The assumption is that policymaking is better when it is informed by facts and when we are aware of the effects of the legislation before passing it.

By and large, the CBO has lived up to its expectations. While far from perfect in its projections, it is generally held in high regard by politicians and scholars alike. As such, it has held a dominant role in some of the nation’s major legislative efforts, including the Clinton-era Health Security Act, the Affordable Care Act and now the American Health Care Act.

In March, the CBO had scored a previous version of the American Health Care Act, saying 24 million Americans would lose their insurance under the AHCA. The score also showed that insurance premiums in the individual market would actually increase because fewer benefits would be included.

At the same time, the AHCA would provide a massive tax cut to America’s wealthiest and reduce the federal deficit just over US$100 billion over 10 years. It would do so because of massive cuts to Medicaid and the ACA’s insurance premium subsidies.

However, the version ultimately passed by the House of Representatives had not been scored until yesterday. Some have argued that Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) deliberately rushed the bill to a vote to avoid being confronted with what experts expect to be abysmal numbers by the CBO.

And the numbers were bad indeed. The most recent CBO estimate expects 23 million Americans to lose insurance coverage. Moreover, it shows reduced savings, higher premiums if benefit design and age distribution remain constant, and inadequate protections for Americans with preexisting conditions.

Importantly, the CBO also expects one-sixth of the nation’s individual insurance market to collapse due to the newly added provisions in the AHCA allowing states to eliminate the ACA’s Essential Health Benefits and charge higher premiums for individuals with preexisting conditions. Overall, 51 million Americans are expected to be without insurance in 2026.

*The bigger picture: Disinvesting in the disadvantaged*

Not surprisingly, the focus of countless media articles and TV news has been on the CBO’s scoring of the American Health Care Act. However, while important, this loses sight of larger, more concerning developments.

Indeed, the CBO’s dire prediction for America’s uninsured under the American Health Care Act is made significantly worse by the Trump administration’s recently released budget.

While the AHCA’s drastic $834 billion cuts to the Medicaid program are estimated to cost 14 million Americans their coverage, the Trump budget will cut an additional $610 billion. This would basically slash the current Medicaid program in half and destroy a mainstay of America’s safety net since the Great Society.

While the dramatic cuts to the Medicaid program will affect more than 70 million Americans, there is more. The bipartisan and popular Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is slated for a 21 percent cut as well as significant reductions in eligibility. Some states like Arizona and West Virginia have automatic triggers that would eliminate CHIP with these funding reductions.

Moreover, the proposed budget cuts or eliminates funding to agencies and programs helping the most vulnerable in our communities beyond the immediate provision of health care.

It cuts funding to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), tasked with reducing the ill effects of substance abuse and mental illness.

It cuts funding to the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), which addresses birth defects and improves the health of individuals with disabilities.

It cuts funding to the National Asthma Control Program (NACP), intended to “help the millions of people with asthma in the United States gain control over their disease.”

It cuts funding to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food for million of Americans.

It cuts funding to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which provides nutritious food for pregnant women, young children, and half of all infants in the country.

It cuts funding to the Appalachian Regional Commission, which provides loans to improve sewers and provide safe drinking water in rural Appalachia.

It cuts funding for a number of programs which support rural hospitals and minorities, such as the Rural Hospital Outreach Grant and the Rural Hospital Flexibility Grant.

It cuts funding for important medical and public health research as places like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The list, unfortunately, goes on.

*Moving forward*

Just months ago, the nation reached a milestone when the uninsured rate fell to a historic low. Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats are heatedly debating the future of the nation’s health care system.

What often gets lost in the numbers and the public debate is that they involve people’s lives and livelihoods. With all its shortcomings, the Affordable Care Act has brought relief to millions of Americans who are no longer scared to fall sick.

When a person loses health care, it often means having to choose between food and medications. It means delaying necessary care, exacerbating medical conditions with at times irreversible consequences.

Much remains to be done to improve the American health care system. But the changes proposed by President Trump and Speaker Ryan would reverse decades of gains made for America’s disadvantaged since the 1920s.

Perhaps most importantly, both the AHCA and the Trump administration’s budget would cause tremendous amounts of suffering and pain across all of our communities.

Simon Haeder, Assistant Professor of Political Science, West Virginia University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

-- 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 22 hours ago.

Boko Haram: Down But Far From Out – Analysis

0
0
By Idayat Hassan*

The Nigerian government has declared victory over the Boko Haram insurgency. The capture at the end of December of Camp Zero in Sambisa Forest, the last stronghold of the jihadists, seemed to herald the formal beginning of the post-insurgency phase in northeastern Nigeria.

The negotiated return last month of 82 of the kidnapped Chibok schoolgirls (an estimated 113 are still in captivity) has been presented as further evidence that the back of the seven-year-old insurgency has been broken.

The government and its development partners are already starting post-war reconstruction in the three most affected states of Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa. Humanitarian conditions remain dire, but houses and schools are being rebuilt, seedlings distributed, and empowerment training schemes launched.

*Concerns*

Amid all this optimism, it is important to acknowledge lingering causes for concern.

While Camp Zero has been dismantled, the reality is that Boko Haram is an adaptable foe. It is reportedly both forming new enclaves in the Lake Chad Basin and melting back into civilian communities.

The rumours are of profitable business partnerships being formed – especially in the fish and cattle trade. Some fishermen, for example, are supplying their catch to Boko Haram middlemen who sell on their behalf.

And Boko Haram’s network is far deeper than commonly realised. The State Security Service is regularly turning up insurgents across northern Nigeria, and in one case as far away as the western state of Ekiti.

Boko Haram is known for its attacks on civilians and suicide bombings. So far in May there have been 12 suicide bombings (by nine women, three men) – a tempo that suggests the insurgency is far from over.

But since the movement split into two factions led by Abubaker Shekau and Abu Musab al-Barnawi back in August, there has been a change of tactics. Al-Barnawi’s group had criticised Shekau for attacking soft civilian targets, tactics that won Boko Haram few voluntary recruits. Al-Barnawi’s group is much more explicitly targeting the military.

Since November, 11 military installations have been attacked, with 40 soldiers killed. In April alone, 20 soldiers died in raids on four army posts. The weaponry they have captured, and the motorbikes instead of vehicles they favour, means they are mobile and well-armed.

Al-Barnawi’s faction still loots villages for food, fuel, and medical supplies, even if it does appear to be deliberately avoiding killing civilians – as long as they don’t resist.

The government’s inability to completely block the sources of financing for the insurgents continues to pose a challenge. Boko Haram still has money to wage its war, typically raised through kidnapping, extortion, armed robbery, cattle rustling, and taxes/levies on businesses.

The strained relationship between the vigilante Civilian Joint Task Force and the military is also affecting the government’s prosecution of the conflict. Since the arrest in February of the founder of the CJTF, Bah Lawan, over his alleged links to Boko Haram, some vigilante leaders are refusing to cooperate with the army.

The CJTF, one of the most effective weapons the military has against Boko Haram, has also been reportedly weakened by factionalism and indiscipline. Regular complaints of irregular pay from the Borno State government and the lack of health insurance and even fuel for their vehicles is affecting morale.

*Power of the word*

Boko Haram’s ideology, that Westernisation is evil, still has resonance. Rural northeastern Nigeria is highly conservative. While the insurgency’s violence is not approved of, its broad worldview has power and can still attract sympathy.

One 45-year-old woman who was held hostage in Sambisa, and served as a teacher in the camp, was honest enough to tell me she now regretted leaving Boko Haram.

Alleged corruption and sexual exploitation by security forces and aid workers also plays into the militants’ messaging. There is a powerful narrative that girls and women in IDP camps are either being sexually abused or forced into sex-for-food arrangements. Reports of the flagrant use of alcohol and drugs by the army and the CJTF also do not sit well with traditional cultural norms.

The government has a disarmament and reintegration plan dubbed Operation Safe Corridor. More than 4,500 former combatants have surrendered, but the framework for the strategy remains opaque, and it contains real risks.

There are fears that some so-called “deradicalised” Boko Haram are not repentant at all. There are questions over their screening, certification, and whether communities are ready for their return and reintegration.

Some ex-combatants have been deeply indoctrinated. As one man told me: “You cannot believe in one part of the Koran and not in the other part of the Koran, [which includes] killing”.

Then there are the detainees accused of being Boko Haram – those who have suffered abuse at the hands of the security forces and have likely been radicalised as a result of that experience but are then released.

*Negotiations*

Hope that the freeing of the Chibok schoolgirls could be a step towards possible negotiations was dealt a blow by Shuaibu Moni, one of the (at least) five Boko Haram commanders swapped for the released school girls.

In a video released barely a week after he gained his freedom, he was threatening to bomb Abuja and denying there could be any dialogue with the government. “Only war is between us!” he declared.

While we must give kudos to the military and the Nigerian government for improving security in the northeast, it is safe to say the conflict is far from over.

There is still some way to go.

The government must immediately prioritise a hearts-and-minds approach. The focus of the war now should be on combatting the ideology of Boko Haram; there should be an emphasis on healing trauma in a society scarred by the violence.

And while the path of dialogue is a difficult journey, the idea of peace through negotiation must not be jettisoned.
*
*Idayat Hassan*, Director of the Centre for Democracy and Development, an Abuja-based policy advocacy and research organisation. This article is part of a special project exploring violent extremism in Nigeria and the Sahel Reported by Eurasia Review 21 hours ago.

Montana Republican Wins Special U.S. House Race Despite Assault Charge

0
0
Republican Greg Gianforte overcame an election eve assault charge filed against him that sparked national attention, defeating Democrat Rob Quist in the race for Montana’s open U.S. House seat Thursday.

Gianforte received 50.7 percent to Quist’s 43.4 percent with 93 percent of precincts reporting late Thursday. Libertarian Mark Wicks picked up 5.8 percent of the vote.

The result is a major disappointment for progressive activists who poured money into the campaign to help Quist, a banjo-playing songwriter and political newcomer, in a bid to notch a symbolically important win against President Donald Trump.

The defeat is especially demoralizing for Democrats in light of the misdemeanor assault charge against Gianforte, a multimillionaire tech entrepreneur and social conservative, for allegedly “body slamming” Ben Jacobs of The Guardian on Wednesday while the reporter was asking about the GOP health care bill. Gianforte’s campaign blamed Jacobs, casting him as a “liberal reporter” who acted “aggressively” toward the Republican as he was about to be interviewed by a TV crew. But Alicia Acuna, the Fox News reporter who was slated to interview Gianforte, corroborated Jacobs’ version of events, and the incident spurred widespread condemnation of the Republican.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the liberal group MoveOn.org blasted Gianforte with a last-minute ad campaign highlighting the incident as evidence he was “unfit to serve” and had “no business being in Congress.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) urged Gianforte to apologize and called his behavior “wrong.” And three Montana newspapers withdrew their endorsement of him.

The Missoulian newspaper said “there is no doubt that Gianforte committed an act of terrible judgment that, if it doesn’t land him in jail, also shouldn’t land him in the U.S. House of Representatives.”

A factor likely benefiting Gianforte was that before news broke of Wednesday’s altercation, more than one-third of Montana’s registered voters had cast early ballots, according to state election officials. Still, Quist’s loss will inevitably fuel criticism that the national Democratic Party got involved in the race too late.

Even before Thursday’s results were known, Jeff Hauser, a veteran progressive political strategist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s Revolving Door Project, had told HuffPost that “the national Democrats who provided financial assistance after mail-in voting had already begun will have to question anew their initial reluctance to engage in the race in March and early April.”

“Early funding might have ensured more consistent tracking on Gianforte,” Hauser added, referring to the attack on the reporter. “It almost seems like you never know when Gianforte might commit a crime under a modicum of scrutiny.”

Under almost any circumstances, a Democratic win would have been an upset. Even as Quist’s standing improved in the campaign’s final weeks, none of the polls released in advance of the race showed him ahead of Gianforte.

Montana’s at-large U.S. House seat opened up in December when Trump tapped Ryan Zinke as his interior secretary. Republican Zinke had cruised to re-election in November by nearly 16 percentage points. Trump carried the state over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton by 20 points.

Democratic presidential candidates have triumphed in the state just twice since 1952, most recently when Bill Clinton won it in 1992.

Still, in a state with a sizable segment of independents, Democrats at times have held their own in down-ballot races. One of them is current Gov. Steve Bullock, who won re-election in 2016 when he defeated Gianforte by 4 percentage points.

Quist, 69, a native-born rancher’s son from the Flathead Valley and founder of the popular Mission Mountain Wood Band, had the profile to repeat Bullock’s success. But Montana’s GOP leanings proved insurmountable in a traditionally low-turnout special election.

“When this race started, I thought Quist had a 1-in-5 chance,” Jorge Quintana, a Democratic National Committee member from Montana, told HuffPost. “I don’t think any Democrat has been disappointed with the way Quist has behaved in this campaign. He has raised a ton of money. And he has hit the state hard ― Montanans expect that.”With grassroots opposition to Trump prompting a wellspring of national protests and small-dollar fundraising for progressive causes, Democratic leaders looked for a victory in Montana to signal waning public support for the president in historically Republican territory ― and spook GOP leaders.

But Quist’s loss comes on the heels of similar disappointments for the party. Earlier this month, Democrat Heath Mello failed to unseat Republican Mayor Jean Stothert in Omaha, Nebraska. In April, progressive Democrat James Thompson lost an unexpectedly close race for an open House seat in deep-red Kansas.

In 2017’s highest-profile race, Democrat Jon Ossoff fell less than two percentage points short in April of an outright win in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, a seat Republican Tom Price gave up to become Health and Human Services Department secretary and that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich once held. Ossoff faces Republican Karen Handel in a June 20 runoff election.

Democrats were able to flip two state legislative seats on Tuesday ― one in New York, the other in New Hampshire.

Quist, known throughout sprawling Montana for his music and poetry, barnstormed across the Treasure State in what at first seemed a quixotic campaign. He encouraged supporters to organize new Democratic committees in counties long neglected by the party. Until late last month, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee virtually ignored the race.

Quist was buoyed by support from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who Quist backed in the 2016 Democratic presidential campaign. Sanders, who won Montana’s primary over Clinton, headlined four separate campaign events for Quist this past weekend that drew thousands of supporters.

Gianforte sought to capitalize on Trump’s popularity in the state. Donald Trump Jr. and Vice President Mike Pence campaigned on his behalf. Both the president and Pence recorded a last-minute robocalls for him.

Still, Quist’s campaign gained ground as House Republicans passed the deeply unpopular healthcare bill and the White House became engulfed in a series of self-inflicted scandals. Party leaders tripled their initial investment in the race to $600,000 as polls showed it tightening earlier this month.

Quist raised more than $5 million, with his average individual donation amounting to $25 ― $2 below the figure that Sanders’ constantly touted during his presidential run. Quist received more than $550,000 after Gianforte waffled on his support for the American Health Care Act that would repeal and replace Obamacare.

The 56-year-old Republican praised the bill, which threatens the health insurance coverage for at least 70,000 Montanans, in a private call to conservative lobbyists. Days later, Gianforte walked back his comments amid voter outrage after The New York Times earlier this month published audio of the call.

Quist, whose medical expenses nearly bankrupted him in the 1990s after a botched surgery left him unqualified for affordable health insurance, hammered his opponent with slogans like “hands off our health care.”

Quist also depicted Gianforte, who sold a software company in 2011 to tech giant Oracle for $1.5 billion, as an out-of-touch millionaire guy from outside the state. The cowboy hat-clad son of Montana ranchers repeatedly skewered Gianforte as a “New Jersey billionaire.” The Republican, born in San Diego, spent years in the Garden State before moving to Montana in 1995. His reported net worth is estimated at between $65 million and $315 million.

Gianforte raised more than $3.4 million, including a $1 million loan he made to his campaign.

Republicans attacked Quist for failing to pay commercial taxes on a barn he converted in the 1990s into a concert space and rental property. Quist defended the property in an interview with the Billings Gazette, insisting his son lived there, “so that’s not a rental property. It’s just something that’s kind of family-owned.”

A lengthy report in the conservative Washington Free Beacon cast doubt over the botched gallbladder surgery Quist frequently cited as the pre-existing condition that prevented him from getting health insurance.

Quist’s loss may heighten Democratic concerns about the re-election prospects next year for Sen. Jon Tester, a party moderate.

Quintana, though, said he believes Tester is in good shape for a third term.

“He looks out for Montana. He’s setting himself up quite nicely for 2018,” Quintana 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 21 hours ago.

GOP focus on lowering health premiums may undermine benefits

0
0
[...] the GOP's laser focus on lowering premiums could undermine comprehensive coverage that consumers also value, such as the current guarantees that people with medical problems can get health insurance, or that plans will cover costly conditions such as substance abuse. With "Obamacare," Democrats set out to get more people insured, but they also wanted to bolster the underlying coverage by making it illegal for insurers to turn away those with medical problems, requiring a broad range of standard benefits, and establishing a baseline of financial protection. Republicans trying to roll back the 2010 health care law are making their case all about premiums, trying to find ways to give states and insurers flexibility to design plans that cost less. About half the people who buy individual health insurance policies are subsidized under Obama's health law, but the rest are not, and many have faced stiff premium increases. The Congressional Budget Office said that in states that take full advantage of the House plan's waivers to insurance requirements, healthy people might flock to skinnier, lower-premium plans. The administration report found that premiums more than doubled since "Obamacare" took effect, but independent experts say it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, because prior to the Obama law, insurers were able to turn away people in poor health and offer plans that limited or left out benefits like maternity care and prescription drugs. Reported by SeattlePI.com 17 hours ago.

Couple plan wedding in TWO WEEKS to qualify for free IVF

0
0
Couple plan  wedding in TWO WEEKS to qualify for free IVF Germany based couple James, 34, and Olivia Doherty, 37, from Dublin, were told that their health insurance would cover IVF if they were married and so set about planning a wedding in a fortnight. Reported by MailOnline 15 hours ago.

United States: Between A Rock And A Hard Place: NLRB Finds Employer Violated NLRA In Implementing ACA - Seyfarth Shaw LLP

0
0
In a unanimous decision, a three-member panel of the NLRB found that a cab company violated the NLRA by changing the length of the waiting period for employee health insurance from one year to sixty days. Reported by Mondaq 15 hours ago.

Number of people with health insurance rises again

0
0
Despite an increase in the number of people taking up health insurance in the past year, the total number of consumers with health cover is still lower than the peak reached in 2008. Reported by RTE.ie 14 hours ago.

GOP Focus on Lowering Health Premiums May Undermine Benefits

0
0
Republicans trying to dismantle former President Barack Obama's healthcare law have run into the same problem that bedeviled him: Quality health insurance doesn't come cheap, especially if it protects people in poor health, older adults not yet eligible for Medicare... Reported by Newsmax 13 hours ago.

Cost of health insurance set to rise by 6%

0
0
Laya Healthcare blamed the rise on increases in cost and volume of claims from both public and private hospitals Reported by Irish Times 12 hours ago.

There's one group that would get slammed by the GOP's healthcare bill

0
0
There's one group that would get slammed by the GOP's healthcare bill The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday released its long-awaited updated report on the GOP's healthcare bill.

In addition to estimating that 23 million fewer people would have insurance in 2026 than the current baseline and that the bill would decrease the deficit by $119 billion, the report looked at the American Health Care Act's potential effects on health insurance premiums for those in the individual market.

The report projected the net premiums for different income levels under the current Affordable Care Act and the proposed AHCA in 2026.

While the report found that, in general, premiums would decrease, it found that would mostly be due to the sky-high cost that would be faced by older and poorer people.

Instead of providing tax credits based on income and cost of living in an area — like the ACA does — the AHCA would give flat credits to people based on age, ranging from $2,000 for those under 30 to $4,900 for people aged 60 to 64.

According to the CBO, those flat credits mean that older people just shy of Medicare age would see premiums skyrocket.

For 64 year olds making $26,500, the average premium would increase from $1,700 a year to $16,100 under the base AHCA scenario. That would mean roughly 61% of the person's income would go to premiums, compared with just over 6% under the ACA.

There would be a slight adjustment for people in states that request waivers from two of Obamacare's biggest protections. That would occur, the CBO said, because states could rescind the essential health benefits provision, meaning insurance companies could offer skimpier coverage plans.

The biggest beneficiaries of the shift would be young people making close to $70,000 a year, who would see their premiums drop from $5,100 a year to just $1,750 under the baseline AHCA — and $1,250 if their state requests a waiver.

*SEE ALSO: Paul Ryan gets grilled about latest unflattering CBO report on GOP healthcare bill*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Watch Sally Yates go toe to toe with Ted Cruz over Trump's immigration ban Reported by Business Insider 11 hours ago.

The Fenway Institute: People With HIV, LGBTs, and Black and Latino People Would Disproportionately Lose Health Insurance Under Affordable Health Care Act

0
0
Amended Republican Health Care Plan No Better Than Original AHCA Bill

BOSTON, MA (PRWEB) May 26, 2017

On May 24, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the amended American Health Care Act (AHCA), which narrowly passed the U.S. House on May 4, would result in 23 million Americans losing their health insurance by 2026 as compared with what would be expected under continued implementation of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).

“It is clear from the CBO analysis that the amended Republican health care plan is no better than the original bill,” said Sean Cahill, Director of Health Policy Research at The Fenway Institute. “Of the 23 million Americans projected to lose their health insurance under the GOP healthcare bill, children, older adults, and other vulnerable populations—including people living with HIV and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people—would be disproportionately affected.”

The ACA greatly expanded access to health insurance by permitting states to cover more residents through Medicaid, an insurance program funded jointly by the federal government and states that covers low-income people and those in need, including children and people with disabilities. The ACA also allowed for immediate coverage of those living with HIV via Medicaid without first requiring a diagnosis of AIDS.

The Medicaid expansions that have taken place in 32 states and the District of Columbia under the ACA have been crucial for expanding access to health insurance for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, people living with HIV (PLWH), and Black and Latino people. Between 2013 and 2015, the rate of uninsurance among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people decreased from 22% to 11%. Between 2012 and 2014, the rate of uninsurance among people living with HIV decreased from 22% to 15%. During the same time period, uninsurance among Blacks was nearly cut in half, from 19% to 11%, while among Latinos it fell from 30% to 21%.

The bill passed by House members on May 4 would also permit states to opt out of ACA provisions that mandate coverage for preexisting conditions and essential health benefits such as cancer screenings. The CBO analysis found that premiums in states opting out of the ACA regulations would be 10 to 30% less expensive than they are now because health insurance companies would not be compelled to insure people with preexisting conditions equally or to provide coverage for essential health benefits. The CBO warned, “People who are less healthy (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive nongroup health insurance at premiums comparable to those under the current law, if they could purchase it at all.”

Additionally, the CBO estimates that premiums for older adults would skyrocket under the AHCA. A 64-year-old American with an annual income of $26,500 should expect to see their health insurance premiums rise from $1,700 a year under the ACA to between $13,600 and $16,100 a year under the AHCA.

“The American Health Care Act would make it much more difficult for people with pre-existing health conditions such as HIV, as well as older Americans, to obtain health insurance that is affordable,” Cahill added. “The CBO score confirms our earlier analysis that the American Health Care Act will make it harder to obtain coverage for health care, not easier.”

For more information, please see the following policy briefs:

“What the American Health Care Act means for LGBT people and people living with HIV”

“Amended American Health Care Act Poses New Threat To People Living with HIV, LGBT People”

Since 1971, Fenway Health has been working to make life healthier for the people in our neighborhood, the LGBT community, people living with HIV/AIDS and the broader population. The Fenway Institute at Fenway Health is an interdisciplinary center for research, training, education and policy development focusing on national and international health issues. Fenway’s Sidney Borum Jr. Health Center cares for youth and young adults ages 12 to 29 who may not feel comfortable going anywhere else, including those who are LGBT or just figuring things out; homeless; struggling with substance use; or living with HIV/AIDS. In 2013, AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts joined the Fenway Health family, allowing both organizations to improve delivery of care and services across the state and beyond. Reported by PRWeb 10 hours ago.

Why Trumpcare Is Giving Senate Republicans Heartburn

0
0
Very soon Senate Republicans will have to decide what to do about Trumpcare. Their choices are severely limited. 

The Congressional Budget Office has made it crystal clear that the House version of Trumpcare will cause 23 million Americans to lose their health coverage. 

Which means that unless Senate Republicans repudiate their own Congressional Budget Office (whose director they appointed), they’ll have to either vote to take away healthcare for 23 million people, or come up with their own plan. 

But if they try to come up with their own plan, they’ll soon discover there’s no way to insure those 23 million without (1) mandating that healthy people buy insurance, so that sick people with pre-existing conditions can afford it; and (2) keeping the existing taxes on rich people so that poor people can afford to buy health insurance. 

In other words, they’ll be back to the Affordable Care Act.

Some Senate Republicans will no doubt claim that the Affordable Care Act can’t be sustained in its present form because private insurers are beginning to bail out of it.

That’s an awkward argument for Republicans to make because Republicans themselves have been responsible for this problem. 

In 2010 Congress established “risk corridors” to protect insurers against uncertainties in setting the level of insurance premiums when they didn’t know who would sign up. Since then, Republicans have reduced or eliminated this backup. And the Trump Administration has done everything possible to generate even more uncertainty among insurers. 

The obvious solution is to restore this backup and reduce uncertainty, in order to attract insurers back in. 

This is surely better than repealing the Affordable Care Act and taking away health insurance coverage for 23 million people.

The only alternative is a single-payer plan – Medicare for all – that would provide universal coverage more cheaply than our present system, as embraced by most other advanced nations.

But Senate Republicans won’t get near a single payer. 

Which means, as a practical matter, they have no choice. They may wrap it up in different garb and call it by a different name, but in the end the logic is unavoidable: They’ll have to strengthen the Affordable Care Act. 

-- 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.

Universal Healthcare Looks Increasingly Possible In New York State

0
0
Universal Healthcare Looks Increasingly Possible In New York State As the debate rages in Washington, DC about whether to trade Trumpcare for Obamacare, a group of lawmakers in New York State see an opportunity for a progressive win here at home. Emboldened by an energized local left wing and operating in a political climate where millions of New Yorkers could wind up losing their health insurance under the American Health Care Act, advocates for single payer health insurance think this might be the ideal time for New York to establish the country's first universal health program. But even as legislation to do so advances, a number of challenges can keep it from coming to pass. [ more › ] Reported by Gothamist 9 hours ago.

Insurer Harken Health shutting doors

0
0
Insurer Harken Health is closing its doors in Illinois and Georgia, ending an experiment to combine health insurance and care.

The insurer, which operates five health clinics in Chicago, Skokie and Des Plaines, began selling plans in Illinois and Georgia in 2015. A subsidiary of UnitedHealthcare,... Reported by ChicagoTribune 8 hours ago.

Numbers with impatient health insurance plans on the rise

0
0
The average premium paid per insured person in 2016 was €1,177, new data show Reported by Irish Times 8 hours ago.

Robert Reich: Making America Meaner – OpEd

0
0
On the eve of his election to the House of Representatives, Montana Republican Greg Gianforte beat up Ben Jacobs, a reporter for the “Guardian” newspaper.

What prompted the violence? Jacobs had asked Gianforte for his reaction to the Congressional Budget Office’s report showing that the House Republican substitute for the Affordable Care Act would result in 23 million Americans losing their health insurance.

Then, in the words of a Fox News team who witnessed the brutal attack: “Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. … Gianforte then began punching the reporter. As Gianforte moved on top of Jacobs, he began yelling something to the effect of, ‘I’m sick and tired of this!’ Jacobs scrambled to his knees and said something about his glasses being broken…. To be clear, at no point did any of us who witnessed this assault see Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte, who left the area after giving statements to local sheriff’s deputies.”

After the attack, Jacobs was evaluated in an ambulance at the scene and taken to Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital. Several hours later he left the hospital wearing a sling around his arm.

Gianforte was charged with misdemeanor assault.

Donald Trump’s reaction? In Sicily for the G-7 summit, he praised Greg Gianforte’s election as a “great win in Montana.”

For years, conservatives warned that liberals were “defining deviancy downward” by tolerating bad social behavior.

Donald Trump is actively defining deviancy downward in American politics. He’s making America meaner.

Last year, Trump said of a protester at one of his campaign rallies: “I’d like to punch him in the face.”

In a different era, when decency was the norm, House members would not seat a thug like Gianforte in the chamber. In the age of Trump, it’s okay to beat up a reporter.

Charlie Sykes, a conservative former talk-show host in Wisconsin, says “every time something like Montana happens, Republicans adjust their standards and put an emphasis on team loyalty. They normalize and accept previously unacceptable behavior.”

Gianforte’s attack on Jacobs was shameful enough. Almost as shameful was Gianforte’s press release about what occurred, written immediately afterward by his campaign spokesman, Shane Scanlon:

“Ben Jacobs entered the office without permission, aggressively shoved a recorder in Greg’s face, and began asking badgering questions. Jacobs was asked to leave. After asking Jacobs to lower the recorder, Jacobs declined. Greg then attempted to grab the phone that was pushed in his face. Jacobs grabbed Greg’s wrist, and spun away from Greg, pushing them both to the ground. It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ.“

It was all a blatant lie, as confirmed by the Fox News crew that watched the whole thing. But under Trump, blatant lying is the new normal.

And a “liberal journalist” is the enemy.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, says that “by casting the press as the enemy of the American people, Donald Trump has contributed to a climate of discourse consistent with assaulting a reporter for asking an inconvenient question.”

It used to be that candidates and elected officials had a duty to answer reporters’ questions. We assumed that answering questions from the press was part of the job. We thought democracy depended on it.

But we’re now in the era of Donald Trump, who calls the press the “enemy of the American people.”

It was never the case in the United States that candidates or elected officials beat up reporters who posed questions they didn’t like. That was the kind of thing that occurred in dictatorships.

But “Trump has declared open season on journalists, and politicians and members of his Cabinet have joined the hunt.” says Lucy Dalglish, the dean of Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland.

More generally and menacingly, Trump has licensed the dark side of the American psyche. His hatefulness and vindictiveness have normalized a new meanness.

Since Trump came on the scene, hate crimes have soared. America has become even more polarized. Average Americans say and do things to people they disagree with that in a different time would have been unthinkable.

“I’d submit that the president has unearthed some demons,” says Rep. Mark Sanford, a Republican Representative from South Carolina.  “I’ve talked to a number of people about it back home. They say, ‘Well, look, if the president can say whatever, why can’t I say whatever?’ He’s given them license.”

This is not only dangerous for our democracy. It’s also dangerous for our society. “There is a total weirdness out there,” says Sanford. “People feel like, if the president of the United States can say anything to anybody at any time, then I guess I can too. And that is a very dangerous phenomenon.”

A president indirectly sets the norms of our society. Trump is setting them at a new low. Reported by Eurasia Review 6 hours ago.

Technavio Reveals Cost Saving Opportunities for the Health Insurance Market

0
0
According to the latest procurement intelligence report from Technavio, the global health insurance marketis expected to grow at a CAGR of over 11% over the next five years due to the change in re... Reported by FinanzNachrichten.de 4 hours ago.

Paul Ryan gets grilled about latest unflattering CBO report on GOP healthcare bill

0
0
Paul Ryan gets grilled about latest unflattering CBO report on GOP healthcare bill House Speaker Paul Ryan was bombarded with questions Thursday about the Congressional Budget Office's latest report on the GOP's healthcare bill.

Ryan pointed to the good news about the American Health Care Act in the report — it showed premiums would decrease for healthy people and the federal budget deficit would decline if the bill were to become law.

"I'm actually comforted by the CBO report because it shows, yeah, we're going to lower premiums," Ryan said.

But the CBO's analysis also contained some alarming projections.

It showed that 23 million more people would be without health insurance in 2026 compared to the current baseline. It also found that people with preexisting conditions could face much higher premiums because of waivers states could use to get around of some Obamacare regulations, and that some of the changes that helped get the bill through the House could make some individual insurance markets "unstable."

The CBO report also said the premium declines would come in part due to people with preexisting conditions dropping out of the market, as insurance would become too expensive. That would drive down costs for healthy people, but throw sicker people's insurance status into further question.

On May 2, Ryan's official website argued that the amendment that introduced waivers "protects people with preexisting conditions," which the CBO said was not the case.

Ryan defended the idea, citing the fact that in order for a state to be granted a waiver, it must have a high-risk pool in place.

"A state has to have a risk system in place" to get a waiver "and that risk system is specifically designed to make sure that people with a catastrophic illness, who has a preexisting condition also gets access to affordable healthcare," Ryan said. "What we have learned is if we target resources at the state level and the federal level to make sure we subsidize catastrophic illnesses, what you end up doing is you end up lowering premiums for everybody else. We think that's so much smarter."

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy think tank, has found that the high-risk pools Ryan cited that existed prior the passage of Obamacare were woefully underfunded, had few people enrolled, and left out many sick Americans.

Additionally, health policy experts have said the current version of the AHCA does not have enough funding in the new high-risk pools to solve the problems. The CBO echoed a similar sentiment in its report Wednesday.

Ryan argued that the CBO score did not take into account the state-level funding for the high-risk pools, saying "the states will do some of the lifting."

However, projections from GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy also showed that many states will have to shoulder a much larger burden of Medicaid costs due to the AHCA's changes to funding for that program. 

The AHCA is now in the hands of the Senate, which has already said it will write its own version of the bill separate from the House plan.

*SEE ALSO: CBO says GOP healthcare bill would leave 23 million more uninsured, undermine protections for people with preexisting conditions*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This animated map shows how religion spread across the world Reported by Business Insider 2 days ago.

Trump’s Budget Slashes Opportunity For Everyday Americans

0
0
A few hundred billion cut here, a few hundred billion slashed there, and the Trump budget proposal released this week adds up to real crushed opportunity.

The spending plan slices a pound of flesh from everyone, well, everyone who isn’t a millionaire or billionaire. For the rich, it promises massive tax breaks.

There are cuts to worker safety programs, veterans’ programs, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, vocational training, public education, environmental protection, health research and more. So much more. The list is shockingly long.

Each incision is painful. But what’s worse is the collective result: the annihilation of opportunity. The rich can buy opportunity. The rest cannot. What was always special about America was its guarantee of opportunity to everyone. All who worked hard and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps could earn their own picket-fenced home. This budget terminates the goal of opportunity for all. It declares that the people of the United States no longer will help provide boots to those who lost jobs because of NAFTA, the residents of economically depressed regions, the children of single mothers, the sufferers of chronic diseases, the victims of natural disasters. No bootstraps for them. Just for the rich who hire servants to pull the straps on their fancy $1,500 Gucci footwear.

The minimum-wage servant class doesn’t have a prayer under this budget. Trump condemns them to a perpetual prison of poverty. His budget denies them, and even their children, the chance to rise. It treats no better the precarious middle class and workers whose jobs are threatened by imports. It even screws veterans.


Achieving the American Dream depends on a good education, and the Trump budget would extinguish that possibility...

Achieving the American Dream depends on a good education, and the Trump budget would extinguish that possibility for tens of millions. The breadth and depth of the cuts to public education are gobsmacking. They’ll enable billionaire Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to use the money instead to subsidize private school tuition for the Gucci class.

While DeVos helps the already-rich attend pricey private schools, she and Trump would cut $345.9 billion from public education, training, employment and social services. That includes $71.5 billion from public elementary, secondary and vocational education. They’d take $11.4 billion from education for disadvantaged children and $13.9 billion from special-needs children.

They’d withdraw $183.3 billion from higher education including $33 billion from financial assistance. They say to kids who failed to be born to wealthy parents, “too bad for you, no low-interest student loans for brilliant poor students and far fewer grants for the talented who could cure cancer if only they could afford college tuition.”

Many of these aspiring students can’t turn to their parents for help because they’ve lost jobs as manufacturers like Rexnord and Carrier closed American factories and shipped jobs to Mexico or China. Trump and DeVos would also decimate help for the parents to get back on their feet, eliminating $25.2 billion for training and employment.

If the parents’ unemployment insurance runs out as they search for new jobs and their cars are repossessed, mass transit may not be an option for commuting to new positions. Trump would cut it by $41.6 billion.

If a furloughed worker in North Dakota or Minnesota or Pennsylvania can’t afford to pay the heating bill, Trump’s government would no longer help. He would eliminate entirely the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, ending aid that can mean the difference between life and freezing to death for 6 million vulnerable Americans.

If laid-off workers ultimately also lose their homes to foreclosure, Trump is unsympathetic. He’d cut $77.2 billion from housing assistance. His advice: take your bootless feet and live in the street.

And don’t expect any government cheese once there. Trump would carve $193.6 billion out of food stamps. He doesn’t even spare infants, with an $11.1 billion smack to the program that feeds pregnant women and their babies. School kids can’t expect food either. Trump and DeVos say too bad for them if they can’t hear their teachers over their growling stomachs. Trump takes nearly 21 percent away from the Agriculture Department, which subsidizes school lunches for low-income kids.


[T]he Trump budget... [rips] $154.1 billion from veterans’ services, including $94.4 billion from hospital and medical care...

Trump also stiffs families that lose their health insurance because they can’t afford COBRA premiums after a job loss or can’t find new employment before their COBRA eligibility expires. Trump slashes $627 billion from Medicaid, and that’s on top of draconian cuts in his so-called health plan that would cost 14 million Americans their insurance coverage next year and 23 million over 10 years. Trump says no health care for the down and out.

For the residents of West Virginia glens with closed coal mines, and the citizens of shuttered mill towns in Western Pennsylvania and the in habitants of Michigan municipalities struck down by offshored auto manufacturing jobs, Trump would purge $41.3 billion from the community development program that provides both jobs and otherwise unaffordable crucial municipal improvements.

The unemployed or under-employed who hoped for jobs in Trump’s promised $1 trillion infrastructure program receive no reprieve in this proposed spending plan. It removes $97.2 billion from airports, $123.4 billion from ground transportation and $16.3 billion from water transportation projects.

Trump is mulling sending thousands of new troops to Afghanistan, and for some young people with few options, that service is attractive because it comes with good medical and education benefits. But the Trump budget diminishes that chance at success as well, ripping $154.1 billion from veterans’ services including $94.4 billion from hospital and medical care and $511 million from veterans’ education and training.

For young people who thought the AmeriCorps program might be an employment substitute for the military, no luck. Trump’s spending plan abolishes that service program.

Trump’s $4.1 trillion budget redefines America. No longer the land of opportunity, it would be a place of welfare for the rich in the form of million-dollar tax breaks and subsidies for exclusive private schools. For the rest, hope would be extinguished. For them, Trump’s budget would convert America the beautiful into America the hellish hole.type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related... + articlesList=59244342e4b0b28a33f62f8b,5924693be4b03b485cb59638,592456a6e4b0b28a33f62faa,58cad7e5e4b07112b6472ba0

-- 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 days ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images