Posts Tagged ‘Health’
City dropping health coverage at 20 agencies
February 20, 2010 | 
Author 
Lexington’s Urban County Government is dropping health insurance coverage for 556 employees of “outside agencies” — organizations that are affiliated with, but not directly run by, city government.
Based on 2008 spending, dropping employees of the 20 organizations from Lexington’s insurance plan would save the cash-strapped city $506,218 a year, the difference between what it took in and what it had to pay out.
Among the organizations that will be making new health insurance arrangements are the Fayette County Health Department, Kentucky League of Cities, Lexington Housing Authority, Lexington Convention & Visitors Bureau, Lexington Parking Authority and the Lexington Urban League.
“The satellite agencies had been paying only their premiums,” said Susan Straub, spokeswoman for Mayor Jim Newberry. “. . . They were not funding the full cost of their health care. “
Over the past three years, the city has shelled out $2. 2 million to supplement the insurance premiums paid by the employees of outside agencies.
In late November, Newberry said the city might consider layoffs, pay cuts, furloughs and the elimination of city programs to stem an estimated shortfall of $12 million to $13 million. City government division directors were asked to propose ways to cut expenses by 5 percent.
The council approved cutting health insurance for outside groups on Dec. 8. In all, the city offers health insurance to 3,622 workers and retirees, whose health claims outpaced revenue by $8. 5 million last year.
Most of the agencies will have until Dec. 31, 2010, to finish their new health care plans, but some — such as the Fayette County Health Department — will switch to new insurers within the next month.
Health Department Commissioner Melinda Rowe said city officials told her the agency should be covered by the state’s health insurance program. Instead, the department chose a plan offered by Bluegrass Family Health.
Still, the cost of premiums paid by the department could go up by more than $600,000 over two years, Rowe said.
Not providing health insurance to employees was never considered, she said.
“Obviously, we’re the health department; we have got to concentrate on our own employees and their wellness,” Rowe said.
P. G. Peeples, president of Lexington’s Urban League, said his organization’s insurance options are limited because it has only six employees. He hopes to band with United Way agencies or other Urban League offices to build the number of employees needed for a large bargaining pool.
“I’m disappointed they’re going to remove this option,” Peeples said. “I understand that they’re trying to do cost savings. “
How did the city wind up providing insurance benefits for agencies outside city government?
“For the most part, we don’t really know,” Straub said. “We inherited this situation, and the arrangements have apparently been in place for a number of years. “
Jan Isenhour, director of the Carnegie Center for Literacy, said the center’s budget initially came from the city, so its inclusion in the health pool seemed logical.
In 2003, the center became an “outside agency” and started taking over its own finances but remained in the city insurance group. The Carnegie Center hasn’t started pricing outside health policies; it has another year on the city’s plan.
Meanwhile, the city continues to look for other ways to shift expenses to outside agencies.
Ed Lane, councilman for Lexington’s 12th district, said the city might soon consider asking outside agencies to contribute money toward the upkeep of city office space they occupy.
“The recession puts a lot of strain on government to provide all the services necessary for the taxpayers, but it also gives us an opportunity to look at what are essential services and what are non-essential services . . . to try to maximize the efficiency of government as much as we can,” Lane said.
Senators Question Mandatory Health Insurance Constitutionality
Scott P. Brown’s win yesterday may be a harbinger of things to come for Obama’s health care reform plan; the idea of universal health insurance first touted in Obama’s platform for change seems to be on the verge of severe change itself. One question Republicans will likely concentrate on at present is whether mandatory private insurance violates the constitution or not.
The shock of a Republican winner in Massachusetts, a traditionally very, blue, very Democratic state is just beginning to be felt. One thing, however, is sure – voters are angry. The Obama administration’s focus on passing health care reform to make affordable health insurance more accessible to masses seems to have caused ire in his constituency. With the effects of the recession still on everyone’s mind, the concentration on health care has hampered Obama’s plans. Now Republicans have the power to impede those exact plans.
Republicans have plenty to discuss. Many Republicans have seen the health care plan from the get-go as a travesty to local governments. It would put a tax burden on small businesses, the rich, as well as unions. The cost of these new taxes may be more of a hindrance than a blessing. Furthermore, Republicans fear it would put Big Brother at the helm.
The big question remains: is mandatory private health insurance constitutional? Democrats cite the case of Social Security, which was approved by the Supreme Court in 1937 as a tax and spending program to provide insurance for the retired. No doubt, Social Security is not the most perfect plan, but has thus far worked.
The only problem with the Social Security argument is that Social Security remains a federal insurance, whereas the proposed Obama insurance is a private affair. American citizens, would essentially, be forced to buy their own private health insurance.
Republicans fear large government interference in the private lives of its citizens. Too much regulation takes away the freedoms of Americans as stated in the Constitution itself. Democrats would argue that it counts as economic activity, which can be regulated by Congress. Others find that argument to be rather flimsy. Where exactly does the Federal government have the authority to force its citizens to buy private insurance? What will the Supreme Court have to say? States already regulate car insurance, but that is on a state-to-state basis.
This is, by no means, a new issue. In November, Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oregon and Representative John Shadegg of Arizona began a push to force Congress to have to consider the authority of any legislation put forth. The legislation entitled “The Enumerated Powers Act”, has brought with it a large amount of discussion, however not much action.
Senator Obama has many challenges ahead. The Republican win last night indicates that people want a change. The question of the constitutionality of mandatory private health insurance looms. Republicans are expected to press the issue. However, many liberals and progressives have also questioned it. This may prove difficult for any health care reform – at least as it exists now – to succeed. Health care talks in the Senate are expected to come to a close soon.
Posted in Uncategorized | 
Tags: Constitutionality, Health, Insurance, Mandatory, Question, Senators | 
No Comments »
Even a ‘scaled-down’ health bill is dangerous
Last week, Democratic leaders in the Senate caved to Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s demands and stripped away some major provisions from their health reform legislation, including the public option and a plan that would have allowed middle-age Americans to “buy in” to Medicare. With Connecticut independent Lieberman’s support seemingly secured — for the time being — the president announced that Congress was “on the precipice” of passing comprehensive reform.
But even without these controversial components, the Democrats’ bill would still put government in charge of nearly all Americans’ health care. Patients would have fewer choices in the insurance marketplace, and taxpayers would be on the hook for a multibillion-dollar expansion of the public health care system.
Ultimately, these moves will dramatically drive up the cost and worsen the quality of health care in America.
A key element of the Democrats’ reform bill is an individual mandate, which would legally require people to purchase insurance. Starting in 2013, everyone would have to own a plan that met government specifications or pay a fine.
Proponents of such a mandate claim that it will broaden the insurance risk pool to include those who may not currently have insurance, which would eventually lead to lower premiums for everyone. Previously uninsured younger, healthy Americans would effectively subsidize older and less healthy patients.
Mandating everyone to dive into the insurance pool may seem like a good idea, but it represents a profound assault on individual freedom.
The federal government will decide what constitutes an acceptable benefit plan and what people pay for it. Government will also control how doctors are paid by insurance companies and, ultimately, how they practice medicine.
Congress does not legally force Americans to spend their own money on any other particular good or service — why should health insurance be any different?
In fact, for some Americans, health insurance isn’t a wise use of funds. Young people and health fanatics, for instance, might well shell out premiums for medical services they likely won’t use.
And those premiums can be hugely expensive. The average premium for family coverage is a whopping $12,300 a year. That rate is only going to go up if the Democrats’ plan passes.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that individual insurance premiums under reform would be 10 percent to 13 percent higher by 2016 than they would in the absence of reform. In certain states, the increase in premiums would be even higher.
In California, for instance, the average healthy 25-year-old man would see his premiums rise 106 percent thanks to the Democrats’ reform plan. Premiums for a typical Virginia family with two children would increase 82 percent.
Some folks might be best served by paying for routine health expenses out of their own pockets rather than relying on expensive and inconsistent insurance policies.
These increases in the cost of insurance are largely the result of the reform plan’s array of new controls on insurers. Paramount among these controls is a requirement that insurers issue a policy to any customer who requests one, regardless of one’s medical history or health status.
In those states that mandate “guaranteed issue,” the regulation has induced patients to wait until they actually need medical care before purchasing coverage. In order to cover the cost of an insurance pool filled exclusively with sick people, premiums must be sky-high. Indeed, guaranteed issue has driven health premiums up by as much as 200 percent in some states.
In those states that mandate “guaranteed issue,” the regulation has induced patients to wait until they actually need medical care before purchasing coverage. In order to cover the cost of an insurance pool filled exclusively with sick people, premiums must be sky-high. Indeed, guaranteed issue has driven health premiums up by as much as 200 percent in some states.
The Democrats’ reform package would also install a national “community rating” ordinance, which would restrict insurers’ ability to charge different prices to different enrollees according to their health status. It would also impose new limits on out-of-pocket spending and require all insurance plans to include certain benefits, like maternity leave and newborn care, even if a patient didn’t want them.
These rules are meant to make health coverage more affordable and robust for more Americans. But they’ll do just the opposite.
Mandated benefits can increase the cost of a basic insurance policy by up to 50 percent. And by forcing insurers to charge both the sick and the healthy similar rates, community-rating regulations virtually guarantee that everyone pays more.
Instead, we need low-cost, pragmatic policies that drive down health prices without impinging on individual freedoms.
A great first step in that direction would be for Congress to allow people to buy insurance policies across state lines.
States regulate insurance differently. Some require policies to cover a long list of procedures. Others effectively prevent competition among carriers. As a result, the price of a basic insurance plan varies dramatically from state to state.
For instance, a 25-year-old male in New Jersey has to shell out about $5,600 for a basic insurance policy. His counterpart in Kentucky can get a similar policy for just $1,000.
Currently, Americans can only purchase policies approved for sale in the state where they live. Allowing them to shop around for the best deal would instill competition and drive down prices.
Lawmakers could take a second step in the right direction by enacting major medical malpractice reform. One in eight doctors gets sued for malpractice every year.
These suits cost about $100,000 on average to defend, even though doctors are found innocent 90 percent of the time.
To avoid getting dragged into expensive legal proceedings, many doctors engage in “defensive medicine,” ordering more tests and procedures than necessary. This practice added $124 billion to national health costs in 2006 and drove more than 3 million Americans into the ranks of the uninsured.
Implementing some commonsense tort reforms — like a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages — could reduce these costs without compromising patient care.
Congressional Democrats have been forced to trim some of their more grandiose ambitions for health reform. But the bill remains a bloated, big-government monstrosity. American taxpayers and patients alike simply can’t afford the Democrats’ vision for health reform.
This Week In Health Insurance Reform Easytoinsureme. com
January 27, 2010
This Week in Health Reform–Federal Legislative Overview
House and Senate
Republican Scott Brown’s victory over Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) in the January 19 special election to fill the seat of the late Senator Edward Kennedy (D) is proving to be a game-changer for the health care reform debate. It is now unclear what Democrats can do to pass President Obama’s most important legislative agenda item. Even though the Democrats held a majority in the House and Senate this year, they failed to coalesce around a strategy to pass this legislation. Initially after Brown’s win, there were two options under discussion for moving forward on the current legislation.
Have the House take up the Senate-passed bill and use the “reconciliation” bill process to “fix” several of the provisions the House finds unacceptable (e. g. , the “Cadillac” tax, etc. ). If the House passes the Senate bill, it will go directly to the President for his signature, with no further action needed in the Senate. A “reconciliation” bill, which would need only 51 votes in the Senate, could be passed either in tandem with the Senate bill or follow soon after.
.
Scale back the health care reform bill. A scaled-back bill could include health insurance reforms, exchanges, as well as several other provisions and possibly could attract bipartisan support. While many Democrats are likely to view this approach as a major lost opportunity, leadership may determine this is the most viable approach.
However, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) publicly stated on January 21 that the House does not have the 218 votes needed to pass the Senate version of the health care reform bill, which takes option number one (above) off the table.
While numerous private discussions are reportedly being held on the matter, at the outset it seems that Democrats’ only option for keeping the current legislation alive is to reach across the aisle to their Republican counterparts, most notably, moderate Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME). That would mean a more conservative bill, which could anger rank and file Democrats who are supportive of the legislation.
Although no plans have emerged for how to move forward, it now looks like Democrats will have to modify their plans. On the night of Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) – one of the biggest proponents for a single-payer health care system – said: “The only way to go forward is to take a step back. If there isn’t any recognition that we got the message and we are trying to recalibrate and do things differently, we are not only going to risk looking ignorant but arrogant. I don’t think it would be the worst thing to take a step back and say we are going to pivot to do a jobs thing,” and include elements of health care reform in it, he said.
Rep. David Camp (R-MI), Ranking Member on the House Ways and Means Committee, declared Democrats’ health care overhaul legislation “dead” and said that instead of full-scale change Congress should take a “first step toward comprehensive reform” of the nation’s health care system.
Issue Overview: Nebraska Medicaid Deal
While key elements of the health care reform legislation remain in flux, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its cost estimate of the expansion of the State of Nebraska’s Medicaid Deal, negotiated by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) who then voted for the Senate’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, HR 3590.
The letter responds to a request from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)), Ranking Member, House Committee on the Budget, asking if the cost estimate of the Senate health reform bill would change if all states received the same level of federal assistance for Medicaid as Nebraska receives under the bill.
The CBO stated on January 21 that the net spending for the Senate legislation would increase by $35 billion over ten years if all states received the same level of assistance as Nebraska.
Under the Senate’s provisions, non-elderly individuals with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible for Medicaid beginning in 2014. The federal government would pay the cost of covering newly eligible enrollees through 2016; and federal spending would be about 90 percent by 2019. The Senate legislation states that it would pay all Medicaid expansion costs to Nebraska beginning in 2014.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: Easytoinsureme, Health, Insurance, Reform, This, Week | No Comments »
Health Net Names New President of Northeast Plans, General Counsel
Health Net Inc. has reshuffled responsibilities of two executives in light of UnitedHealthcare’s recent acquisition of the company’s Northeast U. S. licenses.
Health Net said it named Linda Tiano as president of regional health plans for Health Net of the Northeast. She has served as senior vice president, general counsel and secretary since January 2007.
To replace Tiano, the company named Angelee Bouchard as senior vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary, effective immediately.
In the newly created position, Tiano will relocate to Health Net’s Shelton, Conn. office and will lead the Northeast operations under an agreement with UnitedHealthcare. She will report to Jim Woys, Health Net Inc. ‘s chief operating officer.
Attempts to get comment from Health Net weren’t immediately successful.
“Linda will work with the local management team to continue to provide excellent customer service for our members during this transition,” Woys said in a statement.
Paul Lambdin, president of Health Net of the Northeast, who helped to close the Northeast transaction, will continue with Health Net during the first quarter of next year to help with the transition of membership to UnitedHealthcare.
Recently, UnitedHealthcare, a unit of UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH), completed its roughly $180 million acquisition of Health Net’s Northeast U. S. health plans in a deal that expands its presence in Connecticut, New Jersey and New York (BestWire, Dec. 14, 2009).
UnitedHealthcare was to pay Health Net (NYSE: HNT | Quote | Chart | News | PowerRating) $60 million for its Medicare and Medicaid business, and renewal rights for commercial membership (BestWire, July 21, 2009).
Bouchard joined Health Net in 2003 as vice president, assistant general counsel and assistant secretary. In this role, she oversaw the company?s corporate finance and merger-and-acquisition transactions as well as Health Net’s corporate governance program.
Health Net of Connecticut, Health Net of New York and Health Net of New Jersey each currently has a Best’s Financial Strength Rating of B+ (Good).
Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: Counsel, General, Health, Names, Northeast, Plans, President | No Comments »
Brown Vows To Send Health Care Reform ‘back To The Drawing Board’
Republican Scott Brown, fresh off his victory in the Massachusetts race for U. S. Senate, called on the secretary of state to send him to Washington immediately, saying Wednesday that he wants to send health insurance reform “back to the drawing board. ”
Though the state typically waits at least 10 days to collect absentee ballots before certifying, the senator-elect said he’s “confident” his margin of victory — 5 points and nearly 110,000 votes — was greater than the number of outstanding ballots.
Brown is champing at the bit to be sworn in since he would become the 41st Republican in the Senate, breaking the Democrats’ 60-vote supermajority and potentially scuttling health care reform if it returns to the chamber for a final vote.
“Since the election is not in doubt, I’m hopeful that the Senate will seat me on the basis of those unofficial returns,” Brown said, adding that he’s already spoken to members of the state’s congressional delegation, including Sen. John Kerry, and will travel to Washington Thursday. “I think it’s important that we hit the ground running because there’s some very important issues facing our country. ”
On health care reform, he said he wants “everyone” to have some form of health care coverage, but questioned plans to slash Medicare and raise taxes to do it.
video
Brown Ready to Hit Ground Running
Brown ready to hit ground running
“I think we can do it better,” he said.
The Republican senator-elect said he was focused on moving to Washington as soon as possible to try to free up some of the political gridlock there.
“I have always just wanted to go down and solve the problem regardless of party,” Brown told NBC’s “Today” Show.
“While they’re in Washington talking about what someone said in a book and what this happened, we have some very serious problems when it comes to over-taxation, overspending and Al Qaeda who are trying to kill us. So we need to get back to the basics and start solving problems that affect every person in this country,” he said.
Brown’s insurgent candidacy has forced Democrats to rethink the basics on several matters, including the massive health insurance reform bill that is tagged to cost nearly $1 trillion over 10 years. They are also reconsidering agenda items they plan to use in November’s midterm election campaigns.
By winning the Senate seat in Massachusetts by nearly the same margin that President Obama defeated Sen. John McCain in November 2008, Brown takes away Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority and can pull a reverse-Obama — claiming a mandate to defeat the health care legislation now stuck in Congress.
Despite the upset, Obama adviser David Axelrod said administration officials will take into account the message voters delivered Tuesday but declined to go further.
“It’s not an option simply to walk away from a problem that’s only going to get worse,” Axelrod said of the health care bill.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said one of the many messages coming out of the Massachusetts election is that Americans are sick of partisan gridlock, but voters also had a much more expansive recommendation.
“They want better performance out of Washington, they want us focusing on the troubled economy and the need for more jobs and . . . they’re tired of sweetheart deals that were sneaked into the health care bill. They want that kind of bill to be negotiated in the open. And they’re tired of politics as usual and they also want controls. They don’t want unfettered, one-party control,” Collins told Fox News.
Collins said she cannot support a bill “that imposes billions of dollars for new taxes, slashes Medicare by $500 billion and would actually cause insurance rates to go up. ”
“We really should start from scratch and do a completely bipartisan bill,” she added
But Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said that Americans oppose the health insurance changes because “the administration and its supporters, myself included, haven’t done a good enough job explaining to people what’s in this bill. ”
Rendell said he wants to go back to the drawing board in order to better communicate the message. If that fails, and a filibuster is threatened, then Democrats shouldn’t “just cave” but should make the other side “explain why they’re trying to block the bill with this type of political chicanery. ”
“I haven’t heard one good alternative offered by any Republican except let’s start at the beginning, let’s start all over. Start all over to do what?” he asked.
Rendell added that he wants to call the GOP’s bluff.
“Let them filibuster, let them take to the floor and speak endlessly and endlessly about why this is bad for the American people and what the alternative is,” he said.
As the debate continues over whether to scrap the year-long health insurance reform effort, some are also looking at whether Republicans can repeat the feat in Massachusetts in other states.
Seven Senate seats now held by Democrats are now considered toss-ups in November — Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Connecticut. Four Republican seats are in the same situation — Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio and New Hampshire.
“I think anybody who’s up for election this November ought to take seriously what the people of Massachusetts had to say in that special Senate election,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman. D-Conn.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Democrats nationwide should be on notice
“Americans are ready to hold the party in power accountable for their irresponsible spending and out-of-touch agenda. ”
But Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez cautioned against “taking a single unique election and extrapolating what it means for the midterms 10 months away. ”
Still, Menendez said he doesn’t want to sugarcoat what happened and Democrats will be sorting through the lessons in the days ahead.
Secrets For Buying Individual Health Insurance
If you’re not knowledgeable about buying individual health insurance, please study through the rest of this article, because we will offer some of the most reliable tips that will reward you with the best medical protection you need.
When there is need for purchasing insurance for anything, even vehicles, you need to be informed of the numerous plans you get. To know more about individual medical insurance for yourself, you have to spend some time studying the providers that sell the plans.
Where to Search for Health Insurance – First off, you need to know the list of insurance companies. This means studying on world wide web for medical insurance for individuals.
Insurance providers can provide you with a comprehensive list of the policy types they give, such as the services that are protected and what is insured for specific medical issues you are living with.
The Internet is a wonderful place to obtain information about health insurance companies and comparing the types of protection and rates each insurer gives. You can also learn that provider to understand the sort of client notes and statements that exist.
What you are looking for with Health protection – You could stumble on numerous insurers that offer good protection, but you are not certain if you’re paying too much. You may be billed a little more on specific coverage’s, but you must make sure the higher costs are justified. Insurance for X rays or MRI scans for example, are a needed consideration and you need to be certain the plan provides coverage for these.
Individual Health Insurance Tips
Individual health insurance insurers offer medical insurance to individuals and not groups. A lot people don’t have access to group medical coverage because they are not working in a good company or their employer has no medical benefits for its workers. In these cases, an individual medical care insurance company will prove very helpful. They have prices and coverages specially targeted to individuals.
Choosing a good individual health care protection provider can save you thousands of dollars in health costs. Count on spending a fair amount of time studying for the trusted quote from an individual care medical protection provider. By using the world wide web, anyone can easily get individual health protection insurers. Search engines, medical coverage information websites and company websites are some of the few ways of comparing prices for individual health protection companies.
How Marabou Herbals Sexual Health Products Help In Overall Health?
Clearly, sexual health enhancement products are things that find favor with a lot of people only because of the fact that they help people look far better than what they are, and in fact, these sexual health products also take care of a lot of health disorders. It is almost like saying that you are killing two birds with a stone, but then you got to be careful.
There are plenty of sites promoting Sexual health products, but not many are genuine
The point is some of them may even waste your time. For example, a site may only sell sexual potency pills and may not look at offering a holistic sexual health management system. Most importantly though, some sites we have looked into have been selling fake products too.
We did a survey of 100 sites selling sexual health products and about 90 of them turned fake products. Of the remaining 10, 9 of them offered only one genuine product through their website.
But, with Marabou Herbals, we found a lot of things different
Here’s why Marabou Herbals is so different
It offers a whole list of products for people to buy (Later here, you would find the list of products offered by Marabou Herbals).
Excellent volume based discounts. Now, with Marabou Herbals, you could buy 12 boxes of Prosolution pills and save about $500 in shopping. It is true. When you buy 12 Prosolution boxes from Marabou Herbals, the eventual cost would be $369, as opposed to the original price of $850. How is that for a deal?
A complete sexual health products system is offered. With Marabou Herbals, you can shop for one of these – Virility, Sexual Potency, Sexual enhancement gel for women, pore relief gel and so on. You can either shop for one of these products, try out any combination or, buy the entire sexual health kit.
Here is a list of products offered by Marabou Herbals
Prosolution pills and Prosolution Gel
Proenhance and Volumepills gel
Provacyl
Proshape RX
Her Solution Pills and Her Solution gel
Gen FX
Clearpores.
To know more about these products, visit http://www. marabouherbals. com/clicks/clickthrough. html?a=189462.
Marabou Herbals’ products take care of deep face wash, deep cleanse, sexual potency, female sexual enhancement products and many more.
If you think this is taking care of the entire aspect of women health, click on http://www. marabouherbals. com/clicks/clickthrough. html?a=189462 to know more.
PS – For all those of you who bought the product, a big THANK YOU. Let me assure you that you have made the best choice.
PPS – For all those of you who are still thinking, you can ask me your questions in the Comments section of this article and I will revert.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: Health, Help, Herbals, Marabou, Overall, Products, Sexual | No Comments »
Health Bill Includes Taxpayer Funding Of Abortion
For almost 35 years, the law of the land has been an explicit prohibition against federal taxpayer dollars being used to pay for elective abortions, known as the Hyde amendment, after the late great Illinois congressman. This is a policy supported by the majority of the American people.
In fact, this hard-fought explicit ban was included in the health care bill that passed the House last year. Regrettably, the Senate did not follow suit and instead passed a bill that would allow hard-earned taxpayer dollars to pay for elective abortion. That is a simple fact. Unfortunately, in a mad rush to secure enough votes, leading House Democrats now intend to take up the Senate-passed bill, arguing that the Senate language prohibits federal funding of abortion. Besides that fact that this simply not true, it also demonstrates the lengths the president and his allies will take to pass this bill against the will of the American people.
Just this week, Cardinal Francis George, president of the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a statement saying, “Notwithstanding the denials and explanations of its supporters, and unlike the bill approved by the House of Representatives in November, the Senate bill deliberately excludes the language of the Hyde amendment. It expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures. “
First, the Senate bill allows elective abortions to be offered through the newly-created individual state health insurance exchanges and multi-state health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and through federally-subsidized plans in already-existing community health centers.
Second, there is nothing in this legislation that requires any of these programs to live up to both the spirit and letter of the Hyde amendment that Congress has included each year in spending bills that fund the government. This not only prevents federal funding of elective abortions, but also erects an iron-clad firewall against any private money for abortion being mixed with any federal or state health program receiving federal dollars. This applies, for example, to Medicaid, a health program for the economically disadvantaged that is funded by both federal and state governments. If any resources are used for elective abortions that money must be kept completely separate from Medicaid. This is sound policy that must be maintained.
Regrettably, the Senate-passed bill doesn’t include this firewall. Anyone who doesn’t earn enough money would qualify for a federal subsidy to help pay for their health plan in the state exchanges, including plans offering elective abortion coverage. Some argue that under the Senate-passed bill, federal funding would be “segregated” so no federal money would pay for abortions. But this is a violation of the Hyde amendment, which also prevents the federal funding of insurance that covers elective abortion.
Furthermore, it is entirely possible that there would only be one health plan in any given state that does not include elective abortion. And even if you are opposed, you may well be railroaded into choosing a plan that covers it, because you might be looking for the best plan to treat a sick child or your own health condition.
What’s more, passing a new state law is the only way an individual state could truly ensure that elective abortions are not included in the plans offered through a state insurance exchange. That would be easier in some states than in others, but that’s unfair to those who are morally opposed to federal funding of abortion and happen to live in states where passing such a law would be extremely difficult.
Lastly, under this proposal, community health centers would receive a dedicated stream of money outside the annual congressional process to fund the government which is where the Hyde prohibition is maintained. So that means that for the first time federal money could be used to fund abortion at a community health center.
Those are the facts, and anyone who thinks the Senate abortion language is strong enough should think again. That is because, regardless of one’s position on this controversial issue, it is entirely reasonable to expect that a person who is fundamentally and morally opposed to abortion should not have to sanction its use with their hard-earned tax payer dollars.
This Week in Health Care Reform EasyToInsureME health insurance
JANUARY 22, 2010
This Week in Health Care Reform
After months of public debate and private negotiations, health care reform discussions stalled following Tuesday’s Senate vote in Massachusetts. The Democratic Senate lost its 60th vote supermajority when Republican Scott Brown was elected to the United States Senate in the Massachusetts special election.
Health Care Reform Negotiations Post-Massachusetts Special Election
Massachusetts Election of Senate Republican Recasts Debate: Following the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Massachusetts Senate seat Tuesday night, Democratic leaders have been scrambling to revive what could now be a dying bill. The loss of the Democrat’s 60th vote in the Senate opens up the legislation to a Republican filibuster – something the Democrats have managed to avoid thus far in the debate.
House and Senate Democrats met this week to discuss how to move forward with the reform legislation in light of this election and promised Wednesday that they would push ahead. There are a number of options that Democrats are considering, but at this point they have not charted their course.
On Wednesday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) attempted to rally House Democrats around a strategy to push the Senate bill through the House and onto President Barack Obama’s desk so as to avoid the need to again secure 60 Senate votes. However, the Speaker indicated on Thursday morning that she did not believe she has the needed 218 House votes necessary to move forward. This option would have allowed lawmakersto then propose additional modifications to the approved legislation through a process called “reconciliation,” which only requires 51 votes in the Senate.
Other remaining options:
1.
House and Senate Democrats could also quickly complete the merging of the two bills and vote on the combined package before Mr. Brown is sworn in.
2.
Democratic leaders could attempt to re-engage Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the only Republican who voted for the Senate Finance Committee’s bill passed in October. Democrats would need to allow her to amend the bill so that she could support its passage and give Democrats the needed 60th vote; or,
3. House and Senate Democrats could essentially start over in their respective chambers and propose scaled-back versions of the bill under “reconciliation” procedures or regular order. Reconciliation procedures would greatly limit the scope of the legislation to issues only related to raising or spending federal funds; therefore, many provisions, such as creating new insurance exchanges and an individual mandate, might be excluded.
President Obama seemed to indicate that he favors having House and Senate lawmakers start over again and produce a scaled-back bill. In addition, more moderate Senate Democrats – hesitant to push through such a huge partisan bill in light of the Massachusetts election – urged leaders to slow down.
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) has called on Senate leaders to suspend voting on health care reform until Mr. Brown is sworn into office. President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have iterated this same message. Further, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) called for a bipartisan effort as the best way to achieve health care reform legislation.
Health Care Reform Negotiations Prior to Massachusetts Special Election
Senators Urge Guarantee of Government Savings: In a letter sent last Thursday to Sen. Reid, five Democratic Senators asked for the inclusion of a “fail-safe mechanism” in the final bill. This mechanism would give Congress “the tools to keep costs under control should the current savings estimates fail to materialize. “
Both the Senate and House versions of the bill rely heavily on reductions in government spending, particularly around Medicare, to help pay for reform. Republicans and some nonpartisan analysts believe the government will not follow through on these spending reductions, which will lead to soaring costs.
President Obama Pushes for Less Protection for Biologic Drugs: Last Thursday President Obama pushed for a change in the health care reform legislation that would reduce the number of years that biologic drugs were patent protected from generic competition, previously set at 12 years. White House officials and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) were negotiating for 10 years protection or less.
Members of the news media speculated that the move to reduce biologic drug protections could be a leverage point for President Obama to pressure the drug industry to increase contributions to pay for health care reform. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported that Congressional Democrats had already asked drug companies to contribute an additional $10 billion or more, over and above the $80 billion which the industry agreed to early on in the reform negotiations.
President Obama Strikes Deal with Unions: Last week Democratic negotiators struck a deal with union officials and conceded to union demands to scale back a tax on high-end insurance plans. The deal would exempt union workers from having to pay the tax until 2018, five years after the tax would apply to other workers. While the deal would help gain union support for the bill, it would also reduce the amount of tax revenue generated by about 40 percent, to $90 billion. As such, Democratic leaders would need to find other sources of revenue to make up the difference.
Public Opinion
Exit Poll Indicates Health Care Reform as Hot Button Issue: As the ballot polls closed on Tuesday night’s Massachusetts Senate election, an exit poll conducted by Frabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates indicated that 52 percent of voters said that they oppose the federal health care reform measure and 42 percent said they cast their ballot to help stop President Obama from passing this legislation. In addition, 48 percent said that health care was the single issue driving their vote.
Polls Show Discontent: The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicated that almost half of Americans believe the health care reform bill in Congress is a bad idea (46 percent). This figure is up dramatically from April when only 26 percent believed the plan was a bad idea. Further, just 33 percent say the plan is a good idea. Nearly half of those surveyed (48 percent) believe that passing the current legislation would be a “step backward. “
In addition, a new Quinnipiac University poll showed that public support for health care reform continues to decline. Thirty-four percent mostly approve, while 54 percent mostly disapprove. At the end of December, 53 percent of Americans mostly approved, while 36 mostly disapproved.
Looking Ahead
Currently, the path to health care reform is unclear. Democrats seek a way to secure the necessary votes to pass the legislation, and some now question the value of pushing such a large bill. President Obama had hoped to see a final bill prior to his State of the Union address, which has been scheduled for January 27; however, it appears this goal is likely out of reach.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: Care, Easytoinsureme, Health, Insurance, Reform, This, Week | No Comments »