Allegheny and surrounding counties were among the lowest-cost places in the country to buy individual health insurance, a new survey by Kaiser Health News and National Public Radio. The cheapest health insurance as measured by monthly premiums were found in communities where there was intense competition among providers. The study found that when multiple hospitals and doctors vie for business, health insurance companies usually lowered rates. Pittsburgh and northwest Pennsylvania ranked third…
Reported by bizjournals 8 hours ago.
↧
Report: Pittsburgh region among the lowest health insurance rates
↧
Invest in Kids: Restoring the American Dream
The idea of the American dream -- the idea that the opportunity for achieving one's hopes and dreams along with successful upward mobility is available to each successive generation regardless of circumstances of birth or zip code is a concept deeply help by the American people. According to James Truslow Adams:
The American dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. . .regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.
However, today the American dream is in crisis. According to a recent nationwide poll by American Viewpoint, by overwhelming margins, American voters believe that the lives of children have gotten worse rather than better over the past decade (57-13 percent). Americans are also not confident that the lives of the next generation will be better off (67-26 percent). This sense of pessimism about the next generation is strong across all gender, income, racial and political lines. In fact, Republicans are the least confident about the future of children (80-18 percent).
With child poverty having increased in 49 of the 50 states in the country between 2007 and 2012, we are a nation where over 1 in 5 children (21.8 percent) now live in poverty. The high rate of child poverty is much higher than the poverty rate of adults aged 18-64 (13.7 percent) and senior citizens (9.1 percent). As a result, today's child poverty rate is almost as high as it was in 1963 and is a stunning 70 percent higher than that for all American citizens over the age of 18.
We also know that one in five children live in hunger, 6.3 million children live in families with unemployed parents, and 8 million children were negatively impacted by mortgage foreclosures. In short, the group that bore the brunt of the recession was our nation's children. And based on their responses to the poll, the American people clearly know it and are deeply concerned about it.
So, if the federal budget is a reflection of our nation's priorities, how are our nation's leaders responding to the deep concerns of voters regarding the problems plaguing children? Incredibly, rather than investing to improve the well-being of children and our nation's future, congress has chosen to slash assistance to kids as funding directed to children declined by 16 percent between FY 2001 and FY 2003.
One might argue federal budget cuts were necessary to reduce the deficit, but the fact is that children, who were not at fault for causing the recession and yet bore the worst consequences of it, were also targeted by Congress to more than their share of the budget cuts. As a result, although children represent one-quarter of the population, the share of federal funding directed toward children has declined dramatically and fell to less than 8 percent of the overall budget last year.
If we were serious about addressing the enormous challenges facing children, we would be increasing investments in things we know are successful at reducing poverty, such as education. But instead, at both the federal and state levels in recent years, support for education has been cut. According to the Census Bureau, funding to our nation's schools declined last year for the first time in more than three decades.
The situation in a number of states is worse. In a report released this week by Bruce Baker at Rutgers University and David Sciarra and Danielle Farrie at the Education Law Center entitled Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card, the authors found:
About half of the states cut funding from 2010 levels, and in fourteen states per-pupil spending in 2011 was below 2007 levels, even without adjusting for inflation.
This is counter to the wishes of the American people. As the American Viewpoint survey finds, although Americans strongly believe we must cut the federal budget deficit, they even more strongly believe that we must protect basic investments in children like health, education and nutrition. Thus, they reject the false choice that we must cut investment in children to reduce the budget deficit. In fact, according to the poll, 72 percent of Americans prioritize protecting investments in children equally or more than reducing the federal deficit. And, it is not just parents that feel this way, as 70 percent of those without kids felt the same.
In fact, when it comes to specific funding for an array of children's programs, such as education, child health, or funding to reduce child abuse and neglect, the American people quite clearly and strongly want to protect investments in our nation's children. When asked if it were okay to cut specific programs to reduce the federal budget deficit, voters targeted tax breaks for big corporations and foreign aid as places to cut. In sharp contrast, they overwhelmingly reject the very cuts that Congress has imposed upon children in recent years.
For example, by a 74-23 percent margin, voters opposed cutting education with 68 percent strongly opposed to such cuts. That level of opposition to education cuts is identical to the level in which voters strongly oppose cutting Medicare. Likewise, voters opposed cutting funding to combat child abuse and neglect by 77-18 percent with 67 percent strongly opposing such cuts.
The poll shows that voters oppose cutting all programs important to children, including opposition to cutting Medicaid (71-26 percent), the Children's Health Insurance Program (67-21 percent), Head Start (67-31 percent), and funding to help make child care more affordable to working families (60-36 percent). Yet, Congress has chosen a different path for children in recent years. For example, the recent federal budget sequestration cut funding to a variety of children's programs by $4.2 billion in 2013.
While funding for children's programs at the federal and state levels have been negatively impacted by the national recession, the long-term prospects for federal funding dedicated to children is also projected to continue to decline as a share of spending. As a result, the Urban Institute estimate in their Kids' Share report that the share of spending on children will drop from 10 to eight percent over the next decade. In fact, interest on the national debt will soon eclipse all federal investments in our nation's children combined.
What is needed is a new commitment to improve the life chances of the next generation. Through sound investments in our nation's children, as Isabel Sawhill wrote in a book published a decade ago, One Percent for the Kids: New Policies, Brighter Futures for America's Children, we could "simultaneously reduce child poverty and a variety of other costly social problems, from welfare dependency to crime; save money over the longer run; increase social mobility; and bring the United States closer to being the 'land of opportunity' celebrated in our history and culture."
Rather than denial, dismissal, and whitewashing of the problems facing children, what is needed is an affirmative and engaged commitment by policymakers and thought-leaders to restore our nation's belief in the American dream. They could start by listening to the American people, who know and understand that we are a great nation because we have always invested in our future. Politicians need to be reminded that what makes this country a success and create a budget that invests in the future: our children.
Fortunately, there are some signs of progress. For example, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, who has been a four-time "Champion for Children", held the first Budget hearing focused on the plight of children in a number of years. She subsequently worked with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to reach a bipartisan budget agreement that was passed and would restore $3.1 billion of the prior sequestration cuts that have been so harmful to children. However, after adjusting those number for inflation, it is still nearly $2.1 billion lower than pre-sequestration levels in 2012.
Although we still have a long, long way to go, there are other signs of progress. As an example, President Obama has put forth a vision to expand and improve the access of high-quality, early childhood education programs in our nation. As James Heckman, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago and a Nobel Laureate in Economics, explains:
President Obama has proposed an early childhood initiative that combines family visitation, infant health and development, early learning, quality child care and more effective preschooling at ages 4 and 5. This is an encouraging shift in American policy, one that could significantly reduce inequality if it remained true to the evidence of what works -- not to the politics of what is convenient.
Our choice in these difficult economic times is not just whether to spend or cut, but whether to choose knowledge over conventional wisdom. Will we put money in programs that pay off? Quality early childhood programs for disadvantaged children are not "entitlements" or bottomless wells of social spending. They foster human flourishing and they improve our economic productivity in the process.
The evidence shows that the benefits of such investments in kids outweigh the costs. As Hirokazu Yoshikawa and an impressive list of other researchers from across the nation concluded in a report released by the Foundation for Child Development and the Society for Research in Child Development entitled "Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education":
Finally, while it has been clear for some time that high-quality preschool education yields more in benefits to society than its initial costs, the most recent work indicates that there is a positive return on investment for a range of differing preschool programs, from those that are more intensive and costly to those that require less initial investment. In sum, quality preschool education is an investment in our future.
Across the country, governors and state legislatures -- Democrats and Republicans -- are making commitments to reverse the recent downward trend in per capita spending on education and early childhood programs. In the State of the State addresses by governors, Governing reports:
Governors in Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York and Pennsylvania all announced support for funding early childhood education. Governors in Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Utah proposed dramatic increases in funding for K-12 education.
Words are cheap, however. As adults, we must stand up for our children and demand that our political leaders live up to their commitments and promises to the next generation. The fact is that we can no longer afford not to. Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.
The American dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. . .regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.
However, today the American dream is in crisis. According to a recent nationwide poll by American Viewpoint, by overwhelming margins, American voters believe that the lives of children have gotten worse rather than better over the past decade (57-13 percent). Americans are also not confident that the lives of the next generation will be better off (67-26 percent). This sense of pessimism about the next generation is strong across all gender, income, racial and political lines. In fact, Republicans are the least confident about the future of children (80-18 percent).
With child poverty having increased in 49 of the 50 states in the country between 2007 and 2012, we are a nation where over 1 in 5 children (21.8 percent) now live in poverty. The high rate of child poverty is much higher than the poverty rate of adults aged 18-64 (13.7 percent) and senior citizens (9.1 percent). As a result, today's child poverty rate is almost as high as it was in 1963 and is a stunning 70 percent higher than that for all American citizens over the age of 18.
We also know that one in five children live in hunger, 6.3 million children live in families with unemployed parents, and 8 million children were negatively impacted by mortgage foreclosures. In short, the group that bore the brunt of the recession was our nation's children. And based on their responses to the poll, the American people clearly know it and are deeply concerned about it.
So, if the federal budget is a reflection of our nation's priorities, how are our nation's leaders responding to the deep concerns of voters regarding the problems plaguing children? Incredibly, rather than investing to improve the well-being of children and our nation's future, congress has chosen to slash assistance to kids as funding directed to children declined by 16 percent between FY 2001 and FY 2003.
One might argue federal budget cuts were necessary to reduce the deficit, but the fact is that children, who were not at fault for causing the recession and yet bore the worst consequences of it, were also targeted by Congress to more than their share of the budget cuts. As a result, although children represent one-quarter of the population, the share of federal funding directed toward children has declined dramatically and fell to less than 8 percent of the overall budget last year.
If we were serious about addressing the enormous challenges facing children, we would be increasing investments in things we know are successful at reducing poverty, such as education. But instead, at both the federal and state levels in recent years, support for education has been cut. According to the Census Bureau, funding to our nation's schools declined last year for the first time in more than three decades.
The situation in a number of states is worse. In a report released this week by Bruce Baker at Rutgers University and David Sciarra and Danielle Farrie at the Education Law Center entitled Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card, the authors found:
About half of the states cut funding from 2010 levels, and in fourteen states per-pupil spending in 2011 was below 2007 levels, even without adjusting for inflation.
This is counter to the wishes of the American people. As the American Viewpoint survey finds, although Americans strongly believe we must cut the federal budget deficit, they even more strongly believe that we must protect basic investments in children like health, education and nutrition. Thus, they reject the false choice that we must cut investment in children to reduce the budget deficit. In fact, according to the poll, 72 percent of Americans prioritize protecting investments in children equally or more than reducing the federal deficit. And, it is not just parents that feel this way, as 70 percent of those without kids felt the same.
In fact, when it comes to specific funding for an array of children's programs, such as education, child health, or funding to reduce child abuse and neglect, the American people quite clearly and strongly want to protect investments in our nation's children. When asked if it were okay to cut specific programs to reduce the federal budget deficit, voters targeted tax breaks for big corporations and foreign aid as places to cut. In sharp contrast, they overwhelmingly reject the very cuts that Congress has imposed upon children in recent years.
For example, by a 74-23 percent margin, voters opposed cutting education with 68 percent strongly opposed to such cuts. That level of opposition to education cuts is identical to the level in which voters strongly oppose cutting Medicare. Likewise, voters opposed cutting funding to combat child abuse and neglect by 77-18 percent with 67 percent strongly opposing such cuts.
The poll shows that voters oppose cutting all programs important to children, including opposition to cutting Medicaid (71-26 percent), the Children's Health Insurance Program (67-21 percent), Head Start (67-31 percent), and funding to help make child care more affordable to working families (60-36 percent). Yet, Congress has chosen a different path for children in recent years. For example, the recent federal budget sequestration cut funding to a variety of children's programs by $4.2 billion in 2013.
While funding for children's programs at the federal and state levels have been negatively impacted by the national recession, the long-term prospects for federal funding dedicated to children is also projected to continue to decline as a share of spending. As a result, the Urban Institute estimate in their Kids' Share report that the share of spending on children will drop from 10 to eight percent over the next decade. In fact, interest on the national debt will soon eclipse all federal investments in our nation's children combined.
What is needed is a new commitment to improve the life chances of the next generation. Through sound investments in our nation's children, as Isabel Sawhill wrote in a book published a decade ago, One Percent for the Kids: New Policies, Brighter Futures for America's Children, we could "simultaneously reduce child poverty and a variety of other costly social problems, from welfare dependency to crime; save money over the longer run; increase social mobility; and bring the United States closer to being the 'land of opportunity' celebrated in our history and culture."
Rather than denial, dismissal, and whitewashing of the problems facing children, what is needed is an affirmative and engaged commitment by policymakers and thought-leaders to restore our nation's belief in the American dream. They could start by listening to the American people, who know and understand that we are a great nation because we have always invested in our future. Politicians need to be reminded that what makes this country a success and create a budget that invests in the future: our children.
Fortunately, there are some signs of progress. For example, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, who has been a four-time "Champion for Children", held the first Budget hearing focused on the plight of children in a number of years. She subsequently worked with House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to reach a bipartisan budget agreement that was passed and would restore $3.1 billion of the prior sequestration cuts that have been so harmful to children. However, after adjusting those number for inflation, it is still nearly $2.1 billion lower than pre-sequestration levels in 2012.
Although we still have a long, long way to go, there are other signs of progress. As an example, President Obama has put forth a vision to expand and improve the access of high-quality, early childhood education programs in our nation. As James Heckman, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago and a Nobel Laureate in Economics, explains:
President Obama has proposed an early childhood initiative that combines family visitation, infant health and development, early learning, quality child care and more effective preschooling at ages 4 and 5. This is an encouraging shift in American policy, one that could significantly reduce inequality if it remained true to the evidence of what works -- not to the politics of what is convenient.
Our choice in these difficult economic times is not just whether to spend or cut, but whether to choose knowledge over conventional wisdom. Will we put money in programs that pay off? Quality early childhood programs for disadvantaged children are not "entitlements" or bottomless wells of social spending. They foster human flourishing and they improve our economic productivity in the process.
The evidence shows that the benefits of such investments in kids outweigh the costs. As Hirokazu Yoshikawa and an impressive list of other researchers from across the nation concluded in a report released by the Foundation for Child Development and the Society for Research in Child Development entitled "Investing in Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education":
Finally, while it has been clear for some time that high-quality preschool education yields more in benefits to society than its initial costs, the most recent work indicates that there is a positive return on investment for a range of differing preschool programs, from those that are more intensive and costly to those that require less initial investment. In sum, quality preschool education is an investment in our future.
Across the country, governors and state legislatures -- Democrats and Republicans -- are making commitments to reverse the recent downward trend in per capita spending on education and early childhood programs. In the State of the State addresses by governors, Governing reports:
Governors in Alabama, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York and Pennsylvania all announced support for funding early childhood education. Governors in Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Utah proposed dramatic increases in funding for K-12 education.
Words are cheap, however. As adults, we must stand up for our children and demand that our political leaders live up to their commitments and promises to the next generation. The fact is that we can no longer afford not to. Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.
↧
↧
A Simple Solution to Employers and Obamacare
In the last month, two more misleading headlines - one on lost jobs and the other on premiums for small businesses - have further roiled the overheated debate about the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on business and jobs. The question of how to deal with our employer-based health system continues to provide fodder for attacks on Obamacare. And it has proven to be - and promises to continue to be - the basis for the most potent attacks against Republican proposals to replace the ACA. But in terms of policy, there is a simple solution, which would rationalize the contradictions in the Affordable Care Act and ease the way for the long-term goal shared on the left and right of separating health coverage from employment.
The general approach taken in the Affordable Care Act was to require most employers to provide coverage. The specific proposal in the final legislation, shaped by compromises with and pressure from both small and big business lobbying groups, required employers with more than the equivalent of 50 full-time workers to pay a portion of health coverage for employees who work 30 hours a week, or pay a fine. This is the employer mandate, which was delayed a year by the Obama administration and will be phased in starting in 2015.
The employer mandate does accomplish much of the prime goal of reform. Most employers have incentives to continue to provide coverage, or expand coverage. New coverage options are available for most people who do not get coverage at work, which was virtually all of the 50 million people who were uninsured when the ACA became law in 2010. People are not locked into jobs just because of health coverage, which was the real finding of the Congressional Budget Office report projecting 2.3 million people would retire or reduce their hours of work. Ending job lock opens up those hours to people who want to work and is a huge boon to entrepreneurship.
But the problems with the structure of the employer mandate are obvious. The law creates incentives for employers to keep workers' hours under 30. It also establishes the potential for a business with a growing number of employees, when it exceeds the 50-employee threshold, to suddenly have to pay for health coverage.
The existence of incentives to cut hours or limit employees does not at all mean that employers will adjust for them. The accusations that the ACA is creating a part-time economy are belied by the facts: part-time employment is going down as the economy accelerates. In addition, employers that are adding workers rapidly as their businesses grow are not going to stop expanding - or establish dozens of very small corporations - to avoid paying for health coverage. Still, we are seeing examples of some employers, including public employers and universities, limiting workers' hours to less than 30. Others, like Trader Joe's, are establishing different employment tracks for part and full time employees, with health care as a key factor. As this is all new - with the mandate not yet in effect - it is impossible to measure the future impact, but the incentives are certain to shape some business decisions.
There is a simple solution, one that was included in the version of the ACA enacted by the House in 2009. Employers that decide not to provide health coverage for their employees would be required to pay a percentage of payroll as a tax to cover health care, just like employers do now for FICA (Social Security and Medicare). Instantly, the cliff impact is gone, both in terms of hours and number of employees. Employers could either provide coverage to all employees, or pay for health coverage in the same manner as FICA, a regular cost of adding an employee, with a marginal increase in cost for each hour someone works. There is no advantage to hiring someone for less than 30 hours or keeping under 50 employees.
Paying a percentage of payroll also has another huge advantage over both the ACA and the current system of employer-provided coverage. Right now, the cost of health insurance premiums does not vary with an employee's income. This creates a much bigger disincentive to hiring lower-wage workers. For example, a $6,000-a-year policy is 20% of the wages of a $30,000 a year employee but only 5% of the pay of a $120,000 a year employee. Paying a percentage of payroll instead would make it much more affordable to hire low-and-middle income wage earners than it is now. And while it would make it more expensive to employ higher-wage workers, most employers with high-wage workforces already provide health coverage and would be likely to continue to do so, rather than pay the payroll tax. If they did choose to pay, the cost is more easily absorbed for high-wage employees. Besides, that is not where we have an employment problem in the U.S.
This solution mimics the structure of union-employer benefit funds, which are typically found in industries where workers have fluctuating hours. Under these "Taft-Hartley" funds, employers and workers pay into the fund based on the number of hours an employee works. The loudest opponents from the left of the employer mandate in the ACA have been unions whose members get health coverage through such funds now. The unions have said that the ACA encourages employers to stop paying into the funds, now that government will provide subsidies for many workers. But if the current employer mandate were replaced by a payroll tax, the status quo that has worked well for these funds would be maintained.
Historically, the biggest opponent of a payroll tax for coverage has been the small business lobby, which is why the ACA does not require small employers to provide coverage. That is why the House version of the ACA phased in the payroll contribution based on payroll size, with no contributions required for payrolls under $500,000, increasing gradually to an 8% contribution for payrolls over $750,000. This eases the burden on small employers.
Slowly, the employer-based health coverage system in the United States is dissolving. Over the past 30 years, the share of workers with ESI has shrunk from 70% to 57%. Recently we have seen employers who traditionally have wanted to take responsibility for structuring employee coverage begin to use private exchanges, in which their workers get a fixed amount of money to choose from a choice of health plans. These trends hasten the broadly shared goal of separating employment from health coverage.
As the debate over the ACA turns from repeal to fixing the law, progressives should make the payroll contribution proposal a central focus, our response to problems with the employer mandate. If enacted, as more employees choose to pay into the fund rather than provide their own coverage, we would move closer to ideal of a broad-based tax for coverage, not tied to an individual employer. And while a payroll tax is not progressive - it is proportional - it is much more progressive than the very regressive system we have now of fixed premiums regardless of income. The result would be evolution toward a relatively broadly based tax for health coverage, a key to making health coverage a right.
Originally published on Next New Deal Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.
The general approach taken in the Affordable Care Act was to require most employers to provide coverage. The specific proposal in the final legislation, shaped by compromises with and pressure from both small and big business lobbying groups, required employers with more than the equivalent of 50 full-time workers to pay a portion of health coverage for employees who work 30 hours a week, or pay a fine. This is the employer mandate, which was delayed a year by the Obama administration and will be phased in starting in 2015.
The employer mandate does accomplish much of the prime goal of reform. Most employers have incentives to continue to provide coverage, or expand coverage. New coverage options are available for most people who do not get coverage at work, which was virtually all of the 50 million people who were uninsured when the ACA became law in 2010. People are not locked into jobs just because of health coverage, which was the real finding of the Congressional Budget Office report projecting 2.3 million people would retire or reduce their hours of work. Ending job lock opens up those hours to people who want to work and is a huge boon to entrepreneurship.
But the problems with the structure of the employer mandate are obvious. The law creates incentives for employers to keep workers' hours under 30. It also establishes the potential for a business with a growing number of employees, when it exceeds the 50-employee threshold, to suddenly have to pay for health coverage.
The existence of incentives to cut hours or limit employees does not at all mean that employers will adjust for them. The accusations that the ACA is creating a part-time economy are belied by the facts: part-time employment is going down as the economy accelerates. In addition, employers that are adding workers rapidly as their businesses grow are not going to stop expanding - or establish dozens of very small corporations - to avoid paying for health coverage. Still, we are seeing examples of some employers, including public employers and universities, limiting workers' hours to less than 30. Others, like Trader Joe's, are establishing different employment tracks for part and full time employees, with health care as a key factor. As this is all new - with the mandate not yet in effect - it is impossible to measure the future impact, but the incentives are certain to shape some business decisions.
There is a simple solution, one that was included in the version of the ACA enacted by the House in 2009. Employers that decide not to provide health coverage for their employees would be required to pay a percentage of payroll as a tax to cover health care, just like employers do now for FICA (Social Security and Medicare). Instantly, the cliff impact is gone, both in terms of hours and number of employees. Employers could either provide coverage to all employees, or pay for health coverage in the same manner as FICA, a regular cost of adding an employee, with a marginal increase in cost for each hour someone works. There is no advantage to hiring someone for less than 30 hours or keeping under 50 employees.
Paying a percentage of payroll also has another huge advantage over both the ACA and the current system of employer-provided coverage. Right now, the cost of health insurance premiums does not vary with an employee's income. This creates a much bigger disincentive to hiring lower-wage workers. For example, a $6,000-a-year policy is 20% of the wages of a $30,000 a year employee but only 5% of the pay of a $120,000 a year employee. Paying a percentage of payroll instead would make it much more affordable to hire low-and-middle income wage earners than it is now. And while it would make it more expensive to employ higher-wage workers, most employers with high-wage workforces already provide health coverage and would be likely to continue to do so, rather than pay the payroll tax. If they did choose to pay, the cost is more easily absorbed for high-wage employees. Besides, that is not where we have an employment problem in the U.S.
This solution mimics the structure of union-employer benefit funds, which are typically found in industries where workers have fluctuating hours. Under these "Taft-Hartley" funds, employers and workers pay into the fund based on the number of hours an employee works. The loudest opponents from the left of the employer mandate in the ACA have been unions whose members get health coverage through such funds now. The unions have said that the ACA encourages employers to stop paying into the funds, now that government will provide subsidies for many workers. But if the current employer mandate were replaced by a payroll tax, the status quo that has worked well for these funds would be maintained.
Historically, the biggest opponent of a payroll tax for coverage has been the small business lobby, which is why the ACA does not require small employers to provide coverage. That is why the House version of the ACA phased in the payroll contribution based on payroll size, with no contributions required for payrolls under $500,000, increasing gradually to an 8% contribution for payrolls over $750,000. This eases the burden on small employers.
Slowly, the employer-based health coverage system in the United States is dissolving. Over the past 30 years, the share of workers with ESI has shrunk from 70% to 57%. Recently we have seen employers who traditionally have wanted to take responsibility for structuring employee coverage begin to use private exchanges, in which their workers get a fixed amount of money to choose from a choice of health plans. These trends hasten the broadly shared goal of separating employment from health coverage.
As the debate over the ACA turns from repeal to fixing the law, progressives should make the payroll contribution proposal a central focus, our response to problems with the employer mandate. If enacted, as more employees choose to pay into the fund rather than provide their own coverage, we would move closer to ideal of a broad-based tax for coverage, not tied to an individual employer. And while a payroll tax is not progressive - it is proportional - it is much more progressive than the very regressive system we have now of fixed premiums regardless of income. The result would be evolution toward a relatively broadly based tax for health coverage, a key to making health coverage a right.
Originally published on Next New Deal Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.
↧
Castlight Health hopes to raise up to $140M in IPO
Castlight Health updated its IPO filing on Monday with plans to raise sell shares at between $9 and $11 per share and raise up to $140 million. The San Francisco company led by CEO Giovanni Colella plans to sell 11.1 million shares in the IPO and has another 1.65 million shares available to its underwriters. Castlight helps self-insured employers offer their workers online tools and mobile apps that they can use to find health insurance information. It says that it has signed up more than 95 customers…
Reported by bizjournals 7 hours ago.
↧
New Ad Campaign Launches to Promote Access to Health Insurance for Pennsylvania's Children
HARRISBURG, Pa., March 3, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new marketing campaign launches today aimed at ensuring Pennsylvanians understand that healthcare coverage is within reach for uninsured children. The ads, themed "Within Reach," will ensure that every family knows that...
Reported by PR Newswire 7 hours ago.
↧
↧
What I Need to Say About Our Health Care System Now That I'm a Mom
My son had no health insurance coverage from the time he was born until he was 6 months old. His lack of coverage wasn't due to my lack of trying to attain it, believe me.
As a first-time new mother, sleep deprived and flooded with hormones that caused me to be maniacally happy and hysterically sad, often simultaneously, I'd spend sometimes as much as three hours a day on the phone (or more accurately, on hold or being transferred) with the health insurance company we could afford for him.
Many times, phone conversations would reveal that mysterious documents needed to be produced for our successful application, either by the following day or on that same day by 5pm. I'd find myself furiously faxing things or limping down to the company's office with bundles of what amounted to evidence that my son deserved to have his health cared for.
We brought every representative from the company everything they requested and more. Still, each month we'd receive a letter that we'd open with the breathless anticipation one might reserve for opening an envelope revealing the Oscar winner's name. And each month we'd read, "Child's coverage denied because of..." There was always a different reason given. Once we had neglected to initial a single line on one page in a 10-page form. Many months, the denial was an enigma even to the poor schmuck unfortunate enough to answer the phone when I'd call the company to complain.
"So what you're telling me, " I'd say, attempting to contain my rage, "is that my NEWBORN has no health insurance! AND YOU THINK THAT THAT'S OK????!!!"
"I'm sorry m'am," the hapless agent would say, unsuccessfully trying to assume a posture of genuine remorse, "but you should DEFINITELY apply again next month!"
"OK!" I'd end up screaming. "I GUESS I JUST WON'T LEAVE THE HOUSE WITH HIM UNTIL THEN! JUST TO BE SAFE!" And sometimes I'd add "A**HOLE!" just to feel mildly empowered.
Every month we were declined, and with each denial, my fear, anger and insanity intensified, as did the physical manifestations of those things in my body: stomachaches, headaches, backaches, fits of rage and crying jags.
We were eventually granted the privilege of paying $259/month for a service we, thank goodness, have rarely had to use.
Cut to January this year.
Since the Affordable Care Act has gone into effect, it seems as though insurance companies, perhaps threatened by the idea that health care may someday no longer be considered a luxury item for Americans but a right, seem to be completely discombobulated -- in a state of total disrepair. Applications are mind-numbingly dense, questions seem unanswerable by all company representatives and the billing problems are unfathomable.
Two days ago, I received the following three letters about my son's insurance coverage all in one batch of mail: a letter welcoming my son to the company, accompanied by his insurance card (which we already had); a "FINAL NOTICE" bill for that same account threatening to cancel it; and a notice that his account had already been cancelled for "FAIL TO PAY" (If you're going to threaten me, at least get the grammar right!). So his coverage was confirmed, threatened and cancelled all on the same day.
Now I again have headaches, stomachaches and general anxiety wondering whether or not my son's coverage is in place.
The Affordable Care Act has taken us one essential, albeit clumsy and highly flawed, step in the right direction. But the mentality behind the health care system has not yet changed enough to immunize us from its disease.
I don't blame the intent of the creators of what has been coined, both optimistically and derisively, "Obamacare." Our broken system should not have continued as it was. I do blame the bickering and the partisan politics that tore the policy to shreds and diminished it beyond all recognition before we ever got a chance to benefit from it. I do blame the conservative hackers who sabotaged the application process, sure that taxing people's energy and time in this way to prove the act was doomed to fail was justifiable. And I blame those who have campaigned tirelessly against it, not because they understand it and don't like what they see, but because they don't like the kind of people who support it.
The health care system in America is hurting us all, including our children, because it's not founded on the principle that it should be helping us all. And because, by its very nature -- complicated applications, heartless denials, uninformed employees -- it makes us all much less healthy due to stress and anxiety.
I know I'm not the first person to comment on this. But now that I'm a mother with a child for whom coverage was hard to get and equally difficult to remain assured of, the system, and its architects and participants, feels simply and unforgivably immoral.Photo ©Ali Smith from the book Momma Love Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.
As a first-time new mother, sleep deprived and flooded with hormones that caused me to be maniacally happy and hysterically sad, often simultaneously, I'd spend sometimes as much as three hours a day on the phone (or more accurately, on hold or being transferred) with the health insurance company we could afford for him.
Many times, phone conversations would reveal that mysterious documents needed to be produced for our successful application, either by the following day or on that same day by 5pm. I'd find myself furiously faxing things or limping down to the company's office with bundles of what amounted to evidence that my son deserved to have his health cared for.
We brought every representative from the company everything they requested and more. Still, each month we'd receive a letter that we'd open with the breathless anticipation one might reserve for opening an envelope revealing the Oscar winner's name. And each month we'd read, "Child's coverage denied because of..." There was always a different reason given. Once we had neglected to initial a single line on one page in a 10-page form. Many months, the denial was an enigma even to the poor schmuck unfortunate enough to answer the phone when I'd call the company to complain.
"So what you're telling me, " I'd say, attempting to contain my rage, "is that my NEWBORN has no health insurance! AND YOU THINK THAT THAT'S OK????!!!"
"I'm sorry m'am," the hapless agent would say, unsuccessfully trying to assume a posture of genuine remorse, "but you should DEFINITELY apply again next month!"
"OK!" I'd end up screaming. "I GUESS I JUST WON'T LEAVE THE HOUSE WITH HIM UNTIL THEN! JUST TO BE SAFE!" And sometimes I'd add "A**HOLE!" just to feel mildly empowered.
Every month we were declined, and with each denial, my fear, anger and insanity intensified, as did the physical manifestations of those things in my body: stomachaches, headaches, backaches, fits of rage and crying jags.
We were eventually granted the privilege of paying $259/month for a service we, thank goodness, have rarely had to use.
Cut to January this year.
Since the Affordable Care Act has gone into effect, it seems as though insurance companies, perhaps threatened by the idea that health care may someday no longer be considered a luxury item for Americans but a right, seem to be completely discombobulated -- in a state of total disrepair. Applications are mind-numbingly dense, questions seem unanswerable by all company representatives and the billing problems are unfathomable.
Two days ago, I received the following three letters about my son's insurance coverage all in one batch of mail: a letter welcoming my son to the company, accompanied by his insurance card (which we already had); a "FINAL NOTICE" bill for that same account threatening to cancel it; and a notice that his account had already been cancelled for "FAIL TO PAY" (If you're going to threaten me, at least get the grammar right!). So his coverage was confirmed, threatened and cancelled all on the same day.
Now I again have headaches, stomachaches and general anxiety wondering whether or not my son's coverage is in place.
The Affordable Care Act has taken us one essential, albeit clumsy and highly flawed, step in the right direction. But the mentality behind the health care system has not yet changed enough to immunize us from its disease.
I don't blame the intent of the creators of what has been coined, both optimistically and derisively, "Obamacare." Our broken system should not have continued as it was. I do blame the bickering and the partisan politics that tore the policy to shreds and diminished it beyond all recognition before we ever got a chance to benefit from it. I do blame the conservative hackers who sabotaged the application process, sure that taxing people's energy and time in this way to prove the act was doomed to fail was justifiable. And I blame those who have campaigned tirelessly against it, not because they understand it and don't like what they see, but because they don't like the kind of people who support it.
The health care system in America is hurting us all, including our children, because it's not founded on the principle that it should be helping us all. And because, by its very nature -- complicated applications, heartless denials, uninformed employees -- it makes us all much less healthy due to stress and anxiety.
I know I'm not the first person to comment on this. But now that I'm a mother with a child for whom coverage was hard to get and equally difficult to remain assured of, the system, and its architects and participants, feels simply and unforgivably immoral.Photo ©Ali Smith from the book Momma Love Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.
↧
Paul Ryan Criticizes 'Haphazard' And Ineffective Anti-Poverty Programs
By David Lawder
WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. government has barely made a dent in poverty in the past 50 years despite massive spending on programs to aid the poor, House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said in a report on Monday.
The Wisconsin Republican, a potential presidential contender in 2016, released the report a day before President Barack Obama sends Congress his own annual budget proposals, expected to include several provisions for helping the poor.
By releasing the report, Ryan, a fiscal hawk who was his party's unsuccessful vice-presidential candidate in 2012, appeared to be presenting himself as being more committed to helping poor Americans hoist themselves into the middle class.
He said many of the 92 federal programs aimed at fighting poverty were "haphazard" and ineffective, despite a cost of $799 billion in fiscal 2012.
The report, compiled by the Republican staff of Ryan's committee, said the U.S. poverty rate of 15 percent in 2012 was down only slightly from the 17.3 percent in 1965, the year after President Lyndon Johnson launched his "war on poverty" with new spending on aid programs.
"A large problem is the 'poverty trap,'" the report said. "There are so many anti-poverty programs - and there is so little coordination between them - that they often work at cross-purposes and penalize families for getting ahead."
The report did not recommend specific cuts to individual programs, but Ryan said it was meant to launch a public debate about anti-poverty spending. He was expected to outline his proposals in a Republican budget plan due out in a few weeks.
OBAMA BUDGET WILL TACKLE POVERTY
Obama's 2015 budget request is expected to include expansion of a tax credit for the working poor and an expansion of Head Start, the pre-school education program for poor children launched by Johnson.
Ryan's report sharply criticized Head Start, which cost $8 billion in fiscal 2012, for "failing to prepare children for school."
It cited two studies done for the Department of Health and Human Services that found the three- and four-year-olds who participated in the program showed little to no evidence of cognitive improvements over non-Head Start students by the time they reached the end of first grade and third grades. In some cases they had lower math scores, the studies showed.
Ryan's report was largely supportive of the $59 billion Earned Income Tax Credit, which Obama wants to expand, citing several studies that found it largely met its aim of encouraging work among low income people by providing them with a refundable tax credit.
The report did cite problems with non-compliance from people who fail to take advantage of the credit, tax preparation costs that eat into the benefits, and improper payments that reached $11 billion last year.
Obama in his State of the Union speech in January called for expanding this credit to childless workers, who benefit far less than those with children. But the Ryan report cited a study that showed that expansion of the credit in the 1980s and 1990s tended to discourage workforce participation by married women, while increasing participation by others.
Ryan's budgets have previously proposed reaping savings by turning the Medicaid health care program for the poor into a block grant for states, which is opposed by Democrats.
The report cites numerous problems with the fee-for-service program, which cost $265 billion in fiscal 2013 and was significantly expanded by Obama's health insurance reform law.
It cited findings of worse health outcomes for Medicaid patients compared to those with private insurance and Medicare, fewer physicians who accept Medicaid, lower reimbursement rates and increases in unnecessary and expensive visits to hospital emergency rooms.
The Ryan study identified nearly $300 billion spent on health care for the poor annually, over $200 billion on cash aid, over $100 billion on food aid, over $90 billion on education and job training and nearly $50 billion spent on housing. (Reporting By David Lawder; Editing by David Storey and Chris Reese) Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.
WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. government has barely made a dent in poverty in the past 50 years despite massive spending on programs to aid the poor, House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said in a report on Monday.
The Wisconsin Republican, a potential presidential contender in 2016, released the report a day before President Barack Obama sends Congress his own annual budget proposals, expected to include several provisions for helping the poor.
By releasing the report, Ryan, a fiscal hawk who was his party's unsuccessful vice-presidential candidate in 2012, appeared to be presenting himself as being more committed to helping poor Americans hoist themselves into the middle class.
He said many of the 92 federal programs aimed at fighting poverty were "haphazard" and ineffective, despite a cost of $799 billion in fiscal 2012.
The report, compiled by the Republican staff of Ryan's committee, said the U.S. poverty rate of 15 percent in 2012 was down only slightly from the 17.3 percent in 1965, the year after President Lyndon Johnson launched his "war on poverty" with new spending on aid programs.
"A large problem is the 'poverty trap,'" the report said. "There are so many anti-poverty programs - and there is so little coordination between them - that they often work at cross-purposes and penalize families for getting ahead."
The report did not recommend specific cuts to individual programs, but Ryan said it was meant to launch a public debate about anti-poverty spending. He was expected to outline his proposals in a Republican budget plan due out in a few weeks.
OBAMA BUDGET WILL TACKLE POVERTY
Obama's 2015 budget request is expected to include expansion of a tax credit for the working poor and an expansion of Head Start, the pre-school education program for poor children launched by Johnson.
Ryan's report sharply criticized Head Start, which cost $8 billion in fiscal 2012, for "failing to prepare children for school."
It cited two studies done for the Department of Health and Human Services that found the three- and four-year-olds who participated in the program showed little to no evidence of cognitive improvements over non-Head Start students by the time they reached the end of first grade and third grades. In some cases they had lower math scores, the studies showed.
Ryan's report was largely supportive of the $59 billion Earned Income Tax Credit, which Obama wants to expand, citing several studies that found it largely met its aim of encouraging work among low income people by providing them with a refundable tax credit.
The report did cite problems with non-compliance from people who fail to take advantage of the credit, tax preparation costs that eat into the benefits, and improper payments that reached $11 billion last year.
Obama in his State of the Union speech in January called for expanding this credit to childless workers, who benefit far less than those with children. But the Ryan report cited a study that showed that expansion of the credit in the 1980s and 1990s tended to discourage workforce participation by married women, while increasing participation by others.
Ryan's budgets have previously proposed reaping savings by turning the Medicaid health care program for the poor into a block grant for states, which is opposed by Democrats.
The report cites numerous problems with the fee-for-service program, which cost $265 billion in fiscal 2013 and was significantly expanded by Obama's health insurance reform law.
It cited findings of worse health outcomes for Medicaid patients compared to those with private insurance and Medicare, fewer physicians who accept Medicaid, lower reimbursement rates and increases in unnecessary and expensive visits to hospital emergency rooms.
The Ryan study identified nearly $300 billion spent on health care for the poor annually, over $200 billion on cash aid, over $100 billion on food aid, over $90 billion on education and job training and nearly $50 billion spent on housing. (Reporting By David Lawder; Editing by David Storey and Chris Reese) Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.
↧
Christian alternative to ObamaCare growing fast as deadline nears
With just weeks left to sign up for insurance on HealthCare.gov, a growing number of people are opting to enroll in a Christian alternative to traditional health insurance.
Reported by FOXNews.com 4 hours ago.
↧
GOP Bill to 'Save American Workers' Would Actually Strip Health Care From a Million Workers, CBO Reports
The Republican battle against the Affordable Care Act just can't catch a break. First, the website is repaired and currently runs quite well. Then we find out that millions of uninsured Americans signed up for a plan, with millions more signed up through the law's Medicaid expansion. Then their Obamacare horror stories turn out to be bogus, and Speaker of the House John Boehner basically gave up on trying to repeal the law.
And now, this.
Before we get into it, the Congressional Budget Office is the closest thing we have to a neutral arbiter of facts and reality any more. With all sides locked firmly in their own epistemic cones of silence and certain groups concocting their own facts while ignoring contravening ones, the CBO seems to be the only source upon which everyone can agree, and in that regard it can be cruel friend. Sometimes it reinforces an argument, and sometimes it totally crushes a wide variety of bad ideas and misleading forecasts.
That's precisely what happened to the Republicans this week. Again.
Rep. Todd Young (R-IN) introduced a bill last year, the Save American Workers Act of 2013, and 208 other Republicans -- nearly the entire caucus -- signed on as co-sponsors. The intention of the bill is to somehow "save American workers" by increasing the threshold for full-time employment from 30 hours per week to 40 hours. This would allow more businesses to circumvent the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The bill would also reduce the penalty for failing to comply with the law.
When introducing the bill, Young said:
"Repealing this redefinition [of 'full time employment'] and restoring it to the historical norm ensures *this bill not only protects working poor and middle class employees*, it also ensures that laws governing employment are consistent."
Not so fast. Here comes the CBO.
It turns out the Save American Workers Act... won't. In fact, the CBO in conjunction with the Joint Committee on Taxation reported that one million workers would lose their work-based insurance policies. Half would be forced into either an ACA plan, Medicaid or SCHIP. The other half wouldn't get any health insurance at all.
It gets worse. Due to the provision loosening the penalty for not complying with the law, the deficit would go up by $74 billion.
That's right, 208 members of the House (the co-sponsors included seven Democrats) signed onto a bill that not only takes away the healthcare plans of a million Americans, but it also increases the deficit by tens of billions of dollars. Meanwhile, the bill has already passed through Ways & Means and is headed to a floor vote next week where surely more members will wrap their loving arms around a bill that amounts to legislative blowback against the GOP.
Everything the Republicans say and do about the ACA is a disaster. Recently, as we covered here, the GOP's long-standing description of Obamacare as a "job-killing healthcare law" was crushed when the CBO's director, Doug Elmendorf, testified that indeed the law will create jobs. And this was in response to the flagrantly obvious Republican trick to spin another CBO report on the law to seem as if 2.5 million Americans would be fired because of Obamacare.
Has anything the Republicans have said about the law been true?
--There are no death panels.
--The law doesn't cut Medicare benefits.
--It doesn't add to the deficit (it reduces it by $109 billion over ten years).
--It's not a government takeover.
--It does not cover abortions or emergency contraceptives that prevent implantation.
--It's not unconstitutional.
--There won't be any IRS goon squads breaking down your door.
--Medical care will not be rationed.
--Most of the provisions in the law are extremely popular, even among Republican voters.
--It's not socialized medicine and most of it, including the mandate, was invented by Republicans in the first place.
--Congress is not "exempt" from Obamacare.
--The law will create jobs, not "kill" 2.5 million of them.
--And, yes, this ridiculous GOP House bill intended to "save workers" will add to the deficit and strip a million workers of their insurance.
Seeing all of the wrongness in one place is actually kind of breathtaking. They haven't been right about anything when it comes to the ACA. Not a damn thing.
Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to David Stander. Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.
And now, this.
Before we get into it, the Congressional Budget Office is the closest thing we have to a neutral arbiter of facts and reality any more. With all sides locked firmly in their own epistemic cones of silence and certain groups concocting their own facts while ignoring contravening ones, the CBO seems to be the only source upon which everyone can agree, and in that regard it can be cruel friend. Sometimes it reinforces an argument, and sometimes it totally crushes a wide variety of bad ideas and misleading forecasts.
That's precisely what happened to the Republicans this week. Again.
Rep. Todd Young (R-IN) introduced a bill last year, the Save American Workers Act of 2013, and 208 other Republicans -- nearly the entire caucus -- signed on as co-sponsors. The intention of the bill is to somehow "save American workers" by increasing the threshold for full-time employment from 30 hours per week to 40 hours. This would allow more businesses to circumvent the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The bill would also reduce the penalty for failing to comply with the law.
When introducing the bill, Young said:
"Repealing this redefinition [of 'full time employment'] and restoring it to the historical norm ensures *this bill not only protects working poor and middle class employees*, it also ensures that laws governing employment are consistent."
Not so fast. Here comes the CBO.
It turns out the Save American Workers Act... won't. In fact, the CBO in conjunction with the Joint Committee on Taxation reported that one million workers would lose their work-based insurance policies. Half would be forced into either an ACA plan, Medicaid or SCHIP. The other half wouldn't get any health insurance at all.
It gets worse. Due to the provision loosening the penalty for not complying with the law, the deficit would go up by $74 billion.
That's right, 208 members of the House (the co-sponsors included seven Democrats) signed onto a bill that not only takes away the healthcare plans of a million Americans, but it also increases the deficit by tens of billions of dollars. Meanwhile, the bill has already passed through Ways & Means and is headed to a floor vote next week where surely more members will wrap their loving arms around a bill that amounts to legislative blowback against the GOP.
Everything the Republicans say and do about the ACA is a disaster. Recently, as we covered here, the GOP's long-standing description of Obamacare as a "job-killing healthcare law" was crushed when the CBO's director, Doug Elmendorf, testified that indeed the law will create jobs. And this was in response to the flagrantly obvious Republican trick to spin another CBO report on the law to seem as if 2.5 million Americans would be fired because of Obamacare.
Has anything the Republicans have said about the law been true?
--There are no death panels.
--The law doesn't cut Medicare benefits.
--It doesn't add to the deficit (it reduces it by $109 billion over ten years).
--It's not a government takeover.
--It does not cover abortions or emergency contraceptives that prevent implantation.
--It's not unconstitutional.
--There won't be any IRS goon squads breaking down your door.
--Medical care will not be rationed.
--Most of the provisions in the law are extremely popular, even among Republican voters.
--It's not socialized medicine and most of it, including the mandate, was invented by Republicans in the first place.
--Congress is not "exempt" from Obamacare.
--The law will create jobs, not "kill" 2.5 million of them.
--And, yes, this ridiculous GOP House bill intended to "save workers" will add to the deficit and strip a million workers of their insurance.
Seeing all of the wrongness in one place is actually kind of breathtaking. They haven't been right about anything when it comes to the ACA. Not a damn thing.
Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to David Stander. Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.
↧
↧
Insurance Companies As We Know Them Are About To Die
Americans hate health insurance companies.
Reported by Huffington Post 3 hours ago.
↧
One In Three Voters Say ObamaCare Has Had a Negative Impact On Them
Obama's signature achievement is working beautifully, Harry Reid will tell you. But unfortunately, there are spurious lies being spread by "shadowy groups" funded by the "unAmerican" Koch brothers "to grab headlines" such as this one.
The latest bad news about O-Care comes to us not via the Koch brothers but via Rasmussen:
One-in-three U.S. voters now says his or her health insurance coverage has changed as a result of Obamacare, and the same number say the new national health care law had a negative personal impact on them.
Forty percent (40%) of Likely U.S. Voters have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of the health care law, while 56% regard it unfavorably, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. This includes 16% who view the law Very Favorably and 41% who have a Very Unfavorable opinion of it.
Favorable opinions of the law are down from 45% two weeks ago and are the lowest measured since late December. Unfavorables hit an all-time high of 58% in mid-November. Favorables fell to a record low of 36% in that same survey.
One victim of ObamaCare is well known to those of us who read conservative blogs.
Jim Hoft aka Gateway Pundit has been battling a life-threatening illness for the better part of a year, now. He found out in December that thanks to ObamaCare, his insurance plan was being canceled. With his life hanging in the balance, he had to hustle to find a replacement.
My insurance ran out in February. Last week I signed up for a different health insurance plan, with a different insurance company. Thankfully, I had the money to pay the high premium. But, unfortunately, I will not be covered until April. The agent told me it will take weeks to process my application. He told me the lag time was due to Obamacare. So in March I will not have health insurance.
He's asking readers to pray for him and for other Americans who are suffering because of ObamaCare.
As for Harry Reid - why aren't Republicans demanding that he resign as the Senate Majority Leader? Greta Van Susteren (not even a Republican) took the lead in making that demand on her show, last Friday. As far as I know, Republicans haven't asked for anything more than a simple apology.
We all know Democrats would be circling like sharks for the kill and so would their allies in the media if a Republican leader had said anything nearly as offensive as what the Senate Majority Leader said.
When a political leader calls a third of the American people liars, more than an apology is in order. Reid is no longer fit for that office. It's time for Dingy Harry to step down.
Reported by Breitbart 2 hours ago.
The latest bad news about O-Care comes to us not via the Koch brothers but via Rasmussen:
One-in-three U.S. voters now says his or her health insurance coverage has changed as a result of Obamacare, and the same number say the new national health care law had a negative personal impact on them.
Forty percent (40%) of Likely U.S. Voters have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of the health care law, while 56% regard it unfavorably, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. This includes 16% who view the law Very Favorably and 41% who have a Very Unfavorable opinion of it.
Favorable opinions of the law are down from 45% two weeks ago and are the lowest measured since late December. Unfavorables hit an all-time high of 58% in mid-November. Favorables fell to a record low of 36% in that same survey.
One victim of ObamaCare is well known to those of us who read conservative blogs.
Jim Hoft aka Gateway Pundit has been battling a life-threatening illness for the better part of a year, now. He found out in December that thanks to ObamaCare, his insurance plan was being canceled. With his life hanging in the balance, he had to hustle to find a replacement.
My insurance ran out in February. Last week I signed up for a different health insurance plan, with a different insurance company. Thankfully, I had the money to pay the high premium. But, unfortunately, I will not be covered until April. The agent told me it will take weeks to process my application. He told me the lag time was due to Obamacare. So in March I will not have health insurance.
He's asking readers to pray for him and for other Americans who are suffering because of ObamaCare.
As for Harry Reid - why aren't Republicans demanding that he resign as the Senate Majority Leader? Greta Van Susteren (not even a Republican) took the lead in making that demand on her show, last Friday. As far as I know, Republicans haven't asked for anything more than a simple apology.
We all know Democrats would be circling like sharks for the kill and so would their allies in the media if a Republican leader had said anything nearly as offensive as what the Senate Majority Leader said.
When a political leader calls a third of the American people liars, more than an apology is in order. Reid is no longer fit for that office. It's time for Dingy Harry to step down.
Reported by Breitbart 2 hours ago.
↧
Jury acquits Iowa pharmacist of fraud charges
Jurors acquitted an Iowa pharmacist of health care fraud Monday, rejecting allegations that he fraudulently billed Iowa's largest health insurance company for life-saving drugs sent to hemophilia patients.
Reported by Miami Herald 2 hours ago.
↧
Deputy Sheriff's Foundation Honors Scripps CEO Chris Van Gorder
Community leadership, public service recognized at 'Support and Remember' gala.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) March 03, 2014
The San Diego County Deputy Sheriff’s Foundation recently honored Scripps Health President and CEO Chris Van Gorder during the group’s first annual Support and Remember fundraising gala held at the Del Mar Country Club.
Van Gorder was the guest of honor at the Feb. 28 event, which recognized his outstanding leadership in the community as well as his benevolence and service following natural disasters and other catastrophes, such as Hurricane Katrina and the earthquake in Haiti.
“Chris is not only a terrific leader, but he has shown an incredible amount of compassion to our critically injured deputies and to the community through his dedication to public service and his humanitarian efforts worldwide,” said foundation President Matt Clay, who presented a special plaque to Van Gorder during the gala.
The Deputy Sheriff’s Foundation was created in 2004 as the non-profit charitable foundation associate with the Deputy Sheriff’s Association of San Diego County to provide support to widows and children of law enforcement personnel who die in the line of duty. The foundation now provides sickness and distress assistance to San Diego County Sheriff’s deputies and their families who are in need of help, have medical needs that are not completely covered by health insurance, or have other emergencies.
“It was humbling to be recognized by an organization that supports law enforcement personnel and their families when they are most in need of our help,” Van Gorder said.
Prior to his career in health care, Van Gorder worked as a police officer and was seriously injured in 1978 while responding to a domestic disturbance and was hospitalized off and on for almost a year.
“That experience is a big reason why I support the Deputy Sheriff’s Foundation’s effort to raise money and awareness for injured deputies and police officers, and for the trauma their families experience,” he said. “All too often we read about an incident and soon forget about it. But in many cases, the injured officers or deputies live the rest of their lives with the injuries and trauma they sustained serving the public.
“And of course, some sadly give their lives in the line of duty, and we need to do all we can to support their surviving families,” he said.
Van Gorder serves as a reserve commander in the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Search and Rescue Unit, where he is the Search and Rescue commander. He is also a licensed emergency medical technician and instructor for the American Red Cross.
In 2012, he was named Volunteer of the Year by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department for his Search and Rescue service.
As the leader of Scripps since 2000, Van Gorder has been instrumental in positioning the not-for-profit health system among the nation’s foremost health care institutions.
ABOUT SCRIPPS HEALTH
Founded in 1924 by philanthropist Ellen Browning Scripps, Scripps Health is a nonprofit integrated health system based in San Diego, Calif. Scripps treats a half-million patients annually through the dedication of 2,600 affiliated physicians and 13,500 employees among its five acute-care hospital campuses, hospice and home health care services, and an ambulatory care network of physician offices and 26 outpatient centers and clinics.
Recognized as a leader in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, Scripps is also at the forefront of clinical research, genomic medicine, wireless health care and graduate medical education. With three highly respected graduate medical education programs, Scripps is a longstanding member of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Truven Health Analytics (formerly Thomson Reuters) has named Scripps one of the top five large health systems in the nation. Scripps is nationally recognized in six specialties by U.S. News & World Report, which places Scripps cardiovascular program among the top 20 in the country. Scripps has been consistently recognized by Fortune, Working Mother magazine and AARP as one of the best places in the nation to work. More information can be found at http://www.scripps.org. Reported by PRWeb 50 minutes ago.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) March 03, 2014
The San Diego County Deputy Sheriff’s Foundation recently honored Scripps Health President and CEO Chris Van Gorder during the group’s first annual Support and Remember fundraising gala held at the Del Mar Country Club.
Van Gorder was the guest of honor at the Feb. 28 event, which recognized his outstanding leadership in the community as well as his benevolence and service following natural disasters and other catastrophes, such as Hurricane Katrina and the earthquake in Haiti.
“Chris is not only a terrific leader, but he has shown an incredible amount of compassion to our critically injured deputies and to the community through his dedication to public service and his humanitarian efforts worldwide,” said foundation President Matt Clay, who presented a special plaque to Van Gorder during the gala.
The Deputy Sheriff’s Foundation was created in 2004 as the non-profit charitable foundation associate with the Deputy Sheriff’s Association of San Diego County to provide support to widows and children of law enforcement personnel who die in the line of duty. The foundation now provides sickness and distress assistance to San Diego County Sheriff’s deputies and their families who are in need of help, have medical needs that are not completely covered by health insurance, or have other emergencies.
“It was humbling to be recognized by an organization that supports law enforcement personnel and their families when they are most in need of our help,” Van Gorder said.
Prior to his career in health care, Van Gorder worked as a police officer and was seriously injured in 1978 while responding to a domestic disturbance and was hospitalized off and on for almost a year.
“That experience is a big reason why I support the Deputy Sheriff’s Foundation’s effort to raise money and awareness for injured deputies and police officers, and for the trauma their families experience,” he said. “All too often we read about an incident and soon forget about it. But in many cases, the injured officers or deputies live the rest of their lives with the injuries and trauma they sustained serving the public.
“And of course, some sadly give their lives in the line of duty, and we need to do all we can to support their surviving families,” he said.
Van Gorder serves as a reserve commander in the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Search and Rescue Unit, where he is the Search and Rescue commander. He is also a licensed emergency medical technician and instructor for the American Red Cross.
In 2012, he was named Volunteer of the Year by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department for his Search and Rescue service.
As the leader of Scripps since 2000, Van Gorder has been instrumental in positioning the not-for-profit health system among the nation’s foremost health care institutions.
ABOUT SCRIPPS HEALTH
Founded in 1924 by philanthropist Ellen Browning Scripps, Scripps Health is a nonprofit integrated health system based in San Diego, Calif. Scripps treats a half-million patients annually through the dedication of 2,600 affiliated physicians and 13,500 employees among its five acute-care hospital campuses, hospice and home health care services, and an ambulatory care network of physician offices and 26 outpatient centers and clinics.
Recognized as a leader in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, Scripps is also at the forefront of clinical research, genomic medicine, wireless health care and graduate medical education. With three highly respected graduate medical education programs, Scripps is a longstanding member of the Association of American Medical Colleges. Truven Health Analytics (formerly Thomson Reuters) has named Scripps one of the top five large health systems in the nation. Scripps is nationally recognized in six specialties by U.S. News & World Report, which places Scripps cardiovascular program among the top 20 in the country. Scripps has been consistently recognized by Fortune, Working Mother magazine and AARP as one of the best places in the nation to work. More information can be found at http://www.scripps.org. Reported by PRWeb 50 minutes ago.
↧
↧
Cover Oregon, Oracle enter transition agreement
Oregon's troubled health insurance exchange says it will pay its main technology contractor $44 million of the nearly $70 million it was withholding in payments, in return for Oracle to continue working with the state during a transition period.
Reported by Miami Herald 39 minutes ago.
↧
Zane Benefits Publishes New Information on Law Firms Adopting Individual Health Insurance
Law Firms Are Quick to See the Value of Individual Insurance and Defined Contribution
Park City, Utah (PRWEB) March 03, 2014
Today, Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, published new information on law firms adopting individual health insurance.
According to Zane Benefits’ website, law firms are quick to see the value of individual health insurance and have been early adopters of "pure" defined contribution healthcare.
Law firms are focused on controlling costs. With defined contribution healthcare, the law firm fixes their costs because they decide how much to contribute. The firm is not tied to minimum contribution requirements, which can rise unpredictably year to year.
According to Zane Benefits’ website, defined contribution healthcare also allows law firms to provide a health benefits program in less than 5 minute per month. Administering the health benefits program becomes a payroll function and requires minimal involvement from the firm. There are no annual renewals, and employees maintain the direct relationship with the insurance company. Many small law firms are operationally lean, focused on spending the most time with clients. Defined contribution aligns with these lean goals.
Law firms have been quick to adopt defined contribution healthcare because they understand the compliance reasons for using a formal defined contribution plan (such as a Section 105 plan) and the importance of complying with ACA, ERISA, HIPAA, and IRS.
Click here to read the full article.
--
About Zane Benefits
Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, was founded in 2006 to revolutionize the way employers provide employee health benefits in America. We empower employees to take control over their own healthcare, while helping employers recruit and retain the best talent. Our online solutions allow small and medium-sized businesses to successfully transition to a health benefits program that creates happier employees, reduces costs and frees up more time to serve their customers. For more information about ZaneHealth, visit http://www.zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 19 minutes ago.
Park City, Utah (PRWEB) March 03, 2014
Today, Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, published new information on law firms adopting individual health insurance.
According to Zane Benefits’ website, law firms are quick to see the value of individual health insurance and have been early adopters of "pure" defined contribution healthcare.
Law firms are focused on controlling costs. With defined contribution healthcare, the law firm fixes their costs because they decide how much to contribute. The firm is not tied to minimum contribution requirements, which can rise unpredictably year to year.
According to Zane Benefits’ website, defined contribution healthcare also allows law firms to provide a health benefits program in less than 5 minute per month. Administering the health benefits program becomes a payroll function and requires minimal involvement from the firm. There are no annual renewals, and employees maintain the direct relationship with the insurance company. Many small law firms are operationally lean, focused on spending the most time with clients. Defined contribution aligns with these lean goals.
Law firms have been quick to adopt defined contribution healthcare because they understand the compliance reasons for using a formal defined contribution plan (such as a Section 105 plan) and the importance of complying with ACA, ERISA, HIPAA, and IRS.
Click here to read the full article.
--
About Zane Benefits
Zane Benefits, the #1 Online Health Benefits Solution, was founded in 2006 to revolutionize the way employers provide employee health benefits in America. We empower employees to take control over their own healthcare, while helping employers recruit and retain the best talent. Our online solutions allow small and medium-sized businesses to successfully transition to a health benefits program that creates happier employees, reduces costs and frees up more time to serve their customers. For more information about ZaneHealth, visit http://www.zanebenefits.com. Reported by PRWeb 19 minutes ago.
↧
Need insurance help? Prepare to wait.
The number of Washington residents insured through the state's health insurance exchange keeps rising, but those struggling with their applications still face lengthy waits for help.
Reported by Seattle Times 9 minutes ago.
↧
Car Insurance Premiums: How to Get the Best Coverage for Your Car
Who doesn’t want to insure their car against any sort of vandalism, accident or theft? I can see no raised hands so far! Car insurance, like health insurance and home insurance has its ABCs which you...
Reported by I4U News 14 hours ago.
↧
↧
The Importance of Having Health and Life Insurance for Seniors
Healthandlifeinsurancequote.com (http://healthandlifeinsurancequote.com/) announces a new blog, “Health And Life Insurance: Two Important Policies”.
(PRWEB) March 04, 2014
Healthandlifeinsurancequote.com has released a blog explaining the importance of having health and life insurance for seniors!
Health and life insurance are two important policies every breadwinner should have. These two plans provide essential financial security for the whole family. Health insurance covers medical costs, which are to be expected in the case of someone who is old, and life insurance pays a death benefit in case the insured loses his or her life.
Life insurance pays insurance money to the policy’s beneficiaries. The beneficiaries are named directly by the insured. They will receive the insurance proceedings tax-free and they can use the money to support themselves and cover the insured's funeral costs and other last expenses. Life insurance is beneficial for other family members, but some plans can build cash value and provide financial income.
Health insurance is an important policy as it covers medical expenses. Health insurance plans can be bought through government programs or clients can buy an individual policy. Individual policies offer better coverage and more options for receiving health care. By comparing quotes, clients can find affordable health and life insurance plans.
Healthandlifeinsurancequote.com is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. It is unique in that this website does not simply stick to one kind of insurance carrier, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. This way, clients have offers from multiple carriers all in one place, this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc.
For more information, please visit http://healthandlifeinsurancequote.com/. Reported by PRWeb 14 hours ago.
(PRWEB) March 04, 2014
Healthandlifeinsurancequote.com has released a blog explaining the importance of having health and life insurance for seniors!
Health and life insurance are two important policies every breadwinner should have. These two plans provide essential financial security for the whole family. Health insurance covers medical costs, which are to be expected in the case of someone who is old, and life insurance pays a death benefit in case the insured loses his or her life.
Life insurance pays insurance money to the policy’s beneficiaries. The beneficiaries are named directly by the insured. They will receive the insurance proceedings tax-free and they can use the money to support themselves and cover the insured's funeral costs and other last expenses. Life insurance is beneficial for other family members, but some plans can build cash value and provide financial income.
Health insurance is an important policy as it covers medical expenses. Health insurance plans can be bought through government programs or clients can buy an individual policy. Individual policies offer better coverage and more options for receiving health care. By comparing quotes, clients can find affordable health and life insurance plans.
Healthandlifeinsurancequote.com is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. It is unique in that this website does not simply stick to one kind of insurance carrier, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. This way, clients have offers from multiple carriers all in one place, this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc.
For more information, please visit http://healthandlifeinsurancequote.com/. Reported by PRWeb 14 hours ago.
↧
IHC Specialty Benefits and healthedeals.com Partner with IPA Direct to Assist in Purchase of Health Insurance Plans
Using healthedeals.com’s cutting-edge technology and award-winning design, insurance advisors at IPA Direct are now able to explain differences between federal and private exchange plans and offer affordable alternatives to Obamacare for those shopping for health insurance.
Minneapolis, MN (PRWEB) March 04, 2014
IHC Specialty Benefits, Inc. (through healthedeals.com) is pleased to announce its partnership with IPA Direct, LLC, a professional insurance advisory company based in Orlando, Fl., which will enable customers shopping for health insurance to call the site’s toll-free number and immediately speak with a licensed insurance advisor.
Healthedeals.com offers an assortment of major-medical plans compliant with the Affordable Care Act from major carriers plus temporary health insurance, hospital indemnity insurance and bundled insurance products, to name just a few. Advisors at IPA Direct can answer questions about health insurance products on healthedeals.com and guide customers through the quote and application process. Using the latest technology, IPA Direct provides an advisor-to-consumer computer-screen-sharing experience. The simultaneous visual and verbal dialogue with an insurance advisor should equip customers with a better understanding of the insurance products they are purchasing.
“Millions of Americans are looking for a health insurance plan before open enrollment on the federal and state exchanges closes March 31. Understanding all of the various health insurance options available in the marketplace can be overwhelming. We recognized the need for additional assistance, and added advisors to the healthedeals.com shopping model to help individuals and families get the best health products that fit their lifestyle and budget,” said Brian Dow, Chief Operating Officer of IHC Specialty Benefits.
“Healthedeals.com specializes in both compliant, private exchange- Obamacare insurance plans as well as health insurance alternatives for individuals who either can’t afford exchange plans or don’t want to enroll in an Obamacare plan, despite the potential individual mandate penalty. Visitors can apply for health coverage on their own or call one of our licensed advisors to explain the process along the way, which is an invaluable asset to many individuals,” said Dow.
Advisors are available at 888-839-7679 Monday-Thursday, 9:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. (E.S.T.), Friday, 9:00-5:00 p.m. (E.S.T.), and Saturday 9:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. (E.S.T.). Spanish-speaking advisors are also available. Visit healthedeals.com for more information about finding affordable health insurance coverage.
About healthedeals.com and IHC Specialty Benefits
Healthedeals.com is a website offered by IHC Specialty Benefits, Inc., a member of The IHC Group. IHC Specialty Benefits is a customer-driven company with a desire to provide important benefits to customers and to meet their needs in an innovative, hassle-free manner.
About The IHC Group
The IHC Group is an organization of insurance carriers and marketing and administrative affiliates that has been providing life, health, disability, medical stop-loss and specialty insurance solutions to groups and individuals for over 30 years. Members of The IHC Group include Independence Holding Company, American Independence Corp., Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, Madison National Life Insurance Company, Inc. and Independence American Insurance Company. Each insurance carrier in The IHC Group has a financial strength rating of A- (Excellent) from A.M. Best Company, Inc., a widely recognized rating agency that rates insurance companies on their relative financial strength and ability to meet policyholder obligations. (An A++ rating from A.M. Best is its highest rating.) Collectively, the companies in The IHC Group provide insurance coverage to more than one million individuals and groups. For more information about The IHC Group, visit http://www.ihcgroup.com. Reported by PRWeb 14 hours ago.
Minneapolis, MN (PRWEB) March 04, 2014
IHC Specialty Benefits, Inc. (through healthedeals.com) is pleased to announce its partnership with IPA Direct, LLC, a professional insurance advisory company based in Orlando, Fl., which will enable customers shopping for health insurance to call the site’s toll-free number and immediately speak with a licensed insurance advisor.
Healthedeals.com offers an assortment of major-medical plans compliant with the Affordable Care Act from major carriers plus temporary health insurance, hospital indemnity insurance and bundled insurance products, to name just a few. Advisors at IPA Direct can answer questions about health insurance products on healthedeals.com and guide customers through the quote and application process. Using the latest technology, IPA Direct provides an advisor-to-consumer computer-screen-sharing experience. The simultaneous visual and verbal dialogue with an insurance advisor should equip customers with a better understanding of the insurance products they are purchasing.
“Millions of Americans are looking for a health insurance plan before open enrollment on the federal and state exchanges closes March 31. Understanding all of the various health insurance options available in the marketplace can be overwhelming. We recognized the need for additional assistance, and added advisors to the healthedeals.com shopping model to help individuals and families get the best health products that fit their lifestyle and budget,” said Brian Dow, Chief Operating Officer of IHC Specialty Benefits.
“Healthedeals.com specializes in both compliant, private exchange- Obamacare insurance plans as well as health insurance alternatives for individuals who either can’t afford exchange plans or don’t want to enroll in an Obamacare plan, despite the potential individual mandate penalty. Visitors can apply for health coverage on their own or call one of our licensed advisors to explain the process along the way, which is an invaluable asset to many individuals,” said Dow.
Advisors are available at 888-839-7679 Monday-Thursday, 9:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. (E.S.T.), Friday, 9:00-5:00 p.m. (E.S.T.), and Saturday 9:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. (E.S.T.). Spanish-speaking advisors are also available. Visit healthedeals.com for more information about finding affordable health insurance coverage.
About healthedeals.com and IHC Specialty Benefits
Healthedeals.com is a website offered by IHC Specialty Benefits, Inc., a member of The IHC Group. IHC Specialty Benefits is a customer-driven company with a desire to provide important benefits to customers and to meet their needs in an innovative, hassle-free manner.
About The IHC Group
The IHC Group is an organization of insurance carriers and marketing and administrative affiliates that has been providing life, health, disability, medical stop-loss and specialty insurance solutions to groups and individuals for over 30 years. Members of The IHC Group include Independence Holding Company, American Independence Corp., Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, Madison National Life Insurance Company, Inc. and Independence American Insurance Company. Each insurance carrier in The IHC Group has a financial strength rating of A- (Excellent) from A.M. Best Company, Inc., a widely recognized rating agency that rates insurance companies on their relative financial strength and ability to meet policyholder obligations. (An A++ rating from A.M. Best is its highest rating.) Collectively, the companies in The IHC Group provide insurance coverage to more than one million individuals and groups. For more information about The IHC Group, visit http://www.ihcgroup.com. Reported by PRWeb 14 hours ago.
↧
UnitedHealthcare Community Plan Expands Service Area; Now Available in 38 New York Counties
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--UnitedHealthcare Community Plan has expanded its service area to include four additional New York State counties in which it offers the New York State government-sponsored health insurance programs.
Reported by Business Wire 14 hours ago.
↧