Showing posts with label Healthcare Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Healthcare Reform. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

UNPRECEDENTED: Obama Forces Insurance Industry To Withhold 2015 Prices Until After Election

By Jim Hoft, Nov. 3, 2014, Thegatewaypundit.com

For the first time in modern history, the Obama administration has forced insurance companies to withhold 2015 prices until after the election.
So he can shield Democrats.

In the past, new prices were announced 60 days before the first day of the year.
Not this year.


Warner Todd Huston reported:

Barack Obama is again playing political games with our health insurance industry and has turned in another underhanded move against it by forcing insurance carriers, brokers and agents to withhold their 2015 prices until after the 2014 midterm elections are over all so that the news of higher prices won’t hurt Democrats on Election Day. 
This means that customers looking to get new insurance or those wishing to scout new policies to see if they can get a better deal are not able to shop for insurance. 
Before we get into that, though, millions of new cancellations will be hitting on January 1, 2015. Much of this news has gone under the radar as Democrats and their lapdog media are keeping this as quiet as possible.
Read the full story:  www.thegatewaypundit.com 



Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Poll: Record 53% Disapprove Of Obamacare

By Barbara Boland, Aug. 1, 2014, CNSNews.com

53% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Obamacare, up 8% since last month. This is the largest unfavorable opinion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the survey's four year history, a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation finds. Only 37% of people actually have a favorable opinion of the law.

Obamacare lost favorability with women, whites, and those in the low and middle income brackets, along with other groups - including Democrats.



Read the full story:  www.cnsnews.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Monday, July 14, 2014

By Elise Viebeck, Jul. 13, 2014, Thehill.com

A federal appeals court is poised to rule in a case that could blow a gaping hole in ObamaCare's scheme for providing healthcare coverage.

The plaintiffs in Halbig v. Burwell argue that the healthcare law does not authorize the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to offer premium subsidies on the federal exchanges.

It's an issue that strikes at the heart of the Affordable Care Act's insurance benefits and could potentially end financial help for nearly 5 million enrollees.

That is, if the plaintiffs succeed. Legal experts have generally looked askance at the lawsuit, which has a losing record in federal court so far.

But some believe that a looming decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit could break that trend. A ruling could come out on Tuesday.

Either way, it's a case that could wind up at the Supreme Court.

"The IRS has arrogated for itself the power to rewrite a federal statute, triggering federal appropriations and financial penalties beyond those authorized by the legislature,” wrote Jonathan H. Adler and Michael F. Cannon in an amicus brief to the D.C. appeals court in support of the plaintiffs.

“Such 'administrative hubris' cannot stand," they said.

Adler and Cannon, from Case Western Reserve University and the Cato Institute, crafted the legal theory behind the case.

The lawsuit's critics, though, say plaintiffs are missing the forest for the trees.

"Courts do not read statutes by cherry-picking single phrases to defeat the entire purpose of laws," wrote Washington and Lee University Law School Professor Timothy Jost in the Washington Post.

"If one views the totality of the [law] ... it's clear that tax credits are available in the federal exchange."

Court watchers expect Judge Thomas Griffith to be the swing vote in the case.

Read the full story:  www.thehill.com


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Monday, June 2, 2014

By Stephen Adams, May 31, 2014, Dailymail.co.uk

A cancer patient who was told she had a good chance of making a full recovery has now been diagnosed as terminally ill - after waiting ten weeks for surgery because of a beds shortage at her local NHS hospital.

When Heather Crisp was diagnosed with bladder cancer last year, doctors were optimistic because the disease had not spread.

She underwent a programme of chemotherapy which ended in early December and according to NHS rules, should have been operated on within a month. But the surgery was repeatedly delayed because of the lack of an available bed at Wexham Park Hospital near Slough.

In late February this year, the mother-of-two was finally sent for treatment at a private hospital but by then the cancer had spread to her pelvic wall making it inoperable.

She was later told the cancer was probably terminal. Her family are now launching legal action against Wexham Park, which was put in 'special measures' in April.

Last night, Mrs Crisp, 62, from Burnham in Berkshire, said: 'I truly believe that if they had done the operation when they should have, in early January, I would not be in this situation. It's now inoperable, and they've said there's nothing more they can really do.'

She recalled how, after being turned away for her operation the first time, her surgeon had told her to stage a sit-down protest if it happened again. When she went in a few days later and was told once more that there were no beds, she decided to try the tactic. But after walking around intensive care, the surgeon told her there was no point.

That second delay, on February 9, prompted a referral to a Spire private hospital. But it was not until February 21 that she went under the knife.


Read the full story:  www.dailymail.co.uk

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, May 30, 2014


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Thursday, May 29, 2014

By Nanci Hellmich, May 28, 2014, Usatoday.com

More employees are getting hit with higher health insurance premiums and co-payments, and many don't have the money to cover unexpected medical expenses, a new report finds.

More than half of companies (56%) increased employees' share of health care premiums or co-payments for doctors' visits in 2013, and 59% of employers say they intend to do the same in 2014, according to the annual Aflac WorkForces Report. It's based on a survey of 1,856 employers and 5,209 employees at small, medium and large-size companies.

In 2013, 19% of companies implemented a major medical plan with a high deductible (more than $1,000) and Health Savings Accounts as an alternative to a traditional medical plan, the study finds.

Employees are worried about covering their medical costs: 49% have less than $1,000 to pay for unexpected out-of-pocket medical expenses; 53% would borrow from their 401(k)s or credit cards to cover unexpected medical costs; 66% say they wouldn't be able to adjust to the large financial costs associated with a serious injury or illness.

The survey also showed 69% of workers at least somewhat agree that they regularly underestimate the total costs of an injury or illness, including medical, household and out-of-pocket expenses.

Many employees are in a "fragile financial situation" and couldn't afford the out-of-pocket expenses of many medical situations, says Matthew Owenby, vice president of human resources for Aflac, a provider of supplemental insurance, such as accident, cancer, critical illness, dental and vision.

Some companies are already offering high deductible plans and, "I think we'll see more of this in the future," he says.

Read the full story:  www.usatoday.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Monday, May 26, 2014


By Abby Goodnough, May 25, 2014, Nytimes.com

Hospital systems around the country have started scaling back financial assistance for lower- and middle-income people without health insurance, hoping to push them into signing up for coverage through the new online marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act.

The trend is troubling to advocates for the uninsured, who say raising fees will inevitably cause some to skip care rather than buy insurance that they consider unaffordable. Though the number of hospitals tightening access to free or discounted care appears limited so far, many say they are considering doing so, and experts predict that stricter policies will become increasingly common.

Driving the new policies is the cost of charity care, which is partly covered by government but remains a burden for many hospitals. The new law also reduces federal aid to hospitals that treat large numbers of poor and uninsured people, creating an additional pressure on some to restrict charity care.

Read the full story: www.nytimes.com


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, May 23, 2014

By Paul Krugman, Jan. 27, 2006, Nytimes.com

American health care is desperately in need of reform. But what form should change take? Are there any useful examples we can turn to for guidance?

Well, I know about a health care system that has been highly successful in containing costs, yet provides excellent care. And the story of this system's success provides a helpful corrective to anti-government ideology. For the government doesn't just pay the bills in this system -- it runs the hospitals and clinics.

No, I'm not talking about some faraway country. The system in question is our very own Veterans Health Administration, whose success story is one of the best-kept secrets in the American policy debate.

In the 1980's and early 1990's, says an article in The American Journal of Managed Care, the V.H.A. ''had a tarnished reputation of bureaucracy, inefficiency and mediocre care.'' But reforms beginning in the mid-1990's transformed the system, and ''the V.A.'s success in improving quality, safety and value,'' the article says, ''have allowed it to emerge as an increasingly recognized leader in health care.''

Last year customer satisfaction with the veterans' health system, as measured by an annual survey conducted by the National Quality Research Center, exceeded that for private health care for the sixth year in a row. This high level of quality (which is also verified by objective measures of performance) was achieved without big budget increases. In fact, the veterans' system has managed to avoid much of the huge cost surge that has plagued the rest of U.S. medicine.

How does the V.H.A. do it?

The secret of its success is the fact that it's a universal, integrated system. Because it covers all veterans, the system doesn't need to employ legions of administrative staff to check patients' coverage and demand payment from their insurance companies. Because it covers all aspects of medical care, it has been able to take the lead in electronic record-keeping and other innovations that reduce costs, ensure effective treatment and help prevent medical errors.

Moreover, the V.H.A., as Phillip Longman put it in The Washington Monthly, ''has nearly a lifetime relationship with its patients.'' As a result, it ''actually has an incentive to invest in prevention and more effective disease management. When it does so, it isn't just saving money for somebody else. It's maximizing its own resources. In short, it can do what the rest of the health care sector can't seem to, which is to pursue quality systematically without threatening its own financial viability.''

Oh, and one more thing: the veterans' health system bargains hard with medical suppliers, and pays far less for drugs than most private insurers.

I don't want to idealize the veterans' system. In fact, there's reason to be concerned about its future: will it be given the resources it needs to cope with the flood of wounded and traumatized veterans from Iraq? But the transformation of the V.H.A. is clearly the most encouraging health policy story of the past decade. So why haven't you heard about it?


Read the full story:  www.nytimes.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Saturday, April 19, 2014

By Tom Blumer, Apr. 18, 2014, Newsbuster.org

David Nather at the Politico apparently wanted to make sure that those who don't follow the news closely see a triumphant headline ("Obama Spikes the Football") and a congratulatory opening paragraph at their computers, tablets, and smartphones.

Sure, the Politico reporter gradually threw in all kinds of qualifications after that, but his mission is largely accomplished: Cause those who don't click through to believe that Obamacare is functioning as intended, and — especially in the headline — communicate the message that the debate about the statist health regime's existence is really over. He can say that he did his job while at the same time keeping most people away from the more complicated reality. In that sense, Nather is right there with reporters at ABC and CBS who claim without verifiable evidence, as Rich Noyes at NewsBusters noted earlier this afternoon, that the program has achieved "a major milestone." Excerpts follow the jump (bolds are mine):

Obama spikes the football 
Finally, President Barack Obama can say his health care law is beating the expectations. 
Well, one of them, anyway. It’s safe to say that no one — not even him — predicted that the Obamacare sign-ups would soar as high as 8 million, the figure he announced in an appearance in the White House briefing room Thursday. That number, at least on its face, truly does go beyond the enrollment goals the administration set for itself — and makes the recovery from the website debacle even bigger. 
That doesn’t mean the number tells everything the public needs to know about who’s really covered, of course. And not all of Thursday’s numbers beat the expectations — the share of young adults still isn’t ideal, according to some health care experts. 
But the final enrollment numbers, along with other recent survey findings, are strong enough to give the Obama administration a cushion against some of the most common criticisms of the enrollment trends.
Read the full story:  www.newsbusters.org


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, April 18, 2014


Read the full story:  www.realclearpolitics.com


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook

Thursday, April 17, 2014




Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook

Sunday, April 13, 2014

By Megan McArdle, Apr. 11, 2014, Bloomberg.com


Of the plans that states have hatched for the Affordable Care Act, none has been bolder than that of Vermont, which wants to implement a single-payer health-care system, along the lines of what you might find in Britain or Canada. One government-operated system will cover all 620,000 of Vermont’s citizens. The hope is that such a system will allow Vermont to get costs down closer to Canada’s, as well as improve health by coordinating care and ensuring universal coverage.


Just two small issues need to be resolved before the state gets to all systems go: First, it needs the federal government to grant waivers allowing Vermont to divert Medicaid and other health-care funding into the single-payer system. And second, Vermont needs to find some way to pay for it:

Read the full story:  www.bloombergview.com



Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Alexa Ura, Apr. 11, 2014, The Texas Tribune


LAREDO — For 12 hours a day, the waiting room at Dr. Gustavo Villarreal’s family practice is often packed with patients, people who will pay a flat $50 fee for the convenience — or necessity — of a walk-in, quick-turn doctor’s visit. Villarreal’s practice, which does not accept any form of health insurance, has thrived despite its location in a city where nearly one-third of the population lives below the federal poverty line.
  
At both the state and federal level, efforts are underway to decrease Texas' sky-high rate of residents without health coverage. But Villarreal is among a rising number of primary care practitioners who have given up on the red tape of filing insurance claims, switching to a cash-based model that is growing in popularity among Texas’ insured and uninsured patients.

Doctors who use this model, which they call “direct primary care,” say they can keep their costs competitive by avoiding the bureaucracy of the health insurance system and the high processing costs — including additional staff — associated with accepting coverage.

“It had always been affordable and possible to maintain a practice with what insurance and patients paid, but about 10 or 15 years ago, you started seeing a decline” in revenue, said Villarreal, who switched his traditional family practice to its current business model in 2012.  

Most doctors limit their services to basic or preventive care — treatment their patients can afford without turning to their insurance providers — such as prescribing medicine for colds and infections, treating minor lesions and overseeing long-term care for conditions like diabetes and osteoporosis.

Read the full story:  www.texastribune.org



Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Tuesday, April 8, 2014


By Larry Elder, Jul. 2, 2009

"President Barack Obama says that he can pay for his goal to provide health care insurance for every American without it. Why isn't that good enough for you?"


Elder: Yes, the President says that he can "pay for" his goal of providing health insurance for every American without it. Care to bet on that?  

When government proposes a program, the ultimate price tag inevitably exceeds projections. In "Why Government Doesn't Work," libertarian Harry Browne wrote: "Most older people now find it harder to get adequate medical service. Naturally, the government points to the higher costs and shortages as proof that the elderly would be lost without Medicare — and that government should be even more deeply involved. When Medicare was set up in 1965, the politicians projected its cost in 1990 to be $3 billion — which is equivalent to $12 billion when adjusted for inflation to 1990 dollars. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion — eight times as much."


Congress, from the outset, placed Medicare on autopilot because of a growing, aging and longer-living elderly population. Congress, from time to time, attempts to "rein in" increased costs by imposing fixed reimbursement schedules. This simply creates an incentive on the part of doctors and hospitals to schedule a lot of unnecessary tests or to "pingpong" patients from specialist to specialist in order to evade the artificial limits. This also forces doctors and hospitals to charge more from private carriers to offset the low reimbursement rates provided by Medicare.

Everybody gets hurt — the elderly because the medical profession becomes less efficient, innovative and cost-effective, and the non-elderly because practitioners charge them more to offset the lower reimbursement rates provided by the government.


"We need to require all employers to provide health insurance."


Elder: We end up paying more, not less. During World War II, Congress imposed wage freezes. Business people who wished to attract employees had little recourse but to offer non-cash benefits. The government, recognizing business people's "plight," allowed business to deduct the cost of health insurance as a business expense. This put, for the first time, something between doctor and patient, distorting the traditional fee-for-service system, used so successfully up until then. It also created the incentive to get your medical care through your employer rather than pay for it directly.


I once lived in a large apartment complex that included utilities paid by the landlord. During hot summer months or cold winter months in my previous apartment — where I paid for utilities — I turned the thermostat off when I left the apartment and put on the heat or air when I returned. Once I moved into the "utilities-included" apartment, I left my heat and air on all day, thus ensuring a perfect climate when I came home — sometimes as long as 12 hours later.


Now, I knew that somehow I paid, but the cost would be distributed over all the tenants in the building. So the conscientious tenant who cut off his or her air subsidized my carefree use of utilities. Eventually, we all pay, but the effect becomes gradual and diffused over a number of people who have little incentive to "conserve."


This applies to employer-provided insurance. Employees have less incentive to refrain from seeing doctors for minor reasons, less incentive to watch and manage their own health, and no incentive to cost compare among competing insurers and health care providers.

"I'm a supporter of free markets and competition, but that doesn't apply to medicine. Improved technology and research costs just drive the price of medicine up." Elder: New technology — in most any field — initially costs a lot. Consider the cost years ago of computers and calculators versus what we pay today for equipment and applications far faster, easier and more powerful. Remember the price of calculators 30 years ago? Today they are so cheap some outlets give them away as gifts — loss leaders to get you into the store.


Government-imposed rationing sacrifices quality and innovation while imposing long wait times. But you cannot control costs without removing the incentive to improve and innovate. How many medical-care breakthroughs occur in Canada? How many new drugs to improve patient outcome come from Canada? Without the profit incentive, you get fewer entrepreneurs and fewer investment dollars because you've diminished the likelihood of reward.


Want efficiency? A friend of mine who serves on the board of a hospital in Ontario recently wrote: "We have actually had to send money back to the government because the surgeries — scheduled months earlier — didn't occur because patients went to the U.S. for treatment instead. Funding is specific to some procedures, and if not used, the money is sent back. Right now we are losing the surgery money because we have a bed shortage for folks who can't return home because of the level of care they need, but there are no facilities for them to transfer to. Why, you ask? Government regulations make it next to impossible for private people to make a profit. And so the vicious circle continues."


Welcome to ObamaCare.

Read the full story:  www.jewishworldreview.com


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook
By Larry Elder, Jun. 25, 2009

Last week's article on why 45 million Americans go without health care insurance touched a nerve and generated many questions and assertions:



"You and your pesky statistics! Forty-five million Americans without health care is huge. And you wrote that 89 percent of the 85 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied. That means 25 percent of all Americans are unsatisfied!"


Elder: Those "pesky" statistics become especially pesky when misstated. I wrote that 45 million Americans have no health insurance , leaving 85 percent with health insurance — but not without health care . ERs must treat the uninsured, including illegal residents. Meanwhile, 89 percent of Americans — with or without insurance — are satisfied with the quality of their own health care.

An 89 percent satisfaction rate sounds pretty darn high. Are people, for example, 89 percent satisfied with their jobs? Their marriages? Their financial situations? Their experiences at concerts or ballgames or restaurants or hotels or with airline travel? An 89 percent satisfaction rate is pretty impressive for most things we pay for.


And as for the remaining 11 percent — to what degree and for what reason are they "dissatisfied"? Had bad experiences? Don't like having copays? Would prefer a complete choice of doctors but are restricted by their plans? Had to wait for appointments or sit too long in waiting rooms? (Canadians are used to eight-month-or-more waits and long lines. Americans, I assure you, are not.) A lot of people simply complain — about most everything.

For example, 10 years ago I had laser eye surgery. I filled out a questionnaire designed to determine how fastidious I am. Why? The doctor told me the surgery would not get me 20/20 vision. Was I OK, the doctor asked, with a less than 20/20 result? I was. He said some prospective patients, however, are dissatisfied with such a result. Given their — in his view — unrealistic expectations, the doctor wouldn't treat them.


"Doesn't universal coverage work in Canada?"


Elder: Not exactly. Large numbers of Canadians came (and still come) to America to avoid waiting for MRIs or to get time-sensitive treatment that couldn't wait. Canada is moving toward more privatization — which was previously illegal in Canada but is now permitted as a result of a successful lawsuit. Imagine having to sue to spend your own money in a voluntary transaction between two parties! According to a 2007 survey by the Canadian Fraser Institute, the median wait time in Canada between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment was more than 18 weeks — and up to 38 weeks for procedures such as orthopedic surgery.


"What's wrong with a government-provided alternative plan to keep the insurance companies honest and more competitive?"

Elder: Here's a recent example of what happens when government sets up "alternative" plans to cover the uninsured at (supposedly) lower costs. Hawaii offered universal child health care — for seven months. Then it dropped the plan. Why? People (and employers) with private plans dumped them to ride the "cheaper" government train. One of Hawaii's health care administrators lamented, "I don't believe that was the intent of the program." And Hawaii is a small state, without nearly the number of "health insurance needy" as we have on the mainland.


"Come on! Obviously the American health care system IS broken! That's why our life expectancy is so much lower and our infant mortality rate is so much higher than in other countries."


Elder: Ezekiel Emanuel, a medical adviser to the President (and brother of Rahm, the chief of staff), once told me, "Life expectancy is one of the dumbest ways to measure the quality of a nation's health care." Quality of medical care does not — by itself — determine life expectancy. For example, deaths from accidents and murders are much higher in America than in other developed countries. Texas A&M health economist Robert Ohsfeldt and health economics consultant John Schneider calculated that if accidental deaths and homicides during the '80s and '90s were removed from the calculations, life expectancy in America would have ranked at the top of all developed countries. What about personal behavior? Obesity leads to serious health problems, including heart disease. One-third of Americans are obese — almost 50 percent more than the British and Australians, over 100 percent more than the Canadians and Germans, about 250 percent more than the French and 1,000 percent more than the Japanese.


As for infant mortality, a 2007 study by economists June and David O'Neill found that low birth weight drastically increases an infant's chance of dying. They compared U.S. infant mortality (6.8 per 1,000 births) with Canada's (5.3). Teen mothers are far more likely to have low-weight babies, and America's teen motherhood rate is three times higher than Canada's. They determined that if Canada had America's low-weight birth distribution, Canada's infant mortality rate would rise from 5.3 to 7.06. If America had Canada's low-weight birth distribution, our infant mortality rate would fall from 6.8 to 5.4.


So don't blame the "broken health care system" for lower life expectancies. American health care actually helps us cope with the consequences of unhealthy lifestyles, keeping our ranking from being even lower.


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook