1. 11 Oct


    Photo: Jamie Sabau/Getty Images An analysis released in 2009 by Harvard Medical School researchers found that 45,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance. That’s one person every 12 minutes. Other studies have put the figure lower — the Institute of Medicine estimated in 2002 that about 18,000 people die annually because they’re uninsured. Indeed, the consensus among researchers is that you run a greater risk of dying if you’re not insured. Romney says Americans don’t die for lack of health insurance. Researchers say yes, they do.

    Photo: Jamie Sabau/Getty Images

    An analysis released in 2009 by Harvard Medical School researchers found that 45,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance. That’s one person every 12 minutes. Other studies have put the figure lower — the Institute of Medicine estimated in 2002 that about 18,000 people die annually because they’re uninsured. Indeed, the consensus among researchers is that you run a greater risk of dying if you’re not insured.

    Romney says Americans don’t die for lack of health insurance. Researchers say yes, they do.

     

  2. 29 Aug



    What my doctor thinks of ObamaCare

    “Want real health reform that is in the interest of you and your family? Don’t make the same mistake that Washington did. In formulating ObamaCare, the politicians listened to lobbyists, policy wonks, academics, health theorists, regulators, and occasionally to each other. But they failed to listen to the people who actually care for patients: Doctors.

    Go ahead, ask your physician at your next visit what she or he thinks of current Washington-directed reform and its impact on the doctor-patient relationship. What you hear will likely surprise you, because it will likely be markedly  different from what you hear from Washington. The policy theorists are simply too far removed from the reality of front-line patient care. Health reform, whether via the implementation of ObamaCare or the GOP’s “repeal and replace” plan, should no longer ignore the input and counsel of experienced, front-line, practicing doctors.”

    Columnist Bill Frist asked his doctor about ObamaCare. Here are the responses. 

    (Source: theweek.com)

     

  3. 2 Aug



    5 ObamaCare provisions you can already take advantage of

    An easy and helpful guide to what parts of the law are already in effect, and what they  mean for you. 

     

  4. 31 Jul


    Is America running out of doctors?  The primary objective of President Obama’s overhaul of the health-care system is to extend coverage to the tens of millions of Americans currently without insurance. “But coverage will not necessarily translate into care,” because there may not be enough doctors to treat everyone, say Annie Lowrey and Robert Pear at The New York Times. The U.S. is already facing a severe shortage of doctors, particularly in rural areas of the country, and the problem is only expected to get worse as more Americans gain insurance.

    Is America running out of doctors? 

    The primary objective of President Obama’s overhaul of the health-care system is to extend coverage to the tens of millions of Americans currently without insurance. “But coverage will not necessarily translate into care,” because there may not be enough doctors to treat everyone, say Annie Lowrey and Robert Pear at The New York Times. The U.S. is already facing a severe shortage of doctors, particularly in rural areas of the country, and the problem is only expected to get worse as more Americans gain insurance.

     

  5. 10 Jul


    On Monday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry declared his state would fight President Obama’s health-care overhaul by refusing to expand Medicaid or set up one-stop insurance exchanges — calling them “brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state.” He joined a growing group of outspoken Republican governors, including Rick Scott of Florida, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who have vowed to resist the Affordable Care Act since the Supreme Court upheld it in late June. Will defying Obama’s reform effort pay off? Here, a look at why the GOP governors might end up regretting wading into this fight:   Texas will lose out on $70 billion in federal money over six years if it opts out of the Medicaid expansion, according to Texas Well and Healthy, a coalition of ObamaCare supporters. “Our economy would benefit from this infusion, and our stretched health-care system needs the boost,” Eileen Garcia, who participates in the coalition as chief executive of Texans Care for Children, tells The New York Times. Not only that, says Suzy Khimm at The Washington Post, but state and local governments have to shell out $10.5 billion for uncompensated care at hospitals each year, according to the Urban Institute. Expanding Medicaid would mean many of those bills for the uninsured would be covered, so it might “save states” that money. 4 reasons Rick Perry may regret battling ObamaCare

    On Monday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry declared his state would fight President Obama’s health-care overhaul by refusing to expand Medicaid or set up one-stop insurance exchanges — calling them “brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state.” He joined a growing group of outspoken Republican governors, including Rick Scott of Florida, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who have vowed to resist the Affordable Care Act since the Supreme Court upheld it in late June. Will defying Obama’s reform effort pay off? Here, a look at why the GOP governors might end up regretting wading into this fight:  

    Texas will lose out on $70 billion in federal money over six years if it opts out of the Medicaid expansion, according to Texas Well and Healthy, a coalition of ObamaCare supporters. “Our economy would benefit from this infusion, and our stretched health-care system needs the boost,” Eileen Garcia, who participates in the coalition as chief executive of Texans Care for Children, tells The New York Times. Not only that, says Suzy Khimm at The Washington Post, but state and local governments have to shell out $10.5 billion for uncompensated care at hospitals each year, according to the Urban Institute. Expanding Medicaid would mean many of those bills for the uninsured would be covered, so it might “save states” that money.

    4 reasons Rick Perry may regret battling ObamaCare

     

  6. 3 Jul


    When the Supreme Court ruled to uphold ObamaCare, Mitt Romney responded by vowing to repeal the president’s signature domestic achievement, and to replace it with his own. However, Romney has given few hints of how he would actually address the serious deficiencies in America’s health care system, which has left tens of millions of people without insurance, made medical emergencies the country’s top cause of bankruptcy, and resulted in abysmal infant mortality ratesfor a developed nation, to take just one metric of public health. Romney’s website has few specifics, but his past statements reveal a loose outline of where he stands on the issue, say Trip Gabriel and Robert Pear at The New York Times. Here, a guide to what health care would look like under a President Romney: What are Romney’s health care proposals? Romney “would give a tax break to people who buy insurance individually on the open market,” say Gabriel and Pear, so that they “would enjoy the same advantage as workers who get insurance as a benefit at work.” Romney says he would take the federal government out of the equation, and leave it up to the states to figure out how to make health care more affordable. He also supports transforming Medicaid, the joint state-federal insurance program for the poor and the disabled, into a block-grant program, which would see the federal government give the states a lump sum of money with looser requirements on how they spent it. Would these plans work? It depends on what Romney’s health care goals are. A presumably similar tax-credit plan from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 was estimated to increase the number of uninsured. Democrats say turning Medicaid into a block-grant program would only encourage local governments to purge their Medicaid rolls and use the money for other purposes. However, Romney’s ideas “put more emphasis on controlling health costs and less on reducing the ranks of the uninsured, the primary goal of the Obama plan,” say Gabriel and Pear. Without more specifics from Romney, it’s impossible to calculate if his policies would result in lower health costs. What about patients with preexisting conditions? Romney says he would make surethose with preexisting conditions don’t lose their coverage, but opposes a provision in ObamaCare that makes it illegal to deny them coverage. Romney also would not require insurance companies to allow children to stay on their parents’ plans until they’re 26. Those two provisions are among the most popular elements of ObamaCare. Why is he reluctant to put out a plan of his own? Romney “has spent much of the presidential campaign shying away” from the subject,says Kasie Hunt at The Associated Press, because of the health care law he passed as governor in Massachusetts. RomneyCare is very similar to ObamaCare, replete with an individual mandate requiring nearly all citizens to buy health insurance. As a result, any discussion of health care invariably raises uncomfortable questions about why Romney suddenly opposes a mandate. That has left Romney with a “huge void” when it comes to replacing ObamaCare, and his campaign “calculates it can finesse until after the election,” says Albert R. Hunt at Bloomberg. Has RomneyCare created other political problems? Yes. Republicans have seized on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the mandate as a tax to hammer Obama for raising taxes. (Democrats maintain that it is a penalty for failing to buy insurance, not a tax.) However, conflating a mandate with a tax would mean Romney himself raised taxes as governor of Massachusetts. On Monday, Romney’s top aide, Eric Fehrnstrom, argued that the mandate is not a tax, straying “wildly from the coordinated comments” of Republicans in Congress, says Michael D. Shear at The New York Times.

    When the Supreme Court ruled to uphold ObamaCare, Mitt Romney responded by vowing to repeal the president’s signature domestic achievement, and to replace it with his own. However, Romney has given few hints of how he would actually address the serious deficiencies in America’s health care system, which has left tens of millions of people without insurance, made medical emergencies the country’s top cause of bankruptcy, and resulted in abysmal infant mortality ratesfor a developed nation, to take just one metric of public health. Romney’s website has few specifics, but his past statements reveal a loose outline of where he stands on the issue, say Trip Gabriel and Robert Pear at The New York Times.

    Here, a guide to what health care would look like under a President Romney:

    • What are Romney’s health care proposals? 
      Romney “would give a tax break to people who buy insurance individually on the open market,” say Gabriel and Pear, so that they “would enjoy the same advantage as workers who get insurance as a benefit at work.” Romney says he would take the federal government out of the equation, and leave it up to the states to figure out how to make health care more affordable. He also supports transforming Medicaid, the joint state-federal insurance program for the poor and the disabled, into a block-grant program, which would see the federal government give the states a lump sum of money with looser requirements on how they spent it.
    • Would these plans work? 
      It depends on what Romney’s health care goals are. A presumably similar tax-credit plan from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in 2008 was estimated to increase the number of uninsured. Democrats say turning Medicaid into a block-grant program would only encourage local governments to purge their Medicaid rolls and use the money for other purposes. However, Romney’s ideas “put more emphasis on controlling health costs and less on reducing the ranks of the uninsured, the primary goal of the Obama plan,” say Gabriel and Pear. Without more specifics from Romney, it’s impossible to calculate if his policies would result in lower health costs.
    • What about patients with preexisting conditions? 
      Romney says he would make surethose with preexisting conditions don’t lose their coverage, but opposes a provision in ObamaCare that makes it illegal to deny them coverage. Romney also would not require insurance companies to allow children to stay on their parents’ plans until they’re 26. Those two provisions are among the most popular elements of ObamaCare.
    • Why is he reluctant to put out a plan of his own? 
      Romney “has spent much of the presidential campaign shying away” from the subject,says Kasie Hunt at The Associated Press, because of the health care law he passed as governor in Massachusetts. RomneyCare is very similar to ObamaCare, replete with an individual mandate requiring nearly all citizens to buy health insurance. As a result, any discussion of health care invariably raises uncomfortable questions about why Romney suddenly opposes a mandate. That has left Romney with a “huge void” when it comes to replacing ObamaCare, and his campaign “calculates it can finesse until after the election,” says Albert R. Hunt at Bloomberg.
    • Has RomneyCare created other political problems? 
      Yes. Republicans have seized on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the mandate as a tax to hammer Obama for raising taxes. (Democrats maintain that it is a penalty for failing to buy insurance, not a tax.) However, conflating a mandate with a tax would mean Romney himself raised taxes as governor of Massachusetts. On Monday, Romney’s top aide, Eric Fehrnstrom, argued that the mandate is not a tax, straying “wildly from the coordinated comments” of Republicans in Congress, says Michael D. Shear at The New York Times.
     

  7. 29 Jun



    Whoever wins the presidency in November will be looking at a high court with several elderly justices. Most of them are liberals: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who has battled cancer) is 79. Stephen Breyer is 73. And Anthony Kennedy, usually the court’s swing vote, is 75. The oldest true conservative: 75-year old Antonin Scalia.

    Let’s say Obama wins a second term. Ginsburg, Breyer, or both could choose to retire, confident that the president would pick someone of a similar ideological bent. (On the other hand, isn’t that what Bush thought of Roberts?) Obama has already picked two justices. If he were to serve another four years, it is not inconceivable that he could select four, perhaps five justices in total — setting his philosophical stamp on the court for decades to come.

    But the stakes are probably even higher if Romney were to win. Those liberal justices would still be the oldest and most likely to go (one way or the other), though none have indicated that they’re thinking of stepping down. Could they outlast a potential eight-year Romney tenure? If he were to replace a liberal justice or two, the court would swing decisively to the right.

    So if you think the stakes are high this November and for the next four years, consider this: Whoever you cast your ballot for — Mitt Romney or Barack Obama — you’re really casting a vote that could resonate for 30 or 40 years. If that’s not reason to show up the polls, then nothing is.

    — Paul Brandus, How the ObamaCare ruling will shape U.S. politics… for the next 40 years.

    (Source: theweek.com)

     

  8. 28 Jun


    Cartoon of the day: An American schism TOM TOLES © 2012 Universal Press Syndicate 

    Cartoon of the day: An American schism 
    TOM TOLES © 2012 Universal Press Syndicate 

    (Source: theweek.com)

     

  9. 28 Jun


    Today, the Supreme Court is expected to finally hand down its monumental decision on ObamaCare. And based largely on the strong skepticism that the court’s conservative justices expressed about the law’s constitutionality during oral arguments in March, the conventional wisdom is that the court will strike down part or all of President Obama’s signature legislative achievement. Of course, many notable figures, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), have predicted that the court will uphold the law, but only 10 percent of Americans share her view, according to one poll. However, oral arguments are famously poor predictors of how the court will rule, and there is some evidence to suggest the law will survive. 4 reasons the court might uphold ObamaCare

    Today, the Supreme Court is expected to finally hand down its monumental decision on ObamaCare. And based largely on the strong skepticism that the court’s conservative justices expressed about the law’s constitutionality during oral arguments in March, the conventional wisdom is that the court will strike down part or all of President Obama’s signature legislative achievement. Of course, many notable figures, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), have predicted that the court will uphold the law, but only 10 percent of Americans share her view, according to one poll. However, oral arguments are famously poor predictors of how the court will rule, and there is some evidence to suggest the law will survive.

    4 reasons the court might uphold ObamaCare

     

  10. 27 Jun


    Cartoon of the day: In absence of ObamaCareDAVID FITZSIMMONS © Cagle Cartoons

    Cartoon of the day: In absence of ObamaCare
    DAVID FITZSIMMONS © Cagle Cartoons

    (Source: theweek.com)

     

  11. 26 Jun



    5 possible outcomes of the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision

    The Supreme Court handed down several big, consequential decisions on Monday — just not the one most of the U.S. political world is awaiting. The high court’s ruling on ObamaCare will almost certainly arrive on Thursday, ending months of suspense and setting into motion an unpredictable series of political and perhaps even policy dominoes. But “when the verdict does come, don’t be surprised if the outcome and implications are not instantly clear,” cautions Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic. There are likely to be various opinions and dissents joined by different justices, leaving a whole range of possible outcomes. Here’s a look at some of the most likely scenarios, plus some of the less-likely possibilities: 

    1. The Supreme Court upholds the entire law
    Policy-wise, this is the clearest scenario. And “if you believe in health care reform, as I do, this is obviously the best outcome,” says Cohn. It is also, despite all the tea-leaf reading, “a very credible” possibility — “two very conservative judges at the appellate level found the law to be constitutional,” after all. If you don’t like the law, there would be room for hope, too, says Deirdre Walsh at CNN. Upholding ObamaCare, GOP aides and strategists privately acknowledge, would jolt the GOP base and give the party “a cleaner election-year message”: The only way to slay ObamaCare is to put Republicans in control of the House, Senate, and White House.

    2. The justices strike down just the individual mandate
    The individual mandate — the focus of the court challenge — is by far the most unpopular part of the law. It requires most Americans without employer-sponsored health insurance to buy it, often with government subsidies, or pay a fine. Killing just the mandate would be “a moral victory for critics” of Obama and his health care law, says Cohn, but would “probably do very little damage to the law itself.” It’s “the worst-case scenario for insurance companies,” though, say Brent Kendall and Peter Landers at The Wall Street Journal. If Congress didn’t act, insurers would have to accept all-comers, regardless of age or pre-existing conditions, and people could wait until they’re sick to sign up, leading to “chaos in the market.” 

    3. The mandate and other provisions are overturned
    The Obama administration itself argued that if the individual mandate goes, at least two other provisions should, too, says Stephanie Condon at CBS News. Those parts of the law — the ones requiring insurers to cover everyone who asks, and charge them the same rates regardless of age — are “nearly twice as popular” with the public as the mandate. If the court strikes down these three parts, “it would mean that the principal aim of the law — expanding coverage to tens of millions of Americans — would be unlikely to be achieved,” say Kendall and Landers. And “Republicans would feel vindicated and push to repeal the rest of the law.”

    Keep reading

     

  12. 13 Jun


    Is it too late for the GOP to kill ObamaCare?  A looming Supreme Court decision could strike down ObamaCare, and Republicans are vowing to repeal it. Still, key elements of President Obama’s signature health-care reform law might be here to stay. Three of the nation’s biggest insurers — UnitedHealth, Aetna, and Humana — said this week that they would keep some of the legislation’s most popular provisions, such as letting young adults stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26, regardless of what happens to the law. And even some Republicans in Congress are softening their opposition to some aspects of the law, such as mandated coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions. Has the window has closed on Republicans who want to scrap ObamaCare entirely?

    Is it too late for the GOP to kill ObamaCare? 

    A looming Supreme Court decision could strike down ObamaCare, and Republicans are vowing to repeal it. Still, key elements of President Obama’s signature health-care reform law might be here to stay. Three of the nation’s biggest insurers — UnitedHealth, Aetna, and Humana — said this week that they would keep some of the legislation’s most popular provisions, such as letting young adults stay on their parents’ health plans until age 26, regardless of what happens to the law. And even some Republicans in Congress are softening their opposition to some aspects of the law, such as mandated coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions.

    Has the window has closed on Republicans who want to scrap ObamaCare entirely?

     

  13. 7 Jun


    A big sore point in the Catholic Church’s high-profile pushback against the Obama administration making most employers’ health insurance plans provide copay-free birth control is the idea that Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities will be forced to support (directly or indirectly) “abortifacients” or “abortion-inducing drugs” — which refers to the morning-after pill, primarily Plan B. But anti-abortion advocates are wrong about what the morning-after pill does — as are abortion-rights proponents, the National Institutes of Health, the Mayo Clinic, and Plan B’s label — according to a new examination of the research by The New York Times. So what, in fact, does the morning-after pill do? And can science neuter the controversy surrounding Plan B? 

    A big sore point in the Catholic Church’s high-profile pushback against the Obama administration making most employers’ health insurance plans provide copay-free birth control is the idea that Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities will be forced to support (directly or indirectly) “abortifacients” or “abortion-inducing drugs” — which refers to the morning-after pill, primarily Plan B.

    But anti-abortion advocates are wrong about what the morning-after pill does — as are abortion-rights proponents, the National Institutes of Health, the Mayo Clinic, and Plan B’s label — according to a new examination of the research by The New York Times.

    So what, in fact, does the morning-after pill do? And can science neuter the controversy surrounding Plan B?