Search is not available for this dataset
query
stringlengths 1
13.4k
| pos
stringlengths 1
61k
| neg
stringlengths 1
63.9k
| query_lang
stringclasses 147
values | __index_level_0__
int64 0
3.11M
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
Obama Tries To Sell Health Plan To Doctors
|
President Obama warned on Monday that the escalating cost of health care is a threat to the U.S. economy, telling the American Medical Association that the whopping cost of health care helped drag down General Motors and Chrysler, and urging support for his new public insurance system to whittle the medical price tag. In a speech at the AMA's annual meeting in Chicago, the president noted that the U.S. is spending more than $2 trillion a year on health care — 50 percent more per person than the next highest-spending nation. Despite the huge expenditure, Americans' life spans are shorter than people in some countries that spend less. "The cost of our health care is a threat to our economy," Obama said. "It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time bomb for the federal budget, and it is unsustainable for the United States of America." Citing health horror stories from across the country, the president said Americans are forgoing checkups and prescriptions, small businesses are dropping or reducing coverage, and big companies are less profitable and less competitive because of the exorbitant cost of providing health care for workers. "If we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM — paying more, getting less and going broke," he said. Obama noted that without health care reform, "1 out of every 5 dollars we earn will be spent on health care within a decade. In 30 years, it will be about 1 out of every 3." More than 46 million Americans are uninsured. Obama asked doctors to support his effort to provide affordable health insurance to every American, adding that his plan would enable those already insured to keep the coverage they have if they prefer. Under Obama's proposal, every American would be able to shop for a health care plan under a Health Insurance Exchange that would allow families and individuals to choose a basic health care package. The plan includes a public option that would allow Americans a broader range of choices that is designed to keep the plans competitive. The president said the plan would make sure doctors are reimbursed in a way that is tied to patient outcomes, rather than the annual negotiations that drive Medicare rates. He also appealed to the nation's doctors to help explore ways to ensure patients' welfare without unnecessary medical tests or procedures that are often done as a hedge against lawsuits. "I need your help, doctors," he told the group, "because to most Americans, you are the health care system." The plan won't be cheap, and the money to pay for it will come from a number of sources, Obama said. He noted that the federal budget calls for putting aside $635 billion over 10 years in a health reserve fund. More than half of that will come from revenue generated by limiting tax deductions to the wealthiest Americans. Obama also said savings would come from cutting inefficiencies in the Medicare program. Although he predicted debate regarding where the cuts should be made, he said $177 billion could be saved over the next decade by ending overpayment for Medicare services by introducing competitive bidding into the Medicare Advantage program, which allows private insurance companies to offer Medicare coverage. In addition, the president said using Medicare reimbursements to reduce preventable hospital readmissions would save $25 billion over the next 10 years, and that introducing more generic versions of biologic drugs also could save billions.
|
Campaign aides told The New York Times that Mitt Romney is under pressure to "offer a major policy address" to answer voters' questions about what he would do as president. Kirk Walters thinks Romney's campaign offers few substantive policy points, but Randy Bish thinks President Obama's ideas are just as muddled.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,000 |
Farm Contractors Balk At Obamacare Requirements
|
Obamacare is putting the agricultural industry in a tizzy. Many contractors who provide farm labor and must now offer workers health insurance are complaining loudly about the cost in their already low-margin business. Some are also concerned that the forms they must file with the federal government under the Affordable Care Act will bring immigration problems to the fore. About half of the farm labor workforce in the U.S. is undocumented. "There's definitely going to be some repercussions to it," says Jesse Sandoval, a farm labor contractor based in Stockton, Calif. "I think there's going to be some things that cannot be ignored." Sandoval came to an educational conference for farm labor contractors — essentially staffing agencies for field workers — held at the San Joaquin County Agricultural Center in Stockton in the fall. Men with broad shoulders, wearing denim jackets and cowboy hats, sat in the audience, listening to lectures on a litany of laws and rules regulating their industry, including Obamacare's employer mandate. Last year, employers with 100 or more full-time employees had to offer health insurance to their workers or pay a stiff penalty. This year, employers with 50 to 99 full-time employees must comply. Sandoval has about 100 workers on his payroll. When farmers need a crew to pick cherries, pumpkins or asparagus, they call him to send the workers. He has to offer them insurance this year, and he's smarting over the price tag. At $300 a month per employee, he's looking at a $30,000 monthly bill. Sandoval says he can't absorb the hit. "The numbers aren't there," he says. "My margin is 10 percent, and I have to increase expenses 10 percent? Well, that doesn't work." So, like a lot of contractors, he's passing the bill on to the farmers, who in turn are passing the bill on to the farm workers. Under the Affordable Care Act, employees can be asked to contribute 9.5 percent of their income toward health premiums. But for farm workers who pick oranges or peaches for $10 an hour, that's still too much. Agostin Garcia of Fresno, Calif., says the two contractors he works for near Fresno, Calif., offered him insurance directly. But when he saw the price tag, he turned them both down. "For me, I'm the only one in my house who works," he says. "There's five of us in the family. It just wouldn't work. Either I pay for health insurance, or I pay the rent and utilities." Garcia says only a fraction of his co-workers have signed up for coverage. He says when farm labor contractors hand out packets explaining the coverage, the page where workers reject it is right on top. "I think they do it intentionally," Garcia says. "They comply with the laws by saying, 'I offered.' But they know that nobody's going to accept it, they know that nobody's going to pay those amounts." The cost isn't the only thing about Obamacare stressing people out in the ag industry. Some are worried about immigration problems. Employers have to file new health care forms with the IRS for all their workers, whether or not they accept the insurance. Attorney Kaya Bromley says this will make it harder for some contractors to turn a blind eye when workers give them fraudulent documents. "Now that there's more transparency because of all of the reporting, I think we're going to have a lot more data on how many illegal or undocumented workers we have," she says. Bromley says among the contractors for whom she consults, she has seen a range of quasi-legal and even illegal strategies to sidestep the health law. "I have heard of employees who are choosing to opt out because they want to fly under the radar. I have also heard of employers who are urging the opt-out or at least encouraging it," she says. "And I warn all of them that they are going to be in big trouble." Farm labor contractors say they're stuck in a Catch-22. Technically, immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally aren't eligible for Obamacare benefits. But employers can't admit that any of their employees may be working illegally, so they have to offer the insurance or face stiff fines from the IRS, maybe even a discrimination claim. "It's huge. And no one's talking about the enormity of it," Bromley says. "When it plays out, and the penalties start getting assessed, that's when people will start having religion about it." Golinda Vela Chavez helps run a contracting company in Salinas, Calif. For her, talk of Obamacare mainly brings up frustration with the country's complicated immigration system. She says the U.S. doesn't enforce the borders, but then doesn't let people work. "And suddenly the employer is evil," she says. Contractors wonder how they're supposed to comply with the health care law when there's still so much contradiction in the immigration system. "Our government, all they do is talk about it, they don't fix anything, they make everything worse," says Chavez. The Affordable Care Act is a cookie cutter, she says, and the complexities of the farming industry just don'
|
Within the next couple of weeks, California's Gov. Gray Davis is expected to sign groundbreaking legislation that would require businesses to pay for health benefits for employees. But some companies say the extra expense could put them out of business. Hear NPR's Patricia Neighmond.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,001 |
How An Obscure Government Code — 834 — Became Big In 2013
|
Monday is the last day Americans in most states will be able to enroll in Affordable Care Act health exchanges if they want coverage to start in January. But technical problems have foiled sign-ups from the start, which led an otherwise obscure number to become a big deal in 2013. The government code for electronic files — 834 — came up a lot in the news this fall. What is it? The 834 forms are read by computers, not humans. They give insurance companies basic information about customers — name, contact information, social security number — so the health plans can enroll consumers. It's critical they get to insurers accurately so insurance plans can bill for premium payments and start coverage. "It's remarkable that this obscure decades-old data file format has actually been so much in the news this fall," says Larry Levitt, a health industry watcher with Kaiser Family Foundation. He says 834's would never have gotten this kind of attention had HealthCare.gov actually worked smoothly at launch. "There was a bit of [a] hidden problem with these 834 files [in October and November], so even when people could get through the system and actually apply for coverage and pick a plan, it turns out that much of the information was never making it to the insurance company," Levitt says. "In the first couple of months as many as 15,000 people simply didn't even exist in the 834 files. That problem seems to have gone away." The 834 files may be sending clean information now, but for the previously missing or inaccurate files, reconciling the data entered into HealthCare.gov with information insurance plans received started early this month. "We are in the process of actually hand-matching individuals with insurance companies," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on Capitol Hill in early December. The rush to finish matching files and process the enrollments still coming in had some people panicked about gaps in coverage. That's because an administration rule said consumers were required to send in their first month's premium payment by the end of December for coverage to start in January. But given the thorny back-end problems with the 834's, health insurance plans have extended the payment window to Jan. 10. "They wanted to make sure consumers could have peace of mind, that they could enjoy their holiday break with their families and not worry that their payment did not make it there by Dec. 31," says Robert Zirkelbach, who represents the insurance industry group America's Health Insurance Plans. President Obama says he expects the mismatched files and missing information will be fixed in time for people to get their coverage in January. "Then I think all eyes will turn to January," says Levitt. "To make sure people who think they have coverage actually are insured and can go to the doctor, go to the pharmacy, and get services." ARUN RATH, HOST: It's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR West. I'm Arun Rath. A key deadline is coming up on Monday. December 23rd is the last day most states will let you sign up for health coverage if you want it to start in January. Technical problems have foiled these sign-ups from the start. So as part of our Numbers of the Year series, NPR's Elise Hu explains Obamacare's most important figure: 834. ELISE HU, BYLINE: 834 is government-speak for electronic files read by computers, not humans. They give insurance companies customer sign-up information so health plans can enroll people. It's critical they come in accurately, so insurers can actually start coverage. LARRY LEVITT: It's remarkable that this obscure decades-old data file format has actually been so much in the news this fall. HU: Larry Levitt is a health industry watcher with Kaiser Family Foundation. He says 834s would never have gotten this kind of attention had the HealthCare.gov system actually worked at launch. LEVITT: There was a bit of a hidden problem with these 834 files. So even when people could get through the system and actually apply for coverage and pick a plan, it turns out that in many cases, that information was never making it to the insurance company. I mean, in the first couple of months, as many as 15,000 people simply didn't even exist in the 834 files, that problem seems to have gone away. HU: 834s are sending clean information now. And data reconciliation for previously missing or inaccurate files started early this month, as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on Capitol Hill. SECRETARY KATHLEEN SEBELIUS: We are in the process of actually hand-matching individuals with insurance companies. HU: The rush to finish matching files and process enrollments still coming in had some people panicked about time gaps in coverage. An administration rule had said consumers were required to send in their first month's premium payment by the end of December for coverage to start in January. But given the thorny back-end problems with the 834s, health insurance plans have exten
|
I am not a librarian. I correct the spelling on the radio, which may help to explain my fondness for the surreal. Being a non-librarian, I will confess that I often use Wikipedia. It should not be relied upon for facts, but it can serve as a quick route for finding original source material, verifying proper names, and deciphering arcane terms. This brings me to today's link: the Bookseller/Diagram Prize for Oddest Title of the Year. I am filled with delight. "The Theory of Lengthwise Rolling." "Versailles: The View From Sweden." In 2008, they re-recognized the 1996 winner, "Greek Rural Postmen and Their Cancellation Numbers." I eagerly await next year's announcement. Read More >> Pedantic readers may note that I used a serial comma in my first paragraph. It is not AP Style, nor is it proper NPR format, to use the "Oxford Comma." In this blog, however, I have given myself permission to do so. I am not endeavoring to remove ambiguity; I simply prefer it aesthetically. We welcome your comments, though please note that, as the Transcripts Czarina, We are using the Royal We. It is possible that We are the only person who welcomes comments on the serial comma.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,002 |
Massachusetts Renews Discussion on Universal Care
|
Massachusetts has a plan to achieve statewide health care coverage. It would subsidize insurance for the poorest citizens but penalize those who choose not to buy coverage. Will other states follow? Guest: Jonathan Gruber, advised Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and the Massachusetts House of Representatives on the state's health care bill; health economist at MIT MICHEL MARTIN, host: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Michel Martin, in Washington, filling in for Neal Conan. Tomorrow, Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, is expected to sign into law a plan that promises healthcare coverage for nearly everybody in the state; 6.3 million people. The plan is billed as the best of all worlds, or at least something to appease all sides; a mix of personal responsibility and government support. A bi-partisan effort spearheaded by a Republican Governor and approved by mostly Democratic lawmakers. Under the new plan, the uninsured will be required to buy private plans, with the cost to vary based on income. The state agrees to step in and subsidize the cost when necessary. It will also impose financial penalties on businesses that don't insure their employees, as well as uninsured people who refuse to buy a plan. The idea is that the law will create a larger insurance pool, which will bring down the cost of expensive private plans. While some argue the numbers don't add up, the country has its eyes on Massachusetts to see if the plan can be a recipe for broader reform. Later in the program, a new federal law will require anyone taking Medicaid coverage to show proof of U.S. citizenship. But first, the Massachusetts healthcare plan. We'd especially like to hear from our callers in the base state. If you're uninsured or own a small business, what do you make of the plan? If you live outside Massachusetts, do you think this could work in your state? Our number here in Washington is 800-989-8255, that's 800-989-tALK. Our e-mail address is [email protected]. And joining us now is Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He advised Governor Romney and the State House on the health reform law. He's with us now from a studio at Burclan Productions in Watertown, Massachusetts. Welcome, Professor. Professor JONATHAN GRUBER (Professor, Public Finance, Massachusetts Institute of Technology): Hi, how are you? MARTIN: Very well, and getting better all the time now that I think everybody's going to have health insurance. I feel good about that. There have been other attempts at universal coverage before. What makes this proposal different? Prof. GRUBER: I think what makes this proposal different is it's, as you mentioned, it's got something for everyone. It's got universal coverage and large subsidies for low-income populations, which the left can like. And it's got individual responsibility through the individual mandate that the right can like. It really is trying to think about a sensible middle road to get to this elusive goal of universal coverage. MARTIN: What kind of coverage do you think people would get under this plan? Prof. GRUBER: Well, the--basically that is largely still to be determined. The legislation lays down that there are certain parameters the coverage has to meet; it has to include a number of the state-mandated benefits for coverage of illnesses. It can't have deductibles for low-income families. It must be free for those below the poverty line. But many of the details are still to be worked out. MARTIN: But is it--is your vision, well, first of all, would it replace Medicaid? Is that the idea? Prof. GRUBER: No. MARTIN: No? Prof. GRUBER: No. The vision is not to replace Medicaid. Really, the vision is--I think another reason this plan is successful is because the vision is to really build upon what we have now that works. We have a system… MARTIN: It would assume catastrophic coverage, right? So, you get hit by a car, you don't have to worry, presumably? Prof. GRUBER: Yeah, at a minimum. I think, my guess is the resulting plan will be much more comprehensive than that. But at a minimum that will be covered. MARTIN: What about basic preventive care? I mean, this is obviously one of the great conundrums is that people who don't have insurance tend to ignore routine conditions that then subsequently become very serious. Like, they don't see somebody about high blood pressure, and then it gets--until they go to the hospital. You know, they don't see somebody about a cut until it gets infected. So what about kind of basic, routine, kind of the things that you and I would go and take care of? Prof. GRUBER: That's exactly why this is such an exciting development. Which is, that's the reason that being uninsured is such a problem. It's a problem because people aren't getting the basic preventive care that can both improve their health and be cost-effective. And that's why we need to get them insurance coverage, and that will certainly be covered by an
|
As Democrats debate whether to support a “Medicare for All” program, proponents say such a system would save billions in administrative costs. Here & Now’s Peter O’Dowd speaks with Sabrina Corlette (@SabrinaCorlette), research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute, about the dollar value of those costs. This article was originally published on WBUR.org.
|
yue_Hant
| 35,003 |
In Colorado, More People Are Insured But Cost Remains An Issue
|
On Wednesday, the Census Bureau gave Obamacare some good news: the number of people without health insurance dropped to 10.4 percent in 2014, down from 13.3 percent in 2013. Colorado may be doing even better. When the Affordable Care Act launched two years ago, about 1 in 7 of the state's residents, or 14 percent, were uninsured, according to the nonprofit, nonpartisan Colorado Health Institute. That figure is now 6.7 percent, according to the organization's latest data. Marilyn Kruse, a substitute teacher in the Jefferson County school district west of Denver, is one of those who got insurance after the Affordable Care Act launched. For seven years before that, she went without insurance because she couldn't get it through her job. She had been denied coverage because she had pre-existing medical conditions; coverage that she could buy was extremely expensive. All the while, she continued to have health problems: a hip that needed surgery, carpal tunnel, bunions and a slipped disk. "I had the disk go out and I was confused and scared," Kruse said. She was scared that she couldn't pay to treat or repair her back problems. So she mostly avoided going to the doctor. When she did, she paid thousands of dollars out of pocket. Then health reform launched. Kruse qualified for tax credits through Colorado's health insurance exchange, so she could buy a plan that came to $55 a month. "That was a very exciting moment in my life," Kruse said. The size of the drop in the number of uninsured people was a surprise, according to Amy Downs, senior director for policy and analysis at the Colorado Health Institute. "I don't think that anyone was expecting it to really go down this much," Downs said. In 2013, nearly 750,000 Coloradans were uninsured. Obamacare cut those numbers in half, to a level that was once considered unreachable, says Downs. (The Census Bureau's data for Colorado show a less dramatic decrease. However, the Colorado Health Institute report was based on a survey performed in 2015, while the Census survey is from 2014.) "We see a big growth in our Medicaid population that is much higher than we expected as well," Downs said. Under the Affordable Care Act, the decision to expand Medicaid, the health plan for low-income Americans, was left up to the states. Colorado decided to expand. That's led the state to enroll about 450,000 people in the last two years. One in five Colorado residents is on Medicaid. But the expansion in health coverage is tempered by rising concerns over cost and the number of people who are underinsured, which means out-of-pocket health costs are still too expensive. The number of underinsured Medicaid enrollees in Colorado grew by more than 100,000 people since 2013, Downs said. "The increase in the underinsured really stood out for us." An unaffordable out-of-pocket cost is defined in the Institute's survey as more than 10 percent or more of annual income. For those at 200 percent of the federal poverty level, any cost above 5 percent of income is considered unaffordable. "People on Medicaid have really low incomes, so it doesn't take very much spending to get them into that underinsured category," said Downs. Gwendolyn Funk, a 37-year-old who lives in Dove Creek in the southwest corner of Colorado, considers herself underinsured. "Well, I'm glad that I have insurance, it's just that I can barely afford my policy and my premiums, along with my children's," said Funk. Funk's husband, a mechanical engineer, gets insurance through his employer. But it's too expensive for her and their two kids to get insurance through him. So they pay $500 a month to privately insure Funk and the children. "We're going to have to choose between basically either eating or paying for health insurance," Funk said. "It's going to be really, really difficult." Still, nearly 75 percent of Coloradans give the state's health care system a thumbs up, saying the current system meets the needs of their family. This story is part of a reporting partnership that include Colorado Public Radio, NPR and Kaiser Health News.
|
The spread of Zika is taxing Colombia's already over-burdened health care system.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,004 |
Massachusetts Sues OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma, Saying It 'Peddled Falsehoods'
|
The state of Massachusetts is taking a new step in the fight against the opioid epidemic, filing a lawsuit against Purdue Pharma that also names the OxyContin maker's executives. The suit alleges the company and 16 of its current and former directors misled doctors and patients about the risks of its opioid-based pain medications. "Their strategy was simple: The more drugs they sold, the more money they made — and the more people died," the state's attorney general, Maura Healey, said at a news conference on Tuesday, flanked by Gov. Charlie Baker and law enforcement officials. "We found that Purdue engaged in a multibillion-dollar enterprise to mislead us about their drugs," she added. "Purdue pushed prescribers to give higher doses to keep patients on drugs for longer periods of time, without regard to the very real risks of addiction, overdose and death." Across nearly 80 pages, the civil suit filed in Suffolk Superior Court lists Purdue's alleged wrongdoing and its effects on people in Massachusetts in painstaking detail. Citing the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the complaint notes that more than 11,000 of the state's residents have died of opioid-related overdoses in the past decade — nearly 2,000 of whom died last year alone. Of the deceased, the complaint says at least 671 people had filled prescriptions for Purdue's opioid drugs. "All the while," Healey's complaint adds, "Purdue peddled falsehoods to keep patients away from safer alternatives. Even when Purdue knew people were addicted and dying, Purdue treated the patients and their doctors as 'targets' to sell more drugs." Since mid-2007, when several Purdue executives pleaded guilty to misbranding OxyContin, the lawsuit says, "Purdue salespeople met with Massachusetts prescribers and pharmacists more than 150,000 times." (Emphasis theirs.) At least half of the suit's defendants are members of the multibillionaire Sackler family, which privately owns the OxyContin manufacturer. Reuters reports that with the filing, Massachusetts "became the first state to sue the drugmaker's executives and directors to hold them responsible as well." Back in 2016, Forbes estimated the Sackler family's worth at roughly $13 billion, helped in large part by the massive sales of its company's marquee drug. The new legal complaint estimates that the 671 deaths that Massachusetts connects to Purdue cost the state more than $6 billion. The pharmaceutical company is denying the lawsuit's allegations. "We share the Attorney General's concern about the opioid crisis. We are disappointed, however, that in the midst of good faith negotiations with many states, the Commonwealth has decided to pursue a costly and protracted litigation process," Purdue Pharma said in a statement. "We will continue to work collaboratively with the states toward bringing meaningful solutions." Earlier this year, the company ceased promoting OxyContin to doctors, saying it was following through on a vow it made in an open letter published in December, in which it said, "This is our fight, too." But those announcements have done little to placate state officials, many of whom have taken aim at the company, accusing it of playing a key role in the opioid epidemic. In Boston, member station WBUR reports that hundreds of cities and countries have sued Purdue, in addition to the two dozen states — from Ohio to Alabama -- that have recently filed suits of their own. "By the mid-2000s, there was simply no debate about whether or not these pills were causing chaos, heartache and death across the Commonwealth and across the United States," Gov. Baker said at the news conference Tuesday. "You would think that at some point in time, the people who were at the heart of this would realize the pain and the agony that they had created and step back," he added. "They chose to do just the opposite and doubled down."
|
Well, well, WellPoint. Now some folks in the Indiana-based insurer's backyard say whopping rate increases on the company's individual health coverage aren't limited to California. The Indianapolis Star reports on hikes of 31 percent and more that are set to kick in March 1. It's all perfectly legal. In Indiana, insurers that want to raise premiums more than 30 percent in a year have to get the approval of state regulators. WellPoint said it did. Read More >> Even so, customers are outraged, the Star says. "It doesn't make sense to me," a 52-year-old early retiree facing a 38 percent increase in monthly premiums, tells the Star. For its part , WellPoint told the paper rising health care costs were to blame and that the company supports health care overhaul to fix the underlying problems. The insurer said in January that its medical costs 8.9 percent in 2009. President Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius lambasted the insurer's Anthem Blue Cross of California unit for hiking rates as much as 39 percent. Health overhaul, Obama said over the weekend, is still needed to take a bite out of problems like this one. Now Congress wants an explanation for the Anthem premium increase in California. But, as the San Francisco Chronicle reports, Anthem isn't alone in raising rates in the Golden State. Health Net and Aetna are also charging a lot more for health coverage, making it tough for people who buy their insurance to shop around.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,005 |
Missouri To Vote On Medicaid Expansion To Uninsured Adults
|
Missourians will vote Tuesday on whether to expand Medicaid to uninsured adults. The pandemic has raised the stakes for residents who have lost jobs and insurance coverage.
|
Today, about a dozen Illinois newspapers published front-page editorials calling for legislators to resolve the year-long budget stalemate. Tomorrow, the state will have been without a budget for a whole year, causing funding crises for small businesses, state colleges and universities and state agencies. Here & Now’s Jeremy Hobson speaks with Angie Muhs, executive editor of The State Journal-Register in Springfield, about the newspapers’ coordinated editorials. Read the State Journal-Register’s editorial Guest Angie Muhs, executive editor of The State Journal-Register in Springfield, Illinois. She tweets @amuhs.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,006 |
5 Things That Could Alter The Perception Of Obamacare
|
Nearly four years after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, most of its major provisions are now in effect. And they appear to be as controversial as ever. To help make sense of the partisan arguments, here are five things that are likely to be important measuring sticks of the law in 2014 and beyond. 1. How many people sign up for coverage in the insurance marketplaces and how many of them are in good health. Asked to name the top three factors that will determine how the public judges the law's success, University of North Carolina political scientist Jonathan Oberlander answers, "Enrollment, enrollment and enrollment." That issue draws outsize attention in part because it's the easiest thing to gauge, says Oberlander. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 7 million people would sign up for private coverage in 2014, a projection that the White House endorsed. That would require an extraordinary surge between now and March 31, the end of open enrollment. As of Jan. 1, 2.1 million people had enrolled. Perhaps even more important than the total is whether a significant percentage of healthy people sign up. The hope is that striking the right balance between sick and healthy will lead to attractive premiums for consumer while still leaving a profit for insurers. Whether insurers increase 2015 premiums — either because they enrolled too few healthy people the first year or because mechanisms to protect them from losses failed to work – will be closely watched. 2. Will new enrollees be able to get medical care when they need it? If new enrollees face a protracted period of appointment waits, difficulties finding specialists because of narrow insurance networks, or glitches in insurers getting their information, the national law could be seen as failing. When Massachusetts implemented universal health coverage in 2006, many residents faced long waits for doctors' appointments and crowded emergency rooms. Those waits have lessened, but haven't disappeared. Nonetheless, polls show most people in Massachusetts now approve of the law. 3. What happens to the majority of Americans who get their insurance through their jobs? While the administration delayed until 2015 the law's requirement that employers with more than 50 workers provide coverage, Obamacare opponents say the law has already accelerated the trend of employers dropping coverage and steering workers to the exchanges. While about 6 percent of large firms say they might drop coverage in the next five years (the vast majority keep it to stay competitive in hiring), the percentage of small employers who say they are likely to do so rose from 22 percent to 31 percent, according to a survey by consultant Mercer. 4. Will people find their insurance worthwhile? How people evaluate coverage will depend on whether they get medical care when they need it — sort of like how people feel about property insurance after a big storm hits. Because of the law, most people are receiving expanded benefits, including free preventive services such as cancer screenings, some vaccinations, contraception services and regular wellness exams. Those who buy their own insurance will also get broader coverage, including mental health care, prescription drugs and can no longer be denied coverage because of pre-existing illnesses. But that extra coverage means that some people are paying more than last year. But others will pay less, and some will get health coverage at virtually no cost to themselves through Medicaid or subsidies. Watch for stories not just about people with chronic illnesses who finally are able to get insurance, but also about first-time buyers who are surprised to learn they have to pay deductibles before they can access coverage and may not always be able to see the doctors they want. 5. Will more states expand Medicaid eligibility? Perhaps the single biggest factor in expanding coverage to those who are now uninsured will be if more states decide to expand Medicaid, as 25 states and the District of Columbia have already. Politics, including pressure from hospitals, insurers and business groups, will likely determine whether more states opt in, allowing legal residents with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level to qualify for coverage. It's important to remember that states typically take their time responding to federal changes in health policy. Only 26 states adopted Medicaid when it began in 1966.
|
Republicans' tax overhaul gets rid of the tax penalty for people who fail to maintain insurance coverage. If it becomes law, what happens to the deficit and the number of uninsured?
|
eng_Latn
| 35,007 |
Medicaid Makes 'Big Difference' In Lives, Study Finds
|
As high-level budget talks drag on in Washington, the Medicaid program for the poor remains a prime candidate for cuts. In recent months, Republicans have criticized Medicaid for badly serving its target population. But a new study — the first of its kind in nearly four decades — finds that Medicaid is making a bigger impact than even some of its supporters may have realized. The study, being published as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has a distinctly bipartisan flavor. Among its authors are Katherine Baicker of Harvard, who was an economic adviser to President George W. Bush, and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who has advised the Obama administration. "What we found in a nutshell is that having Medicaid makes a big difference in people's lives," said Amy Finkelstein, another MIT economist and one of the study's principal investigators. Overall, researchers found that compared to people without insurance, those with Medicaid had better access to and used more health care; they were less likely to experience unpaid medical bills; they were more likely to report being in good health; and they were less likely to report feeling depressed. In fact, says Finkelstein, among those with Medicaid, "We report almost a one-third increase in the probability that you report yourself as being happy." Participating Doctors The findings are dramatically at odds with the storyline coming from critics of the program. "Medicaid Is Worse Than No Coverage At All," blared a headline on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal back in March. Scott Gottlieb, a physician and resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and author of that column, says now that it overstates his opinion. But he does say there's a substantial body of academic work that shows people on Medicaid fare worse than those with private insurance. "There's a large number of studies now that show poorer outcomes with Medicaid recipients," Gottlieb said in an interview. "What's happening, I think, is [the health of Medicaid patients] is suffering because the quality of the insurance is being driven down over time." Both Gottlieb and John Goodman, president of the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis, say a big problem is that states pay doctors and other health care providers so little that patients have trouble finding someone to treat them. "A Boston cabdriver told me the other day that she had to go through 20 doctors before she could find one who would see her," said Goodman. "I said, 'Are you going down the Yellow Pages?' And she said, 'No, I was going down the list that Medicaid gave me.'" A Unique Opportunity Yet Finkelstein and her colleagues failed to find evidence to back up some conservative claims that doctors were more likely to accept patients who were uninsured and willing to pay cash than those with Medicaid. "We see that the chance that you've gotten any outpatient care increases by 35 percent if you have Medicaid, relative to if you have none," she said. "The chances that they report having a regular office or clinic for their primary care increases by 70 percent. And the likelihood that they report having a particular doctor that they usually see increases by 55 percent." And this is more than just dueling studies. The study by Finkelstein and colleagues from Harvard, the National Bureau of Economic Research and the state of Oregon is the first one of its type since the 1970s. It came about because Oregon in 2008 decided it could expand its Medicaid program for nondisabled adults with incomes below the federal poverty line. But it could afford to add only 10,000 more people. Knowing that far more people than that were eligible and likely to apply, officials decided to hold a lottery. Those who won got to apply for coverage; those who lost did not. But the lottery also provided researchers a unique opportunity to compare a population that was nearly identical in every way except for health insurance status. Such a "randomized controlled trial" is considered the gold standard in medical and scientific research. It would have been unethical to design had Oregon not been doing it anyway, because researchers can't give some people insurance and withhold it from others. "It was literally a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," Finkelstein said. Once the randomly selected people got Medicaid, the researchers entered them into the study, along with thousands of adults who lost the lottery and remained uninsured. A Snapshot And A Springboard The importance of a study like this one, Finkelstein says, is that it can correct for things other studies can't. Studies that are less rigorous, she says, can produce odd results, leading to claims like those being made by Republicans that having Medicaid can make you sicker. "But that's not because health insurance can make you sicker — it's because if you're sick, you're much more likely to go the extra mile or incur the additional expense to try to g
|
A landmark series of 22 reports examining California's educational system was released this week. The two year, $3 million project, called "Getting Down to Facts," was commissioned by the governor, legislative leaders and the state education department. Many teachers and principals say the reports confirm what they've known all along: Schools with poor and minority students need more money. Educators at one struggling middle school in San Diego say that if it was up to them, they would spend all their money hiring more teachers to meet the needs of their diverse student population.
|
kor_Hang
| 35,008 |
Mixed Messages On Cancelled Health Plans Leave Consumers Confused
|
Millions of Americans are trying to figure what to do now that their health insurance policies have been cancelled. The policies were cancelled because they didn't comply with President Obama's Affordable Care Act. The president now says insurers who offered substandard policies can continue offering them for one more year. But most insurance companies are still figuring what to do, so it's very difficult for individuals to get reliable information, let alone make a decision.
|
Roughly 27 million low-income Americans rely on Community Health Centers. The deal that ended the government shutdown did not include more funding for these centers — and many are already running out of money. Where else can people go for care? | Want to support 1A? Subscribe to our podcast and give to your local public radio station at donate.npr.org/1A. Email the show at [email protected].
|
eng_Latn
| 35,009 |
Medicare Spending On Hospitals Gets Web Treatment
|
You may have heard during the debate over health overhaul that health spending varies wildly between states and even between tiny hamlets. But seeing is believing, right? Well, now you can check it out for yourself, thanks to an online tool just released by the government. You can use it see how much hospital care costs Medicare by state. The dashboard shows the number and total cost of payments to hospitals for treating 25 top diagnoses and allows you to compare spending by state. Joint replacements lead the list with more than 400,000 performed last year. Read More >> The chart also lists which hospitals were the most frequent providers of care for a given diagnosis. A separate bubble chart illustrates total spending for each state between 2006 and March of this year. But still, we have to say the charts don't tell us as much as we'd like. For instance, the graphics don't include population data that could put the figures in perspective. More patients in California, Florida, New York and Texas -- the four most populous states -- received treatment than in any other state in all but three of the 25 diagnoses. Not a big surprise. The site is part of President Obama's much broader Open Government Initiative. In a statement last year announcing the initiative, Obama said "[o]penness will strengthen our democracy," and he called on agency heads to come up with plans and tools to achieve that goal. Those plans were due yesterday. The White House gave every agency except the Office of Personnel Management and the Council on Environmental Quality top marks for transparency. Yet, the Obama administration has struggled with making government data both accessible and useful at the same time. Recovery.gov was sold as part of an "unprecedented" transparency push for the economic stimulus package. But, at least at first, the Recovery.gov was a hodgepodge of confusing jargon and missing data. One report described funding for "NTIA DTACBP," bureaucratese for the T.V. converter box program. That site has gotten much better, however. Now, a detailed map lets users know the location, cost and contractors for specific projects at the street level. The CMS data tool, now in a "beta" stage, could go through the same life cycle. CQ HealthBeat reported yesterday that officials plan to release far more data later this year. You can let CMS know what you'd like to see by sending a comment here. Weaver is a reporter at Kaiser Health News, a nonprofit news service.
|
Reports of poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital have highlighted failures to adequately care for service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Concerns about military hospitals, as well as the VA system, have lead to hearings, investigations and resignations.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,010 |
Wash. State Health Exchange Sees Over 100,000 Enrolled
|
The State of Washington’s Healthplanfinder has experienced significantly more success than some of its neighbors. But insurance commissioner Mike Kreidler made news last week when he said he would not revive canceled insurance plans. KUOW healthcare reporter Ruby DeLuna joins Here & Now’s Jeremy Hobson with details. Guest
Ruby DeLuna, healthcare reporter for KUOW in Seattle.
JEREMY HOBSON, HOST: And let's go next door now to the state of Washington, where things are going much better. Nearly 100,000 people have signed up on Washington's health plan finder. Ruby DeLuna covers health care for HERE AND NOW contributing station KUOW in Seattle. And Ruby, first of all, I assume that there isn't a fax machine issue going on in Washington. RUBY DELUNA, BYLINE: Not that I know. (LAUGHTER) HOBSON: All right, and I did see that a lot of people that are signing up out of those 100,000 are signing up for Medicaid and not plans through the new exchanges, right? DELUNA: That's correct, yes, and to date the last numbers I looked at showed that we have more than 11,000 people who have signed up for the qualified health plans, and the exchange also has more than 32,000 who have filled out the forms but have yet to press the purchase button. HOBSON: Well, let's talk about what went right in Washington. And let's listen now to a clip. This is from some of the outreach efforts that the state has been doing. They've been spending a significant amount of money on this. A clip from an ad for the health plan finder. (SOUNDBITE OF ADVERTISEMENT) UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Brody, meet chance. See without health insurance, you're gambling with (unintelligible). HOBSON: So what was done right, Ruby? DELUNA: Well, from what I could tell, they really put a lot of effort, the officials, the state has put a lot of effort in outreach. And one of the things that the health exchange has done was to use the federal grants that it received to partner with local community organizations and agencies. And the other thing that it has done is there's a bus tour, there's a bus that has traveled around the state to, you know, to get the word out, and also it's a place - it was a place for people who could stop by and, you know, talk to navigators and, you know, get enrolled and get signed up. And, you know, in reference to young invincibles, they also have tried to reach out to young invincibles. They have - the state has developed an app for the tech-oriented young invincibles. They teamed up with a national organization called Young Invincibles to develop this app. But they also got coached from this organization on how to reach out to young invincibles. And so they've done things - one of the bus tour stops was here at the University of Washington campus, and they had the guitarist from Death Cab for Cutie, Chris Walla, who was there to sign autographs but also to share his personal story about what it was like to not have insurance. I guess about a year ago or so, he had to go to the emergency room for some medical issues, and it cost him about $10,000. And so he learned - he shared that experience. And he said, yeah, he learned the importance of having insurance. So things like that... HOBSON: So really trying to get some young people signed up because this has been crucial to the Affordable Care Act and its success. Tell us about the challenges. What has been a problem in Washington State as this exchange has gotten off the ground? DELUNA: That's right, we've had our glitches too. In late October we - the agency found out that it's been miscalculating the tax credits. They over-calculated, and so they - the agency had to send email and send letters to folks about - to about 8,000 people who had signed up and said, sorry, we miscalculated your tax credit. And so they had that issue, and that's still being worked out with those individuals. And then some doctors and some hospitals found out that they were not in the network in the new plans. So that had to be fixed as well. HOBSON: Ruby, how many people are expected to be enrolled by the end of the year? DELUNA: Well, you know, the agency would not give any goals. But they say the focus is to make sure that customers have a positive experience. But to give you an idea, about a year ago the insurance commissioner's office estimated that the state has about a million uninsured people. HOBSON: Ruby DeLuna reports on healthcare for KUOW in Seattle. Ruby, thanks so much. DELUNA: My pleasure. MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI, HOST: So how are the healthcare exchanges working in your state? Have you tried to sign up for insurance on a state exchange? Or even healthcare.gov? We want to hear all your stories. Share them with us @hereandnow.org. You're listening to HERE AND NOW.
|
The governor's race in Washington State is still up in the air. Election officials are conducting a recount; the two candidates are separated by fewer than 300 votes. Hear NPR's Steve Inskeep.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,011 |
Medicare Poised To Cover CT Scans To Screen For Lung Cancer
|
The evidence has been piling up that properly done CT scans can help doctors find tiny lung tumors in longtime smokers while the cancer can still be treated effectively. Now Medicare is proposing to pay for annual scans for beneficiaries at a high risk for lung cancer. To qualify, patients would have to first meet with a doctor to talk through the pros and cons of scans, which involve a low-dose of radiation. Patients would have to be: Between the ages 55 and 74; Have no symptoms of lung disease; Have smoked the equivalent of 30 pack-years (or a pack a day for 30 years); And be a current smoker or have given it up in the past 15 years. The clock started ticking Monday on a 30-day period for formal comments on the proposal. That's expected to be a prelude for a final payment decision in favor of the scans. Lung cancer is the No. 1 cause of cancer deaths in the U.S. More than 159,000 Americans are expected to die from cancers of the lung and bronchus in 2014, according to a National Cancer Institute. The Medicare proposal "likely means that thousands of Medicare beneficiaries will have access to this important and potentially life saving service," said Dr. Richard Wender in a statement on the American Cancer Society's news blog. "This would place Medicare policy in line with current guidelines and the recommendations of many interested advocacy and professional organizations, including the Society." The influential U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a frequent critic of health screening, said in December 2013 that its review of the evidence supported a recommendation for annual CT screening for people 55 to 80 years old who have a significant history of smoking. The USPSTF estimated that adoption of appropriate lung cancer screening could reduce lung cancer deaths by about 20,000 a year. But even advocates acknowledge that screening is imperfect. Dr. Peter Bach, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, was one of the people who formally asked Medicare to cover CT screening for lung cancer. In his request, he wrote about the balance of benefit and harm at stake: Cancer screening tests necessarily involve tradeoffs. Numerous individuals who will never suffer from the condition being screened for are subjected to the test and many have findings on the test that lead to follow-up evaluations which carry risks and costs. Yet a few individuals who undergo effective screening tests benefit due to the early detection of a condition that can have its outcome altered through early intervention. A cautionary note came from an analysis of a national study of CT screening for lung cancer that suggested 18 percent of the cancers detected might be indolent, or slow-growing and not immediately risky. "Overdiagnosis should be considered when describing the risks of [low-dose computed tomography] screening for lung cancer," the authors wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine in February. Still, an analysis funded by a medical imaging trade group and published in the journal American Health & Drug Benefits in August concluded that CT screening for lung cancer is cost-effective. About 4.9 million people with Medicare coverage would meet the criteria for screening. The average annual cost of Medicare screening was estimated at $241 for each person screened.
|
Mike P. wrote to us recently after hearing our podcast on medical billing. He works as a medical biller, and writes that he listened to the billing episode while he "posted a 173 page Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois payment voucher." The note continues: As billers we are constantly in the middle. Patients yell at us because the insurance company won't pay. The doctors yell at us because insurance companies keep lowering the rates that they pay the doctors. Read More: Why no billers on Grey's Anatomy? And the codes -- did you know that you can have 10 different types of an office visit with your doctor? That's not counting the codes if you have a physical. Those are procedure codes otherwise known as CPT codes. After that you have the ICD-9 codes which are the reasons that the CPT is being done. So if you go to the Doctor for a cough you might be billed for a 99213 with an ICD-9 of 786.2. I could go on but it is so boring. Maybe that’s why you never see this end on TV shows. It's great to show the heroic efforts of Dr. McDreamy saving the life of someone. Those shows never show the heroic effort that McDreamy's biller is performing just to get that surgery paid. I just wanted to say how grateful I am that finally someone recognized me, the lowly little biller. Thank You, Mike P. Chicago, IL P.S. I will be emailing and faxing this letter, once you work with health insurance companies you learn to cover all avenues of communication.
|
kor_Hang
| 35,012 |
States Have Already Tried Versions Of 'Skinny Repeal.' It Didn't Go Well
|
Betting that thin is in — and might be the only way forward — Senate Republicans are eyeing a "skinny repeal" that would roll back an unpopular portion of the federal health law. But health policy analysts warn that the idea has been tried before, and with little success. Senators are reportedly considering a narrow bill that would eliminate the Affordable Care Act's "individual mandate," which assesses a tax on Americans who don't have insurance. The bill would also eliminate the ACA's penalties for some businesses – those that have 50 or more workers and fail to offer their employees health coverage. Details aren't clear, but it appears that — at least initially — much of the rest of the 2010 health law would remain, under this strategy, including the rule that says insurers must cover people who have pre-existing medical problems. In remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said that "we just heard from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that under such a plan ... 16 million Americans would lose their health insurance, and millions more would pay a 20 percent increase in their premiums." The CBO posted its evaluation of the GOP's proposed plan Wednesday evening. Earlier in the day, some Republicans seemed determined to find some way to keep the health care debate alive. "We need an outcome, and if a so-called skinny repeal is the first step, that's a good first step," said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. Several Republican senators, including Dean Heller of Nevada and Jeff Flake of Arizona, appear to back this approach, according to published reports. It is, at least for now, being viewed as a step along the way to Republican health reform. "I think that most people would understand that what you're really voting on is trying to keep the conversation alive," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. "It's not the policy itself ... it's about trying to create a bigger discussion about repeal between the House and Senate." But what if, during these strange legislative times, the skinny repeal were to be passed by the Senate and then go on to become law? States' experiences with insurance market reforms and rollbacks highlight the possible trouble spots. Considering the parallels By the late 1990s, states such as Washington, Kentucky and Massachusetts felt a backlash when some of the coverage requirement rules they'd previously put on the individual market were lifted. "Things went badly," said Mark Hall, director of the health law and policy program at Wake Forest University. Premiums rose and insurers fled these states, leaving consumers who buy their own coverage (usually because they don't get it through their jobs) with fewer choices and higher prices. That's because — like the Senate plan — the states generally kept popular parts of their laws, including protections for people with pre-existing conditions. At the same time, they didn't include mandates that consumers carry coverage. That goes to a basic concept about any kind insurance: People who don't file claims in any given year subsidize those who do. Also, those healthy people are less likely to sign up, insurers said, and that leaves insurance companies with only the more costly policyholders. Bottom line: Insurers end up "less willing to participate in the market," said Hall. It's not an exact comparison, though, he added, because the current federal health law offers something most states did not: significant subsidies to help some people buy coverage. Those subsidies could blunt the effect of not having a mandate. During the debate that led to passage of the federal ACA, insurers flat-out said the plan would fail without an individual mandate. On Wednesday, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association weighed in again, saying that if there is no longer a coverage requirement, there should be "strong incentives for people to obtain health insurance and keep it year-round." Individual mandate is still unpopular in voter polls About 6.5 million Americans reported owing penalties for not having coverage in 2015. Polls consistently show, though, that the individual mandate is unpopular with the public. Indeed, when asked about nine provisions in the ACA, registered voters in a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll said they want the Senate to keep eight, rejecting only the individual mandate. Even though the mandate's penalty is often criticized as not strong enough, removing it would still affect the individual market. "Insurers would react conservatively and increase rates substantially to cover their risk," said insurance industry consultant Robert Laszewski. That's what happened after Washington state lawmakers rolled back rules in 1995 legislation. Insurers requested significant rate increases, which were then rejected by the state's insurance commissioner. By 1998, the state's largest insurer — Premera Blue Cross — said it was losing so much money that it would stop selling new individual policies, "precipitatin
|
Republican Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma tells Steve Inskeep the House should pass the Republican health care plan. But he says to not sweat the details, because the Senate will change the bill anyway.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,013 |
Poll: Young People More Likely To Defer Health Care Because Of Cost
|
If you're not feeling well or have a routine health issue, do you go ahead and get it checked out or put if off because of the cost? And, let's say you do make an appointment and go. Afterward, do you fill the prescription you received or do financial concerns stop you? We wondered how often people deferred or skipped care because of cost, so we asked in the latest NPR-IBM Watson Health Health Poll. The survey queried more than 3,000 households nationwide in July. For starters we asked if people had postponed, delayed or canceled some kind of health care service, such as a doctor's appointment or medical procedure, because of cost in the preceding three months. About 1 in 5 people had done so. "I am pretty impressed that it was only 20 percent that had postponed or delayed or canceled health care services," says Dr. Anil Jain, vice president and chief health information officer for IBM Watson Health. "I thought it would be higher." The proportion of people who said cost had deterred them from getting care varied by age, with a third of people under 35 saying it had been a problem compared with only 8 percent of people 65 and older. Jain says one area that may not be getting enough attention is preventive care. "I think it's important that young people never feel the need to forgo or delay preventive services," he says. We also asked people if they – or members of their household — had difficulty paying for some kind health care service in the preceding three months. A quarter said yes. And again the strain varied by age, with 41 percent of people under 35 saying they had experienced difficulty while only 11 percent of people 65 and older had. Almost all the respondents to the survey, about 97 percent, had some form of health coverage. The sample size of respondents reporting no insurance wasn't large enough to support further analysis within the uninsured population. We also asked specifically about people's experience receiving and filling prescriptions. In the three months before the survey, two-thirds of people said they'd received a prescription. A vast majority of older Americans – 84 percent – said they'd received a prescription, while 39 percent of people under 35 had. Almost everyone who said they'd gotten a prescription went ahead and filled it – 97 percent overall. The cost of prescriptions appeared to be a bigger concern for younger people, with 38 percent of those under 35 saying they had difficulty paying for their medicine. Only 9 percent of people 65 and older said they had the same problem. With an eye on costs, we asked people if they were familiar with discount coupons provided by drugmakers, one way to defray out-of-pocket expenses related to prescriptions. About two-thirds of people said they were aware of these coupons. In a follow-up question, we asked if people had used this kind of coupon. About a third of people said they had. Among older people, 65 and up, the proportion was quite a bit lower – only 19 percent said they'd used this kind of coupon. Drug costs weigh on people as deductibles and copayments add up. "Despite insurance, we feel that more people are experiencing a higher out-of-pocket burden due to medications," says Thomas Goetz, head of research for GoodRx, a clearinghouse for drug pricing information, discounts and coupons. "Insurance is increasingly not covering that expense as much as it used to." Manufacturers' coupons are geared toward brand-name medicines, only one part of the financial challenge. "The burden for most Americans is largely with these generic drugs that are considered very routine to prescribe and are getting more expensive," Goetz says. "A $20 drug becomes $100." Think of all the sacrifices people are making to avoid skipping prescriptions, he says. "We take these medications because they're supposed to makes us feel better, and the price doesn't always have that effect." The nationwide poll has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 1.8 percentage points. You can find the questions and full results here.
|
Here & Now’s Jeremy Hobson speaks with Derek Thompson, senior editor at the Atlantic, about the increase in COVID-19 cases among millennials and Generation Z. This might be why, as cases increase, the death rate continues to fall. This article was originally published on WBUR.org.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,014 |
Health Law Prompts Bigger Tax Bills For Some Firms
|
Some big-name corporations are setting aside some big money to deal with the aftermath of the new law overhauling health care. Telecommunications giant AT&T said in a securities filing Friday that it would take a $1 billion hit to deal with an increase in company taxes due to the health law. Earlier this week Caterpillar, Deere & Co. and AK Steel said they would be taking multimillion dollar charges of their own. Read More >> The issue is the elimination of a tax deduction for federal subsidies toward prescription drug benefits for retired workers. The subsidy reimburses companies up to $1,330 per retiree. "Until now, companies could deduct the subsidy from their taxes, essentially getting a second benefit from the money, " the Wall Street Journal explained. The new law eliminates that deduction. The favorable tax treatment of the subsidies until now is a legacy of the 2003 law that added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The tax deduction and the subsidies were meant to encourage companies that provided drug benefits to their retirees to keep doing so rather than to foist them onto Medicare. Because of the new law, the subsidy will no longer be deductible, in effect lowering the payout companies can expect from the government each year. And though the tax tab doesn't hit until 2013, companies are making the changes to their books now. The health overhaul limiting companies tax deductions for retiree drug benefits could raise billions of dollars of tax revenue over the next decade. But the tax change could spur some companies to rejigger or drop drug benefits for retired workers, driving them to join the rolls of the Medicare drug plans. Companies that are locked into providing the benefits under contracts with unions are in a pickle, though. Indeed in January, Verizon and two unions wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about their objections to the change.
|
Tax reformers in Alabama are on a crusade to convince voters they should approve a tax hike, arguing the current tax structure is un-Christian because it is unfair to the poor. NPR's Debbie Elliot reports.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,015 |
State of Health Care Reform
|
State of Health Care Reform — We examine the health care reform bill passed by the California state assembly last month. With court challenges and a looming budget crisis, what are its chances for becoming law? Guests include Peter Harbage, senior program associate of the Health Policy Program at the New America Foundation; John Graham, director of Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute; Larry Levitt, vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation; and John Myers, KQED's Sacramento bureau chief.
|
Dr. Rahul Parikh argues that patients must do their homework and understand the costs of their choices to bring down the costs of health care.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,016 |
Calif. Recall Expected to Top $75 Million
|
The California gubernatorial recall election is expected to cost about $75 million. New campaign contribution limits were supposed to rein in the influence of special interests, but the candidates are apparently using loopholes to flout the rules and rake in millions. NPR's Elaine Korry reports.
|
You may be on summer vacation, but the interest groups looking to make their mark on legislation to overhaul health care are working harder than ever. The Wall Street Journal reports that delays on Capitol Hill make this month the key time to "snare one-on-one meetings with lawmakers back in their home districts." Take Tim Trysla, a lobbyist at Alston + Bird. Makers of diagnostic imaging equipment are among his clients. "If you're looking for savings, don't come at us," says Trysla, who has called on 120 legislators, sometimes taking General Electric execs along to make the case for protecting payment for medical scans. (Check out a nifty WSJ interactive graphic on lobbying spending here.) Read More >> Trying to figure out what works and what doesn't in improving the health-care system? It never hurts to follow the money. NPR's Richard Knox digs into the money pit in Massachusetts, where a 3-year-old law expanding coverage has pushed the proportion of uninsured down to 2.6 percent--lowest in the nation.. The remarkable achievement has come at a high cost. Now, the state is looking to save money by paying doctors and hospitals a fixed annual amount for each patient rather than shelling out for services whenever they're rendered. "In the world of health care, this is big news," Knox says. The Food and Drug Administration has concluded that some drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis in children and teenagers need a tough warning about an increasing the risk of lymphoma and other cancers. The affected drugs include Johnson & Johnson's Remicade, Amgen's Enbrel and Abbott Lab's Humira.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,017 |
New Republic: Birth Control Bad Politics For Obama?
|
Johnathan Cohn is a senior editor for The New Republic. Many pundits seem convinced the Obama Administration's decision on contraception coverage is bad politics for the president. And although I support the decision to make coverage mandatory, even for large religious institutions, that conclusion about the politics is likely true in at least one sense. Up until about a week ago, Obama was cruising politically. Unemployment was falling, the Republicans were self-destructing, and the president's poll numbers were climbing. The improvement was modest, for sure, but the trend seemed to be steady and in the right direction. Changing the subject was unlikely to help. And yet the subject has been changed, at least among the chattering class. Where I part with the other pundits is over the long-term effects of this controversy. They seem very sure of it. I am not. And since Nate Silver hasn't opined on how this might play out, let me attempt to do my best, admittedly imperfect, impersonation. As you probably know, the big danger for Obama is that this decision alienates Catholic voters. The idea is that these voters, who might otherwise see Obama as a defender of their economic interests, will turn against him: Even if they use contraception personally (as most do) and disagree with the Church's teaching, they'll interpret this decision as broadly hostile to religion and, perhaps, specifically hostile to Catholics. Whether Catholics will actually react in this way is the big question. And polls can't answer it that well, because even the most careful surveys I've seen don't differentiate clearly between people that might otherwise vote for Obama—by, for example, differentiating between Catholics who attend church and those who don't, or between those with a college education and those without. Still, a widely cited poll from the Public Religion Research Institute offers some clues. Overall, slightly more than half of Catholic respondents to the survey said they supported requiring religious colleges and hospitals to provide contraception coverage, with zero cost. But Catholic voters opposed the idea, 52 percent to 48 percent, and white Catholic voters opposed the idea by 58 to 41 percent. (Why do we care about white Catholics? Because, presumably, non-white Catholics are strong Obama supporters.) A second, more subtle danger of politicizing this issue is that it fires up the Republican base. I know what you're thinking: Isn't the Republican base already pretty fired up about getting Obama out of office? Sure. But Mitt Romney remains the likely nominee and Republican voters don't seemed too fired up about him. Maybe, just maybe this episode helps convince them that Romney, who has attacked Obama stridently for the contraception rule, is their mana after all. And while the difference might seem incremental, every little bit matters in a close election. But intensity of feeling seems strong on both sides of this issue. And while the pundits spend all of their time talking about Catholic voters, there's another key demographic whose allegiance in the election is apparently up for grabs: Women who identify themselves as politically independent. I haven't seen a poll breaking out their opinions on the issue, but women overall support this decision by healthy margins. And in that sense they mirror the population as a whole, at least according to three of the four polls I've seen on the issue. In the PRRI poll, a majority of respondents to the PRRI survey said they supported making contraception coverage mandatory (55 percent to 40 percent) and a small plurality (49 percent to 46 percent) said they supported applying the mandate even to religious colleges and universities. This is despite the opposition of Catholic voters and strong opposition of evangelicals. The second poll comes from Lake Research. It's a private poll, conducted on behalf of the Herdon Alliance last year, that Greg Sargent and Sam Stein have obtained. The third is a new poll from Public Policy Polling, on behalf of Planned Parenthood. In both of those surveys, majorities supported making birth control coverage mandatory and applying that requirement to religious institutions. The outlier is the fourth poll, from Rasmussen. In its survey from last year, only 39 percent of likely voters said they supported applying the requirement to religious organizations and 50 percent said they did not. Why the divergence? A likely explanation is the wording: Each survey posed the question in a slightly different way. We can debate which pollster was pushing in one direction or the other, for whatever reason. But, as I see it, the surveys actually support to the same conclusion: How this issue plays out depends on which side frames this controversy to its advantage. In short, if this controversy lingers, does it do so as a debate about religious liberty or access to contraception? Commentators and media coverage generally have focused on the former debate, in which
|
Two polls released this week reveal challenges ahead for the Affordable Care Act. Gallup found the nation’s uninsured rate dropped to 13.4 percent last month, the lowest monthly uninsured rate since the company began tracking it in 2008. But that means 32 million people remain without coverage. And a Pew Research Center poll shows that 55 percent of Americans disapprove of the 2010 health care reform law, which mandates that everyone have health insurance and that it be made available to even those with pre-existing medical conditions. Bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel advised the White House on health care reform and tells Here & Now’s Jeremy Hobson that “despite a bad rollout,” the law is working. Emanuel predicts that enrollment in health plans will top 20 million people by next year, and he says there’s still work to be done on bringing down health care costs. Interview Highlights: Ezekiel Emanuel Does it bother you that so many people still don’t like this law? “Yeah, I think it’s a misunderstanding and it points to a persistent problem around communication about what’s in the law, the advantages of the law, and more importantly, the disaster that would have befall the country had we not actually enacted reform. I think that’s the most important issue, is what’s the counterfactual. If we hadn’t had the Affordable Care Act, we really would have blown apart the system.” On what went wrong with getting that message out “The communication strategy, even going back to August 2009, where the Tea Party had its founding and all those town hall meetings and congressional districts, we just never got it right, I think, and never really convinced the American public why we needed to reform the system, and why this reform, while not perfect, is definitely a big step in the right direction. And the irony is, of course, on every one of the major issues — as you point out, access — we’ve had a really steep decline in the uninsured rate for the first time in a long time, we’ve had improvements in quality of care because of the Affordable Care Act and costs have gotten under control, although by no means is the cost level of health care completely whipped. But in four years, we’ve gone a long way in the right direction, and people should see that as a big positive, but I don’t think the message has really gotten out.” On his goal for number of sign-ups a year from now “There are lots of ways people are getting coverage — it’s not just in the exchanges, although that is probably the most important way, so we’re about 12 to 15 million people have gotten coverage through the Affordable Care Act. I’d like to see that number go over 20 million by next year.” Is that goal possible? “Of course. One of the things that the exchange shows you, that despite the bad rollout, despite the two months of really no one being able to get insurance through the exchange, we had 8 million people sign up. Americans really want affordable health care insurance. Whatever the Koch brothers and their minions say, people don’t want to go without insurance. They want insurance and the big problem has been affordability. And I think the exchanges offer a very good platform for most Americans to get coverage. And I think if we can continue to offer good insurance plans at a reasonable price, people are going to sign up — especially once they really understand that they can get subsidies both for the premium and, if they’re poor, they can get subsidies for co-pays and deductibles — that’s a very appealing package to most people.” Guest
Ezekiel Emanuel, chair of the Department of Medical Ethics & Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, and author of the book “Reinventing American Health Care.”
JEREMY HOBSON, HOST: Well, now to the world of polling, where it is good news, bad news this week for the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Gallup found the nation's uninsured rate dropped to 13.4 percent last month, that's the lowest monthly uninsured rate since the company began tracking in 2008, but a Pew Research Center poll shows that 55 percent of Americans disapprove of the 2010 health care reform law. Joining us now is one of the people who advised the White House on the law, bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel, who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania. He's got a new book called "Reinventing American Health Care." Ezekiel Emanuel, welcome to HERE AND NOW. EZEKIEL EMANUEL: It's my honor. HOBSON: Well, does it bother you that so many people still don't like this law? EMANUEL: Yeah, I think it's a misunderstanding, and it points to a persistent problem around communication about what's in the law, the advantages of the law and, more importantly, the disaster that would have befall the country had we not actually enacted reform. I think tha
|
eng_Latn
| 35,018 |
Health Insurance and Sports
|
NPR's Julie Rovner reports that horseback riders, roller-bladers, and other sports enthusiasts are perplexed about a new health care law. It's intended to prevent health insurance discrimination, but could also keep some sports injuries from being covered.
|
Within the next couple of weeks, California's Gov. Gray Davis is expected to sign groundbreaking legislation that would require businesses to pay for health benefits for employees. But some companies say the extra expense could put them out of business. Hear NPR's Patricia Neighmond.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,019 |
Weekly Roundup: Thursday, October 5
|
In the aftermath of the massacre in Las Vegas, there seems to be one narrow area of possible consensus emerging on gun control: regulating or banning bump stocks. Two weeks after Hurricane Maria, the majority of Puerto Rico is still without power and drinking water. And Secretary of State Rex Tillerson held a press conference to address reports he called President Trump a moron and considered resigning. This episode: host/White House correspondent Tamara Keith, congressional reporter Scott Detrow, political reporter Danielle Kurtzleben and editor correspondent Ron Elving. Email the show at [email protected]. Find and support your local public radio station at npr.org/stations.
|
Here's a look at what you're reading today: Twitter pal @reneerico shares an article about the employment picture in California. The SF Chronicle reports that the state's underemployment rate hit 21.9 percent in September. That's a whole lot of people who can't find as much work as they need. Meantime, @kkemple is looking at the country's perception of stimulus spending. The Christian Science Monitor has a great graphic that shows how different community types (tractor country, emptying nests, boom towns, etc) feel about the government spending millions of dollars to get the economy moving again. @philipkeeton is deep in tax land with an article from Tax Vox about whether fining people for not getting health insurance could be considered a tax on the middle class. As for me, I'm digging into the archives over at the New York Times for articles about high Medicare costs in the 1970's. We'll have more on that on tomorrow's podcast. Share your own recommended reading in the comments below.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,020 |
Medicare Advantage Plans Earn So-So Quality Grades
|
Whatever draws Medicare beneficiaries to enroll in privately run Medicare Advantage plans is apparently not quality. An analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health finds less than a fourth of the roughly 11 million people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans as of this spring belonged to plans that had earned four- or five-star quality ratings from Medicare officials. Those grades -- which have come under fire from the health insurance industry group -- measure everything from how quickly health plans answer customer calls to how well they provide preventive care. Of course an explanation of the ratings is almost impossible to find anywhere on Medicare's various websites, even for folks like us who spend far too much time there. Read More >> Anyway, Avalere found that a majority of beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage plans -- more than 60 percent -- belong to plans with ratings between 2.5 and 3.5 stars. The plans scores will become more important in 2012. That's when Medicare will start paying more for plans with higher quality ratings -- those with four and five stars -- and less for poorer performers. This is no small matter. Many beneficiaries sign up for the private plans in order to get extra benefits like dental, eye and foot care. Those plans have counted on the richer rates Medicare has been paying them to underwrite patients' care, fatten profits and finance extras. Under the new payment system, only the high-quality plans are likely to continue to get enough money to keep offering the extra benefits. Prepare for a major shakeout.
|
NPR's Joanne Silberner reports on the White House plan to expand health care coverage for the poor. Critics worry that the initiative will cost low-income families more in the long run.
|
kor_Hang
| 35,021 |
Debate Grows Over Employer Health Plans Without Hospital Benefits
|
Lance Shnider is confident Obamacare regulators knew exactly what they were doing when they created an online calculator that gives a green light to new employer coverage without hospital benefits. "There's not a glitch in this system," said Shnider, president of Voluntary Benefits Agency, an Ohio firm working with some 100 employers to implement such plans. "This is the way the calculator was designed." Timothy Jost is pretty sure the whole thing was a mistake. "There's got to be a problem with the calculator," said Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and health-benefits authority. Letting employers avoid health-law penalties by offering plans without hospital benefits "is certainly not what Congress intended," he said. As companies prepare to offer medical coverage for 2015, debate has grown over government software that critics say can trap workers in inadequate plans while barring them from subsidies to buy fuller coverage on their own. At the center of contention is the calculator — an online spreadsheet to certify whether plans meet the Affordable Care Act's toughest standard for large employers, the "minimum value" test for adequate benefits. The software is used by large, self-insured employers that pay their own medical claims but often outsource the plan design and administration. Offering a calculator-certified plan shields employers from penalties of up to $3,120 per worker next year. Many insurance professionals were surprised to learn from a recent Kaiser Health News story that the calculator approves plans lacking hospital benefits and that numerous large, low-wage employers are considering them. Although insurance sold to individuals and small businesses through the health law's marketplaces is required to include expensive hospital benefits, plans from large, self-insured employers are not. Many policy analysts, however, believed it would be impossible for coverage without hospitalization to pass the minimum-value standard, which requires insurance to pay for at least 60 percent of the expected costs of a typical plan. And because calculator-approved coverage at work bars people from buying subsidized policies in the marketplaces that do offer hospital benefits, consumer advocates see such plans as doubly flawed. Kaiser Health News asked the Obama administration multiple times to respond to criticism that the calculator is inaccurate, but no one would comment. Calculator-tested plans lacking hospital benefits can cost half the price of similar coverage that includes them. While they don't include inpatient care, the plans offer rich coverage of doctor visits, drugs and even emergency-room treatment with low out-of-pocket costs. Who will offer such insurance? Large, well-paying employers that have traditionally covered hospitalization are likely to keep doing so, said industry representatives. "My members all had high-quality plans before the ACA came into existence, and they have these plans for a reason, which is recruitment and retention," said Gretchen Young, a senior vice president at the ERISA Industry Committee, which represents very large employers such as those in the Fortune 200. "And you're not going to get very far with employees if you don't cover hospitalization." But companies that haven't offered substantial medical coverage in the past — and that will be penalized next year for the first time if they don't meet health-law standards — are very interested, benefits advisors say. They include retailers, hoteliers, restaurants and other businesses with high worker turnover and lower pay. Temporary staffing agencies are especially keen on calculator-tested plans with no hospital coverage. "We've got many dozens of staffing-firm clients," said Alden Bianchi, a benefits lawyer with Mintz Levin in Boston. "All of them are using these things." Advisors and brokers declined to identify employers sponsoring the plans, citing client confidentiality. Benefits administrators offering the insurance say it makes sense not only for employers trying to comply with the law at low cost but for workers who typically have had little if any job-based health insurance. "This is a stepping-stone to bring in employers who have never [offered] coverage and now they're willing to come forward and do something," said Bruce Flunker, president of Wisconsin-based EBSO, a benefits firm. The plans are an upgrade for many workers at retailers, staffing agencies and similar companies, he said. "OK, if I go to the hospital I don't have coverage," he said. "But I don't have [hospital] coverage now. And what I get is a doctor. I can go to a specialist. I get a script filled at the pharmacy. I get real-life coverage." Companies considering such plans include a restaurant chain with 1,000 workers, a trucking firm with 500 employees and dependents, a delicatessen, a fur farm and firms working the oil boom in upper Midwest, Flunker said. Employer interest in the plans "is definitely picking up pret
|
NPR Kathy Lohr reports that doctors at the Louisiana State Medical Center are being sued because they refused to give a patient an abortion. Abortion rights advocates say the patient should have qualified for a life-saving Medicaid abortion and that the hospital violated federal law by not performing the procedure.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,022 |
Here's What GOP Bill Would (And Wouldn't) Change For Women's Health Care
|
The Affordable Care Act changed women's health care in some big ways: It stopped insurance companies from charging women extra, forced insurers to cover maternity care and contraceptives and allowed many women to get those contraceptives (as well as a variety of preventive services, like Pap smears and mammograms) at zero cost. Now Republicans have the opportunity to repeal that law, also known as Obamacare. But that doesn't mean all those things will go away. In fact, many will remain. Confused? Here's a rundown of how this bill would change some women-specific areas of health care, what it wouldn't change, and what we don't know so far. What would change: Abortion coverage There are restrictions on abortion under current law — the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal subsidies from being spent on abortions, except in the case of pregnancies that are the result of rape or incest or that threaten the life of the mother. So while health care plans can cover abortions, those being paid for with subsidies "must follow particular administrative requirements to ensure that no federal funds go toward abortion," as the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, explains. But the GOP bill tightens this. It says that the tax credits at the center of the plan cannot be spent at all on any health care plan that covers abortion (aside from the Hyde Amendment's exceptions). So while health care plans can cover abortion, very few people may be able to purchase those sorts of plans, as they wouldn't be able to use their tax credits on them. That could make it much more expensive and difficult to obtain an abortion under this law than under current law. Planned Parenthood funding This bill partially "defunds" Planned Parenthood, meaning it would cut back on the federal funding that can be used for services at the clinics. Fully 43 percent of Planned Parenthood's revenue in fiscal year 2015 — more than $550 million — came from government grants and reimbursements. Right now, under Obamacare, federal funds can be spent at Planned Parenthood, but they can't be used for abortion — again, a result of the Hyde Amendment and again, with the three Hyde Amendment exceptions. But this bill goes further, saying that people couldn't use Medicaid at Planned Parenthood. To be clear, it's not that there's a funding stream going directly from the government to Planned Parenthood that Congress can just turn off. Rather, the program reimburses Planned Parenthood for the care it provides to Medicaid recipients. So this bill would mean that Medicaid recipients who currently receive care at an organization that provides abortions would have to find a new provider (whom Medicaid would then reimburse). Abortion is a small part of what Planned Parenthood does: The organizations says it accounted for 3.4 percent of all services provided in the year ending in September 2014. (Of course, some patients receive more than one service; Planned Parenthood had around 2.5 million patients in that year. Assuming one abortion per patient, that's roughly 13 percent of all patients receiving abortions.) Together, providing contraception and the testing for and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases made up three-quarters of the services the organization provided in one year. That means low-income women (that is, women on Medicaid) could be among the most heavily affected by this bill, as it may force them to find other providers for reproductive health services. Of the other government money that goes to Planned Parenthood, most of it comes from Title X. That federal program, created under President Richard Nixon, provides family planning services to people beyond Medicaid, like low-income women who are not Medicaid-eligible. Earlier this year, Republicans started the process of stripping that funding. What wouldn't change (yet): Republicans have stressed that this bill was just one of three parts, so it's hard to say definitively what wouldn't change at all as a result of their plan. But thus far, here's what is holding steady: Maternity and contraceptive coverage Because this was a reconciliation bill, it could cover fiscal-related topics only. It couldn't get into many of the particulars of what people's coverage will look like, meaning some things won't change. The essential health benefits set out in Obamacare — a list of 10 types of services that all plans must cover — do not change for other policies. Maternity care is included in those benefits, as is contraception, so plans will have to continue to cover those. The GOP bill also doesn't change the Obamacare policy that gave women access to free contraception, as Vox's Emily Crockett reported. In addition, maternity and contraception are still both "mandatory benefits" under Medicaid. That doesn't change in the GOP bill. (Confusingly, the bill does sunset essential health benefits for Medicaid recipients. But because there is overlap and these particular benefits remain "mandatory," they are
|
On Monday we read from your emails. On Inauguration Day, we asked listeners to tell us what domestic issue the president should focus on in the next four years. Based on your emails, health care was among the top contenders. From Debbie in San Antonio, Texas: "As a physician, my life would be better if we had universal health coverage. I want to take care of patients regardless of their ability to pay, and I want patients to be able to get necessary tests and medications."
|
kor_Hang
| 35,023 |
As Health Law Changes Loom, A Shift To Part-Time Workers
|
Nearly all of the remaining provisions of the new health care law go into effect next January, including one that requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to pay for their health care or pay a penalty. Some businesses may already be making personnel changes to save money when that provision of the Affordable Care Act kicks in. One option on the table: shifting full-time workers to part time. Duane Davis thinks that's what happened to him. He'd probably still be stocking clothing at the Juicy Couture store in New York City if he still got 30 to 40 hours a week of work like he used to. The work environment "was very cool," he says, and he liked his co-workers. But Davis quit because he couldn't get enough hours. If he'd stayed and worked 30 or more hours a week, he would have been eligible for employer-paid health care starting next year. But earlier this year, Davis says, he was told he could work no more than 23 hours. "If we were ever going over those hours, they'd tell us to go home. Because we were going over the amount of hours that we were given for the week," Davis says. According to Davis, business wasn't down and there was plenty to do. But he says management seemed eager to shift its employee roster from majority full time to majority part time. Davis has no proof, but he suspects it's because the company is preparing for the new health care law. "It was crazy," Davis says of the hour limits. "I was always trying to understand — if you don't have hours to give out to part-time workers, why [are] you hiring new part-time workers?" For Employers, A Cost-Benefit Analysis Juicy Couture's parent company, Fifth & Pacific, didn't initially respond to requests for comment. But after this story aired, Fifth & Pacific said it does not cap its part-time hours and that it is working to comply with the Affordable Care Act. In an email, a company spokeswoman said hours vary based on business demand. The Papa John's pizza chain publicly stated it may reduce workers' hours to stay under the 30-hour-a-week limit. And last year, Darden Restaurants, which owns Red Lobster and Olive Garden, pilot-tested shifting more of its workers to part time. Following that test, and after considerable backlash, the company said it would not reduce hours or cut its full-time staffing. Rob Wilson, president of the temp agency Employco, says he's observing similar shifts happening across his business. "We're seeing it quite a bit," he says. "Instead of saying, 'I want one person for 40 hours a week,' [employers are saying], 'I'll take two people for 20 hours or 25 hours a week.'" Wilson says the health care issue is also reshaping his own business. A typical temp working full time makes a gross profit of about $3,000 a year for Employco. But the cost to insure that person would come to $2,900. That means just $100 in profit per employee before he advertises or pays his recruiters and his payroll department. "You can't survive on $100," Wilson says, "so you really have to pass that cost on." In other words, Wilson will have to charge his clients more — if they are willing to pay. And from his perspective, this basic math adds up to a big labor market problem. "Your underemployed population in America is just going to go up dramatically," Wilson predicts. But experts say it's not clear that this workforce shift is attributable to the health care law. Some say employers have been shifting employees more toward part time for years — especially in the retail and hospitality industries — to increase flexibility and minimize benefit costs. Neil Trautwein, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, notes that the Affordable Care Act is just one of many cost considerations for employers. "The ACA doesn't become the determinative factor, but it does become a factor," he says. A Shift With 'Hidden Costs' Elise Gould, director of health policy research at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank, says the new provision won't affect most workers. But studies show about 2 million workers could potentially get fewer hours — and therefore remain without health insurance. "Workforces that are based on part-time work, a lot of those workers already are not eligible," Gould says. But, she adds, "to the extent that they have some workers that are working, say, 32 hours a week, are they going to move them down? Absolutely. Those are the workers that are most at risk." It's not clear that relying on more part-time workers to avoid health care costs is a financially sound tradeoff for employers. Carrie Gleason, executive director of the Retail Action Project, a worker advocacy group, says "there are tremendous hidden costs to having a large part-time workforce." Scheduling workers will be a bigger headache if employers rely on more part-time workers, Gleason says. And there's more turnover, which increases a business's training and customer service costs. "This is a massive growing retail sector. It's one of the few secto
|
Dr. Rahul Parikh argues that patients must do their homework and understand the costs of their choices to bring down the costs of health care.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,024 |
The sunspot quickly evolved into an unstable configuration and could lead to solar flares, Nasa warns .
The agency's Solar Dynamics Observatory watched it form in less than 48 hours over Tuesday and Wednesday .
|
By . Damien Gayle . PUBLISHED: . 12:59 EST, 21 February 2013 . | . UPDATED: . 08:35 EST, 22 February 2013 . A giant sunspot that is at least six times the diameter of Earth has formed on the Sun in less than 48 hours, Nasa has announced. Sunspots are dark spots on the surface of the Sun which appear as turbulent magnetic fields in its surface rearrange and realign. The massive sunspot, which formed over the course of Tuesday and Wednesday, quickly evolved into an unstable configuration, and could lead to solar flares, which can interrupt our radio communications. Scroll down for video . Rapid formation: The bottom two black spots on the sun, known as sunspots, appeared quickly over the course of February 19-20. These two sunspots are part of the same system and are over six Earths across . Nasa scientists spotted the huge sunspot forming through instruments on the agency's Solar Dynamics Observatory, one of several spacecraft that monitor the Sun's weather. 'Over the course of February 19-20, 2013, scientists watched a giant sunspot form in under 48 hours,' said Karen Fox, a spokesman for Nasa. 'It has grown to over six Earth diameters across but its full extent is hard to judge since the spot lies on a sphere not a flat disk.' The sunspot identified by Nasa is formed of several dark blemishes on the surface on the Sun which have evolved rapidly over the past couple of days. The Solar Dynamics Observatory contains a suite of instruments that will provide observations leading to a more complete understanding of the solar dynamics that drive variability in the Earth's environment. This set of instruments: . Sunspots are caused by intense magnetic activity and are actually cooler than the rest of the Sun, which leaves them clearly visible as dark spots in the photosphere. In reality, if the sunspot were isolated from the surrounding photosphere it would be brighter than an electric arc. Ms Fox added: 'The spot quickly evolved into what's called a delta region, in which the lighter areas around the sunspot, the penumbra, exhibit magnetic fields that point in the opposite direction of those fields in the center, dark area. 'This is a fairly unstable configuration that scientists know can lead to eruptions of radiation on the sun called solar flares.' The observation comes as the Sun is gearing up for the most active phase of its 11-year solar cycle. The Sun's magnetic field lines are the most distorted at this time due to the magnetic field on the solar equator rotating at a slightly faster pace than at the solar poles. This causes large numbers of sunspots appear, and the Sun's irradiance output grows by about 0.1 per cent. The increased energy output of solar maxima can impact global climate and recent studies have shown some correlation with regional weather patterns. The solar cycle takes an average of about 11 years to go from one solar maximum to the next, with an observed variation in duration of 9 to 14 years for any given solar cycle. Large solar flares often occur during a maximum. For example, the Solar storm of 1859 struck the Earth with such intensity the northern lights could be seen as far south as Rome. The last solar maximum was in 2000. In 2006 NASA initially expected a solar maximum in 2010 or 2011, and thought that it could be the strongest since 1958. However, more recent projections say the maximum should arrive in autumn of 2013 and be the smallest sunspot cycle since 1906.
|
Obamacare has survived a Supreme Court appeal, a government shutdown and ongoing challenges by opposing politicians. With few exceptions, every American must have health insurance by March 31 or pay a penalty fee. That's right: The marketplaces that are central to the Affordable Care Act -- also known as Obamacare -- launched on October 1, despite the shutdown showdown and the much-anticipated premiere of "The Walking Dead." The government has since reopened, and Obamacare is still the law. For most people, Obamacare won't make a direct impact. People who have health insurance through their employer, or through Medicare or Medicaid, can continue to get it that way. Obamacare coverage gap: The poor caught in between . But the more than 48 million Americans without health insurance have to enroll in one of the insurance marketplaces by December 15 in order to have their coverage start on January 1. The historic rollout has been overshadowed by technical issues and pessimistic predictions about how many people are really clamoring to sign up. Here are five things that have happened since the launch of Obamacare: . 1. Sign up on Healthcare.gov hasn't been easy . The launch of Obamacare was disappointing for many people who actually wanted to use the government website to enroll in health insurance. Technical problems with the federal website, HealthCare.gov, made signing up online difficult for some users. The high volume of traffic to the insurance exchange portal contributed to these problems. "I am the first to acknowledge that the website that was supposed to do this all in a seamless way has had way more glitches than I think are acceptable," President Obama told KCCI, a CNN affiliate in Des Moines, Iowa. A senior administration official told CNN that techs are working around the clock to get the site working better. But there also has been some confusion over user passwords. When CNN called the government help line, we were told passwords established in the first week of October were no longer valid and new passwords were needed to access the site; the Department of Health and Human Services told us that information was inaccurate. CNN's Elizabeth Cohen tried to enroll in Obamacare as an experiment. It took more than a week for her to create a login and password. When that finally worked, error messages plagued her efforts when she tried to log in. Almost two weeks went by before she succeeded in logging in and proceeding with an application. An insurance industry source told CNNMoney's Tami Luhby that insurers are receiving faulty information about new customers, including duplicate forms, and missing and garbled information. They are in discussion with regulators and the administration to address these issues. Next week, congressional oversight hearings will begin, where politicians will ask questions about why the rollout had so many problems. 2. State sites seemed to fare better . While 36 states are using Healthcare.gov as the gateway to sign up new insurance customers, 14 states and the District of Columbia are running their own sign-up sites. While HealthCare.gov has stumbled, many of these individual states are doing better. The Department of Health and Human Services says it won't release enrollment figures before November, but CNN has gotten a window on enrollment by canvassing the states running their own sign-up sites. As of Friday afternoon, at least 257,000 people had signed up for new insurance plans. More than half of those -- 134,000 -- are in New York state. Operations are also running relatively smoothly in Washington state and Kentucky, which each reported more than 45,000 new sign-ups. CNN reached its sign-up figures by combining what states report as "enrolled," and what they're calling "almost enrolled." The latter group has completed the process but has not yet made an initial payment. Also note: The numbers don't include those who have sought assistance or enrolled over the phone or via paper application, and not all the states responded to data requests. Not every state has had smooth sailing. Hawaii's marketplace didn't fully open until October 15, two weeks late. In California, the Los Angeles Times has reported repeated problems with the part of the website where people can check whether their doctors are part of a network. 3. Overall enrollment numbers are unclear . Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said the administration has not set monthly enrollment targets. But this week the Associated Press reported it had obtained an internal September 5 memo that said Health and Human Services expected about 500,000 people to enroll in new plans this month. At the current pace, enrollment would nearly reach that figure in the 14 states and District of Columbia alone. Still, it's unclear how many people have actually obtained health insurance since October 1. CNN has created a map with the latest numbers for individual states that are releasing enrollment information. 4. The cost of care has become more clear . Before the insurance exchanges went live, it was unclear how much health care was going to cost consumers in each state. The Manhattan Institute has released an online map showing insurance premiums before and after Obamacare based on age and sex. The law's impact varies widely state to state. In Oregon, for example, rates for 40-year-old men have increased 24%. In Ohio, they have dropped 22%. The White House says that once tax credits are factored in, about 6 in 10 individuals will be able to find insurance for less than $100 a month. "In some states, insurance markets were already regulated to not allow insurers to discriminate against the sick. In those states, premiums will fall, like in New York, where premiums will fall by as much as 50%," said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who helped design the law. "In other states insurers were freely allowed to discriminate against the sick. In those states, by ending the discrimination, we're going to raise premiums in states like Wisconsin, or some of the Southern states." Overall, Gruber said, rates are going up for the young and healthy, and down for older people and people who are sick. Is Obamacare cheap or pricey? The verdicts are in . When you do choose a plan, you should be aware of what doctor choices you have under your coverage. To reduce premiums and other costs, many insurers have chosen to limit the selection of doctors in certain exchange plans. Large academic medical centers, which are often more expensive, are excluded from such plans. "The sticker price will be lower if the number of options are lower," Joe Mondy, a spokesman with Cigna, which is participating in five state exchanges, told CNNMoney. "The issue is how many options can you do without?" 5. The shutdown came and went -- without changing much . The government shutdown had no effect on users trying to sign up for Obamacare because money designated for the launch was approved in a previous session of Congress and didn't have to be approved again. Yet it was partly because of the Affordable Care Act that the shutdown continued so long in the first place. Republicans attacked the law on several fronts, demanding first that the government defund Obamacare, and then that it be delayed for a year. But when the government reopened, the GOP came away with just a small concession related to Obamacare: two additional reports from the Department of Health and Human Services. Republicans had wanted tighter income verification procedures for health insurance applicants. What they'll get is a report detailing the income checks the insurance exchanges will use, and a second report that reviews how effective the verification procedures are. The Republican party is still calling for an investigation into the HealthCare.gov website's problems. Opinion: Goodbye to the strategy Republicans knew was a fantasy .
|
eng_Latn
| 35,025 |
About 50 million Americans are without any health insurance .
People losing jobs in the recession also lose health insurance .
Government health provision care largely confined to veterans, elderly and poor .
Extending government role is health care is politically hot potato .
|
(CNN) -- Doctor James Braude leads a group medical practice in an elegant Atlanta, Georgia, office decorated with designer furnishings. It doesn't look like a charity asking for handouts. But it is asking. Obama, pictured July 1 in Virginia, has been touring the states to promote his plan to voters. "On some days we've counted up to 30 patients a day who've lost their jobs and their health insurance," Braude said. So Braude and his colleagues offer as much free care as they can afford. The doctors have also begun discreetly inviting paying patients to contribute to a fund, helping more people get care they haven't got the money for. "We're doctors. We're addicted to helping people. And when we can't, we go through withdrawal." Millions of Americans have always gone without the kind of routine medical care that is seen as a basic right in many countries. The U.S. economic downturn -- meaning people lose health insurance when they lose their job -- and the election of President Barack Obama have coincided to increase both the need and the opportunity to address the plight of uninsured America. Obama's ambition is to provide insurance for the estimated 50 million Americans without coverage. Watch why many in rural U.S. have concerns » . The insurance is expected to cover doctors, hospital care and prescription drugs. But just about every detail is still being negotiated so it's not certain who would be covered, what they would be covered for or whether people who don't want insurance would be forced to have it and pay for it. The plans that emerge could become the Obama administration's most ambitious domestic program and potentially a big, early test of his presidency. American medical care needs attention . Even though nearly 50 million of its roughly 300 million people have no routine health care, the United States spends more going to the doctor than any other industrialized nation in the world. Fully one-sixth of the economy is devoted to it. Under the current hybrid system, the U.S. Government pays for health care for ex-military, the extremely poor and the elderly. But the vast majority of Americans have to pay for their own health care and most do it where they work; many employers arrange health insurance and partly subsidize the premiums. The rapidly rising cost is crushing all kinds of businesses, from car companies to family farms. At the same time, hospitals and doctors say they are falling behind because the payments they receive from insurance companies aren't keeping up with their costs. "Within a decade we will be spending one out of every five dollars we earn on health care," Obama said recently. "In 30 years, it will be one out of every three. That is untenable, that is unacceptable, and I will not allow it as president of the United States." The politics: Deep disagreement . There is a lot of disagreement about what to do. Congress has the job of actually turning the push for change into a functioning government program. Democratic lawmakers don't all support the president's plan or agree on how to pay for it. Republicans are split in a different way. Some lawmakers are trying to influence the Democrats' plans and others are proposing entirely different alternatives. "If you look at their plan, it really is a big government-run plan that will take control of the delivery of health care in America," said Republican congressional leader John Boehner. His suggestion: "Improve the current system so it works better." The most profound disagreement centers on whether Washington should create its own new health-insurance concern to compete with the private companies that provide insurance now. Obama and many Democrats favor it; Republicans are dead set against it. Part of the problem is that insurance companies fear the government will put them out of business, by favoring or subsidizing its own scheme. The other part of the problem is more basic and ideological. The U.S. government already runs enormous health-insurance programs for the poor, the elderly and military veterans -- but many Americans see potentially mandatory government health-insurance as the foreign-born offspring of socialist states. The economics: More debt . Political opposition notwithstanding, the economics are going to be a problem too. Health care is a $2 trillion-dollar-a-year industry that would have to expand to cover millions of people who are now uninsured. The president has some ideas for new efficiencies but most estimates suggest the total cost of caring for Americans would rise dramatically. Washington is already carrying record debt and would have to find a way to pay for it. One assessment by the Congressional Budget Office of the Senate Democrat plan estimated it would cost more than $1 trillion over 10 years and only provide coverage for about 16 million Americans. There's also the possibility that the impact of reform on many employers and virtually every wage-earner across the country will have a spillover effect on the economy as a whole, still lodged in recession. The health care industry: Undecided . Then there is the place where the politics and the economy overlap: the health care industry. Doctors alone have spent roughly two-thirds of a billion dollars lobbying lawmakers in the last 10 years, according to the independent Center for Responsive Politics. Add pharmaceutical companies and hospitals, nurses and other health care professionals and you get one of the most influential forces in U.S. politics. They successfully organized to defeat health care reform when the Clinton administration tried it 15 years ago. The industry benefits from one crucial thing: Americans like their doctors. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released July 1 found 54 percent of people worry that their health care costs would go up if the administration's proposals get passed and only one in five thinks that his or her families would be better off under the Obama plan. With all that in mind, Atlanta's Dr. Braude says he's optimistic the reform can succeed. If not, he says, "we go back to the same system and we have 50 million people without insurance, which means you are one brain tumor away from bankruptcy."
|
A health minister in India has been seen walking past a man lay dying outside the same hospital he had come to inspect. The newly appointed minister for health in the Indian state of Telangana, Laxma Reddy, had gone to investigate the way officials were tackling a severe swine flu outbreak in the region. But on his first day into the new job, he and other top health officials were seen walking past and completely ignoring a dying man left lying on the ground. The new health minister in the Indian state of Telangana Laxma Reddy had completely ingored the dying man lying on the floor outside Osmania General Hospital . Instead the minister continued with his visit to Osmania General Hospital, in the city of Hyderabad where he inspected patient care and suggested improvements to try and tackle the outbreak. He now faces criticism for his seeming indifference to the terminally ill person lying unattended at the entrance. The minister declined to comment. Mr Reddy was moved from the role of energy minister to take over the health portfolio after massive criticism of the government in central India's Telangana State for its poor handling of the swine flu epidemic. Mr Reddy had gone to investigate the way officials were tackling a severe swine flu outbreak in the region . But on his first day into the new job, he and other top health officials were sere seen walking past and completely ignoring a dying man left lying on the floor . So far some 50 people have died of swine flu in Hyderabad this season and dozens of others are reported to be ill with the disease including five children. Isolation rooms and beds to treat swine flu patients have already been created at hospitals in the city including Niloufer, Fever Hospital and Osmania General Hospital where the minister visited. He told hospital staff to lay more stress on sanitation and promised to take up modernisation of the existing hospital mortuary and toilets. Mr Reddy was moved from the role of energy minister to take over the health portfolio after massive criticism of the government in central India's Telangana State for its poor handling of the swine flu epidemic but has come under fire himself for his seemingly callous indifference to a dying man .
|
eng_Latn
| 35,026 |
Sebelius spars with GOP legislators over longstanding criticisms .
New figures show increased enrollment in Obamacare policies .
The bill for the Obamacare website is $677 million, with $319 million paid so far .
Health Secretary Sebelius creates a new job to assess risk from major policy initiatives .
|
Call it a pre-emptive strike. Hours ahead of her appearance Wednesday before a House subcommittee certain to grill her on the botched launch of the Obamacare website, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced an internal review of what happened and why. Then her department released the latest enrollment figures for President Barack Obama's signature health care reforms, showing a big increase in November after the site's problem-plagued rollout on October 1. Obamacare sign-ups hit 365,000; still a long way to go . The moves appeared timed to blunt criticism by the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health of the reforms known as Obamacare and Sebelius, the Cabinet Secretary in charge of implementing them. A chorus of GOP critics have called for her to be fired over the failure of the website, and she sparred with several Republicans at Wednesday's hearing over complaints about HealthCare.gov and the overall reforms. While little new information emerged, Sebelius told the panel the government has contracted to pay $677 million for the Obamacare website and actually paid $319 million of that total so far. Website gets $47 million price hike . Let's have a look . In a blog post Wednesday, Sebelius said that Dan Levinson, the Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services, would review what happened with the "flawed and simply unacceptable" launch of the HealthCare.gov website. "I believe strongly in the need for accountability, and in the importance of being good stewards of taxpayer dollars," she said, adding that "we need a thorough review of the contractor performance and program management structure that resulted in the flawed launch of the website." In particular, Levinson will "review the acquisition process, overall program management, and contractor performance and payment issues related to the development and management" of the website, her blog post said. "We will take action to address the Inspector General's findings," she added. In addition to that review, Sebelius also said a new position would be created in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that implements Obamacare to minimize risks from major policy initiatives. A third step called for better training for CMS employees on "best practices" for hiring and working with contractors. A few days earlier than planned, the Obama administration announced Wednesday that nearly 365,000 people signed up for health coverage under new exchanges created by Obamacare in the first two months of enrollment. The figure was a big increase over the 106,000 who signed up the first month, when the computer problems undermined enrollment, but still well below the needed pace to reach the target of 7 million by a March 31 deadline to get coverage for 2014. At Wednesday's hearing, Republicans challenged the new figures by pointing out they didn't reflect people who had actually paid for new policies under Obamacare. In a particularly combative exchange, GOP Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois called the new enrollment figure "fraudulent because it's not those who have purchased plans yet." Sebelius shot back that health insurance under Obamacare remained private policies, requiring people to pay up before they get a card from the insurance company proving they were covered. That didn't satisfy Shimkus, who cut her off by saying "you're telling us those who shopped are enrolled." Administration officials say traffic has increased even more since they completed upgrades to the website at the end of last month. Through November, just over 137,200 Americans obtained an insurance policy through HealthCare.gov and nearly 227,500 through the 14 state-run exchanges, according to the new federal figures. An additional 1.94 million people have started the process but had yet to pick a policy. Consumers must purchase health insurance by December 23 and pay the first premium by the end of the year for coverage to begin January 1. Sign-ups vary widely by state. More than 107,000 Californians have picked plans, compared to only 44 Oregonians. Florida leads the way in the federal exchange, with nearly 18,000 people picking plans, while North Dakota has only 265 enrollees. GOP attacks . Led by conservative Republicans, critics continue to attack Obamacare as an example of big government run amok, and Wednesday's hearing included fresh salvos aimed at Sebelius and Obama. While some GOP legislators focused on specific provisions or problems with the reforms, others made clear their unhappiness dated back to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 with no Republican support. "A lot of this is about the way it was passed," said Rep. Ed Whifield of Kentucky, noting that the Democratic House leadership at the time permitted no amendments. "There are very deep feelings about this still." Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, said misinformation by the administration about the health care reforms had eroded public trust. "Every major promise the administration made about the ACA, from being able to keep your health plan if you like it, to being able to keep your doctor if you want to, the very premise of health reform in the first place, that the Affordable Care Act would make health coverage more affordable, has proven to be wrong," Pitts said. "My constituents have repeatedly expressed to me that they feel they were lied to by the administration about the real effects of this law." Democrats lampooned the Republican criticism as overheated rhetoric, with Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey saying that "sometimes I think they're living on Mars rather than here on Earth." "It just boggles my mind to hear these Republican comments about a world turned upside down when Obamacare is working," he said. The blog post by Sebelius amounted to a sneak preview of her remarks to the committee, emphasizing steps she was taking to find out what happened with the rollout and prevent future problems. Some Republicans were concerned about problems with the "back-end" operations of the HealthCare.gov website, such as transmitting correct enrollment information to insurance companies. Sebelius said such issues were being addressed, including efforts to contact people who enrolled online to make sure they follow up with the company they chose to confirm their policies and pay for them. Your Obamacare form might have errors . She was unable to provide details of how many of the more than 360,000 enrollees so far had paid, adding that they would likely wait until the year-end deadline. "I think most Americans will not pay until the money is actually owed," she said. Obamacare: You're not insured until you pay .
|
By . Leesa Smith . A government bureaucrat is currently being paid an astounding $28,000 a month for a job that no longer exists. Louise Sylvan has been earning $300,000 a year since 2011 when she was appointed to the role of CEO of the Australian National Preventative Health Agency - which just shut down in June. The Daily Telegraph reports that the bureaucrat no longer has official duties but still receives a salary because the five-year contract she signed doesn’t expire until September 2016. Louise Sylvan is being paid $28,000 a month for a job that no longer exists as the CEO of the Australian National Preventative Health Agency . It is understood Ms Sylvan turned down a $200,000 redundancy package when it was announced that the agency was folding. However, Ms Sylvan is not breaking any laws by receiving a salary unless there is a change in legislation which could then end her five-year contract. The agency was formed by the then Kevin Rudd Labor government with more than 40 staff employed to provide grants and sponsor events that would help combat drinking and obesity, with a $5 million budget. But the current Abbott Liberal government axed the agency this year and placed some of its initiatives with other government departments. Ms Sylvan is said to have an office in a Department of Health building in Sydney where her total annual salary is $332,800 and her base wage is $242,950. A spokesman for Health minister Peter Dutton confirmed to the Daily Telegraph that the agency the agency was now defunct but wouldn't comment on Ms Sylvan's situation. Ms Sylvan is not breaking any laws by receiving a salary unless there is a change in legislation which could then end her five-year contract .
|
eng_Latn
| 35,027 |
How does Windows Server 2012 work?
|
What are uses of Windows Server 2012?
|
Why is Obamacare currently failing?
|
eng_Latn
| 35,028 |
What are the reasons people either love and hate Obamacare?
|
What are the reasons that some people think Obamacare is so terrible?
|
What is your review of SNAP-2016?
|
eng_Latn
| 35,029 |
Often $10, it's what patients in HMOs shell out with every visit to the doctor
|
How to Shop for Health Insurance - Personal Finance - WSJ.com Although they grant more flexibility to the patient, they often come with higher ... If you like the doctors in an HMO's network, it's mighty simple and cheap: There's no ... some coverage (it's customary for a PPO to cover 70% of out-of-network visits). ... Almost every type of insurance requires you to spend between $10 and $50...
|
One Night In The Tidal Basin: How A Stripper Doomed Health Care ... Nov 21, 2013 ... On the national stage, Mills entered Congress at a time when ... and created insurance pools to provide low-cost insurance to poor people. .... Then, on August 20, 1974, Mills got approval for most of his bill on a 13-12 .... Tags: 1974, Fanne Foxe, health care reform, Richard Nixon, Scandal, Sex, Wilbur Mills...
|
eng_Latn
| 35,030 |
Who was the most frequent primary payer amount children and adults?
|
From 2000 to 2010, the average cost per asthma-related hospital stay in the United States for children remained relatively stable at about $3,600, whereas the average cost per asthma-related hospital stay for adults increased from $5,200 to $6,600. In 2010, Medicaid was the most frequent primary payer among children and adults aged 18–44 years in the United States; private insurance was the second most frequent payer. Among both children and adults in the lowest income communities in the United States there is a higher rates of hospital stays for asthma in 2010 than those in the highest income communities.
|
In the US, starting in 2013, under the Physician Financial Transparency Reports (part of the Sunshine Act), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has to collect information from applicable manufacturers and group purchasing organizations in order to report information about their financial relationships with physicians and hospitals. Data are made public in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. The expectation is that relationship between doctors and Pharmaceutical industry will become fully transparent.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,031 |
When this series began, the youngest child Nicholas Bradford was 8
|
Adam Rich - Wikipedia Adam Rich (born October 12, 1968) is an American actor noted for his role as Nicholas Bradford, the youngest son on the television series Eight Is Enough,...
|
Low-cost insurance for kids - Apr. 20, 2000 - CNN Money Apr 20, 2000 ... Such is the case for low-income families earning too much to qualify for ... federal-state health insurance program for low-income and needy people. It covers some 36 million individuals including 18 million children, the elderly, blind, ... That's where the State Children's Health Program (SCHIP) comes in.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,032 |
What concept eventually became successful?
|
Nevertheless, it was radar that proved to be critical weapon in the night battles over Britain from this point onward. Dowding had introduced the concept of airborne radar and encouraged its usage. Eventually it would become a success. On the night of 22/23 July 1940, Flying Officer Cyril Ashfield (pilot), Pilot Officer Geoffrey Morris (Observer) and Flight Sergeant Reginald Leyland (Air Intercept radar operator) of the Fighter Interception Unit became the first pilot and crew to intercept and destroy an enemy aircraft using onboard radar to guide them to a visual interception, when their AI night fighter brought down a Do 17 off Sussex. On 19 November 1940 the famous RAF night fighter ace John Cunningham shot down a Ju 88 bomber using airborne radar, just as Dowding had predicted.
|
On March 10, 2004, Bush officially clinched the number of delegates needed to be nominated at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City. Bush accepted the nomination on September 2, 2004, and selected Vice President Dick Cheney as his running mate. (In New York, the ticket was also on the ballot as candidates of the Conservative Party of New York State.) During the convention and throughout the campaign, Bush focused on two themes: defending America against terrorism and building an ownership society. The ownership society included allowing people to invest some of their Social Security in the stock market, increasing home and stock ownership, and encouraging more people to buy their own health insurance.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,033 |
Resolve a Claim Dispute With Your Health Insurance Provider
|
When you go to the hospital to receive medical care, your health insurance may cover some or all of the costs. When a hospital bills for their services, they will often file a claim with your insurance company.
|
Ever woken up on the wrong side of the bed? Need to get your blood pumping for the day? Never fear! This article is for you!
|
eng_Latn
| 35,034 |
what are the health problems faced by illegal immigrants in usa?
|
Tuberculous in Florida is a big problem with illegal immigrants.
|
The whole thing is a joke. Who is going to track them all down? There will be so many lawsuits, it will be staggering. "If you have been here this many years you have to do this or that". That's bull. They expect them to tell the truth? They are going to give them social security, even when they stole someones identity. I really would like to know what the real story is.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,035 |
IS anyone against the government looking for ways to provide affordable healthcare to working citizens?
|
The high cost of health care today is actually due to government regulations and the number of lawsuits that receive exorbitant settlements. These costs are then passed to the patients, which then makes them need either insurance or government assistance to pay for health care. \nIf both the federal and state governments would reduce regulations, red tape, and such then the cost of health care could also drop. But, people also need to understand that doctors and nurses, no matter how well trained or experienced, are human and do make mistakes. And there is also so much that we just really don't understand about the human body.
|
In my honest opinion I wouldn't be surprised. Did you know that the american government knew about a possible attack on Pearl Harbor. They knew about it but did nothing. Why? Because they wanted to join the war, but the american people did not want to. So they needed a push, for war. What better push for war than having the enemy attack you on your soil. The one thing maked me believe that the government had something to do w/911, is that there was no plane wreckage or luggage or anything resembling a plane when it went down in the Pentagon and in Penn. Why?
|
eng_Latn
| 35,036 |
comparison os life insurance co.in india on count of profit &loss, primium income policies etc?
|
Go to following site and download Journal. In this Journal you may find all the data.\nhttp://www.irdaindia.org/
|
I understand your problem. My husband was put in the hospital last year and had emergency surgery and I had past hips surgeys and they won't even give us insurance. I started researching some stuff and found a great site that offers health benefits. It's not insurance but you can save up to 80% on dental and medical benefits and you get free prescription, Free chiropractic and free vision. Best of all it's no more than $60.00 dollars a month for the entire household. That site below will offer and show you have to obtain benefits. \n\nGood luck and I am sorry we all have to deal with the goverment doing this to our families.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,037 |
what kind of benifits get assylee people?
|
Where do these assylee people reside? That makes a big difference, don't you think?
|
America is the only industrialized nation in the world who does not have a national heath care system. People who aren't wealthy, don't have health insurance, and aren't poor enough to qualify for medicaid, get screwed.\n\nIsrael also has guaranteed housing, while we have homeless.\nDoesn't make sense to me...
|
eng_Latn
| 35,038 |
Can I move insurance cash values to a self directed IRA.
|
Sure, but you're better of to buy term insurance, and put the difference between term & whole into the IRA.
|
How is it being removed? The removal process is what could be a price jumper. Plus, are they having it analyzed to check for cancerous material? I think most of the time that is what they *have* to do in order for your insurance to pay anything on it. My insurance will not pay for anything "cosmetic". I have to fight them on a claim because they refused to pay anything for a skin tab removal and it was not cosmetic.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,039 |
I go to school full time and we have 2 children. My husband is self-employed and we have no health insurance. The children do, medicaid. My husband says when I am done with school, I should work full time to provide the family with health insurance. When I am sick and need to go to the doctor, he gives me attitude because we will incur another bill. I say if he wants to be self-employed, he should make enough to pay for it, or get a real job.
|
Yes a person who wishes to operate a business must do so with the understanding of what those costs are.\n\nHe has taxes, workers comp insurnace, libility insur and health insurance that have to be paid to be properly in buisness. If he is not making that much money, and the fact the kids are on medicaid, it says he is not making enough to really support the family, he needs to consider at least another part time job or a full time job and work the business part time till it gets big enough to support the family
|
Is it a problem that doctors don’t pursue questions regarding diseases and treatments?\n\nYes, it is a big problem and it can lead to a misdiagnoses. Doctors used to have the time to talk with and examine their patients. With the institution of the HMO system doctors are budgeted to only 15-20 minutes. The don’t even have time to check your vitals, a nurse does that before you see the doctor. Now days the doctors have to work fast to make their quotas.\n\nHMOs have made health care cheaper, but nowhere cheap enough, and at a great cost. Patients just don’t get enough time with their doctors to insure that they get adequate treatment, and by seeing so many patients in a day they start to blur together.\n\nI belong to the world’s largest HMO organization; the Veterans Administration, handling patients in all 50 states and world wide (care can be provided at any base with the proper facilities). The US Military has to run its health care like an HMO as well. It is the only way that they can provide care to all active duty members and their families for free (most of the time—some family members can be charged some fees). Currently I am seeing 5 clinics in a major facility so I know about HMOs I have also seen the rushed practices of HMOs percolate down into the private practice. Doctors in private practice have to keep costs low and see a lot of patients so they can compete.\n\nAmericans are burdened with the “Puritan Ethic” a product of our ancestors who came over on the Mayflower. Very few Americans are descended from those early colonists, but they have all been influenced by it. This ethic says that adults must work hard all their lives, be proper religious folk, take only the minimum of time off, and yet somehow raise a family. Getting sick is just not an option.\n\nMy parents were first generation immigrants; my grandparents all immigrated to America. They lived in the North East where this ethic thrived and was expected of all immigrants. My Grandfather died in his 40s, probably from a heart attack. He never went to see a doctor so I will never know. My father was a long time smoker and he probably died of lung complications induced by smoking. Despite feeling weak, despite having to wheeze he didn’t want to go to the doctor. So he died in his 70s.\n\nIllness was never an excuse in our family. According to my mother, “If it isn’t broke and bleeding then there is nothing wrong.” I came down with an ear infection so bad that I couldn’t sleep. It turned out to be a double ear infection, but it took my mother several days before she was willing to take me to the doctor. My dad had a good job with full health coverage so money wasn’t a problem. She didn’t want to admit that I was sick and trying to “pull one over on her” by ditching school. So it was no surprise that my father didn’t go to the doctor.\n\nWhen she gave birth to her last two children she was at work in the morning and in the hospital that afternoon. A little thing like being pregnant didn’t keep her down, or put her into bed for long.\n\nCombine the Puritan Ethic with a short doctor visit and few patients get a proper visit. They don’t want to admit they are sick and the doctor doesn’t have time to pry it out of them. Often they will have waited until a major problem has grown to the point where it can’t be ignored. They only go to the doctor when it is absolutely necessary.\n\nI have a disabling illness that prevents me from working. But, in the early days I was accused of faking it. Once even a doctor called my boss to tell him I was faking it. A few years later my illness became a recognized illness and after a long struggle I have won disability from the Veterans Administration and from Social Security. I need it because I simply cannot work. I tried for years, I won’t go into the boring (and depressing details), but before I won my disability awards I was investigated thoroughly, I
|
eng_Latn
| 35,040 |
The cost of healthcare insurance in the US under the Affordable Care Act is expected to rise by an average of 25% in 2017, according to the government.
|
About one in five consumers will also only be able to pick plans from a single insurer, it said.
But it said federal subsidies will also rise, and about 70% of people will find plans for less than $75 (£61) a month.
Republican nominee Donald Trump vowed on Tuesday to repeal the law, which is known as Obamacare.
It is a major part of President Barack Obama's legacy, and his signature piece of legislation.
"Obamacare is just blowing up," said Mr Trump, who has promised his own plan would deliver "great healthcare at a fraction of the cost".
The enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 mandated that every American had to purchase private insurance, and prohibited insurers from turning away the sick. It also provided subsidies.
But Republicans want to repeal it.
According to the report from the Department of Health and Human Services, for a 27-year-old consumer, in the prime age group sought by insurers, the average monthly premium for a benchmark plan would be $302 next year, up from $242 this year.
The average increase of 25% in benchmark premiums on the federal exchange compares with increases of 2% in 2015 and 7% this year.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has said she supports the Affordable Care Act, but has denounced "skyrocketing out-of-pocket health costs", saying the federal government should have the power to block or modify unreasonable rate increases.
It's only for some people in some places, but health insurance premiums are going up - and it's generating unpleasant headlines for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.
Americans with government-provided insurance subsidies will be fine. Those with employer-sponsored plans are also OK. But people caught in between - small-business owners and the self-employed - will take it on the chin in states like Arizona (premiums up 116%), Oklahoma (69%), Tennessee (63%) and Minnesota (59%).
The unsubsidised portion of the government-run health insurance marketplace was what Bill Clinton notably called "the craziest thing in the world" earlier this month. Donald Trump and the Republicans tried to make hay out of his remarks at the time - and now they have solid numbers to make their case.
Mrs Clinton continues to be in the awkward position of defending Obamacare, pointing out that it has decreased the rate of US healthcare spending growth and provided increased coverage for Americans, while conceding the law needs to be improved.
If she's elected, she may try her best to push through a legislative repair job, but Republicans in Congress may be happy to watch the programme continue to struggle - and, perhaps, take her down with it.
Follow Anthony on Twitterhere.
Obamacare has already faced two major challenges in the US's highest court.
Congressional Republicans have voted more than 50 times to undo the law.
Unlike in many other western countries, the US does not have a single-payer healthcare system. Private companies, rather than the US government, provide health insurance for US citizens.
Following the enactment of the ACA in 2010, states were given the option of establishing their own healthcare exchanges - online marketplaces for citizens to buy health coverage.
Citizens in states that refused to establish exchanges could shop for coverage on a federal exchange.
However, most Americans receiving subsidies purchase healthcare through the federal exchange, after many states decided not to set up their own marketplaces.
Source: Reuters
|
But if going about your daily business has become a game of chance for many, what are the odds of becoming a victim? And have those odds increased or decreased over time?
Terror acts in Western Europe have undoubtedly become deadlier.
Since World War Two, the three worst attacks on land - excluding those targeting planes, such the 1988 Lockerbie bombing - have taken place in the past 16 years. These are:
The pattern until 2000 had been a high number of incidents with small death tolls.
Eta, the Basque separatist group that is now handing in its weapons, killed more than 800 people in 3,300 attacks over 40 years - an average of just one death for every four attacks.
But although the number of high-fatality attacks has dramatically gone up, annual deaths from terrorism have decreased just as dramatically.
In the 1970s and 1980s the figure averaged more than 150. Since 1990, it has been about 50, although attacks in Paris and Brussels have led to a sharp spike for 2015 and 2016.
The word "terrorism" has no universally accepted definition. The Global Terrorism Database uses three criteria. To label an act as "terror" it must:
One may debate whether any particular attack meets all three criteria, but the broad trend is clear: the chance of a European of being killed by militants has fallen sharply over the past four decades.
Throughout the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the annual risk for civilians was about one in 25,000. In France in 2015 - a particularly bloody year in that country - it was one in 400,000.
In 2001, the year of the deadliest attack in the US, the likelihood of being killed by a militant in America was less than one in 100,000.
Those statistics, of course, do not tell the whole story. There are notable differences between the terrorists of today and those of previous generations.
In the 1970s, militants were motivated by ideology - usually a radical form of Marxism. They focused on official targets or high-profile figures embodying the capitalism.
The main groups - such as Eta, France's Action Directe, Germany's Baader-Meinhof gang, or Italy's Red Brigades - had forged links and were sponsored by a superpower, the Soviet Union.
None of this applies in today's world, where bitter jihadist rivals are vying for leadership in a holy war through mass carnage.
But in terms of raw numbers, the terror threat hanging over Europeans today is no greater than the one their parents faced.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,041 |
Same that they have in Canada and the UK and just about every other advanced country.
|
I am so suprised that no one responded yet...\n\nHere is food for thoughts...\nToyota decided to build a new plant in Ontario Canada.\nThe financial incentives where less than all the other states solliciting them...\n\nThe reason they chose Ontario ? Les social expenditures, specifically due to Health Care Cost in the USA regardless of the State...\n\nSo now, the right wingers in Canada are not as quick to privatize the whole chabang, it has suddenly become an asset...\n\n\nMarch 8th\nKo_Luk,\n\nFirst of all Canada is not Broke, Canada is the Only G-8 country that has generated surpluses for the last 6 to 10 years... and the issues pertaining to health care are not simply financial... They are the same issues that the US mixed reslults privatly and lucrative managed health care systems need to deal with.\n\nHowever here is other food for thoughts, and why the issues these countries have are not basis to deny a public funded health care system, first the issues Canadians have are certainly not to go back to a privatly and profit base system but rather addressing issues as to how to actualize the system with the current realities (more medications wich now account to over 50% of the bill, aging population, offer and demand in terms of waiting lists and priorities) in other words, what are they getting for their taxes and not how the system can be scraped (which in the US, is often a subject of discussion).\n\nCanadians may pay taxes yet, they are very very aware that health care taxes are much less for better "overall" services than what you get with a 5000$ ++ upscale incusrance policy covering a limited geographic area and even certain levels of specific care...\n\nSome of the issues: Florida currently needs over 20 000 full time nurses to fill in almost every single hospital and health care organizations... Pensylvania, California, you name it, and the issue is there... I personnaly know of major issues that are quite similar and worsed to the Canadian system and that is simply due to COLLUSION (Insurance companies who own hospitals). Yes, I know of many hospital who create a dynamic of restrictions (insurance policies) that delay and create waiting lists that are similar and in some cases worsed than the Canadian Public system... But between you and me, there should not be any waiting in a lucrative base system if you PAY for it, won"t you agree ???\n\nDoctors and Nurses have issues of work overlaods even in the LUCRATIVE private sectors... Many of these doctors, are shifting and now supporting lobbies to demand a national health care system...\n\nI have seen much "private" hospital with exactly the same issues who need to "hide" the blank spots that deal with delivering services...Florida, Penn, Georgia, Texas, Ca, etc...\n\nFinland, Sweden, Swisserland even Spain have public health care with far less issues than the countries you mentioned, they have made social base choices... In sweeden for exemple: No one can bring a doctor to courts.... However, their records of performance are public... This said, you can imagine the liablity pressure and the cost it intails.... It was a choice the population made in order to favor a more equitable and fair delivery of health Care...\n\nEven rich people in most of the countries you mention, will often stay in their respective countries for health care treatments...\n\nSo the issues you brought up are "Bean Counter Accounting" to deal with very complex issues while there are major social transformation that demand "Creative Accounting" in the first place...
|
Legalize it, keep it all in one area, monthly check-up for the women, tax it, make it illegal outside the area zoned for it.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,042 |
what about the health insurance crisis in america?
|
Could you be more specific?\n1)From the health insurance perspective, there is NO CRISIS as\nthey are raking in the dough. They hardly pay anything to the physcians. So they keep more of the premiums you pay every month.They do their best to make your coverage as confusing as possible, so you won't know what they will pay for. Then when they don't pay for something, you can't talk to anyone at the insurance company that wants to help you. \n2)From the Doctor's point of view, it is harder and harder to provide quality health care to their patient's. They need to have the latest most up to date equipment to diagnose and treat their patient's. There is a lot of overhead to pay for. To get enough payment from the insurance companies to cover the overhead, they have to see a ton of patient's every day. This results in not being able to spend enough quality time with each patient...... \n3) From the patients point of view, it is all very confusing. The insurance companies tell you one thing, your doctor's office tells you something else. Just when you build a relationship with your doctor, your insurance changes, and you have to find a different doctor that is with that insurance company. There is no consistency to your\nmedical care that way.\nHow do we solve this? Good question. I don't have the answers, but also find it all very frustrating. You have to know how to work the system to get the health care you need.
|
Sorry Bobby, it is - just around the corner in fact. So you'd better get religious real quick. Or else buy one of my Apopalips Now Insurins Pollicies. Send $100 to my Yahoo!Answers page. Hurry : offer expires when the rumbling begins !!
|
eng_Latn
| 35,043 |
What product is more tax advantaged: An annuity or a VUL?
|
Strictly speaking, they are equally tax advantaged. It is true that withdrawals from the annuity prior to age 59.5 will receive a 10% penalty.\n\nHowever, I would not recommend purchasing a VUL unles you need the death benefit. There is no point in paying the extra costs for a benefit you don't need.
|
I understand your problem. My husband was put in the hospital last year and had emergency surgery and I had past hips surgeys and they won't even give us insurance. I started researching some stuff and found a great site that offers health benefits. It's not insurance but you can save up to 80% on dental and medical benefits and you get free prescription, Free chiropractic and free vision. Best of all it's no more than $60.00 dollars a month for the entire household. That site below will offer and show you have to obtain benefits. \n\nGood luck and I am sorry we all have to deal with the goverment doing this to our families.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,044 |
Will health care cost bankrupt America?
|
here in australia we have got medicare if u can't afford the full price and r on a pension the governement will pay also private u partly pay but if u want it cheaper or free and can afford to wait its free or a small fee to pay i suppose we r lucky yet people still complain i receive free accupuncture free visits by my doctor the medical centre wich i attend does bulkbilling which means medicare/governement pays from the taxes everybody pays
|
I hope you're not really expecting any of the "brave libs" to actually answer this. This question is entirely too specific for people who prefer to deal only in generalities.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,045 |
How do I get approved for SSI? I was diagnosed with severe endometriosis, chronic pelvic pain, and depression.
|
Unfortunately, SSI is not sensitive to Endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain conditions, but they are s-l-o-w-l-y beginning to understand the devastating toll diseases like Endo and IC are taking on women. Your story seems to be on par with others attempting to file for SSI; it seems it takes an average of 3-4 times over the course of a couple of years before it is approved. They try to make so hard that you'll just go away, so don't give up! It looks like you are on course, since you're going before the judge now finally. You might be interested in the following:\n\n"SSA Issues Ruling for Evaluating Interstitial Cystitis:\nThe Social Security Administration (SSA) has issued a new Social Security Ruling (SSR) that explains how the agency evaluates disability caused by interstitial cystitis or "IC." Published November 5, 2002, the ruling became effective immediately. It is titled SSR 02-2p, "Evaluation of Interstitial Cystitis." Applicants for disability benefits who have IC (and their advocates) should certainly review the ruling. SSR 02-2p alerts SSA decision-makers to the disabling potential of IC, a relatively rare disorder, and helps doctors of women and men with IC focus on the issues that concern SSA when providing medical documentation for disability claims. SR 02-2p calls IC, "a complex, chronic bladder disorder characterized by urinary frequency, urinary urgency, and pelvic pain. IC occurs most frequently in women (about 10 times more often than in men), and sometimes prior to age 18. IC may be associated with other disorders, such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, allergies, irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, endometriosis, and vulvodynia (vulvar/vaginal pain). IC also may be associated with systemic lupus erythematosus." Click to view the text of SSR 02-2p, or look in the Federal Register dated November 5, 2002, pages 67436-67439." Link: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/rulings/di/01/SSR2002-02-di-01.html\n\nThere is also a similar case file available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/051954p.pdf.\n\nYour best bet is to go armed with valid literature outlining the devastating effects of Endo, IC, etc. and it helps to have an atty. on your side who understands the SSI circus. Maybe the Endometriosis Research Center can help you (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/erc/pending). There are a few cases where women with Endo have been able to get it, so hang in there and keep trying.\n\nGood luck to you.
|
Very very hard, not only in Ohio but any state for that matter. Of course it is always a matter of money, which in your case can become totally out unless you have millions. Contact Blue Cross/Blue Shield or simiar in Ohio for guidance and more IMPORTANT contact your state Department of Health. In most states there is a set up that provides "private" health insurance through a pool for people that have conditions not acceptable through the regular companies....of course its expensive. In most cases they are set up by a pool of health insurance companies. For example Texas has that set up.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,046 |
I need health insurance for my family! Help Please!?
|
I understand your problem. My husband was put in the hospital last year and had emergency surgery and I had past hips surgeys and they won't even give us insurance. I started researching some stuff and found a great site that offers health benefits. It's not insurance but you can save up to 80% on dental and medical benefits and you get free prescription, Free chiropractic and free vision. Best of all it's no more than $60.00 dollars a month for the entire household. That site below will offer and show you have to obtain benefits. \n\nGood luck and I am sorry we all have to deal with the goverment doing this to our families.
|
The best programs are from Wells Fargo & Bank of America. They have low annual fees, no application fees, no maintenance fees, and lower interest rates. They are available in all 50 states. Both Wells Fargo and Bank of America report their accounts to all 3 credit bureaus.\n\nStay away from the "Sub Prime" crap like First Premier, Aspire & Orchard Bank. They have lots of hidden fees.\n\nYou can review lots of programs at www.bankrate.com\n\n\nGood Luck
|
eng_Latn
| 35,047 |
I am a retiree and dental insurance is not provided beyond the age of 65....
|
What I would start with is calling a couple of dentists and just asking them which plans they take. Also, which discount plans they take. Then you can call some of the more popular ones and find out what the cost would be. I find that most people who buy thier own plans get stuck with not finding doctors who accept them. When last I had a dental appointment I remember seeing a dental plan advertised in the waiting area for individual purchase.
|
Well, the people of florida had approved a light rail system several years ago. Yet, there is no rail system, no ground broken for a rail system, and as far as I know, no route has been picked yet, Why, because the big money here, IE the theme parks want the rail delivering Guests to their gates. The people want to be able to travel from daytona to orlando to tampa without sitting on this joke of a highway called I4. I believe the idea was to eventually expand it to places south and north also. The bottom line, he is another one of those guys who won't do what the people ask him to do. of course, it could also be that the state and local representatives won't do their jobs either. I would rate the education system on par with most others in the country. you figure that out for yourself. It does seem that there are more morons here now than ten years ago, but then, a lot of people relocate here each year from other parts of the country, and bring their morons with them.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,048 |
I am looking for individual vision insurance in Cal. for us.
|
Currently, Ameri Plan is offering quality dental, vision, prescription and chiropractic care for three months for just $23 - that's a $20 registration fee and $1 a month! There's also an affordable health plan with a hospital advocacy program. Contact me - [email protected]
|
How is it being removed? The removal process is what could be a price jumper. Plus, are they having it analyzed to check for cancerous material? I think most of the time that is what they *have* to do in order for your insurance to pay anything on it. My insurance will not pay for anything "cosmetic". I have to fight them on a claim because they refused to pay anything for a skin tab removal and it was not cosmetic.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,049 |
Why Gap Insurance Is Making A Comeback
|
Gap health insurance plans are meant to cover one-time events. When the health care law required some form of major medical insurance, it was thought the need for gap coverage would disappear.
|
Renee Montagne interviews former State Department official Richard Armitage about the prospects for an international peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Armitage is skeptical that the U.N. will be able to put one together. He says there just aren't enough countries willing or able to contribute troops or commit to the lengthy time period that they'll be needed. Megan Meline's series on life in the Foreign Service concludes with a look at the overseas experience for the spouses and children of diplomats. Megan reports that one of the many hardships experienced by family members comes when they go back to the U.S. Kids who have lived most of their lives overseas can sometimes be disoriented by American culture. And if you were up late watching Letterman or your kid kept you awake all night, you'll like Wendy Kaufman's story about a new workplace trend: naps. A Connecticut company is offering naps as a company benefit. Wendy also visited a New York entrepreneur who's gone into the napping business -- Metro Naps is just a room filled with little napping pods. Each is equipped with a recliner, headphones that play soothing music... and a timer to make sure you get back to work on time.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,050 |
Despite Crop Insurance, Drought Still Stings Farmers
|
Stop by most any unirrigated farm across the lower Midwest and you'll see crops in distress. Midwestern corn and soybean farmers are taking a beating during the recent drought, but it's not likely to drive many out of business. Most of those farmers carry terrific insurance, and the worse the drought becomes, the more individual farmers will be paid for their lost crops. The federal government picks up most of the cost of the crop insurance program, and this year that bill is going to be a whopper. Despite a withered soybean crop that he says won't even let him break even, Loren Alderson, a farmer in Nickerson, Kan., isn't too worried. "The government has a program of crop insurance, revenue insurance, and it certainly is a lifesaver for years like this," Alderson says. That's an attitude typical of most farmers affected by this drought, says Bruce Babcock, who specializes in agriculture economy at Iowa State University. They're not too worried because the great majority of them have crop insurance, he says. In the Corn Belt, upwards of 85 percent of farmers carry crop insurance, if you can call it that. "It's not really insurance, because, as we know, when we buy insurance, we have to pay the full premium," Babcock says, "and that premium covers not only the losses, or the claims that are made, but also the administration and profit for the company." When a farmer buys crop insurance, the government picks up most of the premium, and it also pays operating expenses for the companies. Those two subsidies cost close to $8 billion a year. But taxpayers also insure crop insurance companies against catastrophic loss. So, as claims from this year's drought mount, the USDA will shoulder a larger and larger share of the payout. Babcock says it'll likely be taxpayers, not insurance companies, paying the bulk of this year's crop insurance claims, which could easily run more than $10 billion. "The drought really shows how important the program is, and who's really funding it," Babcock says. Payouts are going to be extra high because most Corn Belt farmers also carry coverage tied to the changing value of the crops they produce. The drought has cut projected supply and pushed prices way up. The more bushels of corn that are lost, the more each one of those lost bushels tends to be worth for a farmer's insurance settlement, and the more taxpayers owe drought-stricken farmers. "Crop farmers are going to be OK coming out of this drought," Babcock says. "Taxpayers are not going to be; they're going to be paying large losses." Of course, taxpayers do expect to eat, even after an agricultural disaster, so, arguably, in that light, crop insurance makes sense, says Tom Zacharias, the president of National Crop Insurance Services. "It's designed to help the consumer," Zacharias says, "so that we know that we have stable, secure food supply. [And] we want to keep farmers in business from year to year." Zacharias says crop insurance is a pretty efficient way of doing it, because while farmers pay into the system year after year, they don't get any money out until something goes wrong. In normal years, crop insurance companies eat the losses, and he says those insurance companies are eager to please. "These folks are 24/7," he says. "We have loss-adjuster staffs in the field as we speak." So, disaster coverage payments typically arrive in time to cover getting the next crop in the ground and keeping the food system running. But, farmer Loren Alderson says, that's about as far as it goes. "Technically, you don't lose money," Alderson says, "but if you're especially a younger farmer who's got land payments to make and machinery payments to make, they're not going to be able to make those costs with insurance." While it will take months to figure the true costs of this rapidly intensifying drought, it is clear there is going to be plenty of pain to go around.
|
What happens when a police department can no longer afford its bad behavior? In 2013, Tony Miranda was brought in to lead a police department in crisis. Bad behavior by a handful of officers had led to investigations and lawsuits with costs in the millions of dollars. That was more than the city could cover. He knew change would be difficult. But he also knew he had a powerful ally on his side: insurance coverage. On today's show, the overlooked force motivating police departments to reform bad behavior — not protests and picket signs, but spreadsheets and actuaries. This is the story of how Irwindale, California turned its police department around. Music: "The Duchess," "Lock It Down" and "Sunburn." Find us: Twitter / Facebook / Instagram Subscribe to our show on Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts and NPR One.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,051 |
What fraction of general hospital discharges receive treatment at HHC?
|
Each year HHC's facilities provide about 225,000 admissions, one million emergency room visits and five million clinic visits to New Yorkers. HHC facilities treat nearly one-fifth of all general hospital discharges and more than one third of emergency room and hospital-based clinic visits in New York City.
|
A period of division for the Liberals followed, with former Treasurer John Howard competing with former Foreign Minister Andrew Peacock for supremacy. The Australian economy was facing the early 1990s recession. Unemployment reached 11.4% in 1992. Under Dr John Hewson, in November 1991, the opposition launched the 650-page Fightback! policy document − a radical collection of "dry", economic liberal measures including the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST), various changes to Medicare including the abolition of bulk billing for non-concession holders, the introduction of a nine-month limit on unemployment benefits, various changes to industrial relations including the abolition of awards, a $13 billion personal income tax cut directed at middle and upper income earners, $10 billion in government spending cuts, the abolition of state payroll taxes and the privatisation of a large number of government owned enterprises − representing the start of a very different future direction to the keynesian economic conservatism practiced by previous Liberal/National Coalition governments. The 15 percent GST was the centerpiece of the policy document. Through 1992, Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating mounted a campaign against the Fightback package, and particularly against the GST, which he described as an attack on the working class in that it shifted the tax burden from direct taxation of the wealthy to indirect taxation as a broad-based consumption tax. Pressure group activity and public opinion was relentless, which led Hewson to exempt food from the proposed GST − leading to questions surrounding the complexity of what food was and wasn't to be exempt from the GST. Hewson's difficulty in explaining this to the electorate was exemplified in the infamous birthday cake interview, considered by some as a turning point in the election campaign. Keating won a record fifth consecutive Labor term at the 1993 election. A number of the proposals were later adopted in to law in some form, to a small extent during the Keating Labor government, and to a larger extent during the Howard Liberal government (most famously the GST), while unemployment benefits and bulk billing were re-targeted for a time by the Abbott Liberal government.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,052 |
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002758209_report24m.html
|
walmart should pay for bare-minimum healthcare at least\n\nthey are worth billions
|
Good grief.\n\nYou didn't even bother to do a Google search. That is incredibly lazy as well as being foolish to yourself. You could have obtained the asnwer yourself far faster and more accurately by doing your own search.\n\nLook at the 6th and 7th sites returned onn the most basic Google search on this subject.
|
yue_Hant
| 35,053 |
see a cow on the road and, as part of their custom, let the cow go first instead of beeping at them, but then they will gonna wait for an hour and they are getting irritated?
|
Sacred cows make the best hamburger
|
They are trying to protect you, me and everybody else who pays insurance premiums.\n\nThis is sad....but you, I and everybody else pay billions and billions of dollars a year in extra insurance premiums to people just like you who claim they are hurt in an accident and aren't.\n\nThey are ripping off the system and unfortunately legitimate victims like you get the run around from insurers because of the bad guys who rip the system off.\n\nIt is a major hassle to deal with extra exams and the lengthy delay in processing, but you have to realize the insurer needs to adequately investigate every claim so they don't pay more than they have to....which keeps you and me from paying extra premiums that we don't need to.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,054 |
Health insurance is so expensive, and we rarely use it. I am thinking about taking out my own high-deductible policy for catastrophic coverage and paying everything out of pocket. Has anyone tried this? Any recommendations for companies that offer high-deductible policies for catastrophic coverage?
|
I would never suggest to not elect group coverage. Group coverage is cheaper because you are paying the group rate. An individual policy is usually a lot more expensive and your rates can increase every year. \n\nYou can not afford to not have insurance. What would happen if you had a major medical claim. You can not work your way out of a claim for hundreds of thousands of dollars to some claims that are one million dollars. \n\nI decided to quit my "big boy" job 3 years a go. I did purchase a individual policy and my premiums have increased every year by at least 15%. I am now paying $174 a month for health and rx coverage (no dental and vision). \n\nIf you are still thinking about making such a bold move, speak to an insurance advisor.
|
http://pfp.humana.com/ProviderPFP/MarketFinder.asp - put your state into the search
|
eng_Latn
| 35,055 |
Why do insurance companies charge motorists so much?
|
Each motorist is charged a different rate. The rate is determined by the risk of that motorist. Things such as age are a factor. Good ages for men are 25-64. Good ages for women are 22-64. Your personal credit score can be considered in most states. Better the credit, better the rate. Of course a person's driving history is a huge factor. Some companies charge more in certain areas because they have a higher loss rate there. I could go on for days about how insurance rates are determined. Insurance companies do not profit from insurance premiums. They profit from the investments made with the premiums.
|
You are SO right!! What a joke! The question is, are they going to let it continue?????
|
eng_Latn
| 35,056 |
The Behavioral Economics of Health and Health Care
|
When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?
|
Antibacterial properties of nanoparticles
|
eng_Latn
| 35,057 |
a car hit me on the back of my car, they said is my fault..?
|
If you stopped in a lane that was not a turn lane then it is your fault. You cant just stop in the middle of traffic because you cant get over. Still though, you can argue with the insurance company and perhaps convince them. Doubt it.
|
I agree that more information about your current and previous condition will make it easier to explore health insurance possibilities. If you live in the United States and were part of a group health plan, you might be able to take advantage of protections offered by the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). If you were part of a group health plan in the past two months, then a new health plan may not be able to deny you coverage because of your illness. Further, any time you were under the old group plan will be deducted from a new plan’s waiting period.\n\nHIPAA also limits how far back an insurance company can look-back for a pre-existing condition, in most cases. They shouldn’t deny you coverage because of a hospitalization five years ago. You might want to look into high-risk insurance pools – where people who have been denied coverage band together to get breaks on health insurance.\n\nThe best way to find the answers you need is to talk with local qualified health insurance agents. Chances are, they’ve fielded the questions you have about insurance and have helped people in your exact situation. MostChoice.com is an excellent way to reach state-licensed agents in your area. There’s no cost or obligation to you, and you can also look at health plans and prices from companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield, Humana, and Aetna. \n\nYou can find it here: http://www.mostchoice.com/health-insurance.cfm\n\nGood luck,\n\[email protected]
|
eng_Latn
| 35,058 |
Why is "socialized medicine" such a dirty word? Okay, phrase?
|
Americans are ridiculous about socialised medicine. Instead of putting government money towards a working plan that grants all Americans equal opportunity to be healthy, they shove it all into a big stupid war. In Canada, we are a capitalist country with a socialised medical plan that works well. Studies have actually demonstrated that Canadian medicare is overall more efficient and of a higher quality than American privatised health care. And doctors can manage to pay it off, because in Canada university education sin't as expensive either! i would know, as both my parents are doctors.\n\nEDITED TO ADD: Canada is also a large contributer to medical research. This is usually paid for by research centres and universities and has little to do with the socialized healthcare system.
|
think about it this way ...Its a matter of how you think about it. Would you rather pay .60 for a soda or .59 ? Would you rather pay $16,000 for that new truck or $15,899. Its a marketing thing.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,059 |
How do I find out the health care premiums, co-pays and deductibles that senators and congressmen pay.?
|
Probably no copay, premium or deductible. Yes, I believe they are covered for the rest of their lives.\n\nSo unfair.
|
That's just how they behave - like snotty children on the playground. They will never get any respect until they learn to behave like adults.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,060 |
what is an "economic reserve" for an insurance company?
|
All insurance companies are required to keep a certain amout of premiums they've collected in "reserve" to pay out losses.
|
If you watched movie Equilibrium you might guess. Your country has become shadow of democracy ruled by certain designated circles which use and not used to real democracy.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,061 |
How has the profit motive affected our healthcare system?
|
The insurance companies tossed the Law of Supply and Demand and consistently charged slightly more than whatever the market would bear. The inevitable results have happened: inflation and shortages. \n\nDemand is finally starting to drop and may force the insurance companies to re-implement the law. But even if they do, I doubt they will maintain compliance very long. As soon as demand plateaus or starts to increase, they will again ignore the supply and demand law and charge more than the market can bear for longer than the law allows.\n\nSome economists might claim that this amounts to a second-order compliance with the Law. \n\nFine. Because increases in salaried and hourly income are typically either linear or non-existent, non-linear manipulations of the Law of Supply and Demand amount to nothing more than price-gouging. Once again, inflation and shortages result.\n\nIf they don't like that line of reasoning, tell them to take it to the bank.
|
Well, I do of course know why you asked no Americans to reply (with their propaganda view), but they have every right to voice thier opinion..\nAnyway go to the source below- the details are SHOCKING!
|
eng_Latn
| 35,062 |
BFT Selection
|
Practical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery
|
the impact of voluntary health insurance on health care utilization and out - of - pocket payments : new evidence for vietnam .
|
eng_Latn
| 35,063 |
comparing small visual differences between conforming meshes .
|
Fast and Effective Feature-Preserving Mesh Denoising
|
It's the Institutions, Stupid! Why Comprehensive National Health Insurance Always Fails in America
|
eng_Latn
| 35,064 |
What are the reasons people either love and hate Obamacare?
|
What are the reasons that some people think Obamacare is so terrible?
|
Why do people think capitalism is evil?
|
eng_Latn
| 35,065 |
Why is the Affordable Care Act relabeled as Obamacare by some people?
|
Why do some people refer to the Affordable Health Care Act as "Obamacare"?
|
What are the benefits of the Obama Health Care Reform?
|
eng_Latn
| 35,066 |
Is universal health care good? Why or why not?
|
Should the U.S. implement a universal health care? Why or why not?
|
Why do some people refer to the Affordable Health Care Act as "Obamacare"?
|
eng_Latn
| 35,067 |
You don't have private insurance. you have group insurance that was negotiated with an insurance company at the expense of everyone else. That's your key argument: I've got mine, screw all y'all who don't.
|
Republican mantra, "I got mine, screw you."
|
So, you're a deadbeat who is mad you have to pay for your own healthcare? Are you one who goes to the ER then gets the hospital to charge me 30 dollars for a aspirin to cover you?
|
eng_Latn
| 35,068 |
Damn brother, you must have a cold heart and a dim mind to believe that nonsense. Have you had anyone in your life diagnosed with cancer? Was it due to not making good decisions about "their life and future"? There is a depressing narrative abound, which it sounds like you subscribe to, that anybody who has financial issues and cannot afford the highest medical prices in the developed world somehow deserves illness and death. It's another sad side of the "screw you, got mine" mentality.
|
Horse shit. They have gone after the doctors &, in turn, the doctors are going after you. I see people living in upside-down, specialized wheelchairs being denied medication for pain. I've had cancer 3 times & over 30 surgeries. I tried the drug (buprenorphine) being PUSHED...CRAP. They want you to get over major surgery in 3 days. They claim a DEPENDENCE from horrific circumstances, make you an "addict." As this portrays, it's all about keeping you "not euphoric." It's well established that chronic pain patients don't get "high." And, if YOU were in an upside-down wheelchair, so what? At my last oncology appointment, my doctor said, "You are a mess." Yes, I was in AGONY. He prescribed Prozac. Fuck him (I threw it on the floor and hobbled out). They want true drug addicts addicted to these new medications that are VERY expensive. I have found a natural herb that is amazing, non habit forming - and, OF COURSE, the DEA is out for that. This is about BIG PHARMA and their $$$$$$$$.
|
"Competitive, market-based solution" is not possible. Insurance companies, pharma and care providers will conspire to raise their rates to unaffordable levels. That's precisely how we arrived at this point, and why subsidies became necessary. What you're advocating is the old system of "every man for himself," which leaves out a good percentage of Americans. And let me guess. You probably say "Too bad for them."
|
eng_Latn
| 35,069 |
County Health under Rob Rockstroh, with assists from those that wanted medical managed care - contracted with a private 'for profit' business. All the while LIPA complained reimbursement rates were inadequate. Somehow, with this cost basis, LIPA managed to make itself not only attractive, it made Medicaid sale-able / cashed out, and sold us out with it. Levels of care WON'T improve, I'd like to have the public discussion with those that think so. The other thing is the "successes" cited are from money from the Fed's, NOT Centene or Agate. Centene risked / built nothing to make their Federally Qualified Health Centers. We rely on professionals, and sadly trust them to 'save us.' Example: Remember the old "frivolous malpractice suits are driving high costs" argument for malpractice reform? In states that limited malpractice liability, when insurance rates went down, doctors flocked to work there. Mysteriously, savings were not passed on. Bad prospect if you need MD's to survive.
|
The health care insurance replacement is not finished, nor has it been voted on. Conjecture rules the day. But Oregon is very dependent upon Medicaid to furnish health care for the lower earners, and even in Oregon, the higher earning folks are dead set against contributing more, and more, and more: schools, roads, feel good vote attractions, mindless regulation for its own sake, Nanny State impositions. PERS drives our budget. Pay that first, and then we can spend whatever is left after OHSU and coaches get their fair share.
It appears to me that our biggest health concern is that the Oregon Trail Card and low wage jobs buy way too much food, and morbid obesity is our health problem. Rent subsidies enable expanded food budgets. Is it the poor Oregonian is to starve to death losing one limb at a time to diabetes and its associated health issues? Nobody starved to death in the Oregon, due to lack of resources to eat. Yet fat people die every day due to weight.
|
1) it was carter who started what led to the housing collapse. It was Barny Frank that wouldn't rein in Freddy and fanny when Bush asked him to 13 God Damn times.
2) nancy Polution and Harry Reid locked the republicans out of the committee that drew up the aca. That in turn was spoon fed by democratic hired health care lobbiests.
3) obamma said repeatedly that he would veto anything the republicans offered to change the aca, so they didn't bother.
4) Obama himself and all his cronies promised that costs would go down, you could keep your plans. So far mine are up 232%.
5) The implementation was a disaster. Several provisions were put off to save elections for the democrates. Didn't work and the people spoke. Many of the provisions have been scrapped.
6) To the person that says the aca has not been the cause of any increases, you are an idiot. The fact that all the "free" preventative procedures are added, and all those that sign up on the way to the er and never pay up?
|
eng_Latn
| 35,070 |
Damn brother, you must have a cold heart and a dim mind to believe that nonsense. Have you had anyone in your life diagnosed with cancer? Was it due to not making good decisions about "their life and future"? There is a depressing narrative abound, which it sounds like you subscribe to, that anybody who has financial issues and cannot afford the highest medical prices in the developed world somehow deserves illness and death. It's another sad side of the "screw you, got mine" mentality.
|
Billy, are you a complete idiot, being thick headed or just not reading what people have been trying to tell you in response to your soapbox blathering. A) Poor people without insurance need health care too. B) Planned Parenthood provides women's health care for free to anyone. PP does these thru donations and grants from the States and Fed and Charity Foundations. No Federal money is allow to be spent on abortions. The people protesting Planned Parenthood know this, but have decided that a zygote is a person. These same people believe that Corporations are persons too. Once again, POOR women get help with birth control via Planned Parenthood. POOR people mostly do not have insurance, and less will have insurance as soon as the GOP gets done gutting ACA. POOR women cannot afford to go to Dr for prescription birth control, therefore Planned Parenthood is necessary.
|
I find it alarming that anyone views health insurance as a method of income redistribution. "Widening gaps between the well off and anyone else"... Seriously? It's nobody's business or problem how much I pay for my health insurance, what it does, and how much income relative to them, or what percentage of my income, I pay for health insurance and medical costs.
Should our healthy family be forced to pay $800+ a month for low deductible plan when we freely choose the higher deductible plan because, wait for it, it wastes less of our money and we would rather responsibly plan for the unexpected expenses causing us to meet our higher deductible? I don't need anyone to reevaluate our plans for us or decide we need to save less money to be "safer" medically.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,071 |
Why is that, just because I want the central government out of my personal healthcare? If that is one of condition that goes along with removing the central government from my personal healthcare, than so be it.
|
Umm, that means someone else can't kill you. Not that the rest of us have to pay to keep you alive. Health care is not a right.
|
Stupid dishonest people got into bed with stupid dishonest health insurance companies and made a bad law. Stupid dishonest people who control congress now, promised to fix this mess (repeal) but won't. As a self employed person who now cannot afford health insurance, I have to pay a "shared responsibility " tax. This is madness. I have never hated government so much as I do now.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,072 |
Are we done with this moron yet? Nothing but broken promises. SAD.
|
such BS - disappointed, embarrassed, broke - thanks to this idiot
|
Gotta wonder about the long list of broken promises by Obama.
On Obamacare alone Obama lied to Democrats 10 times: (1)“If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. (2) If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. (3)we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year (4)For the 85 and 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance they don’t have to worry about anything else (5) Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.(6)I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future. Etc. etc there are five more of them that can not fit the limited space available here.
----
And there are a lot more promises Obama broke other than that on Obamacare.
---
|
eng_Latn
| 35,073 |
County Health under Rob Rockstroh, with assists from those that wanted medical managed care - contracted with a private 'for profit' business. All the while LIPA complained reimbursement rates were inadequate. Somehow, with this cost basis, LIPA managed to make itself not only attractive, it made Medicaid sale-able / cashed out, and sold us out with it. Levels of care WON'T improve, I'd like to have the public discussion with those that think so. The other thing is the "successes" cited are from money from the Fed's, NOT Centene or Agate. Centene risked / built nothing to make their Federally Qualified Health Centers. We rely on professionals, and sadly trust them to 'save us.' Example: Remember the old "frivolous malpractice suits are driving high costs" argument for malpractice reform? In states that limited malpractice liability, when insurance rates went down, doctors flocked to work there. Mysteriously, savings were not passed on. Bad prospect if you need MD's to survive.
|
I do not have the same faith as you do that the money is already there. Currently the largest portion of Medicare is funded by federal income taxes which are very reflective of a progressive tax structure already.
But it is not just some will pay more and some less, some will receive less coverage and some more. These differences should be stated openly and honestly.
If children are currently covered by a private employer sponsored health plan than the company supplied premiums and the employee supplied premiums are funding the children's coverage. If "Medicare for All" is funded by increased taxes for the employer and increased taxes for the employee that seems to leave a gap for all dependent care coverage. The funds to cover dependents will need to come from somewhere.
Again state honestly and succinctly how is coverage changing and from whom and how is the funding being generated. Otherwise "Medicare for All" is not a solution but a deception.
|
Stupid dishonest people got into bed with stupid dishonest health insurance companies and made a bad law. Stupid dishonest people who control congress now, promised to fix this mess (repeal) but won't. As a self employed person who now cannot afford health insurance, I have to pay a "shared responsibility " tax. This is madness. I have never hated government so much as I do now.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,074 |
however the "repeal and replace plan" is essentially the same requirement they just phrase it a different way, but that won't matter to you since it does not have the name "obama" in it, it will now be Ryan care or something else, same plan different name.
reality is this, unless you mandate that all people are in the group, so that those with poor health are subsidized by those in good health it can NEVER work.
|
The best fix for Obamacare:
1) Repeal it entirely: we need to significantly reduce the role of government in healthcare, and not increase it.
2) Pay back, with interest, the "Obamacare tax" that middle class families were forced to pay.
3) A fine or a tax penalty against those who were not in poverty who actually signed up for Obamacare. They could pay for stuff themselves, but chose to mooch from the government. Make them pay, punish the leeches.
4) Pay back, with interest, all the money taken from medical equipment makers (referring to the tax that forced equipment makers to raise their prices a lot.
-----
Then work on a new healthcare law: one that makes healthcare TRULY affordable by banning frivolous lawsuits, eliminating regulation that prevents competition, and abolishing the unions that make hospitals so expensive.
|
Stupid dishonest people got into bed with stupid dishonest health insurance companies and made a bad law. Stupid dishonest people who control congress now, promised to fix this mess (repeal) but won't. As a self employed person who now cannot afford health insurance, I have to pay a "shared responsibility " tax. This is madness. I have never hated government so much as I do now.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,075 |
Comment: You think "liberals" decide the prices of healthcare? You think "liberals" don't have multitudes of issues with Obamacare? I'm a very liberal human. Very. And, I have tons of issues with Obamacare. Yet, I would rather see our country attempt to provide healthcare for all... then see my money go to another war or give welfare, in the billions of dollars, to other countries. Also, if you think "universal healthcare" is easy to figure out... explain to me how the GOP, who had SEVEN YEARS to come up with a new healthcare bill or a nice steady exit from the original bill, has literally nothing but the standard GOP "rich get richer, poor get poorer" plan?
|
Comment: We know how to control costs and provide affordable healthcare to every American citizen. But we don't because conservatives and conservatism continue their rabid protection of our private insurance-based debacle of a system, the most inefficient in the world. There's a reason why nobody anywhere on the planet has ever uttered the words, "let's base our healthcare system on the American model"?
Every single variation of a single-payer system has proven to be more efficient than ours but conservatives call it "socialism" so no way no how are we doin' that. And once an idea gets planted in the conservative mind nothing, not facts not irrefutable and overwhelming evidence, is going change it.
Single-payer is the solution, not deregulation, not selling insurance across state lines, not tort reform. Unfortunately healthcare reform in American has met the immovable object: the conservative mind.
|
Comment: I HATE OMC AND I HATE the ACA!
The WHOLE damn thing MUST BE REPEALED!
This corrupt US govt HAS NO DAMN RIGHT TO TELL US THAT WE HAVE TO BUY OVERPRICED HEALTHCARE or get a fine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this is total bs!
And for OMC is time to make this thing PRIVATE AND STOP RELYING on taxpayers to fund it~!
ITS TIME TO GET RID OF THE OMC CEO that is WAY too overpaid and those jerk commissioners as they are way too corrupt and MUST GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And they do NOT listen to us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
eng_Latn
| 35,076 |
Comment: First and foremost, the criminalization of 'paid' lobbying by anyone! Legislatures, Governors, Assembly members are all 'elected' to represent the People. No one other than individual citizens should have any "leash" on a public servant! This article is about health care but this applies to every aspect of the business/government relationship.
Of course there are a thousand excuses which could be given against such an idea, because; the current corrupt system functions beautifully for those who profit from it. Open market is what should control costs, not insurance companies or government. Again, a thousand naysayers and most of them profit from the status quo. Remember the $5 aspirin in the hospital?
"Insurance company discounting of payments to providers", Why? So those who have no insurance or are outside of the mafia or Hui pay full price. A tire store has one price to fix a flat tire. Automotive service, one price per service.
Corruption and collusion at its finest.
|
Comment: We know how to control costs and provide affordable healthcare to every American citizen. But we don't because conservatives and conservatism continue their rabid protection of our private insurance-based debacle of a system, the most inefficient in the world. There's a reason why nobody anywhere on the planet has ever uttered the words, "let's base our healthcare system on the American model"?
Every single variation of a single-payer system has proven to be more efficient than ours but conservatives call it "socialism" so no way no how are we doin' that. And once an idea gets planted in the conservative mind nothing, not facts not irrefutable and overwhelming evidence, is going change it.
Single-payer is the solution, not deregulation, not selling insurance across state lines, not tort reform. Unfortunately healthcare reform in American has met the immovable object: the conservative mind.
|
Comment: I HATE OMC AND I HATE the ACA!
The WHOLE damn thing MUST BE REPEALED!
This corrupt US govt HAS NO DAMN RIGHT TO TELL US THAT WE HAVE TO BUY OVERPRICED HEALTHCARE or get a fine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this is total bs!
And for OMC is time to make this thing PRIVATE AND STOP RELYING on taxpayers to fund it~!
ITS TIME TO GET RID OF THE OMC CEO that is WAY too overpaid and those jerk commissioners as they are way too corrupt and MUST GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And they do NOT listen to us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
eng_Latn
| 35,077 |
Comment: So only ignorant and stupid people disagree with this absurd settlement?
|
Comment: Or stupid enough to pay it.
|
Comment: Dai, to clarify, you can put up a building, but you must meet the ACA's rules to operate as a hospital. You might ask your Congressman the same question. They have access to the summaries. As I mentioned earlier, I doubt that you can find one person who has read and understands the entire bill; it's that complex.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,078 |
Comment: Alaska's leadership also betrays Alaskans by allowing Alaskan hospitals and specialists to charge 80% more than those in Washington do. General Practitioners are 35% more while specialty care is 80% more. There is no ethical justification for that. It's pure greed. Also, Alaska's multiple torte reforms rendered consumers in Alaska helpless in holding medical providers accountable. It is virtually impossible to sue an Alaskan medical provider for mal practice, and there are no state agencies with any teeth for protecting us. While the state hunts doctors to a ridiculous level over what medications they prescribe (interfering in our care), it completely drops the ball protecting the public where we actually need protecting.
|
Comment: So Alaska is broke and the oil company's are loosing money world wide except one place, yep that's right here in Alaska where the oil company's are still making millions of dollars thanks to our legislators passing S.B.21 that gives billions of dollars to the oil company's that used to go to Alaska.
Thanks to our corrupt legislators our PFDs have been stolen from us meanwhile the legislators are living like kings and queens staying in $450 a night hotel rooms, flying first class, some have become lobbyist for the oil company's making over $300,000.00 a year ETC..... (Lets pass a law that bars any legislator of becoming a lobbyist for 10 years after leaving office).
|
Comment: Stupid dishonest people got into bed with stupid dishonest health insurance companies and made a bad law. Stupid dishonest people who control congress now, promised to fix this mess (repeal) but won't. As a self employed person who now cannot afford health insurance, I have to pay a "shared responsibility " tax. This is madness. I have never hated government so much as I do now.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,079 |
Comment: imagine that, a liberal was a hypocrite again! yet the idiot thinks he is actually civil
|
Comment: Give me a break. You are another rightie hypocrite
|
Comment: You think "liberals" decide the prices of healthcare? You think "liberals" don't have multitudes of issues with Obamacare? I'm a very liberal human. Very. And, I have tons of issues with Obamacare. Yet, I would rather see our country attempt to provide healthcare for all... then see my money go to another war or give welfare, in the billions of dollars, to other countries. Also, if you think "universal healthcare" is easy to figure out... explain to me how the GOP, who had SEVEN YEARS to come up with a new healthcare bill or a nice steady exit from the original bill, has literally nothing but the standard GOP "rich get richer, poor get poorer" plan?
|
eng_Latn
| 35,080 |
Comment: ""It would be different pools under different rules," said one senior health policy source..."
Literally the definition of how every other type of insurance works. You select the coverage you determine you need based on your own calculated risk of possible but unlikely events you cannot (or do not want to) realistically save to cover, and are pooled with other similarly situated persons (based on the insurer's actuarial data) to pay costs directly related to the calculated risk they take that you or a significant number of fellow poolees might actually need to use the plan. If you want broader coverage, you are free to pay for more.
|
Comment: "You are required to have car insurance to drive on our public roads."
===
Wrong. You are required to have LIABILITY insurance as a condition of being granted a driver's license. This protects other motorists and your own assets. (Insurance on the vehicle is usually a condition of borrowing the money to buy the car. This protects the lien holder, no one else, although it's prudent to protect your own assets.)
To apply the parallel to health coverage, you would require insurance as a condition of being alive. This is unique in the entire economy. (Never mind that you have the option of paying for your health care by numerous other means.)
Huge distinction.
While it's a wise purchase -- like auto or homeowners insurance -- health insurance doesn't necessarily protect anyone else. If your interest is enforcing responsibility -- as defined by whom, by the way? -- one is simply liable for his own bills. That requires no mandate or enforcement by the state over a private transaction.
|
Comment: More confusion for the health care markets. Too bad they waited so long, they could have worked in a BI-PARTISAN fashion and made changes to the ACA and assure the insurance companies they would be paid. Now it's too late. Hello huge rate hikes thanks to the Republicans and Trump. Stupid, stupid, stupid partisans.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,081 |
kaiser average cost of health insurance
|
Section One: Cost of Health Insurance. The average annual premiums in 2014 are $6,025 for single coverage and $16,834 for family coverage. The average family premium increased 3% in the last year; the average single premium, however, is similar to the value reported in 2013 ($5,884).
|
Still, according to The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the average monthly health insurance cost is around $328. This data is based on a mid-tier, or silver, health plan and does not include any reduction in cost from subsidies.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,082 |
what is level funded insurance plan
|
Obamacare drove up health insurance costs for most small businesses, but a loophole in the law could save business owners thousands. Level-funded health programs resemble hybrids of traditional small group health plans and self-funded benefits programs. Here are a few reasons youâll want to switch to a level-funded health insurance plan:
|
A self-funded plan is a type of health insurance in which a company directly funds the costs of health care for its employees instead of using the products and services of an insurance company. So, with a self-funded plan, companies essentially act as health insurers.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,083 |
New article in Island Tides: New and Improved Oil Spills! new and improved, huh. gotta love it....
|
The Affordable Care Act means we never have to be worried about being denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions! on the backs of the healty and or employeed.. just wait a few years down the road and tell us all how good its been.
|
Great #Greenleaf News!! Gotta love that! Mo' Betta!
|
eng_Latn
| 35,084 |
FACT: Obama's #budget expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, which would benefit 1.7 million families in 2015. #OpportunityForAll Kids Need Free Minds you came up with one Sheila J Lee Mam
|
Half of all families who received Obamacare subsidies are facing a nasty surprise. They could owe some or all of that subsidy to the IRS. Rep Marsha Blackburn Please support the FairTax. Become a Co Sponsor. Thank You! HR-25
|
Our community benefits from having young female leaders like Macy and Hannah who put their families and community members before themselves. KGUN 9 On Your Side You should be standing up for all women! Support Planned Parenthood, ACA, Social Security, and Medicare. We don't have your "Cadillac" retirement and health insurance. That should be cut also!!
|
eng_Latn
| 35,085 |
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/politics/health-bill-medicaid-special-education-affordable-care-act.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0&referer= please! I need more grimm
|
Today, I led a bipartisan group of 44 freshmen Members of Congress in sending a letter to Speaker Ryan urging him to include medical device tax repeal language within a larger legislative package before the end of 2015. You can find more information, including the full text of the letter here: How about repealing Obamacare all together - are you already so out of touch that you don't realize that our Premiums are out of control - deductibles are way up.... I guess as along as your health care is paid for by us it really does not matter - right?
|
Thanks to everyone who called in to WAMC Vox Pop today, & for the invitation to participate in this discussion. #ny19 http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-news/20170117/18m-americans-would-lose-health-insurance-within-a-year-if-obamacare-is-repealed-without-replacement-congressional-budget-office-says
|
eng_Latn
| 35,086 |
Congressional Budget Office: Repealing health insurance reform would add $230 billion (!) to the deficit over ten years, add 32 million uninsured, and increase premiums on the individual market. Got your mailer to Westchester residents.... At the bottom it notes that it was paid for by taxpayer funds. Please pay for all future reelection mailers with your own campaign funds. Thank you.
|
Insurance costs under Obamacare are likely to increase for Americans of all ages, even if you have private insurance. This law is too costly for the American people. Join the fight & spread the word by sharing this story with your friends! Stand up and fight to defund this now! The people of WV and the country are depending on you and all other elected officials.
|
Big Insurance, Big Medicine: Already on our way to higher costs with ObamaCare http://ht.ly/2ZwIj http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BJfMPxQuiU&feature=player_embedded
|
eng_Latn
| 35,087 |
To those complaining it wasn't the fight if the century, keep in mind its relatively early in this century Then that means there's PLENTY of time to easily see a better fight the rest of this century!!!
|
I bet we'll soon see a renewed appreciation for real physical stunt fighting in mainstream action films. https://t.co/pSWT0lCr2v Nice piece. I just hate how they assume that well choreographed action and good screenwriting/characters are mutually exclusive.
|
The Affordable Care Act means we never have to be worried about being denied insurance due to pre-existing conditions! on the backs of the healty and or employeed.. just wait a few years down the road and tell us all how good its been.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,088 |
what is plan g for medicare supplement
|
Plan G is popular because it covers many high-risk situations not taken care of by Medicare, and it is a pretty affordable plan. Plan G covers things like hospitalization coverage extension, hospital co-insurance, skilled nursing co-insurance, hospital care and Medicare excess charges, among other things.
|
Plan G does NOT cover the Medicare Part B deductible, which is $183/year (for 2017). That is the only difference in the two plans. So obviously, if you do the math on it and the monthly premium differences are greater than approximately $15.25/month then Plan G is a better value than Plan F.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,089 |
cost of benefits in healthcare workplace
|
If the total annual cost of coverage for the plan is normally $5,000, the $600 penalty would be allowed because it is less than 30 percent of the cost of coverage. The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury requested comments on the proposed rules by January 25, 2013.
|
Among the survey's numerous findings: 1 The average annual health plan cost per employee is $6,881 (medical only coverage), with an average employee cost of $3,110 and an average employer cost of $3,771 per employee. large survey of employers indicates that that the average healthplan costs employers $6,881 with payment almost evenly divided between employer and employee. The survey was released by United Benefit Advisors (UBA), (http://benefits.com), an alliance of 142 of the nation's premier independent benefit advisory firms.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,090 |
what does the aca mostly likely to accomplish
|
In order for the overall plan to work, young, healthy, people (especially men) must be forced into regular ACA plans so that they can subsidise others. Low cost, high deductible, plans and HSA accounts mostly benefit this group because they are less likely to use medical services on a routine basis.. The exchanges will be mostly working by March 2014, but by then the risk pool will be dysfunctional. In the meantime, real net prices will creep up, if only through implicit rationing and restrictions on provider networks.
|
Association Facts. 1 ACA's mission is enriching the lives of children, youth, and adults through the camp experience. 2 Founded in 1910, ACA is a tax-exempt corporation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service code.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,091 |
how many are insured under aca
|
About 16.4 million fewer Americans are going without health insurance since five years ago when Obamacare was signed into.
|
ACAP members are nonprofit plans that serve public insurance programs and the safety net. Collectively, ACAP plans serve more than 17 million enrollees, which is over 50 percent of individuals enrolled in Medicaid-focused health plans.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,092 |
when did aca start
|
The history of the Affordable Care Act â The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. It is more commonly known as the Affordable Care Act (or ACA) â and itâs most commonly referred to by its nickname, Obamacare.
|
Submit Your Story. The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) was passed by Congress and signed into law on October 2, 1986. This law guarantees that people with disabilities receive consistent and nondiscriminatory treatment during air travel and requires air carriers to accommodate the needs of passengers with disabilities.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,093 |
what is self-funded health insurance
|
Definition. Self-funded insurance is a coverage plan in which the employer pays for health claims, rather than relying on an insurance company to cover claims.
|
Definition. Self-funded insurance is a coverage plan in which the employer pays for health claims, rather than relying on an insurance company to cover claims.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,094 |
benefits open enrollment
|
Open Enrollment is the time to make changes to your insurance coverage, and add or. drop dependents. The Open Enrollment sessions will provide valuable information. on medical, dental, vision, supplemental life, AD&D, AFLAC and Flexible Spending. Account benefits. Now is the time to enroll in the Flexible Spending Account for. 2015-2016 (elections are made through the online open enrollment process).
|
Open Enrollment for 2017. Once a year, full-time Academic and Staff employees have the opportunity to make enrollment changes in the following benefit plans for 2017: Medical (including Tobacco-free Incentive)
|
eng_Latn
| 35,095 |
average va disability rating for ischemic heart disease
|
The average rating for ischemic heart diseases is expected to be 60 percent. In calculating VA costs from this change, VA assumes that 80 percent of the eligible population will apply for benefits and 100 percent of those who do will be approved.
|
As a result, VA recognized ischemic heart disease as associated with exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides during military service. VA's final regulation recognizing this association took effect on October 30, 2010.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,096 |
cost of cardiovascular disease in the us
|
The Economic Cost of Cardiovascular Disease in the United States. 1 Treatment for cardiovascular diseases accounts for nearly $1 of every $6 spent on health care in the United States. In 2010, an estimated $444 billion was spent on cardiovascular disease treatment, medication and lost productivity from disability.
|
1 National inpatient hospital costs for diabetes with complications were nearly $3.8 billion in 2001. 2 The risk of hospitalization from cardiovascular disease is two to four times higher for women with diabetes as compared to women without diabetes. With appropriate primary care for diabetes complications, nearly $2.5 billion in hospital costs might have been averted, with significant potential savings obtained in Medicare ($1.3 billion of total costs) and Medicaid ($386 million of total costs).
|
eng_Latn
| 35,097 |
what is blue choice insurance plan
|
With the exception of well-child care, all claims are subject to the deductible and coinsurance. BlueChoice Value is a smart choice for reliable health insurance coverage at rates to fit your budget. BlueChoice Value is a great combination of benefits and price.
|
Blue Choice PPO. Blue Choice SM PPO puts you in charge of your own health care. Youâll get the care you need when youâre ill or injured, from the doctors and hospitals you choose from our BlueChoice PPO network. All with no-hassle Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield service.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,098 |
how many us hospitals are for profit
|
In round numbers, the ownership breaks down like this(1): 1 The Federal government owns about 200, including military hospitals and veterans hospitals. 2 State and local governments own about 1,000. 3 Another 1,000 are owned by for-profit companies. The remaining 3,000 are owned by not-for-profit organizations.
|
58% of US community hospitals are non-profit, 21% are government owned, and 21% are for-profit.[2] According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17%), than any other nation in 2011.
|
eng_Latn
| 35,099 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.