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

UNVEILED: THE SECRET SENATE HEALTHCARE BILL

0
0
UNVEILED: THE SECRET SENATE HEALTHCARE BILL Senate Republican leadership released its long-awaited healthcare bill Thursday, ending weeks of speculation and a secretive process that frustrated Democrats and even some Republicans.

The legislation — called the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017 — would roll back much of the Affordable Care Act, the healthcare law better known as Obamacare, including various tax provisions, and scale back funding that goes toward health coverage for low-income Americans and tax credits for middle-income earners who purchase their own health insurance.

The plan would also provide funding designed to help stabilize the Obamacare insurance markets in the near term and funnel money through programs to cut off access to funding for abortion providers.

The Senate legislation contains key differences from the American Health Care Act, the House GOP's legislation to dismantle Obamacare. The disparities could be sticking points if the two chambers have to compromise on the bill, which they would have to do before it could reach President Donald Trump's desk.

But first, the legislation faces an uncertain future in the Senate, as it faces some pushback from both conservative members who think it may not go far enough in repealing Obamacare and moderates concerned about its slashing of Medicaid spending. Like the House legislation, it could be subject to significant change to get the needed number of votes.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing for a vote by the end of next week, in part to avoid further public scrutiny of the bill over the weeklong July 4 recess. Similar scrutiny periled the original version of the House legislation. McConnell can afford to lose just two members of his conference for the bill to pass.

Many of the key details are similar to leaked details from Wednesday. Here's a rundown of what is in the bill:

· *Tax credits:*

· *What's in the bill:* To help people pay for insurance, the Senate bill proposes tax credits based on income level, a feature of Obamacare, rather than on age, as the House bill calls for. The bill would make anyone earning up to 350% of the poverty level eligible for credits; Obamacare caps that at 400%. Additionally, the credits would be capped at a lower percentage of overall medical costs than those under Obamacare, maming them less generous overall.
· *What it means:* While the tax credits would be more generous for older Americans than the House bill, fewer middle-income people would get financial support to pay for coverage — and those who do would get less.

· *Medicaid expansion:*

· *What's in the bill:* Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, which extended the program to those making 100% to 138% of the federal poverty limit, would be phased out over four years. 90% of the current federal funding would be provided in 2020 and it would decrease by 5% each year until 2023, after which it would be eliminated.
· *What it means:* While this would save the federal government money, it also means the nearly 11 million people who have gained coverage through the expansion could be phased off the program.

· *Medicaid spending growth:*

· *What's in the bill:* The Senate bill retains the House's per capita cap for federal Medicaid spending. After 2025, however, growth in spending would shift from the consumer price index for medical care to the CPI for all goods, a lower level of growth.
· *What it means: *States would receive less funding each year from the federal government to help cover low-income Americans, and after 2025 the rate of growth would decline, leading to even deeper potential cuts for the program.

· *Cost-sharing subsidies:*

· *What's in the bill: *The bill would allocate money for cost-sharing subsidies through 2019. These payments offset the costs for insurers to offer low-income Americans plans with smaller out-of-pocket costs. The uncertainty around these payments has led to instability in the individual insurance market.
· *What it means: *This should reassure insurers desperate for guidance ahead of the 2018 plan year and could bring down premium increases for next year's individual insurance market.

· *State waivers for Obamacare regulations:*

· *What's in the bill: *The Senate bill would allow states to request a waiver to opt out of Obamacare's so-called essential health benefits, which mandate that all plans must cover 10 basic types of care. The ability to opt out of providing those benefits was a key sticking point in the House legislation, and its inclusion ultimately allowed it to pass. The Senate bill, however, would not allow states to repeal community rating, the provision mandating that all people of the same age in the same area be charged the same amount. That's a change from the House bill, which drew criticism from health-policy experts who said a repeal of community rating would allow insurers to charge people with preexisting conditions more.
· *What it means: *If a state receives a waiver for the EHBs, this would allow skimpier coverage offerings on the state's insurance market, which would have cheaper premiums but higher out-of-pocket costs.

· *Repeal Obamacare's taxes:*

· *What's in the bill: *Much like the House version, the Senate would do away with things like Obamacare 3.8% tax on investment income on people earning an annual income above $200,000.
· *What it means: *The taxes in Obamacare fall predominantly on a small percentage of wealthy Americans, who would see their tax bills fall. For instance, Republican megadonor and casino magnate Sheldon Adelson could have his 2017 tax bill cut by roughly $44 million.

*Here is the full bill:*

Senate Healthcare by Brett LoGiurato on Scribd

 

*SEE ALSO: The one issue that could decide the fate of the Republican healthcare bill*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What it’s like living in North Korea — according to a North Korean defector Reported by Business Insider 1 hour ago.

The Senate Health Care Bill Looks A Lot Like The House's

0
0
The Senate Health Care Bill Looks A Lot Like The House's Watch VideoThe Senate Republican health care bill is finally out in the open.

The Senate budget committee released a draft of the bill lawmakers have been working on behind closed doors. Let's break down some key parts of the bill and see how it differs from the House version of the American Health Care Act.

The Senate bill has a lot of similarities to the House version. Both eliminate the individual health care mandate, end the Medicaid expansion and allow states to fund Medicaid with a block grant.

The Senate version proposes a different way to help families pay for health insurance. It still changes the subsidy payments to tax credits, but it bases the amount of assistance on age and income, rather than just age.

*SEE MORE: Democratic Senator Calls Out GOP For Fast-Tracking Health Care Bill*

The Senate bill does not change current coverage for pre-existing conditions. It also continues to allow children to stay on their parents health insurance until age 26.

The Senate can't vote on the bill until the Congressional Budget Office scores it. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell hopes to vote before the July 4 recess begins. Reported by Newsy 1 hour ago.

Secret's Out: The Senate Health Care Bill Is An Assault On The Safety Net

0
0
Americans are finally getting a look the much-anticipated, heretofore-secret Senate Republican health care bill. As expected, the bill released Thursday amounts to a massive rollback of the federal commitment to promote health care access and would instead pay for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

The Congressional Budget Office isn’t expected to weigh in on the Senate bill, dubbed the Better Care Reconciliation Act, until next week. That means there’s no official accounting of what the legislation would do to the health care system, how many people stand to lose their coverage and how much the federal government would spend on health care programs. And the 142-page bill consists of complex legislative language that will require days for other analysts to fully digest.

But the plain truth already is clear: This legislation would result in millions of people losing their health benefits and would shrink the safety net over time. Wealthy people and health care companies would see their taxes go down. And although some consumers may pay less for insurance, an untold number of people wouldn’t have access to the coverage and medical services they have under the existing health care law. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) hasn’t locked down the 50 votes he needs to pass this bill. But GOP lawmakers have been promising Obamacare repeal for more than seven years, President Donald Trump is eager to fulfill his campaign promise to undo the law (if not his vow to replace it with ”something terrific”) and the House has already advanced its own bill.

McConnell wants the Senate to vote on this bill next week, capping off a remarkably secretive and rapid process that has outraged Senate Democrats.

Although Trump, McConnell, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and other GOP leaders always refer to their plans as a mission to repeal and “replace” the Affordable Care Act, the legislation unveiled Thursday is actually a fundamental, drastic overhaul of the Medicaid program that serves children, people living near or below the poverty level, pregnant women, people with disabilities and elderly nursing home residents.

The bill would also eradicate central components of the Affordable Care Act, such as its expansion to Medicaid to cover more poor, working-age adults, its requirement that most people either obtain health coverage or face a tax penalty and its rule that large employers must offer health benefits to workers.

What The Bill Means For Medicaid

Like the House, the Senate seeks to go far beyond unraveling President Barack Obama’s landmark 2010 health care reform initiative by making draconian cuts to Medicaid.

The CBO determined that the House-passed American Health Care Act would mean 23 million fewer Americans having health coverage over the coming decade, while a small but very wealthy group of Americans would get a substantial tax cut.

Broadly speaking, the Senate bill looks a lot like the legislation that the House approved in May. It calls for rolling back the Medicaid expansion and fundamentally changing the program going forward ― specifically, by ending the federal government’s open-ended commitment to funding the program at whatever levels it takes to cover everybody who becomes eligible. Instead, states would receive a lump sum per year or a lump sum per enrollee.

Projections have shown that the federal government would spend far less on Medicaid spending over time. This would almost certainly force states ― which jointly fund and operate Medicaid ― to make deep cuts to the program by taking actions like eliminating coverage and benefits and reducing already-low fees to doctors and other medical providers.

Republicans have said their reforms would protect the most vulnerable people in Medicaid, such as the elderly and disabled, because the formula for the new spending caps assume greater spending on these people. But experts who have analyzed the proposals have said states would still have a relatively free hand on how to spend that money once they get it from Washington. Because the elderly and disabled account for half of program spending, coverage for them would be ripe targets for cuts.

The CBO projected 14 million fewer people would receive Medicaid over the next 10 years under the House bill, and the Senate’s deeper cuts to the program could mean an even higher number losing this coverage.What The Bill Means For Private Insurance

The Senate bill would also rejigger the Affordable Care Act’s reforms of the private insurance market for people who buy coverage on their own.

People would still be eligible for financial assistance, in order to help offset the costs of premiums. But fewer middle-income people would get assistance. The assistance that people get would also be smaller, which means people would have to pay more to get the same kind of coverage they have now — or put up with policies that leave them exposed to higher out-of-pocket costs.

This is because the Senate bill redefines the “benchmark” plan that the federal government would use as its basis for calculating financial assistance. Instead of a plan that covers 70 percent of the average person’s medical expenses, the Senate bill would reduce that level to 58 percent of the average person’s medical expenses. Larry Levitt, an analyst with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, likened that change to a 15 percent, across-the-board reduction in subsidies for people buying coverage on their own.

The Senate bill makes a few other changes to the funding formula. As a result, some younger people would end up paying less for their coverage than they do today. But older consumers would just as surely pay more. In addition, low-income consumers would also face substantially higher copayments and deductibles, because the Senate bill would eliminate special subsidies that presently reduce out-of-pocket costs for people with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty line, or about $30,000 per year for an individual 

Health insurance companies would be permitted to sell skimpier policies that cover a smaller share of patients’ medical bills, which likely would mean even higher deductibles and other costs than the plans available under the Affordable Care Act. They would also have more leeway to vary premiums by age. Under current law, insurers can only charge older consumers three times as much.

The Senate bill, like the House bill, would effectively eliminate the controversial individual mandate, under which people who decline to get health insurance pay a tax penalty. In addition, states would have the ability to waive some regulations on insurance, including requirements that all plans cover an “essential” set of benefits. 

The bill retains the Affordable Care Act’s rule that insurers can’t reject applicants because of pre-existing conditions or charge them more than healthier people, but that promise could prove empty under the Senate bill.

Because states could revoke the current set of guaranteed benefits ― which includes things like hospitalizations, prescription drugs and maternity care ― insurers would be able to design policies that would leave out important treatments. For example, insurers couldn’t refuse to cover a patient with HIV/AIDS, diabetes or a history of cancer, but they could offer plans that don’t cover the treatments for those things.

At the same time, the Senate bill would eventually eliminate most of the Affordable Care Act’s taxes that fall on health care companies ― including health insurers, pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers ― and wealthy individuals.

The Senate bill sheds some of the harshest aspects of the House measure, such as letting states entirely cast aside the guarantee of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and would offer relatively more generous tax credits for private insurance. But the appropriate comparison is to what currently exists, not the House bill, and the Senate legislation offers far less help than that.

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 2 hours ago.

Health insurance startup to offer more Affordable Care Act options

0
0
The startup Oscar Insurance is getting ready to expand its participation in Affordable Care Act marketplaces at a time when t -More-  Reported by SmartBrief 21 minutes ago.

Senate Republicans Unveil Health Care Bill

0
0
The plan will eliminate the individual mandate which forces people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. It also removes taxes put in place under the Affordable Care Act. Reported by CBS 2 1 hour ago.

The Senate healthcare bill will face its biggest test early next week

0
0
The Senate healthcare bill will face its biggest test early next week The Congressional Budget Office will release its score for the Senate's healthcare bill early next week.

The report from the CBO and the Joint Committee on taxation will estimate changes to the number of people with healthcare coverage, changes to the federal deficit, and other potential effects of the Better Care Reconciliation Act released by Senate Republicans on Thursday.

"CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation are in the process of preparing an estimate for the Senate health care plan and aim to release it early next week," read the release from the CBO. "The estimate will be published on CBO’s website."

The score for the House's healthcare bill, the American Health Care Act, projected 23 million fewer Americans would have health insurance under the AHCA than under the current system. It also estimated that the bill would cut the federal deficit by $119 billion over t10n years. The Senate bill must cut at least that much from the deficit to qualify under the reconciliation process.

*SEE ALSO: UNVEILED: THE SECRET SENATE HEALTHCARE BILL*

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Where is Sean?': Things got awkward when April Ryan asked Sarah Sanders why Spicer didn’t attend the WH briefing Reported by Business Insider 36 minutes ago.

Obama's message responding to the Senate health care bill is a must-read.

0
0
3 important lessons from the former president's latest message.

*The Affordable Care Act is perhaps the most significant piece of legislation former President Barack Obama enacted — and he's not giving up on it just yet.*

As Senate Republicans introduced their ACA replacement bill earlier today, Obama published a thoughtful note to his Facebook page. Clearly, he opposes the bill, but it's about much more than that.

[CITE: https://www.facebook.com/barackobama/posts/10154996557026749]

Our politics are divided. They have been for a long time. And while I know that division makes it difficult to listen...

Posted by Barack Obama on Thursday, June 22, 2017


In fact, there are three key takeaways from his post.

*1. "This debate has always been about something bigger than politics."*

While he recognizes that repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act has been one of the Republicans' top priorities for the past several years, he hopes that the Senate will "step back and measure what's really at stake, and consider that the rationale for action, on health care or any other issue, must be something more than simply undoing something that Democrats did."

"I hope that our Senators, many of whom I know well, step back and measure what’s really at stake, and consider that the rationale for action, on health care or any other issue, must be something more than simply undoing something that Democrats did.
We didn’t fight for the Affordable Care Act for more than a year in the public square for any personal or political gain — we fought for it because we knew it would save lives, prevent financial misery, and ultimately set this country we love on a better, healthier course."


President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

*2. "While the Affordable Care Act represented a significant step forward for America, it was not perfect, nor could it be the end of our efforts."*

For the first time in history, more than 90% of Americans have health insurance, people can't be discriminated against on the basis of pre-existing conditions or age, and a number other benefits have resulted from the ACA's passage.

"If Republicans could put together a plan that is demonstrably better than the improvements we made to our health care system, that covers as many people at less cost, I would gladly and publicly support it."

ACA supporters demonstrate outside the Supreme Court on June 28, 2012. Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

*3. "There’s a reason we all chose to serve in the first place, and ... it’s to make people’s lives better, not worse."*

Members of Congress should consider what led them to a life of public service, and as constituents, we should remind them.

"[I]t remains my fervent hope that we step back and try to deliver on what the American people need.
That might take some time and compromise between Democrats and Republicans. But I believe that’s what people want to see. I believe it would demonstrate the kind of leadership that appeals to Americans across party lines. And I believe that it’s possible — if you are willing to make a difference again. If you’re willing to call your members of Congress. If you are willing to visit their offices. If you are willing to speak out, let them and the country know, in very real terms, what this means for you and your family."


Demonstrators outside the Supreme Court on March 4, 2015. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images.

We, the people, can use this as an opportunity to let our elected leaders know exactly what we expect for them. We, the people, can urge them to move beyond Democrat and Republican and instead fight for all of us as Americans. Reported by Upworthy 15 hours ago.

Ted Cruz Reveals Details Of His Amendment Proposal To Senate Healthcare Bill

0
0
Ted Cruz Reveals Details Of His Amendment Proposal To Senate Healthcare Bill Earlier today, Senators Rand Paul (KY), Ted Cruz (TX), Ron Johnson (WI) and Mike Lee (UT) issued a joint statement announcing their opposition to McConnell's healthcare bill on the basis that it did not fulfill a promise made to the American public to "*repeal Obamacare and lower their health care costs."  Here was the full statement:
*



"Currently, for a variety of reasons, *we are not ready to vote for this bill,* but we are* open to negotiation* and obtaining more information before it is brought to the floor.  There are provisions in this draft that represent an improvement to our current health care system, but it does not appear this draft as a written will accomplish the most important promise that we made to Americans: *to repeal Obamacare and lower their health care costs.*"



Ironically, these conservative Senators, for once, offered some hope to the mainstream media which quickly latched onto their comments as a sign that TrumpCare was potentially 'DOA.'

Alas, in light of a new statement that Cruz has just posted to his facebook account, it seems as though his prior 'joint opposition' announcement *may have been nothing more than a signal that he's ready to begin negotiations to extract some 'holdup value' in return for his vote.*  Here's an excerpt:



But it is important to remember that what was released today was only a draft. I am hopeful that as we openly debate this legislation, real improvements will be made prior to floor consideration so that we can pass a bill that provides the relief from Obamacare that Republicans have repeatedly promised the last seven years.

 

*I want to get to yes, but this first draft doesn't get the job done. *Over the next week and beyond, I will continue working to bring Republicans together to honor our promise, repeal Obamacare, and adopt common-sense, consensus reforms that can actually be passed into law.



So what are conservatives in the Senate looking to get?  As it turns out, Cruz has just shared details with The Hill of an amendment he has proposed called the *"Consumer Freedom Amendment." * Among other things, the amendment would allow insurers to sell slimmed down, lower-premium plans (i.e. "catastrophe plans") to consumers who don't to pay for all 10 medical services mandated by Obamacare.



The* "Consumer Freedom Amendment"* would leave existing ObamaCare plans on the individual market, while also allowing insurers to sell plans that don't comply with requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

 

"What that does — *it leaves existing plans on the market but it gives new options so that people can purchase far more affordable health insurance.* It will enable a lot more people to be able to afford buying health insurance," Cruz told The Hill on Thursday afternoon.

 

Cruz's amendment would allow insurers to continue offering plans that follow ObamaCare's "Title One" requirements, including essential health benefits, which mandates 10 services insurers must cover with no cost-sharing.

 

*But insurers could also sell skimpier, cheaper plans that don't cover those 10 services or meet other ObamaCare requirements.*

 

*"If a health insurer offers a plan consistent with the Title One mandates, insurers can also sell in that same state any other plans that consumers desire," *Cruz said.



*Of course, as John Boehnor has pointed out before, any hopes of a compromise between Republicans on healthcare may be nothing more than a bunch of "happy talk" as they have "never, ever, not once" agreed on what a plan should look like.*

* * *

Below is Cruz's full statement:



Four months ago, I joined with a group of five other senators with very different perspectives on health care policy – representative of the full spectrum of the Republican Party – for the sole purpose of working together to fulfill our commitment to voters to reduce premiums and provide better, more affordable healthcare. Over time, this group expanded to include committee chairs, Senate leadership, and then the entire conference. We carefully deliberated, with the common goal of crafting a bill that can pass and that actually fixes the problems Obamacare has wrought.

 

While I have not yet had the opportunity to fully review the draft legislative text itself, there are components that give me encouragement and there are also components that are a cause for deep concern.

 

I am encouraged that the bill would expand association health plans, so those in individual or small group markets can join together in large groups to get lower rates. I am also pleased that the bill would make at least some progress in reining in the long-term growth of Medicaid. These are two inclusions that I have been fighting for since the beginning of our discussions. Finally, I am glad that this retains the provisions previously passed by Congress to prevent taxpayer dollars from funding organizations that perform abortions.

 

However, as currently drafted, *this bill draft does not do nearly enough to lower premiums. That should be the central issue for Republicans – repealing Obamacare and making healthcare more affordable.* Because of this, I cannot support it as currently drafted, and I do not believe it has the votes to pass the Senate.

 

*But it is important to remember that what was released today was only a draft. I am hopeful that as we openly debate this legislation, real improvements will be made prior to floor consideration so that we can pass a bill* that provides the relief from Obamacare that Republicans have repeatedly promised the last seven years.

 

Specifically, we should do more to *ensure consumers have the freedom to choose among more affordable plans* that are tailored for their individual healthcare needs.* We should allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines* and create a true 50-state marketplace, driving down costs for everyone. *We should expand health savings accounts* so that consumers can pay health insurance premiums on a pre-tax basis. *We should incentivize states to cap punitive damages in medical malpractice lawsuits to further reduce the cost of healthcare.*

 

Finally, we should provide real flexibility for Medicaid, so states can design creative and innovative ways to provide care for our most vulnerable. I have strongly advocated for these proposals to this point and will continue to do so going forward.

 

I want to get to yes, but this first draft doesn't get the job done. Over the next week and beyond, I will continue working to bring Republicans together to honor our promise, repeal Obamacare, and adopt common-sense, consensus reforms that can actually be passed into law.

Reported by Zero Hedge 14 hours ago.

Calif. court drops 14 charges against Planned Parenthood investigator

0
0
San Francisco, Calif., Jun 22, 2017 / 04:43 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A California court on Wednesday dismissed 14 of 15 criminal charges against an undercover journalist behind the video exposé of Planned Parenthood’s role in the fetal tissue trade.

“This is a huge victory to have 14 criminal counts dismissed,” Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which defended Sandra Merritt in court as she faced 15 felony charges. One charge of conspiracy to invade privacy has still not been dismissed.

“We will now turn our attention to dismissing the final count,” Staver continued. “Sandra Merritt did nothing wrong. The complaint by the California Attorney General is unprecedented and frankly will threaten every journalist who provides valuable information to the public.”

In March, California Attorney General Xavier Beccerra charged Merritt and her colleague David Daleiden with 14 criminal counts of recording others without their consent in a confidential conversation, and one count of conspiracy to invade privacy.

Merritt and Daleiden were undercover journalists at the Center for Medical Progress, a group which seeks to expose the role of Planned Parenthood clinics and tissue harvesters in the trade of fetal tissue of aborted babies. The group began releasing videos in July of 2015 that were undercover video recordings of conversations with Planned Parenthood officials.

CMP alleged that Planned Parenthood clinics illegally broke the law by profiting off of the transfer of the fetal tissue to harvesters. Federal law does allow for reasonable compensation for fetal tissue in cases where it is procured for medical research purposes. The compensation cannot be for “valuable consideration,” but may cover operating expenses like storage and transfer costs.

The recorded conversations Merritt and Daleiden had took place as they posed as representatives of a tissue procurement company BioMax seeking to possibly partner with Planned Parenthood clinics and other representatives in the abortion industry to obtain body parts of aborted babies.

In the criminal complaint against Merritt and Daleiden, Beccerra had alleged that both persons had recorded confidential conversations without the consent of other parties involved. Each of the 14 counts involved a separate conversation that allegedly took place.

Eight of the charges had to do with secretly recorded conversations with attendees at a National Abortion Federation conference in San Francisco. Other conversations with Planned Parenthood officials and tissue procurement representatives were recorded at other times.

California is a “two-party consent” state, which means that both parties of a conversation, where it is expected to be private and confidential, must agree to it being recorded.

An affidavit from a California Peace Officer claimed that, according to accounts from multiple persons to whom Daleiden and Merritt allegedly talked, they recorded conversations that were believed to be confidential by the other party.

Liberty Counsel, on the other hand, said that the “the videos produced by Merritt and Daleiden exposed unethical and potentially illegal conduct by Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood itself has admitted, under oath, that the recorded conversations took place in ‘non-confidential’ and public venues,” such as restaurants.

Beccerra also charged Daleiden with conspiracy to invade privacy, alleging that Daleiden used a password from a former employee at the tissue procurement company StemExpress, accessed the company’s email system, and took documents.

The affadavit also alleged that Daleiden and Merritt set up a tissue procurement company of their own – BioMax Procurement Services, LLC – and used false names to “pose” as representatives of the company and to be admitted to a National Abortion Federation conference in San Francisco, “where they secretly video recorded conference speakers, vendors, and attendees.”

On Wednesday, the San Francisco Superior Court dismissed the 14 recording charges, but the charge for conspiracy to invade privacy has not yet been dropped.

Beccerra, a former Democratic congressman, had previously received small donations from Planned Parenthood as a candidate for Congress amounting to around $6,000 over the last 20 years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

“Sandra did not break any law and the criminal complaint against her is legally deficient, vague and full of inconsistencies,” Horatio Mihet, Liberty Counsel's vice president of legal affairs and chief litigation counsel, stated.

“No other citizen journalist or organization has ever been charged with a crime for undercover recordings,” he added.

After Center for Medical Progress began releasing its recorded conversations with officials at Planned Parenthood and tissue procurement companies, Congress and several states launched investigations into Planned Parenthood to find out whether it broke the law in the fetal tissue trade.

A final report from a House select investigative panel released in January detailed various abuses in the abortion industry in the fetal body parts trade.

Consent forms required by law were not obtained from mothers to have the fetal tissue of their aborted child used for research. Private medical information may have been shared between abortion clinics and tissue procurement companies in a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

In another case, the University of New Mexico established a possibly illegal relationship with a local abortion clinic where students and fellows performed abortions at the clinic and the clinic’s abortionists were reportedly granted “volunteer faculty” status at the university where they received benefits like insurance coverage and access to university facilities. Reported by CNA 18 hours ago.

Senate Republicans Don't Have The Votes For A Health Care Bill -- Yet

0
0
WASHINGTON ― Hours after releasing their health care proposal, Senate GOP leaders were trying to tamp down a mutiny within their ranks, with various Republicans criticizing the legislation from different perspectives and for different reasons. 

Some GOP senators hate the proposed Medicaid cuts. Some believe the cuts take too long to take effect. Some think the tax credits still need to do more to help people pay for health insurance. And at least one, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, said the bill needs to eliminate more of the subsidies.

“It needs to look more like a repeal and less like keeping Obamacare,” Paul told reporters Thursday, after he and Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) released a joint statement saying they were “not ready” to support the legislation.

While they all said they were willing to negotiate, opening the bill up for the changes they want could further throw in doubt the votes from the small core of moderate Republican senators, whose backing already is shaky.

This is Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s fundamental problem: He seeks a “just right” Goldilocks compromise that splits the difference between moderates and conservatives. His problem? He can only lose two votes to pass his bill, given unified opposition from the 48-member Democratic caucus.

Giving in to Cruz’s demands to allow states to opt out of certain Obamacare regulations ― like those that protect the insurance coverage for people with preexisting conditions ― would almost certainly cost him votes from moderates who may already be leaning against the legislation. Caving to moderates who want even milder Medicaid funding cuts endangers the support from those conservatives already concerned that the reductions take seven years to fully kick in.

If McConnell were a few votes closer to the 50 he needs (with Vice President Mike Pence ready to break a tie in the 100-seat chamber, if needed), his current position would be potentially less perilous. But as of now, he appears well short of that striking distance, with at least four conservatives announcing their public disapproval and at least four of the GOP moderate expressing concerns over the Medicaid cuts.

For every change McConnell accepts for conservatives, there’s a chance moderates move further away from supporting the bill. And vice versa.

Still, McConnell is a master arm-twister, and everything could come together quickly for him. It was notable that even as Johnson was saying Thursday he thinks the Senate may consider starting over, he told HuffPost that the bare minimum it would take to get to a “yes” may simply be “proper information.”

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has looked like one of the most unlikely GOP supporters of the bill from the beginning, and she stressed Thursday her concerns about the formula for how the government calculates how much it gives to states for Medicaid.

“It is lower than the cost of medical inflation and would translate into literally billions of dollars of cuts,” Collins said. “And that would mean states would be faced with unpalatable [choices],” such as restricting eligibility for the program and “allowing rural hospitals to go under.”

That may seem like a serious concern ― and it is. But it’s also one of those fixes that could be made if McConnell and President Donald Trump can get enough other Senate Republicans to agree to the overall bill in principle.

A basic problem McConnell faces is that polls show the push to repeal and replace Obamacare faces problems with much of the public. And the more people learn about the specifics of repeal effort ― which has a fundamental aim of cutting taxes for the rich and significantly reducing the number of people served by Medicaid ― the less likely voters are to be swayed by heated rhetoric that merely slams Obamacare.

Again, though, that is not to say Senate Republicans won’t ultimately go along with their leadership’s bill.

The opposition looks soft, save perhaps for Paul. GOP conference chairman Sen. John Thune of South Dakota said Thursday he didn’t think Paul, despite saying he wanted to work with leadership on the legislation, would ever “be there” in the “yes” camp. 

Igor Bobic contributed to this report.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 17 hours ago.

GOP Sen. Collins on Health Care Bill: ‘I Cannot Support a Bill’ That Takes Insurance From Millions

0
0
"I cannot support a bill that is going to result in tens of millions of people losing their health insurance." Reported by Mediaite 18 hours ago.

If You Love High Deductibles, Then You'll Love The Senate Health Bill

0
0
The deductibles are too high.

You’ve heard consumers say this about their health insurance policies, particularly in the last few years since Obamacare became law. And if you’ve been paying attention to politics, then you’ve heard Republicans promise to bring those deductibles down.

Now Senate Republicans have officially released their proposal to repeal the Affordable Care Act and, based on the available information, they are going to break that promise in a very big way. If the GOP proposal becomes law, then it’s likely out-of-pocket costs for people buying coverage through healthcare.gov or one of the state exchanges would tend to be higher, not lower ― unless these people were able and willing to pay even more in premiums.

The explanation is wonky, and the verdict is not definitive because the Congressional Budget Office and other independent experts haven’t had a chance to produce detailed projections yet. But it doesn’t take a formal analysis to understand what Republicans are trying to do here.

The essential reality of the repeal effort ― one worth keeping in mind over the next few days, amid all the legislative negotiation over policy details ― is that Republicans want to reduce government spending on the poor and middle class. And less government spending for these people means, almost inevitably, that they will pay for a greater portion of their medical care.

Either fewer will have insurance, the insurance they have will offer less protection, or both. It’s just a question of who suffers and how.

The Senate Bill Envisions Smaller Tax Credits 

Today, with the Affordable Care Act still in place, people who buy coverage on their own (rather than through an employer) are eligible for tax credits that offset the cost of their premiums. The size of the tax credit varies depending on income, age and the price of a typical policy in a community. The idea is to make sure people who have the least money or face the highest premiums get the most help.

If the Senate bill becomes law, people buying coverage on their own would still be eligible for tax credits and, superficially, those credits would function a lot like the ones in place now. The value would go up or down depending on personal income, age and the price of the typical local plan. But the Senate bill alters the definition of “typical” ― or, to put it as the health care experts do, it redefines the benchmark for setting subsidy levels.

That’s a big deal.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the benchmark plan is a “silver” plan. Silver plans have an “actuarial value” (AV) of 70, which means they should cover roughly 70 percent of the typical person’s medical expenses. Under the Senate proposal, the benchmark plan would be a policy with an AV of 58 ― in other words, a plan that would cover just 58 percent of the typical person’s medical expenses. That’s pretty close to what, under the Affordable Care Act, qualifies as a “bronze” plan.  

Bronze plans have lower premiums than silver plans because they cover less. And so using a quasi-bronze plan as the benchmark rather than a silver plan means reducing the financial assistance people get to buy insurance.

One way to think about it is a straightforward reduction in the subsidies. Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, said it’s basically equivalent to a 15 percent across-the-board subsidy reduction. 


Changing the benchmark for premium subsidies from the equivalent of a silver plan to a bronze plan is about a 15% across-the-board cut.

— Larry Levitt (@larry_levitt) June 22, 2017


Another way to think about the difference is to think about the kinds of plans these diminished subsidies are supposed to buy.  

Smaller Credits Lead To Weaker Coverage            

In 2016, the median deductible in a silver plan on healthcare.gov was $3,500 a year, according to the Center on Medicare and Medicaid Services. This, roughly speaking, is the plan that Obamacare is designed to help consumers get. In 2017, the median deductible in a bronze plan on healthcare.gov was $6,300. This ― again, roughly speaking ― is the plan that Senate Republicans want to help consumers get.

That’s a huge difference. And it’d be even bigger for low-income consumers because, under current law, they are eligible to buy special plans with even lower out-of-pocket spending. The federal government makes this possible by paying insurers extra to offer these plans.


The combination of the higher income threshold and the lower AV benchmark will result in a very large increase in out of pocket costs. https://t.co/TACll1mMOY

— Craig Garthwaite (@C_Garthwaite) June 22, 2017


Under the Senate bill, the federal government would stop doing that, meaning that low-income consumers would be choosing from the same menu of plans and would be exposed to the very same out-of-pocket costs as higher income consumers. 

Somebody making $20,000 a year could easily see deductibles increase dramatically, from $1,000 (the average deductible for lowest-income consumers in 2016, according to Aviva Aron-Dine of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) up to that $6,300 average. And for somebody at that income level ― think a home care worker or retail clerk barely covering costs like food and rent ― even modestly higher out-of-pocket medical costs would be crippling. 

The Senate bill does make other changes to the tax credit formula, and it invites states to seek waivers that would eliminate some of the existing regulations that affect the kinds of plans insurers offer. Some people would likely end up saving money, either on premiums or out-of-pocket costs or both, and it’s an open question how this all works out for the millions of people who buy coverage directly from insurers rather than through the exchanges. Next week’s Congressional Budget Office analysis should help clarify that.

But on the exchanges, at least, the Senate bill “cuts tax credits for virtually all consumers by linking them to less generous coverage,” Aron-Dine says, adding, “For most of the roughly 9 million people who get subsidized coverage today, that would mean a choice. Pay significantly more in premiums to keep similar coverage, or keep premiums similar with much higher deductibles,” 

Conservatives Never Really Hated High Deductibles

None of this should be surprising. A core principle of conservative health policy is that people should face higher out-of-pocket expenses ― that they should have “more skin in the game” ― because, in theory, people would shop more aggressively for better prices or simply avoid getting medical care. 

For the last few years, Republican politicians acted as if they felt differently, and it’s entirely possible many of them had no idea that, by campaigning to reduce out-of-pocket costs, they were deviating from this bedrock piece of conservative orthodoxy.

It will be interesting to see how these Republicans react once they grasp what the leadership’s plan would actually do ― assuming there’s enough time for that reality to sink in. 

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 15 hours ago.

Senate Bill Poses Risks to Health-Care Companies

0
0
Senate Republicans’ health overhaul carries big risks for many health-care companies because of its cutbacks to federal Medicaid funding and the uncertain impact of its broad changes to individual health-insurance markets. Reported by Wall Street Journal 14 hours ago.

How the Senate health bill compares to House, 'Obamacare'

0
0
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Republican health care bill would guarantee immediate assistance for insurance markets that are struggling in many states. Yet overall it would do the same thing as its House counterpart: less federal money for health insurance and a greater likelihood that more Americans will be uninsured. How the Senate bill compares to the House bill and to the Affordable Care Act that Democrat Barack Obama signed into law seven years ago: Medicaid covers some 70 million people, from newborns to elderly nursing home residents. More significantly, ends Medicaid's longtime status as an open-ended entitlement, with Washington paying a share of what each state spends. Exempts spending on special-needs children from cap on federal Medicaid matching contribution. States can seek waivers that would allow insurers to charge higher premiums based on health status under certain circumstances. Premium subsidies are keyed to income, age and geography, and are more tightly focused on lower-income people. Requires all insurance plans to cover services from 10 broad "essential services," including hospitalization, office visits, prescriptions, maternity and childbirth, substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, and preventive services, including birth control at no additional charge for women. Medicaid expansion has enabled many states to provide comprehensive treatment to people caught in the opioid epidemic. Creates $2 billion fund to provide grants to states for substance abuse and mental health treatment. Raised taxes on upper-income people and health care companies to finance coverage expansion. Private health insurance plans sold to people who receive federal subsidies can cover abortion. Forbids abortion coverage by private plans sold to people who receive taxpayer subsidies. Forbids abortion coverage by plans sold to people who receive taxpayer subsidies. [...] under Senate rules, there's a c Reported by SeattlePI.com 14 hours ago.

‘Thousands of Americans will die’: Bernie Sanders destroys ‘barbaric’ Trumpcare bill

0
0
In an appearance on Anderson Cooper 360, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) explained why the newly-release Affordable Health Care Act is “the most harmful piece of legislation” he’s ever seen. “If you throw over 23 million people off of health insurance, if you cut Medicaid by over ... Reported by Raw Story 15 hours ago.

Republicans unveil nonsensical healthcare reform bill to replace Obamacare

0
0
Republicans unveil nonsensical healthcare reform bill to replace Obamacare Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated,” Donald Trump declared, 38 days into his presidency.

His party has been having similar difficulties.

After seven years of vocally opposing Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), Republicans found at the start of this Congress that designing a replacement that slashes taxes while keeping the current system’s most popular features (such as ensuring affordable coverage for people with pre-existing conditions) is harder than it looks.

*Read more*: Donald Trump suffers major defeat as healthcare

The first effort to get a repeal and replace bill through the House in March failed spectacularly, panned by Republican hardliners and moderates alike. The second attempt scraped through in May, and since then the challenge has been to design something Senate Republicans – with a majority of just four – will endorse.

This healthcare bill, unveiled yesterday, has been written under the cover of secrecy. It was hidden even from the Republican Senators who are expected to vote for it. And it has yet to be evaluated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which will determine how much it will cost and how many Americans it will leave uninsured.

*Balancing act*

Republicans have an impossible balancing act on their hands. By deciding to try to ram the law through with a simple majority, they are committing to designing a bill that costs less than the one it replaces. But the whole point of the repeal is to reduce the taxes on wealthy Americans that paid for ACA subsidies (by around $1 trillion), which means the only solution is to dramatically reduce the amount of spending on healthcare.

This might be appealing to economic liberals, but the majority of Americans are not impressed by the government slashing healthcare spending – especially when the congressmen making the call have their own generous medical plans, paid for by taxpayers. The latest polls have not been favourable.

The version of the Senate bill that has finally been revealed is a mess. It mirrors the House bill in cutting the budget for Medicaid expansion and reducing subsidies for low income Americans buying insurance, effectively pricing them out of the market. Crucially, it also scraps the mandate both for individuals and employers, meaning individuals are no longer fined for not having insurance, and large employers are not penalised for failing to offer it.

*Increasing the number of uninsured*

Together, these provisions will dramatically reduce the number of insured Americans. While the secrecy has meant that no figures have been published yet, the House version of the bill on which this one is based was estimated to leave an additional 23m people uninsured. That’s more than gained insurance under the ACA, meaning the healthcare landscape would be worse than it was pre-2010.

The type of people who feel they can forego health insurance are relatively young and healthy. Older, unwell people are less likely to take that chance, so this reduced pool of insured Americans will be by definition high risk, and therefore more expensive to treat.

The ACA was able to ensure that insurance companies covered individuals with pre-existing conditions by injecting healthy, low risk people into the market to compensate. It is difficult to see how the Republicans’ alternative can do away with the mandates that made that possible and still keep the provisions protecting people with health conditions.

*Secrecy and speed*

Of course, that’s a simplified analysis, and there are those who make the case that freeing the healthcare industry from the regulations of the ACA will bring costs down for everyone. One Republican representative has argued that people should have the “liberty” not to be insured if they don’t want to be. But it’s an exceedingly complex issue, and one that requires some serious number crunching.

Unfortunately, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has pledged to get the bill passed before Congress goes into recess on 4 July. That leaves just a week to examine, debate, amend and vote on the bill, with no time at all for town hall meetings or consultations with constituents.

If the Senate does stick to McConnell’s timetable, they’ll be voting blind on an issue that affects every single American, with a hastily cobbled-together bill that defies economic sense. Healthcare may be complicated, but the politics of this move is dead simple.

​*Read** more*: Donald Trump proposes $3.6 trillion of health spending cuts in US budget bill fails

  Reported by City A.M. 14 hours ago.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren Slams 'Blood Money' GOP Health Care Bill

0
0
I’ve read the Republican “health care” bill. This is blood money. They’re paying for tax cuts with American lives. pic.twitter.com/298DLguNiM

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 22, 2017


Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) came out swinging against the health care bill unveiled by Senate Republicans on Thursday. 

In a tweet, Warren called the proposal “blood money,” saying it would pay for tax cuts with human lives.

She also released a video slamming the proposal, saying it would benefit the wealthy and health insurance company CEOs with tax breaks that would come from cuts to Medicaid. 

“Take a minute to think about what that means,” she said. “It means that one in five Americans who are getting their health care through Medicaid are going to have to suffer through those cuts.”  

She said that includes 30 million children and two out of three seniors in nursing homes.

The bill also makes changes to private insurance allowing cuts to essential services and cuts all federal funding to Planned Parenthood, she noted.

And she concluded by urging her supporters to call Republicans in the Senate to voice their opposition.  

“This bill does not represent our values,” she said. “This bill is not who we are as a country. We believe that health care is a basic human right, and we will get out there and fight for it.” 

-- 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.

Is private health insurance worth it?

0
0
Is private health insurance worth it? Young people are being pressured into buying private health insurance when they turn 31 years old but new analysis has found it could leave them worse off.Australian consumer group Choice has looked at insurance data going back... Reported by New Zealand Herald 14 hours ago.

Governors wary of Medicaid cost shift in Senate health bill

0
0
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Governors in several states that opted to expand Medicaid under former President Barack Obama's health care law are wary of the Senate Republican plan to end the added federal funding for it within seven years. Kasich was part of a group of Republican and Democratic governors who wrote a letter last week to Senate leaders calling for them to work in a bipartisan way to revamp the nation's complex health insurance policies. If they would expand Medicaid, a joint federal-state insurance program for low-income people, to a group of slightly higher-income adults, the federal government would pick up the entire tab in the initial years. [...] it calls for extra federal funding to be awarded to states for addiction and mental health treatment, services covered by Medicaid. In Oregon, lawmakers this week passed a health care tax intended to fix a $1.4 billion, two-year budget deficit attributed largely to Medicaid expansion costs. Brewer said cutting Medicaid eventually will cause private insurance premiums to rise because people losing coverage will seek treatment in hospital emergency rooms. Reported by SeattlePI.com 11 hours ago.

What the Senate healthcare bill could mean for Californians

0
0
The Senate healthcare bill unveiled Thursday makes deep cuts to Medicaid, which provides health insurance to 1 out of 3 Californians. Reported by L.A. Times 5 hours ago.
Viewing all 22794 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images