Jump to content


Obamacare & Healthcare in America (was Tales of People Screwed by...)


3595 replies to this topic

#3581 indy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9848 posts

Posted 21 December 2020 - 01:09 PM

Wow, I did not see this coming.

Quote

After years of being stymied by well-funded interests, Congress has agreed to ban one of the most costly and exasperating practices in medicine: surprise medical bills.

Surprise bills happen when an out-of-network provider is unexpectedly involved in a patient’s care. Patients go to a hospital that accepts their insurance, for example, but get treated there by an emergency room physician who doesn’t. Such doctors often bill those patients for large fees, far higher than what health plans typically pay.

Language included in the $900 billion spending deal reached Sunday night and headed for final passage on Monday will make those bills illegal. Instead of charging patients, health providers will now have to work with insurers to settle on a fair price. The new changes will take effect in 2022, and will apply to doctors, hospitals and air ambulances, though not ground ambulances.

https://www.nytimes....ngress-ban.html

#3582 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39568 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 21 December 2020 - 01:30 PM

View Postindy, on 21 December 2020 - 01:09 PM, said:

Wow, I did not see this coming.
https://www.nytimes....ngress-ban.html

This makes me want to vomit.

Quote

A survey published Friday by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 80 percent of adults want the practice banned. More than a dozen states, including Texas and California, have passed bans of their own on surprise billing.

Even so, the issue struggled to move through Congress as each policy proposal faced an outcry from some faction of the health care industry.

“There were a lot of things working in the legislation’s favor — it’s a relatively targeted problem, it resonates very well with voters, and it’s not a hyperpartisan issue among voters or Congress — and it was still tough,” said Benedic Ippolito, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, who helped explain the issue to lawmakers early in the process. “It has almost everything going for it, and yet it was still this complete slog.”

Hospitals and doctors, who tend to benefit from the current system, fought to defeat solutions that would lower their pay. Insurance companies and large employer groups, on the other hand, have wanted a stronger ability to negotiate lower payments to the types of medical providers who can currently send patients surprise bills.

Legislation nearly passed last December, but was scuttled at the 11th hour after health providers lobbied aggressively against the deal. Private-equity firms, which own many of the medical providers that deliver surprise bills, poured tens of millions into advertisements opposing the plan. Committee chairs squabbled over jurisdictional issues and postponed the issue.

This year, many of the same legislators behind last year’s failed effort tried again, softening several provisions that had been most objectionable to influential doctor and hospital lobbies. The current version will probably not do as much to lower health care spending as the previous version, but will still protect patients.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#3583 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39568 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 04 January 2021 - 04:44 PM

The project by industry giants Amazon, Berkshire-Hathaway, and JP Morgan to revolutionize healthcare in America just shut down after 3 years. Some things really are too big to be handled by private industry and require the power of government.

Quote

Haven, the joint venture formed by three of America’s most powerful companies to lower costs and improve outcomes in health care, is disbanding after three years, CNBC has learned exclusively.

The company began informing employees Monday that it will shut down by the end of next month, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.

Many of the Boston-based firm’s 57 workers are expected to be placed at Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway or JPMorgan Chase as the firms each individually push forward in their efforts, and the three companies are still expected to collaborate informally on health-care projects, the people said.

The announcement three years ago that the CEOs of Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase had teamed up to tackle one of the biggest problems facing corporate America – high and rising costs for employee health care – sent shock waves throughout the world of medicine. Shares of health-care companies tumbled on fears about how the combined might of leaders in technology and finance could wring costs out of the system.

The move to shutter Haven may be a sign of how difficult it is to radically improve American health care, a complicated and entrenched system of doctors, insurers, drugmakers and middlemen that costs the country $3.5 trillion every year. Last year, Berkshire CEO Warren Buffett seemed to indicate as much, saying that were was no guarantee that Haven would succeed in improving health care.

One key issue facing Haven was that while the firm came up with ideas, each of the three founding companies executed their own projects separately with their own employees, obviating the need for the joint venture to begin with, according to the people, who declined to be identified speaking about the matter.

Coming just three years after the initial rush of fanfare about the possibilities for what Haven could accomplish, its closure is a disappointment to some. But insiders claim that it will allow the founding companies to implement ideas from the project on their own, tailoring it the specific needs of their employees, who are mostly concentrated in different cities.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#3584 andydp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5408 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY near Albany

Posted 25 January 2021 - 12:12 PM

Can someone find a "sane" article explaining what the executive order placing a freeze on Trump Era insulin and epi pen costs that Pres Biden signed is all about ?

Plenty of scathing denuciations, but none give us a "balanced" background
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Rev Martin Luther King Jr.

Obamacare took my guns away and put me in a FEMA reeducation camp
Anonymous

If you've got public schools paid for by taxpayers, you're in a socialist nation. If you have public roads paid for by taxpayers, socialist nation. If you've got public defense (police, fire, military, coast guard) paid for by tax dollars, socialist nation. If you're in a nation that has nationalized or localized delivery of services that are not paid for by users alone, you're in a socialist nation- the only question is how socialist. As I see it, we pay the military pay to protect the shipping lanes for our fuel needs which makes us very socialist. In a capitalist nation, the people supplying the oil would pay for their own defense force.
DC Coronata

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

Margaret Thatcher


(Select anyone who gets blind loyalty from followers/voters) "...is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."(Manchurian candidate)



"I can't go out because of the virus" sounds whiny and boring. I'm going with: "I've sworn an oath of solitude until the pestilence is purged from the lands." because it sounds more valiant and heroic. As a bonus, people might think you're carrying a sword.

FB posting


Its theorized if you put enough monkeys together with typewriters, eventually they'll write Shakespeare. But first, they write Trump speeches.

FB Posting



Calumny is only the noise of madmen. — Diogenes


When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. Marcus Tullius Cicero


What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

Donald Trump

"... I will tell you that the future of this country has never been better."
Pres Donald J Trump, Joint Base Andrews 1/20/21


I get it. They had a guy ratf**k the post office. They filled the courts with hacks. They spent a ton of money. They filed so many lawsuits. They even started a riot ! It’s so unfair that they went to all that trouble and still lost. Anonymous

#3585 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39568 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 25 January 2021 - 12:21 PM

View Postandydp, on 25 January 2021 - 12:12 PM, said:

Can someone find a "sane" article explaining what the executive order placing a freeze on Trump Era insulin and epi pen costs that Pres Biden signed is all about ?

Plenty of scathing denuciations, but none give us a "balanced" background

Per Bloomberg Law the Biden administration is looking at all of the previous administration healthcare policies to see if they are fair and if they could withstand legal challenges. Looking at how many failures Trump and his incompetent administration had in court because they refused to grasp actual United States law it sounds prudent. If this rule was doomed to die in court because Trump f***ed up the implementation it would be better to do it correctly right out of the gate. It also looks like it might have been classic Trump, great for a headline but didn't actually accomplish anything.

Quote

The HHS Thursday froze the former Trump administration’s December drug policy that requires community health centers to pass on all their insulin and epinephrine discount savings to patients.

Centers that don’t pass on the savings wouldn’t qualify for federal grants. The rule, which was finalized in late December, is delayed until March 22, the Department of Health and Human Services said in a Federal Register post.

This freeze is part of the Biden administration’s large-scale effort announced this week that will scrutinize the Trump administration’s health policies. If the previous administration’s policies raise “fact, law, or policy” concerns, the Biden HHS will delay them and consult with the Office of Management and Budget about other actions.

Former HHS leaders argued the drug rule would benefit patients who struggle to pay for expensive insulin and allergy medication. However, the health centers said they already pass on those savings and this rule is merely an administrative burden that paints them as entities that price-gouge patients. It’s not clear how many facilities would have to follow the rule or face funding restrictions.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#3586 andydp

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5408 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY near Albany

Posted 25 January 2021 - 12:30 PM

View PostLFC, on 25 January 2021 - 12:21 PM, said:

Per Bloomberg Law the Biden administration is looking at all of the previous administration healthcare policies to see if they are fair and if they could withstand legal challenges.

Thank you.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Rev Martin Luther King Jr.

Obamacare took my guns away and put me in a FEMA reeducation camp
Anonymous

If you've got public schools paid for by taxpayers, you're in a socialist nation. If you have public roads paid for by taxpayers, socialist nation. If you've got public defense (police, fire, military, coast guard) paid for by tax dollars, socialist nation. If you're in a nation that has nationalized or localized delivery of services that are not paid for by users alone, you're in a socialist nation- the only question is how socialist. As I see it, we pay the military pay to protect the shipping lanes for our fuel needs which makes us very socialist. In a capitalist nation, the people supplying the oil would pay for their own defense force.
DC Coronata

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

Margaret Thatcher


(Select anyone who gets blind loyalty from followers/voters) "...is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."(Manchurian candidate)



"I can't go out because of the virus" sounds whiny and boring. I'm going with: "I've sworn an oath of solitude until the pestilence is purged from the lands." because it sounds more valiant and heroic. As a bonus, people might think you're carrying a sword.

FB posting


Its theorized if you put enough monkeys together with typewriters, eventually they'll write Shakespeare. But first, they write Trump speeches.

FB Posting



Calumny is only the noise of madmen. — Diogenes


When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff. Marcus Tullius Cicero


What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.

Donald Trump

"... I will tell you that the future of this country has never been better."
Pres Donald J Trump, Joint Base Andrews 1/20/21


I get it. They had a guy ratf**k the post office. They filled the courts with hacks. They spent a ton of money. They filed so many lawsuits. They even started a riot ! It’s so unfair that they went to all that trouble and still lost. Anonymous

#3587 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39568 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 29 January 2021 - 03:18 PM

Joe is helping get people covered by Obamacare. I wonder how this compares to Trump's beautiful healthcare plan.

Quote

Eight days into his administration, President Joe Biden took a small step to expand health coverage during the Covid-19 pandemic — one that Donald Trump refused to take last year.

In an executive order Biden is signing Thursday, the president directs the US Department of Health and Human Services to open a special enrollment period on HealthCare.gov, allowing Americans to sign up for a new health insurance plan subsidized by the federal government. From February 15 to May 15, people who are uninsured can log on to the federal website and choose a health plan. (HealthCare.gov serves most states but not all; Biden officials said they expected the states that run their own insurance marketplaces to also open up enrollment.)

“These actions demonstrate a strong commitment by the Biden-Harris Administration to protect and build on the Affordable Care Act, meet the health care needs created by the pandemic, reduce health care costs, protect access to reproductive health care, and make our health care system easier to navigate and more equitable,” the White House said in a statement announcing the order.

Health insurance companies and Democrats in Congress had urged Trump to allow a special enrollment period last spring, when the pandemic was worsening. But the previous administration ultimately decided against it.

So Biden’s order signals a shift in the federal government’s willingness to use the Affordable Care Act during an emergency. But exactly how many people will be helped by this opportunity to buy new health insurance as a result is more of an open question.

Biden administration officials did not have a specific projection. The normal enrollment period just ended in mid-December. Anybody who loses their job or has a child is already eligible to enroll after one of those major life changes. It’s fair to ask who Biden’s special enrollment period is supposed to be for.

The new administration seems to have one specific target in mind: Americans who are eligible for federal assistance to buy coverage through the ACA but never learned about their options. That could represent some of the several million people who have lost their health insurance during the Covid-19 pandemic. It could also include some of the 30 million or so people who were already uninsured before the current economic crisis.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#3588 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39568 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 01 February 2021 - 05:15 PM

Here's a view that Biden can use anti-trust laws to help reduce overall medical costs in the U.S.

Quote

Health care monopolies have helped make America’s medical costs the highest in the world. Incoming US Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra faced that problem head on when he was California’s attorney general.

In that role, Becerra oversaw one of the largest health care antitrust settlements in US history, targeting a San Francisco hospital system that had bought up its competitors and allegedly used manipulative contracting practices to gobble up more and more health care business in the Bay Area.

This consolidation is happening all over America. Hospitals have been merging with one another and buying up physician practices; health insurers have been consolidating as well. The strong consensus of researchers is that this market consolidation leads to higher prices and lower quality for US patients. Fighting it is one way President Joe Biden could deliver on his promise to lower health care costs and improve access for Americans.

Antitrust enforcement is not the sexy version of health care reform. It’s certainly not Medicare-for-all, which would put all Americans on one government health insurance plan, then use the enormous leverage such a plan would have to set lower prices and eliminate cost-sharing for patients. It’s not even the public option, as proposed by Biden during his campaign, which would introduce a cheaper government health plan to compete with private insurers.

But it can help prevent providers from inflating the prices they charge health insurers, which inevitably pass along those costs to patients in the form of higher premiums.

It also might be more feasible. A 50-50 Senate will limit how ambitious Biden’s legislative agenda can be. But antitrust action can be undertaken without Congress, though Congress could do more to support it. And while Becerra himself wouldn’t be able to lead the charge, there are steps his agency could take to reduce the incentives for health care providers to consolidate. The Federal Trade Commission could be emboldened to act more aggressively to intervene if new health care mergers threaten competition.

Trust-busting is not a cure for all the ills that afflict American health care. One expert compared it to a game of whack-a-mole: if you’ve cracked down on one monopoly, then you’ve cracked down on one monopoly. Another one is bound to pop up somewhere else.

But it’s better than nothing.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#3589 pnwguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2759 posts
  • LocationPortlandia

Posted 08 February 2021 - 05:40 PM

I'm not a Bernie fan and think it will take a huge groundswell to b*tch slap Americans to stop believing our medical delivery system is superior. But this crap seems all too typical of medicine-for-profit
"All glory to the HypnoTrump, or else..."

"It all makes sense when you remind yourself that the GOP is no longer a political party but turned into an organized crime family"

"I hope to live long enough that the name Trump is reviled as much as the name Hitler or Stalin"

#3590 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39568 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 08 February 2021 - 05:44 PM

View Postpnwguy, on 08 February 2021 - 05:40 PM, said:

I'm not a Bernie fan and think it will take a huge groundswell to b*tch slap Americans to stop believing our medical delivery system is superior. But this crap seems all too typical of medicine-for-profit

There are no humans, only cash cows to be milked for every drop possible.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#3591 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39568 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 11 February 2021 - 05:01 PM

The Biden administration is dropping support of the brief filed by the Trump administration to destroy Obamacare. This move to back off of a pending brief is apparently both unusual in history and common in very recent (i.e. 4 year) history. The justification for the case is similarly historically weak.

Quote

One of former Solicitor General Noel Francisco’s final acts as the Trump administration’s top litigator was to sign a brief claiming that Obamacare should be struck down by the Supreme Court. The arguments in that brief, as well as the arguments raised by the plaintiffs in California v. Texas, are widely viewed as absurd even by conservative scholars who have, in the past, tried to convince the courts to dismantle Obamacare.

Nevertheless, this brief in a still-pending Supreme Court challenge placed President Joe Biden’s Justice Department in a difficult position. Traditionally, the solicitor general’s office is extremely reluctant to switch its positions in pending cases, even when a new administration takes over. The Bush administration did not switch its position in a single Supreme Court case that had already been briefed by President Bill Clinton’s Justice Department. And the Obama administration did not abandon any of the positions taken by the Bush administration.

This traditional practice exists for a very good reason — changing positions after a case has already been briefed tends to piss off the justices. During his tenure as solicitor general, Francisco did not adhere to the Justice Department’s ordinary practice, leading Justice Sonia Sotomayor to ask him during a 2018 oral argument “how many times this term already have you flipped positions from prior administrations?” (According to Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman, the answer to Sotomayor’s question was at least a dozen times.)

The Biden administration appears to have decided to treat Francisco’s brief in the Texas case with the same regard that Francisco held for his predecessors’ arguments. In a letter filed with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler officially informed the Court that “the United States no longer adheres to the conclusions in the previously filed brief.”

The case remains active, and the justices could still conceivably accept the arguments in the withdrawn Trump administration brief — although, as explained below, two key members of the Court’s Republican majority appear unlikely to do so.

Kneedler’s letter states that acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar is recused from the case, and Kneedler is a career Justice Department lawyer and not a political appointee. The fact that a career DOJ lawyer took the unusual step of reversing the government’s position in a pending Supreme Court case is the most recent sign that the Justice Department’s permanent staff had serious reservations about the Trump administration’s case against Obamacare.

Indeed, when the Trump Justice Department initially took the position that Obamacare should be struck down, Joel McElvain, a veteran DOJ lawyer with over two decades of experience, resigned from the department in protest.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#3592 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39568 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 11 February 2021 - 05:04 PM

Even small increases in prescription prices can increase deaths. Look at this and think about the huge leaps experienced in some drugs.

Quote

It turns out $10 can be a matter of life and death, according to a new study on how patients respond to higher health care costs.

Researchers at Harvard University and the University of California Berkeley examined what happened when Medicare beneficiaries faced an increase in their out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs. They found that a 34 percent increase (a $10.40 increase per drug) led to a significant decrease in patients filling their prescriptions — and, eventually, a 33 percent increase in mortality.

The rise in deaths resulted from people indiscriminately cutting back on medications when they had to pay more for them, including drugs for heart disease, hypertension, asthma, and diabetes.

“We find that small increases in cost cause patients to cut back on drugs with large benefits, ultimately causing their death,” the authors — Amitabh Chandra, Evan Flack, and Ziad Obermeyer — wrote. “Cutbacks are widespread, but most striking are those seen in patients with the greatest treatable health risks, in whom they are likely to be particularly destructive.”

It is difficult to come up with a study design that directly measures the effect of health insurance on health outcomes. These researchers overcame that problem by tracking the prescription benefits for people newly enrolling in Medicare when they turn 65. People with birthdays earlier in the year would be more likely to face higher out-of-pocket costs than people with birthdays later in the year, given the way Medicare’s benefits are designed. By comparing the data between the different age groups, using as a baseline an estimate of how much the patients would have been expected to spend without any cost-sharing, the researchers were able to isolate the effect of cost-sharing on the use of prescription drugs and mortality rates for patients.

This finding challenges an important assumption embedded in American health care policy. In the 1970s and ’80s, the RAND Health Insurance Experiment concluded that small copays encouraged patients to use fewer health care services without leading to worse health outcomes. That helped establish a new economic argument for insurers to ask their customers to put more “skin in the game”: it would encourage more efficient use of health care services with no downside.

But that premise presumed people would be rational. For example, if they are being asked to pay more money for prescription drugs, they would cut back on less-valuable medications first. The Harvard/Cal study didn’t detect any such rationality. When costs went up, people just stopped filling their prescriptions for statins — high-value drugs that are effective in preventing heart attacks.

The researchers explained it like this: The way patients behaved when faced with higher out-of-pocket costs would suggest that they placed very little value on their lives. They literally stopped taking high-value drugs because of the price.

“I never thought we would get a mortality effect of this size,” Chandra told me. “We never thought people would be cutting back on life-saving drugs to this degree.”

If patients can’t make good value judgments, the economic argument for cost-sharing starts to crumble, and it starts to seem like eliminating cost-sharing — increasing the likelihood patients will continue to take the medications they need to stay alive — would be a cheap way to “buy” people more health. As the researchers wrote, “improving the design of prescription drug insurance offers policy makers the opportunity to purchase large gains in health at extremely low cost per life-year.”

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#3593 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39568 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 15 February 2021 - 04:08 PM

Biden makes another repair of the damage Trump caused.

Quote

The Biden administration quietly moved to roll back the controversial Trump-era policy of Medicaid work requirements.

According to the New York Times on Friday, health officials notified states with approved work requirements that the Biden administration will withdraw the approvals. Additionally, the Biden administration removed a Trump-era online guidance document encouraging states to implement new work requirement plans.

Although President Biden signed an executive order requesting a review of the Trump-era Medicaid work requirements in the first week of his presidency, Friday’s policy changes were made made without a public announcement.

" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#3594 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39568 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 17 February 2021 - 05:48 PM

Biden's Covid-19 stimulus plan is also looking to patch some holes in the ACA. Republicans are sure to have a fit.

Quote

The Covid-19 relief package proposed by President Joe Biden and being considered by Democrats in Congress could expand health care coverage to millions of people, the most significant step in the last 10 years toward patching up some of the holes in the Affordable Care Act.

The ACA led to a historically low uninsured rate in the US — 8.6 percent in 2016 — but the number of uninsured Americans started ticking up again during the Trump administration, rising to 9.2 percent by 2019. Then millions of people lost their insurance (along with their jobs) during the coronavirus pandemic.

The Covid-19 relief plan is trying to move the rate back in the other direction. The most effective provision would be a two-year expansion of the ACA’s premium subsidies, which Americans can use to purchase private health insurance on the marketplaces the law established.

The House version of the Covid-19 relief bill would increase the size of the subsidy for those already eligible for assistance (people making between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level). It would also extend subsidies for people earning more than 400 percent of the poverty level, ensuring that nobody would pay more than 8.5 percent of their income for health coverage.

This would provide help to one of the populations left out of the ACA: the roughly 2.6 million people who make too much money to qualify for subsidies and are currently uninsured.

Based on prior estimates of such a proposal, somewhere between 4 million and 5 million people would be expected to gain coverage as a result of expanding the subsidies. The Biden administration has already opened ACA enrollment to everybody until May 15, which would give people an immediate opening to take advantage of the new benefits.

However, there is a catch: The subsidy expansion expires after two years.


It appears that the Democrats are going to play the same game that the Republicans have time and again on tax cuts. If they want to make healthcare for millions unaffordable then they can. They'll just have to explain it to voters. This is a shitty way to pass desperately needed policies and programs for real Americans but it's what the GOP has created and the Democrats have to play the game. Until they either have control of the Oval Office and the House with 60 votes in the Senate or the filibuster is killed there's really no other choice.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#3595 LFC

    Fiscal Conservative

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 39568 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania

Posted 05 March 2021 - 02:07 PM

Trump's war on letting people know about the ACA was methodical. What a f***ing child.

Quote

There was no better symbol of the Trump administration’s plans for sabotaging the Affordable Care Act than how, soon after the inauguration, its Department of Health and Human Services prioritized erasing mentions of the law on its web page.

The removals, as blatant as they were petty, quickly caught the attention of health care experts and portended a broader Trump effort to shirk its duties to implement the law, even after it became clear Congress was going to be unable to repeal it.

But the extent of the erasure effort is only just now becoming clear. New documents recently obtained by TPM give a fresh view into how sweeping and systematic this purge of ACA mentions was, and how, four years later, federal public health websites are still devoid of key references to the law.

The documents confirm long-held suspicions that the Trump administration ordered federal contractors to conduct an expansive keyword search for any place that the 2010 law was mentioned on the webpages of various HHS offices.

The search turned up hundreds of examples, and without much apparent debate, many of those mentions were ordered removed. The administration wasn’t taking a scalpel to the Affordable Care Act’s web presence to make it more reflective of Trump’s goals for reworking the law. It was pounding the law off the website with a sledgehammer.

While there were some carve-outs in the project for certain types of Obamacare references, other allusions to the ACA were scrubbed with seemingly no regard to the public health consequences of obscuring information about the law.

Providers who might be looking for regulatory information on Obamacare policies no longer see a link to the law on the HHS’ main regulations page, thanks to the 2017 removal job. Women seeking information about contraceptive care had information withheld from them about the Affordable Care Act’s coverage requirements for those preventative services.

The documents detailing the way in which mentions of the law were removed from federal websites were obtained by TPM through a 2017 Freedom of Information Act request.


Read the rest for details on how they blocked people at all levels from finding information on the law. It's sickening ... literally.
" 'Individual conscience' means that women only get contraceptives if their employers, their physicians, their pharmacists, their husbands and/or fathers, pastors, and possibly their mayors, Governors, State Secretaries of Health, Congressmen, Senators, and President all agree that in that particular case they're justifiable." --D.C. Sessions

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

"The 'Road to Serfdom' is really all right turns." --Progressive Whisperer

""The GOP ... where every accusation is also a confession." --Progressive Whisperer

#3596 pnwguy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2759 posts
  • LocationPortlandia

Posted 05 March 2021 - 04:41 PM

View PostLFC, on 05 March 2021 - 02:07 PM, said:

It's sickening ... literally.
What part of his 4 year reign of error WASN'T sickening?
"All glory to the HypnoTrump, or else..."

"It all makes sense when you remind yourself that the GOP is no longer a political party but turned into an organized crime family"

"I hope to live long enough that the name Trump is reviled as much as the name Hitler or Stalin"





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users