Lawmakers are so focused on ensuring people have access to health insurance that they've completely overlooked the root causes of medical care inflation.
Reported by Motley Fool 12 hours ago.
Obamacare and Trumpcare Both Ignore This Massive Underlying Healthcare Issue
↧
↧
Ted Cruz's plan to save the Senate healthcare bill is gaining steam — but it might not fix Republicans' biggest problem
With the Senate Republican healthcare bill at an impasse, Republican leaders are weighing a proposal from Sen. Ted Cruz to try to move it over the finish line.Cruz's plan, which is also supported by Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, proposes to change the type of insurance plans that could be offered under the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA).
The plan has drawn widespread praise in conservative circles over the past several days. But even if it brings Cruz and fellow conservative-leaning senators on board, it may turn away more moderate members of the caucus.
Given that political reality, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday suggested that Republicans might have to work with Democrats to solve healthcare.
Cruz's solution does, however, have backing from President Donald Trump's White House.
"We support Sen. Cruz and Sen. Lee's efforts," said Marc Short, the White House director of legislative affairs, on "Fox News Sunday."
*'A recipe for instability'*
The Cruz plan would allow insurers to offer plans in the individual insurance market that do not adhere to two major regulations imposed under the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as long as they offer one that does.
So-called essential health benefits (EHBs) require insurers to cover 10 basic benefits, including maternity care, mental healthcare, and emergency-room trips. Community rating, the other mandate under Obamacare, requires that people of the same age in a given area be charged the same amount for premiums. That helps people with preexisting conditions to not be charged more for care.Cruz has argued that the virtual repeal of those mandates would allow insurers to offer cheaper plans to people that want them and bring down costs for everyone.
But experts say it could mean that plans that feature EHBs and community rating could be priced higher than those without — to the point that they become too expensive for the people that need them. The two tiers of plans, experts say, could allow insurers to box sick people into the more generous plans at a higher cost.
"Choice always sounds so good, like with the Cruz amendment," said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy think tank. "But in insurance, it's generally a recipe for instability and discrimination."
*A growing number of fans*
The proposed Cruz amendment has begun to gather praise from lawmakers and outside groups on the right flank of the Republican Party.
For one thing, conservative holdouts in the Senate appear to be supportive of the plan. Lee has advocated for the amendment and has made its addition a virtual deal-breaker for his vote.
"We can’t speak for other members," a Lee aide told Business Insider. "But we will not vote for the Senate bill without this change."
Other non-committal senators, such as Rand Paul of Kentucky, have not commented on the proposal.
The traction around the amendment was enough, however, to prompt Republican leadership to send the bill to the Congressional Budget Office to be scored, alongside another tweaked version of the bill without the amendment.
It may also clear a way for the Senate's bill to pass the House. Upon the BRCA's release, reports suggested that House GOP leadership would be open to passing the Senate's version of a bill as it stood. But conservatives in the chamber, such as the House Freedom Caucus, brushed back at that plan.
The Cruz amendment could change that since it resembles amendments that won over House conservatives during the production of the American Health Care Act, the House's legislation, in May. According to a source close to the Freedom Caucus, the Senate bill with a Cruz-like amendment could garner the support of the key conservative group.
"The group generally supports it but hasn't taken any formal position so it'd be too soon to say if the full group supports it," the source told Business Insider. "For example, if pro-life protections fall off, a lot of HFC will oppose regardless of Cruz."
Rep. Mark Meadows, the chair of the Freedom Caucus, has expressed support for the addition.
Outside of Capitol Hill, conservative groups have also praised Cruz's suggestion.
Influential conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation's political arm and FreedomWorks expressed support for the idea.
"We continue to believe that the best outcome is language modeled after the 2015 reconciliation bill that repealed much of Obamacare," FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon said in a statement Wednesday. "But if Senate Republicans insist on tweaking Obamacare, we urge them to adopt language being pushed by Sens. Cruz and Lee that will provide consumers with more choice and truly affordable health insurance coverage."
Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham had similar praise in a statement.
"It is encouraging to see Senate leadership exploring the merits of serious proposals that would inject much-needed consumer choice and competition into an otherwise deteriorating market," Needham said.
*Victory? That's no guarantee*
Cruz's plan changes the political calculus for the bill. But so far, it's unclear if it could get Republicans the 50-vote threshold they need to pass the legislation.
The key holdup would likely be moderates in the Republican conference. Those that already oppose the bill, like Sen. Susan Collins and Dean Heller, would be unlikely to come on board since they are concerned about some of what the BCRA already proposes to do to change certain features of Obamacare.
The amendment may also lose uncommitted GOP senators, like Louisiana's Bill Cassidy.
Cassidy has said that any plan must adhere to the "Kimmel Test." The barometer, named after late night host Jimmy Kimmel, stipulates that any Republican bill must preserve all protections for people with preexisting conditions. Given the Cruz amendment's proposed changes, it would likely not qualify.
While moderate GOP senators are the most important point of opposition for Republican leaders, the proposed changes to the insurance market that would occur under the Cruz plan drew the ire of Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer blasted the amendment in a statement on Thursday, saying it would raise out-of-pocket costs and harm people with preexisting conditions.
"Make no mistake, the Cruz amendment is a hoax," Schumer's statement said. "Under the guise of lowering premiums, it makes healthcare more expensive because deductibles and copayments would be so onerous that many Americans would pay much more out of their pockets than they pay today. It’s a foolhardy trade to exchange lower premiums for far more expensive deductibles and copayments."
The Senate reconvenes next week after its July 4 recess, but a vote on the healthcare bill is not expected right away.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Trump's history with WWE explains a lot about his persona Reported by Business Insider 9 hours ago.
↧
Average premiums could rise 74% by 2020 if Trumpcare passes
Trumpcare could cause health insurance premiums to rise dramatically. Find out how Trumpcare could impact your health insurance premiums.
Reported by USATODAY.com 6 hours ago.
Reported by USATODAY.com 6 hours ago.
↧
Anti-Populism: Ideology Of The Ruling Class – OpEd
Throughout the US and European corporate and state media, right and left, we are told that ‘populism’ has become the overarching threat to democracy, freedom and . . . free markets. The media’s ‘anti-populism’ campaign has been used and abused by ruling elites and their academic and intellectual camp followers as the principal weapon to distract, discredit and destroy the rising tide of mass discontent with ruling class-imposed austerity programs, the accelerating concentration of wealth and the deepening inequalities.
We will begin by examining the conceptual manipulation of ‘populism’ and its multiple usages. Then we will turn to the historic economic origins of populism and anti-populism. Finally, we will critically analyze the contemporary movements and parties dubbed ‘populist’ by the ideologues of ‘anti-populism’.
*Conceptual Manipulation*
In order to understand the current ideological manipulation accompanying ‘anti- populism’ it is necessary to examine the historical roots of populism as a popular movement.
Populism emerged during the 19th and 20th century as an ideology, movement and government in opposition to autocracy, feudalism, capitalism, imperialism and socialism. In the United States, populist leaders led agrarian struggles backed by millions of small farmers in opposition to bankers, railroad magnates and land speculators. Opposing monopolistic practices of the ‘robber barons’, the populist movement supported broad-based commercial agriculture, access to low interest farm credit and reduced transport costs.
In 19th century Russia, the populists opposed the Tsar, the moneylenders and the burgeoning commercial elites.
In early 20th century India and China, populism took the form of nationalist agrarian movements seeking to overthrow the imperial powers and their comprador collaborators.
In Latin America, from the 1930s onward, especially with the crises of export regimes, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Peru, embraced a variety of populist, anti-imperialist governments. In Brazil, President Getulio Vargas’s term (1951-1954) was notable for the establishment of a national industrial program promoting the interests of urban industrial workers despite banning independent working class trade unions and Marxist parties. In Argentina, President Juan Peron’s first terms (1946-1954) promoted large-scale working class organization, advanced social welfare programs and embraced nationalist capitalist development.
In Bolivia, a worker-peasant revolution brought to power a nationalist party, the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (MNR), which nationalized the tin mines, expropriated the latifundios and promoted national development during its rule from 1952-1964.
In Peru, under President Velasco Alvarado (1968-1975), the government expropriated the coastal sugar plantations and US oil fields and copper mines while promoting worker and agricultural cooperatives.
In all cases, the populist governments in Latin America were based on a coalition of nationalist capitalists, urban workers and the rural poor. In some notable cases, nationalist military officers brought populist governments to power. What they had in common was their opposition to foreign capital and its local supporters and exporters (‘compradores’), bankers and their elite military collaborators. Populists promoted ‘third way’ politics by opposing imperialism on the right, and socialism and communism on the left. The populists supported the redistribution of wealth but not the expropriation of property. They sought to reconcile national capitalists and urban workers. They opposed class struggle but supported state intervention in the economy and import-substitution as a development strategy.
Imperialist powers were the leading anti-populists of that period. They defended property privileges and condemned nationalism as ‘authoritarian’ and undemocratic. They demonized the mass support for populism as ‘a threat to Western Christian civilization’. Not infrequently, the anti-populists ideologues would label the national-populists as ‘fascists’ . . . even as they won numerous elections at different times and in a variety of countries.
The historical experience of populism, in theory and practice, has nothing to do with what today’s ‘anti-populists’ in the media are calling ‘populism’. In reality, current anti-populism is still a continuation of anti-communism, a political weapon to disarm working class and popular movements. It advances the class interest of the ruling class. Both ‘anti’s’ have been orchestrated by ruling class ideologues seeking to blur the real nature of their ‘pro-capitalist’ privileged agenda and practice. Presenting your program as ‘pro-capitalist’, pro-inequalities, pro-tax evasion and pro-state subsidies for the elite is more difficult to defend at the ballot box than to claim to be ‘anti-populist’.
‘Anti-populism’ is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist, pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-‘rebels’ (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers and pro-financial swindlers.
The economic origins of ‘anti-populism’ are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ‘populism’, the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers.
Historic ‘anti-populism’ has its roots in the inability of capitalism to secure popular consent via elections. It reflects their anger and frustration at their failure to grow the economy, to conquer and exploit independent countries and to finance growing fiscal deficits.
*The Amalgamation of Historical Populism with the Contemporary Fabricated Populism*
What the current anti-populists ideologues label ‘populism’ has little to do with the historical movements.
Unlike all of the past populist governments, which sought to nationalize strategic industries, none of the current movements and parties, denounced as ‘populist’ by the media, are anti-imperialists. In fact, the current ‘populists’ attack the lowest classes and defend the imperialist-allied capitalist elites. The so-called current ‘populists’ support imperialist wars and bank swindlers, unlike the historical populists who were anti-war and anti-bankers.
Ruling class ideologues simplistically conflate a motley collection of rightwing capitalist parties and organizations with the pro-welfare state, pro-worker and pro-farmer parties of the past in order to discredit and undermine the burgeoning popular multi-class movements and regimes.
Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns.
One has only to compare the currently demonized ‘populist’ Donald Trump with the truly populist US President Franklin Roosevelt, who promoted social welfare, unionization, labor rights, increased taxes on the rich, income redistribution, and genuine health and workplace safety legislation within a multi-class coalition to see how absurd the current media campaign has become.
The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a ‘populist’ when his policies and proposals are the exact opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite.
The media’s ‘anti-populists’ ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ‘populists’. In Italy, Finland, Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ‘populist’ for attacking immigrants instead of bankers and militarists.
In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ‘anti-populism’ is to see its role in preempting and undermining the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone, austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ‘Anti-populism’ has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class voters.
The anti-populism of the ruling class serves to confuse the ‘right’ with the ‘left’; to sidelight the latter and promote the former; to amalgamate rightwing ‘rallies’ with working class strikes; and to conflate rightwing demagogues with popular mass leaders.
Unfortunately, too many leftist academics and pundits are loudly chanting in the ‘anti- populist’ chorus. They have failed to see themselves among the shock troops of the right. The left ideologues join the ruling class in condemning the corporate populists in the name of ‘anti- fascism’. Leftwing writers, claiming to ‘combat the far-right enemies of the people’, overlook the fact that they are ‘fellow-travelling’ with an anti-populist ruling class, which has imposed savage cuts in living standards, spread imperial wars of aggression resulting in millions of desperate refugees-not immigrants –and concentrated immense wealth.
The bankruptcy of today’s ‘anti-populist’ left will leave them sitting in their coffee shops, scratching at fleas, as the mass popular movements take to the streets! Reported by Eurasia Review 5 hours ago.
We will begin by examining the conceptual manipulation of ‘populism’ and its multiple usages. Then we will turn to the historic economic origins of populism and anti-populism. Finally, we will critically analyze the contemporary movements and parties dubbed ‘populist’ by the ideologues of ‘anti-populism’.
*Conceptual Manipulation*
In order to understand the current ideological manipulation accompanying ‘anti- populism’ it is necessary to examine the historical roots of populism as a popular movement.
Populism emerged during the 19th and 20th century as an ideology, movement and government in opposition to autocracy, feudalism, capitalism, imperialism and socialism. In the United States, populist leaders led agrarian struggles backed by millions of small farmers in opposition to bankers, railroad magnates and land speculators. Opposing monopolistic practices of the ‘robber barons’, the populist movement supported broad-based commercial agriculture, access to low interest farm credit and reduced transport costs.
In 19th century Russia, the populists opposed the Tsar, the moneylenders and the burgeoning commercial elites.
In early 20th century India and China, populism took the form of nationalist agrarian movements seeking to overthrow the imperial powers and their comprador collaborators.
In Latin America, from the 1930s onward, especially with the crises of export regimes, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Peru, embraced a variety of populist, anti-imperialist governments. In Brazil, President Getulio Vargas’s term (1951-1954) was notable for the establishment of a national industrial program promoting the interests of urban industrial workers despite banning independent working class trade unions and Marxist parties. In Argentina, President Juan Peron’s first terms (1946-1954) promoted large-scale working class organization, advanced social welfare programs and embraced nationalist capitalist development.
In Bolivia, a worker-peasant revolution brought to power a nationalist party, the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (MNR), which nationalized the tin mines, expropriated the latifundios and promoted national development during its rule from 1952-1964.
In Peru, under President Velasco Alvarado (1968-1975), the government expropriated the coastal sugar plantations and US oil fields and copper mines while promoting worker and agricultural cooperatives.
In all cases, the populist governments in Latin America were based on a coalition of nationalist capitalists, urban workers and the rural poor. In some notable cases, nationalist military officers brought populist governments to power. What they had in common was their opposition to foreign capital and its local supporters and exporters (‘compradores’), bankers and their elite military collaborators. Populists promoted ‘third way’ politics by opposing imperialism on the right, and socialism and communism on the left. The populists supported the redistribution of wealth but not the expropriation of property. They sought to reconcile national capitalists and urban workers. They opposed class struggle but supported state intervention in the economy and import-substitution as a development strategy.
Imperialist powers were the leading anti-populists of that period. They defended property privileges and condemned nationalism as ‘authoritarian’ and undemocratic. They demonized the mass support for populism as ‘a threat to Western Christian civilization’. Not infrequently, the anti-populists ideologues would label the national-populists as ‘fascists’ . . . even as they won numerous elections at different times and in a variety of countries.
The historical experience of populism, in theory and practice, has nothing to do with what today’s ‘anti-populists’ in the media are calling ‘populism’. In reality, current anti-populism is still a continuation of anti-communism, a political weapon to disarm working class and popular movements. It advances the class interest of the ruling class. Both ‘anti’s’ have been orchestrated by ruling class ideologues seeking to blur the real nature of their ‘pro-capitalist’ privileged agenda and practice. Presenting your program as ‘pro-capitalist’, pro-inequalities, pro-tax evasion and pro-state subsidies for the elite is more difficult to defend at the ballot box than to claim to be ‘anti-populist’.
‘Anti-populism’ is the simple ruling class formula for covering-up their real agenda, which is pro-militarist, pro-imperialist (globalization), pro-‘rebels’ (i.e. mercenary terrorists working for regime change), pro crisis makers and pro-financial swindlers.
The economic origins of ‘anti-populism’ are rooted in the deep and repeated crises of capitalism and the need to deflect and discredit mass discontent and demoralize the popular classes in struggle. By demonizing ‘populism’, the elites seek to undermine the rising tide of anger over the elite-imposed wage cuts, the rise of low-paid temporary jobs and the massive increase in the reserve army of cheap immigrant labor to compete with displaced native workers.
Historic ‘anti-populism’ has its roots in the inability of capitalism to secure popular consent via elections. It reflects their anger and frustration at their failure to grow the economy, to conquer and exploit independent countries and to finance growing fiscal deficits.
*The Amalgamation of Historical Populism with the Contemporary Fabricated Populism*
What the current anti-populists ideologues label ‘populism’ has little to do with the historical movements.
Unlike all of the past populist governments, which sought to nationalize strategic industries, none of the current movements and parties, denounced as ‘populist’ by the media, are anti-imperialists. In fact, the current ‘populists’ attack the lowest classes and defend the imperialist-allied capitalist elites. The so-called current ‘populists’ support imperialist wars and bank swindlers, unlike the historical populists who were anti-war and anti-bankers.
Ruling class ideologues simplistically conflate a motley collection of rightwing capitalist parties and organizations with the pro-welfare state, pro-worker and pro-farmer parties of the past in order to discredit and undermine the burgeoning popular multi-class movements and regimes.
Demonization of independent popular movements ignores the fundamental programmatic differences and class politics of genuine populist struggles compared with the contemporary right-wing capitalist political scarecrows and clowns.
One has only to compare the currently demonized ‘populist’ Donald Trump with the truly populist US President Franklin Roosevelt, who promoted social welfare, unionization, labor rights, increased taxes on the rich, income redistribution, and genuine health and workplace safety legislation within a multi-class coalition to see how absurd the current media campaign has become.
The anti-populist ideologues label President Trump a ‘populist’ when his policies and proposals are the exact opposite. Trump champions the repeal of all pro-labor and work safety regulation, as well as the slashing of public health insurance programs while reducing corporate taxes for the ultra-elite.
The media’s ‘anti-populists’ ideologues denounce pro-business rightwing racists as ‘populists’. In Italy, Finland, Holland, Austria, Germany and France anti-working class parties are called ‘populist’ for attacking immigrants instead of bankers and militarists.
In other words, the key to understanding contemporary ‘anti-populism’ is to see its role in preempting and undermining the emergence of authentic populist movements while convincing middle class voters to continue to vote for crisis-prone, austerity-imposing neo-liberal regimes. ‘Anti-populism’ has become the opium (or OxyContin) of frightened middle class voters.
The anti-populism of the ruling class serves to confuse the ‘right’ with the ‘left’; to sidelight the latter and promote the former; to amalgamate rightwing ‘rallies’ with working class strikes; and to conflate rightwing demagogues with popular mass leaders.
Unfortunately, too many leftist academics and pundits are loudly chanting in the ‘anti- populist’ chorus. They have failed to see themselves among the shock troops of the right. The left ideologues join the ruling class in condemning the corporate populists in the name of ‘anti- fascism’. Leftwing writers, claiming to ‘combat the far-right enemies of the people’, overlook the fact that they are ‘fellow-travelling’ with an anti-populist ruling class, which has imposed savage cuts in living standards, spread imperial wars of aggression resulting in millions of desperate refugees-not immigrants –and concentrated immense wealth.
The bankruptcy of today’s ‘anti-populist’ left will leave them sitting in their coffee shops, scratching at fleas, as the mass popular movements take to the streets! Reported by Eurasia Review 5 hours ago.
↧
Decades on, health reform remains elusive in US
The US has a reputation for world-class medicine, doctors and hospitals, but for decades it has also been riddled with gaping holes that have left millions without health insurance. Every president in living memory has made efforts to plug the gaps. But the issues persist to this day, only multiplied.
Reported by IndiaTimes 17 hours ago.
↧
↧
How to Escape "Job Lock"
Do you feel trapped in your job because it's the only "safe" way to get health insurance? Welcome to job lock.
Reported by Motley Fool 11 hours ago.
↧
It's starting to look ugly for the Republican healthcare bill
Senate Republicans are set to come back from a week-long recess facing ever-dimming chances to pass their stalled healthcare legislation.Continued public pressure and few concrete solutions have left the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) seemingly further away from passage than before the July 4 break.
A week in which lawmakers have faced pressure from constituents at home has left the legislation's math on the wrong side of passage, as moderates and conservatives continue to disagree about fundamental issues within the bill.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can only afford to lose two votes on the BCRA with universal Democratic opposition. Republican leadership is now targeting the week of July 17 for a vote on the bill, reports have suggested.
"Discussions with members and the CBO continue," an aide to McConnell told Business Insider.
But given the tumultuous week, many GOP lawmakers are already looking ahead to what happens if the bill fails.
"Republicans we talk with are impatient — they want to ditch the health debacle and move on to pivotal budget issues and then, of course, begin deliberating tax cuts," said Greg Valliere, the chief global strategist at Horizon Investments.
*Public pushback*
The most apparent troubles for the Republican conference came in the form of public reaction to their healthcare bill, which a survey this week showed had 17% support from US voters.
In a variety of public events and forums over the week-long recess, GOP lawmakers got an earful from constituents among the 83%. Even members who opposed the initial version of the healthcare legislation faced pressure.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine received from praise from constituents for her strong stance against the BCRA, but some implored her to remain steadfast in her opposition during a July 4 parade in Eastport, Maine.
Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas also faced pressure to maintain his stance against the legislation during a town hall on Thursday. Typically a safe bet to stick behind the GOP leadership, Moran repeatedly expressed his misgivings over the BCRA.
"The Affordable Care Act creates significant difficulties that still need major attention," Moran told reporters after the town hall. "But I think at this point, it's time to figure out how ... to get rid of the bad things and improve on the things that need to be improved."
Moran was one of only a handful of Republicans to hold events open to the public, including BCRA skeptics Bill Cassidy (who favors a more moderate approach) and Ted Cruz (who wants a stronger repeal). Cruz is pushing for an amendment to be added to the bill favored by conservatives, which would make it easier for states to opt out of certain Obamacare regulations.
Cruz also faced fervent pushback at various meetings around Texas. According to The Washington Post, Cruz repeatedly encountered protesters and continually reiterated his desire to repeal the ACA.
*Threading the needle*
Other GOP senators seemed to move further away from supporting the legislation during the break. And for differing sides in the caucus, that could lead to drastically different alternatives.
Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota — who, like Moran, typically sides with leadership, said he was opposed to the BCRA in its current form during a meeting with constituents and health officials, according to the Bismark Tribune.
This presented another potential defection for McConnell, who spoke at a private function about the possibility of working with Democrats if Republicans are unable to pass the legislation.
"If my side is unable to agree on an adequate replacement, then some kind of action with regard to the private health insurance market must occur" the Kentucky senator said.
McConnell also said that "no action is not an alternative."
Similarly, Cruz expressed skepticism over the possibility of passage during meetings in Texas throughout the week. The one-time presidential candidate, however, had a different end result if Republicans are unable to work out a compromise.
"If we cannot bring the conference together and agree on repeal legislation, then I think President Trump’s absolutely right that we should pass a clean repeal," Cruz said.
That approach is favored by Cruz and others like Sens. Rand Paul and Ben Sasse. Trump has also suggested moving forward with a simple Obamacare repeal bill if negotiations fall apart. That would at least, they say, fulfill a key GOP promise and allow lawmakers more time to draft an acceptable replacement.
But McConnell and more moderate members would rather work with Democrats on a short-term plan to stabilize the insurance markets, lest they deteriorate even worse. Based on polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy think tank, voters are more inclined to pin any further harm to the healthcare market on Republicans.
*SEE ALSO: Ted Cruz's plan to save the Senate healthcare bill is gaining steam — but it might not fix Republicans' biggest problem*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: 'He started talking about blood coming out of her ears’: Joe Scarborough claims a red-faced Trump ranted about Mika Brzezinski in front of 20 congressmen Reported by Business Insider 9 hours ago.
↧
Illinois stays mum on health insurance rates, plans for next year's exchange
Illinois residents will not know until Aug. 1 which health insurers intend to offer plans on the state's Obamacare exchange next year — and at what prices — though that information is already available in more than a dozen other states.
Consumer advocates say it's information that could help Illinois... Reported by ChicagoTribune 9 hours ago.
Consumer advocates say it's information that could help Illinois... Reported by ChicagoTribune 9 hours ago.
↧
Survey: US uninsured up by 2M this year as gains erode
The new numbers highlight what's at stake as Congress returns to an unresolved debate over Republican proposals to roll back much of former President Barack Obama's health care law. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., plans to check vital signs on his GOP bill as senators trickle back to Washington from a July 4 break that many spent listening to constituents vent about health care. McConnell has been considering easing some of the bill's Medicaid cuts, beefing up health care tax credits to help people buy private insurance and adding billions of dollars to counter the opioid epidemic. The losses were concentrated among younger adults and people buying their own health insurance policies, the survey found. Results are based on telephone interviews conducted April 1-June 30, with a random sample of 45,087 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. The margin of error is plus or minus 1 percentage point.
Reported by SeattlePI.com 15 hours ago.
↧
↧
Survey: Uninsured Rises by 2 Million This Year as Obamacare Erodes
The number of U.S. adults without health insurance has grown by some 2 million this year, according to a major new survey that finds recent coverage gains beginning to erode.The new numbers highlight what's at stake as Congress returns to an unresolved debate over...
Reported by Newsmax 12 hours ago.
↧
American adults without health insurance rises by 2 million
Reported by CBS News 10 hours ago.
↧
Survey: U.S. uninsured up by 2M this year as gains erode
The number of U.S. adults without health insurance has grown by some 2 million this year, according to a major new survey that finds recent coverage gains beginning to erode.
Reported by Denver Post 10 hours ago.
↧
Jawbone bet big on fitness trackers and lost
This story was delivered to BI Intelligence IoT Briefing subscribers. To learn more and subscribe, please click here.Jawbone, the consumer electronics company that offered high-end speakers and Bluetooth accessories before pivoting to fitness tracking devices, will be going out of business, reports Business Insider.
CEO Hosain Rahman is moving to a new, related venture that will focus on health products and services, and is bringing a number of Jawbone employees with him.
Jawbone tried to establish a foothold in the consumer wearables market, but was never able to do so.
Jawbone’s fitness trackers never caught on with consumers to the extent the company had hoped they would. After the market for a number of its core products — especially Bluetooth hands-free headsets — began drying up as a result of technological changes and evolving consumer preferences, Jawbone took steps to stay relevant:
· It began to develop fitness trackers to parlay its consumer brand into a new segment. But, as The Verge chronicles, the company’s UP health tracker was plagued by product failures and production issues, never offering consumers a product that compelled them to adopt the device en masse.
· The company was also mired in a long-term legal dispute with Fitbit, the market leader in the wearable space. Fitbit and Jawbone each alleged that the other infringed on a number of patents in designing its trackers, though at least one part of a Fitbit suit was dropped in light of Jawbone’s financial woes.
The end for Jawbone shows the unpredictability of the stagnating consumer wearables market. The company was never able to generate the interest and sales needed to sustain its product. At the same time, the market it was moving into started to see slower growth, with year-over-year shipment growth dropping from 54% between Q1 2015 and Q1 2016 to 16% between Q1 2016 and Q1 2017.
The space has also seen consolidation, with Fitbit and Xiaomi establishing themselves as clear leaders, responsible for almost a third of non-Apple wearable shipments in Q1 2017. As Jawbone exits the market, it’s not clear how much more room there will be for fitness wearables as Apple dominates the space, Fitbit turns to smartwatches, and others pivot to clinical devices.
Nicholas Shields, research associate for BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service, has compiled a detailed report on insurance and the IoT that:
· Forecasts the number of Americans who will have tried usage-based auto insurance by 2021.
· Explains why narrowly tailored wearables could be what's next for the health insurance industry.
· Analyzes the market for potential future insurance products on IoT devices.
· Discusses and analyzes the barriers to consumers opting in to policies that collect their data.
To get the full report, subscribe to an ALL-ACCESS Membership with BI Intelligence and gain immediate access to this report AND over 100 other expertly researched deep-dive reports, subscriptions to all of our daily newsletters, and much more. >> *START A MEMBERSHIP*
You can also purchase the report and download it immediately from our research store.
Join the conversation about this story » Reported by Business Insider 10 hours ago.
↧
↧
Former White House health care leader to visit state
beWellnm will soon host the United State's first-ever director of the Office of Health Insurance Exchanges at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Joel Ario was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009 to develop the framework of the then-brand-new health exchange, created through the Affordable Care Act. Ario, who is now a managing director at Manatt Health under the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips law firm, will be speaking to the beWellnm board on July 21. It is unclear exactly what…
Reported by bizjournals 9 hours ago.
↧
Mark Farrah Associates Assessed Year-over-year Health Insurance Segment Enrollment Trends
MCMURRAY, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Mark Farrah Associates analyzed the latest year-over-year enrollment trends, comparing 1st quarter 2016 with 1st quarter 2017 segment membership.
Reported by Business Wire 9 hours ago.
↧
The number of people without health insurance is suddenly spiking
The percentage of Americans without health insurance rose in the second quarter of 2017, according to a Gallup-Sharecare survey.The uninsured rate increased to 11.7%, the second quarterly increase in a row after the rate hit a record low of 10.9% in the third and fourth quarters of 2016. The uninsured rate was 11.3% during the first quarter.
Gallup-Sharecare said the rate still well below the peak of 18.0% in 2013 — just before the launch of the Affordable Care Act's individual insurance exchanges. But it represents a significant uptick since the end of last year.
"Although the increase in the uninsured rate from the end of 2016 to Gallup's most recent update is small on a percentage basis (0.8 points), it is statistically significant given the very large sample sizes involved, and translates into nearly 2 million Americans who, apparently, have already dropped out of the insured ranks," a post from Gallup-Sharecare said.
The result comes from a survey of more than 45,000 people over the second quarter.
Gallup-Sharecare cited a few possible reasons the uninsured rate could be increasing, such as higher premiums and insurer exits from the Obamacare markets. The post also cited uncertainty in Washington as a possible factor.
"Uncertainty surrounding the healthcare law also may be driving the increase. President Donald Trump's executive order permitting agencies to waive or delay provisions that 'impose a fiscal burden' on individuals, as well as the prospect of a new healthcare law may be causing consumers to question whether the penalty for not having insurance will be enforced," Gallup-Sharecare said.
Republicans in the Senate are currently debating a law that would repeal major parts of Obamacare.
*SEE ALSO: 'WE WILL GO FROM MAJORITY TO MINORITY': It's starting to look ugly for the GOP healthcare bill*
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Listen to the leaked audio of Australia's prime minister mocking Trump Reported by Business Insider 7 hours ago.
↧
How “Nothing to Hide” Leads to “Nowhere to Hide” – Why Privacy Matters in an Age of Tech Totalitarianism
Via The Daily Bell
Editor’s note: The following comes from a longtime journalist who specializes in writing for major media outlets and private companies about robots, Big Data, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Would you allow a government official into your bedroom on your honeymoon? Or let your mother-in-law hear and record every conversation that takes place in your home or car – especially disagreements with your husband or wife? Would you let a stranger sit in on your children’s playdates so that he could better understand how to entice them with candy or a doll?
Guess what? If you bring your phone with you everywhere, or engage with a whole-house robo helper such as Alexa or Echo or Siri or Google, you’re opening up every aspect of your life to government officials, snooping (possibly criminal) hackers, and advertisers targeting you, your spouse and your children.
The following is not a screed against technology. But it is a plea to consider what we’re giving up when we hand over privacy, wholesale, to people whom we can neither see nor hear… people whose motives we cannot fathom.
The widened lanes of communication, and the conveniences that Smart Phones, wireless communities, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have fomented are indeed helpful to some extent. They allow, for example, for remote working, which allows people to spend more time with their families and less time commuting. In areas such as the energy business, the field of predictive analytics, born of Big Data and the Industrial Internet, helps mitigate the danger of sending humans to oil rigs at sea.
And on a personal level, of course, the conveniences are innumerable: Grandparents living far away can “see” their grandchildren more often than they could in years past, thanks to technology such as FaceTime and Skype.
People save money: As you walk by a restaurant, a lunch coupon suddenly appears on your phone.
And they can save time: Someday soon, the Internet of Things might tell your coffee maker and alarm clock to go off before its normal time, because bad weather is coming and your son’s school bus will arrive 15 minutes early to avoid the fog.
But there’s a corollary we must think about. (Two corollaries, actually, one being the long-term effects of Electromagnetic Fields on our health, and especially on our brains. But so far, few studies have been funded to examine this.)
We must acknowledge that we’re gaining all this convenience at the expense of our privacy.
When you ask Siri or Echo or Alexa or Google (and others of their ilk) something, it’s great to get an immediate answer… but the corollary is that Siri and Echo and Alexa and Google are listening to every conversation you’re having with your spouse, every fight you’re having with your kids, and every bit of heavy breathing that might be taking place in the dark.
That response inherently grants legitimacy to the search in the first place. The implication is that if you have nothing to “hide,” then the tech companies, the advertisers, the government, etc. should indeed have full access to every aspect of your life.
Note that the word in the phrase is “hide” and not “protect”, thereby implying that all that is not shared with any intrusive party must be something nefarious, something you’re trying to keep from those who have a right to it.
And if you think about it, “nothing” is the wrong word, too: Forgive the vulgarity here, but would you use the toilet in front of your mother-in-law? Would you allow an IRS official into your bedroom at night? Or to move into your home and record every conversation that takes place? Would you open your private diary to your spouse’s ex or to your children? Clearly, there are some things we do indeed wish to keep private.
In other words, if it’s OK to want to protect the privacy of one’s genitals or one’s private thoughts, why is it wrong to want to protect one’s conversations or whereabouts?
Totalitarianism and Tech – Caveat Emptor
Privacy is the first thing that a totalitarian state attempts to destroy.
Ask anyone who lived behind the Berlin Wall or in Stalinist Russia. If you know what parents are teaching their children, you can intervene and destroy the family, a primary goal of totalitarianism. If you know someone’s secrets or vulnerabilities, you can manipulate him. Knowledge truly is power, especially if you are a big state wanting to control people.
As a child, I was a huge fan of figure skating, and in particular of the great, then-East German champion Katarina Witt. In an interview a few years ago, she revealed her shock that the Stasi collected thousands of records of all her comings and goings and private conversations. The spies even noted when she had been intimate with her boyfriend. When the government knows all, no one is immune, and everyone can be controlled.
And just think, they were documenting Miss Witt’s activities and conversations by hand, back in the 1970s and ‘80s. Now, nearly every single aspect of our lives is being recorded in real time. Every email, every text, every phone conversation. Every time you allow your phone to know where you are, your whereabouts are noted. Soon, that Internet of Things — IoT — which already connects 50 billion “things” through an internet of its own, will be coming to your refrigerator, your dishwasher, your coffeemaker. Happy Alexa and GE “smart fridge” commercials are airing as we speak.
And not only are we letting all of this happen, we’re welcoming it. Twenty years ago, it was Miss Witt’s friends who recorded her personal conversations, and strangers who spied on her. But as she has noted, these days, we give a lot of our privacy away of our own free will. If someone were parked outside your house, surveilling you day and night, it would be unnerving, no? But we’re fine keeping our phones on us 24/7, and telling Facebook personal details about ourselves.
We do this because of the convenience, which will be increasing in scope as quickly as do the various surveillance mechanisms. Will it be convenient when your fridge tells your phone that you’re running low on orange juice (as the bottle will have a sensor, too)? Perhaps.
But will it be convenient when that same fridge tells your health insurance company that you’ve got ice cream in the freezer? And when your rates go up because of it?
Worse – will it be convenient when that fridge listens to your kitchen conversations and tells the government that you’ll be organizing a political discussion group on Tuesday? Or when it tells that bizarre man you went on one date with, who hacked your system, that your daughter has a recital this Friday night?
This is not a conspiracy theory. This is an extrapolation of what happens when people who crave power gain access to vast amounts of personal information.
The more you tell Facebook, or Siri, or Google, or FourSquare, or your phone, or your washing machine, then the more of your own personal power and privacy you’re giving up. (And the more photos you post of your young children, the more of their power you’re relinquishing. So, parents — stop. Now.)
Bottom line: Once the state (or a company) knows your weaknesses, they can exploit them. They can go after you in myriad ways. And I don’t just mean to “punish” you… I mean to manipulate you.
If a politician has access to your personal proclivities, then he can easily craft, via Artificial Intelligence, a targeted campaign that caters to exactly what the data tell him you want to hear. In the future, he could even warp news stories, video and even audio in real time to appeal to you for gain.
If a potential employer is considering you for a job, then she can (already) access every YouTube video you’ve ever watched, every public post you’ve ever made, and, soon, everything else you’ve put online. In the future, she might be able to access everything you’ve ever said in your home or in your car, or every video of you taken by your television when you think it’s off.
Those conversations and images will be sold as commodities. “Data” = “money” and “power.” Companies will soon specialize in mining all that personal data; they’ll be paid to flag “inappropriate” conversations, texts or images. Think about it.
A private banker I spoke to in Asia is proud of the fact that his bank is working in concert with FinTech to develop Know Your Customer technology on steroids: It will find every single email, text message, photo, post, and even online search that you’ve ever done so that it can (and this sounds so innocuous) “paint a holistic and predictive picture of client needs.”
That predictive part is critical. Not only do data tell those who hold them where you’ve been, but AI and Big Data analysis can predict where you’re going (both physically and psychologically)… and here’s the really scary part… before you know it.
That gives the data holders real powers of manipulation. The winners of a battle are nearly always the ones with the advanced information, the ones who can launch the surprise attack.
Technology can lead to convenience, but it can also lead to abuses of power. In its extreme, that is called totalitarianism.
In the end, we must take precautions if we’re to have anything close to liberty. Some of you have, no doubt, read Jonah Goldberg’s excellent book from 2007, Liberal Fascism, the hardcover of which features a smiley face graphic with a Hitler mustache. In the introduction, Mr. Goldberg quotes a segment from a Bill Maher show in which George Carlin says, in essence, (and I’m paraphrasing) that “when fascism comes to America it will be wearing a smiley face.”
I’d go a step further — it will be cloaked in an emoji… seemingly innocuous, friendly, and ubiquitous.
We must stop giving away our privacy. We must start thinking about personal “data” as the commodity that it already is, and even as a weapon that can be used against us.
If we don’t stop and reconsider what we’re giving away, not only will there be nothing to hide, but nowhere to hide. Reported by Zero Hedge 7 hours ago.
Editor’s note: The following comes from a longtime journalist who specializes in writing for major media outlets and private companies about robots, Big Data, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Would you allow a government official into your bedroom on your honeymoon? Or let your mother-in-law hear and record every conversation that takes place in your home or car – especially disagreements with your husband or wife? Would you let a stranger sit in on your children’s playdates so that he could better understand how to entice them with candy or a doll?
Guess what? If you bring your phone with you everywhere, or engage with a whole-house robo helper such as Alexa or Echo or Siri or Google, you’re opening up every aspect of your life to government officials, snooping (possibly criminal) hackers, and advertisers targeting you, your spouse and your children.
The following is not a screed against technology. But it is a plea to consider what we’re giving up when we hand over privacy, wholesale, to people whom we can neither see nor hear… people whose motives we cannot fathom.
The widened lanes of communication, and the conveniences that Smart Phones, wireless communities, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have fomented are indeed helpful to some extent. They allow, for example, for remote working, which allows people to spend more time with their families and less time commuting. In areas such as the energy business, the field of predictive analytics, born of Big Data and the Industrial Internet, helps mitigate the danger of sending humans to oil rigs at sea.
And on a personal level, of course, the conveniences are innumerable: Grandparents living far away can “see” their grandchildren more often than they could in years past, thanks to technology such as FaceTime and Skype.
People save money: As you walk by a restaurant, a lunch coupon suddenly appears on your phone.
And they can save time: Someday soon, the Internet of Things might tell your coffee maker and alarm clock to go off before its normal time, because bad weather is coming and your son’s school bus will arrive 15 minutes early to avoid the fog.
But there’s a corollary we must think about. (Two corollaries, actually, one being the long-term effects of Electromagnetic Fields on our health, and especially on our brains. But so far, few studies have been funded to examine this.)
We must acknowledge that we’re gaining all this convenience at the expense of our privacy.
When you ask Siri or Echo or Alexa or Google (and others of their ilk) something, it’s great to get an immediate answer… but the corollary is that Siri and Echo and Alexa and Google are listening to every conversation you’re having with your spouse, every fight you’re having with your kids, and every bit of heavy breathing that might be taking place in the dark.
That response inherently grants legitimacy to the search in the first place. The implication is that if you have nothing to “hide,” then the tech companies, the advertisers, the government, etc. should indeed have full access to every aspect of your life.
Note that the word in the phrase is “hide” and not “protect”, thereby implying that all that is not shared with any intrusive party must be something nefarious, something you’re trying to keep from those who have a right to it.
And if you think about it, “nothing” is the wrong word, too: Forgive the vulgarity here, but would you use the toilet in front of your mother-in-law? Would you allow an IRS official into your bedroom at night? Or to move into your home and record every conversation that takes place? Would you open your private diary to your spouse’s ex or to your children? Clearly, there are some things we do indeed wish to keep private.
In other words, if it’s OK to want to protect the privacy of one’s genitals or one’s private thoughts, why is it wrong to want to protect one’s conversations or whereabouts?
Totalitarianism and Tech – Caveat Emptor
Privacy is the first thing that a totalitarian state attempts to destroy.
Ask anyone who lived behind the Berlin Wall or in Stalinist Russia. If you know what parents are teaching their children, you can intervene and destroy the family, a primary goal of totalitarianism. If you know someone’s secrets or vulnerabilities, you can manipulate him. Knowledge truly is power, especially if you are a big state wanting to control people.
As a child, I was a huge fan of figure skating, and in particular of the great, then-East German champion Katarina Witt. In an interview a few years ago, she revealed her shock that the Stasi collected thousands of records of all her comings and goings and private conversations. The spies even noted when she had been intimate with her boyfriend. When the government knows all, no one is immune, and everyone can be controlled.
And just think, they were documenting Miss Witt’s activities and conversations by hand, back in the 1970s and ‘80s. Now, nearly every single aspect of our lives is being recorded in real time. Every email, every text, every phone conversation. Every time you allow your phone to know where you are, your whereabouts are noted. Soon, that Internet of Things — IoT — which already connects 50 billion “things” through an internet of its own, will be coming to your refrigerator, your dishwasher, your coffeemaker. Happy Alexa and GE “smart fridge” commercials are airing as we speak.
And not only are we letting all of this happen, we’re welcoming it. Twenty years ago, it was Miss Witt’s friends who recorded her personal conversations, and strangers who spied on her. But as she has noted, these days, we give a lot of our privacy away of our own free will. If someone were parked outside your house, surveilling you day and night, it would be unnerving, no? But we’re fine keeping our phones on us 24/7, and telling Facebook personal details about ourselves.
We do this because of the convenience, which will be increasing in scope as quickly as do the various surveillance mechanisms. Will it be convenient when your fridge tells your phone that you’re running low on orange juice (as the bottle will have a sensor, too)? Perhaps.
But will it be convenient when that same fridge tells your health insurance company that you’ve got ice cream in the freezer? And when your rates go up because of it?
Worse – will it be convenient when that fridge listens to your kitchen conversations and tells the government that you’ll be organizing a political discussion group on Tuesday? Or when it tells that bizarre man you went on one date with, who hacked your system, that your daughter has a recital this Friday night?
This is not a conspiracy theory. This is an extrapolation of what happens when people who crave power gain access to vast amounts of personal information.
The more you tell Facebook, or Siri, or Google, or FourSquare, or your phone, or your washing machine, then the more of your own personal power and privacy you’re giving up. (And the more photos you post of your young children, the more of their power you’re relinquishing. So, parents — stop. Now.)
Bottom line: Once the state (or a company) knows your weaknesses, they can exploit them. They can go after you in myriad ways. And I don’t just mean to “punish” you… I mean to manipulate you.
If a politician has access to your personal proclivities, then he can easily craft, via Artificial Intelligence, a targeted campaign that caters to exactly what the data tell him you want to hear. In the future, he could even warp news stories, video and even audio in real time to appeal to you for gain.
If a potential employer is considering you for a job, then she can (already) access every YouTube video you’ve ever watched, every public post you’ve ever made, and, soon, everything else you’ve put online. In the future, she might be able to access everything you’ve ever said in your home or in your car, or every video of you taken by your television when you think it’s off.
Those conversations and images will be sold as commodities. “Data” = “money” and “power.” Companies will soon specialize in mining all that personal data; they’ll be paid to flag “inappropriate” conversations, texts or images. Think about it.
A private banker I spoke to in Asia is proud of the fact that his bank is working in concert with FinTech to develop Know Your Customer technology on steroids: It will find every single email, text message, photo, post, and even online search that you’ve ever done so that it can (and this sounds so innocuous) “paint a holistic and predictive picture of client needs.”
That predictive part is critical. Not only do data tell those who hold them where you’ve been, but AI and Big Data analysis can predict where you’re going (both physically and psychologically)… and here’s the really scary part… before you know it.
That gives the data holders real powers of manipulation. The winners of a battle are nearly always the ones with the advanced information, the ones who can launch the surprise attack.
Technology can lead to convenience, but it can also lead to abuses of power. In its extreme, that is called totalitarianism.
In the end, we must take precautions if we’re to have anything close to liberty. Some of you have, no doubt, read Jonah Goldberg’s excellent book from 2007, Liberal Fascism, the hardcover of which features a smiley face graphic with a Hitler mustache. In the introduction, Mr. Goldberg quotes a segment from a Bill Maher show in which George Carlin says, in essence, (and I’m paraphrasing) that “when fascism comes to America it will be wearing a smiley face.”
I’d go a step further — it will be cloaked in an emoji… seemingly innocuous, friendly, and ubiquitous.
We must stop giving away our privacy. We must start thinking about personal “data” as the commodity that it already is, and even as a weapon that can be used against us.
If we don’t stop and reconsider what we’re giving away, not only will there be nothing to hide, but nowhere to hide. Reported by Zero Hedge 7 hours ago.
↧
↧
Guest column: One way to combat health care costs? Subrogation
If you had a car accident requiring a trip to the hospital, you’d probably provide your health insurance card. That sounds normal, right? After all, that’s what it’s for. But, that can be bad news when the bill is someone else’s responsibility. Health care now makes up, on average, 7.6 percent of a company’s annual operating budget. In fact, most companies recover a third (or less) of the payments for which they’re not responsible. Depending on the size of the plan, these losses can…
Reported by bizjournals 7 hours ago.
↧
5 Countries with the Best Healthcare in the World - InternationalLiving.com
As retirees face increasing healthcare expenses in the U.S., many are turning to healthcare abroad, which they say is world-class and a fraction of the cost back home, according to a new report from International Living.
Baltimore, MD (PRWEB) July 10, 2017
Medical bills you can afford, physicians who make house calls, healthcare so affordable Americans are simply paying out of pocket: The cost of quality healthcare isn’t a worry for the thousands of U.S. retirees who have made their home overseas, according to the editors at International Living.
Healthcare is one of the most significant and hard-to-plan-for costs in retirement. And it looks set to get costlier as new figures from HealthView Services show. The producer of healthcare cost-projection software reports that retiree-healthcare expenses will rise at an average annual rate of 5.47% for the foreseeable future—almost triple the U.S. inflation rate from 2012-2016 (1.9%) and more than double annual projected Social Security cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs –2.6%).
But U.S. citizens who have made the move abroad say they aren’t concerned. “When I moved to Mexico, one piece of emotional baggage I left behind in the U.S. was worry over the cost of healthcare,” says International Living ’s Mexico Editor, Glynna Prentice.
“In Mexico, I have access to two affordable healthcare systems: public and private. In Mexico’s private healthcare system, costs—pretty much across the board—run 25% to 50% of U.S. costs for comparable services. And as a legal resident in Mexico, I also have access to Mexico’s public healthcare system, which runs most people around $300 to $400 or so a year—or less,” says Prentice, one of an estimated 1 million Americans now living in Mexico.
She’s not alone in finding good healthcare abroad.
Expat Kate Barron, who lives in Mérida, Mexico says that she visited one of the city’s top allergy specialists. “He was great, on time, and cheap,” she says. The cost: about $35. For quick treatment of minor ailments, you can also get a walk-in appointment with doctors on staff at discount pharmacies.
Mexico isn’t the only country where the calibre and price of care are excellent. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Colombia ranks 22nd in the world for quality of healthcare. That’s higher than both Canada (30th) and the U.S. (37th).
“As a retired healthcare executive, I know what I’m talking about when I say that the quality of care for expats in Colombia is excellent,” says International Living’s Colombia Correspondent, Nancy Kiernan.
Kiernan has lived in Medellin with her husband Mike for five years and says, “I have had laboratory tests, a mammogram, tests for cervical cancer, and a biopsy. In each case, the process was quick, the facilities were state-of-the-art, and most of the results were available online within a day or two.”
These sentiments are shared by expat John Stroup, also based in Medellin. “I was diagnosed with high blood pressure,” he says. “My general medicine doctor here in Colombia told me that I needed a series of laboratory tests, so that he could create a treatment plan. I must have had 50 different tests for only $50.” John follows a pay-as-you-go philosophy, paying out-of-pocket for treatment. “Even if you don’t have health insurance here, tests and doctor’s visits are still not very expensive,” Stroup says.
Curt Noe, a retired traffic engineer from New Jersey, moved to Medellín in 2007. “I arrived with a pre-existing condition of cancer,” he states. “I expected to have a problem getting health insurance here and was pleasantly surprised that I was completely covered by the national health plan (EPS) after only a six-month waiting period.”
During his first few years in Medellín, Curt flew back to the U.S. for second opinions and follow-up appointments. “I realized I didn’t need to spend the money to do that, after my U.S. doctors said that the care I am receiving in Medellín is on par with what they would do.”
Maine-native Katherine Gallimore speaks just as highly of the healthcare offered in Panama. “I had surgery not long ago with an ENT (ear, nose, and throat) doctor. The care and service were excellent and my out-of-pocket cost was only $900. And, as usual, the doctor gave me her personal cell phone number in case I needed to reach her.”
When funds from his severance package ran out, expat Rob Evans and his wife, Jeni, started taking advantage of the low-cost medications and treatment of minor ailments that pharmacies in Costa Rica often provide. Good healthcare for the couple was going to cost $18,000 a year in the U.S. “We simply couldn’t afford it,” says Evans. “If we chose to stay there, I would have had to get another job just to pay for healthcare.” Instead, they moved overseas. “In Costa Rica, we can satisfy all our healthcare needs for about $4,000 per year,” says Evans.
Texan John Michael Arthur, M.D. has a lot of praise for the Costa Rican Healthcare system. “When my partner and I left Texas for Costa Rica, many friends said, ‘Well sure, you’re not worried about medical care, you’re a doctor,’” Arthur says. “To tell the truth, that actually makes me much more critical of the medical care available in other countries. Unlike some foreign nations, Costa Rica has nothing to worry about; state-of-the-art services are available here in all branches of medicine and dentistry.”
The complete International Living 5 Countries with the Best Healthcare in the World, can be found here: 5 Countries with the Best Healthcare in the World.
Members of the media have full permission to reprint the article linked above once credit is given to InternationalLiving.com. Further information, as well as interviews with expert authors for radio, TV or print, is available on request. Photos are also available. To learn more, please contact InternationalLiving.com Associate Editor, Carol Barron, tel. (772) 678 – 0287, e-mail: CBarron(at)internationalliving(dot)com
For 37 years, InternationalLiving.com has been the leading authority for anyone looking for global retirement or relocation opportunities. Through its monthly magazine and related e-letters, extensive website, podcasts, online bookstore, and events held around the world, InternationalLiving.com provides information and services to help its readers live better, travel farther, have more fun, save more money, and find better business opportunities when they expand their world beyond their own shores. InternationalLiving.com has more than 200 correspondents traveling the globe, investigating the best opportunities for travel, retirement, real estate, and investment. Reported by PRWeb 7 hours ago.
Baltimore, MD (PRWEB) July 10, 2017
Medical bills you can afford, physicians who make house calls, healthcare so affordable Americans are simply paying out of pocket: The cost of quality healthcare isn’t a worry for the thousands of U.S. retirees who have made their home overseas, according to the editors at International Living.
Healthcare is one of the most significant and hard-to-plan-for costs in retirement. And it looks set to get costlier as new figures from HealthView Services show. The producer of healthcare cost-projection software reports that retiree-healthcare expenses will rise at an average annual rate of 5.47% for the foreseeable future—almost triple the U.S. inflation rate from 2012-2016 (1.9%) and more than double annual projected Social Security cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs –2.6%).
But U.S. citizens who have made the move abroad say they aren’t concerned. “When I moved to Mexico, one piece of emotional baggage I left behind in the U.S. was worry over the cost of healthcare,” says International Living ’s Mexico Editor, Glynna Prentice.
“In Mexico, I have access to two affordable healthcare systems: public and private. In Mexico’s private healthcare system, costs—pretty much across the board—run 25% to 50% of U.S. costs for comparable services. And as a legal resident in Mexico, I also have access to Mexico’s public healthcare system, which runs most people around $300 to $400 or so a year—or less,” says Prentice, one of an estimated 1 million Americans now living in Mexico.
She’s not alone in finding good healthcare abroad.
Expat Kate Barron, who lives in Mérida, Mexico says that she visited one of the city’s top allergy specialists. “He was great, on time, and cheap,” she says. The cost: about $35. For quick treatment of minor ailments, you can also get a walk-in appointment with doctors on staff at discount pharmacies.
Mexico isn’t the only country where the calibre and price of care are excellent. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Colombia ranks 22nd in the world for quality of healthcare. That’s higher than both Canada (30th) and the U.S. (37th).
“As a retired healthcare executive, I know what I’m talking about when I say that the quality of care for expats in Colombia is excellent,” says International Living’s Colombia Correspondent, Nancy Kiernan.
Kiernan has lived in Medellin with her husband Mike for five years and says, “I have had laboratory tests, a mammogram, tests for cervical cancer, and a biopsy. In each case, the process was quick, the facilities were state-of-the-art, and most of the results were available online within a day or two.”
These sentiments are shared by expat John Stroup, also based in Medellin. “I was diagnosed with high blood pressure,” he says. “My general medicine doctor here in Colombia told me that I needed a series of laboratory tests, so that he could create a treatment plan. I must have had 50 different tests for only $50.” John follows a pay-as-you-go philosophy, paying out-of-pocket for treatment. “Even if you don’t have health insurance here, tests and doctor’s visits are still not very expensive,” Stroup says.
Curt Noe, a retired traffic engineer from New Jersey, moved to Medellín in 2007. “I arrived with a pre-existing condition of cancer,” he states. “I expected to have a problem getting health insurance here and was pleasantly surprised that I was completely covered by the national health plan (EPS) after only a six-month waiting period.”
During his first few years in Medellín, Curt flew back to the U.S. for second opinions and follow-up appointments. “I realized I didn’t need to spend the money to do that, after my U.S. doctors said that the care I am receiving in Medellín is on par with what they would do.”
Maine-native Katherine Gallimore speaks just as highly of the healthcare offered in Panama. “I had surgery not long ago with an ENT (ear, nose, and throat) doctor. The care and service were excellent and my out-of-pocket cost was only $900. And, as usual, the doctor gave me her personal cell phone number in case I needed to reach her.”
When funds from his severance package ran out, expat Rob Evans and his wife, Jeni, started taking advantage of the low-cost medications and treatment of minor ailments that pharmacies in Costa Rica often provide. Good healthcare for the couple was going to cost $18,000 a year in the U.S. “We simply couldn’t afford it,” says Evans. “If we chose to stay there, I would have had to get another job just to pay for healthcare.” Instead, they moved overseas. “In Costa Rica, we can satisfy all our healthcare needs for about $4,000 per year,” says Evans.
Texan John Michael Arthur, M.D. has a lot of praise for the Costa Rican Healthcare system. “When my partner and I left Texas for Costa Rica, many friends said, ‘Well sure, you’re not worried about medical care, you’re a doctor,’” Arthur says. “To tell the truth, that actually makes me much more critical of the medical care available in other countries. Unlike some foreign nations, Costa Rica has nothing to worry about; state-of-the-art services are available here in all branches of medicine and dentistry.”
The complete International Living 5 Countries with the Best Healthcare in the World, can be found here: 5 Countries with the Best Healthcare in the World.
Members of the media have full permission to reprint the article linked above once credit is given to InternationalLiving.com. Further information, as well as interviews with expert authors for radio, TV or print, is available on request. Photos are also available. To learn more, please contact InternationalLiving.com Associate Editor, Carol Barron, tel. (772) 678 – 0287, e-mail: CBarron(at)internationalliving(dot)com
For 37 years, InternationalLiving.com has been the leading authority for anyone looking for global retirement or relocation opportunities. Through its monthly magazine and related e-letters, extensive website, podcasts, online bookstore, and events held around the world, InternationalLiving.com provides information and services to help its readers live better, travel farther, have more fun, save more money, and find better business opportunities when they expand their world beyond their own shores. InternationalLiving.com has more than 200 correspondents traveling the globe, investigating the best opportunities for travel, retirement, real estate, and investment. Reported by PRWeb 7 hours ago.
↧
Fin24.com | Your medical aid tax rebates to fund NHI - ANC
The ANC wants the current tax rebates to individuals on medical aids to be scrapped and the money used to fund the National Health Insurance.
Reported by News24 6 hours ago.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
