We can see it now, the smiling faces of more than forty Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives who are working on fashioning a compromise for health care after the apparent defeat of “Repeal and Replace.”

I wish that I did not think that terms like compromise and bi-partisan mean capitulation for the Democrats. However, recent history shows that this is almost a certainty. A fundamental difference between today’s Democrats and Republicans is that the Republicans never lose sight of their locked-in ideological positions. When it comes to health care policy, almost all Republicans march lock-step to the mantra of repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The meanness that undergirds the policy positions of so many of their members is reflected by their efforts to cut coverage, raise costs and disenfranchise the poor.

Democrats seem to be happy just to be able to talk with Republicans. Other than Bernie Sanders, we hardly hear any Democrats clearly state that they support a system of Medicare-for-All. This should not be an outlandish position; it is completely consistent with the policies of the New Deal and Great Society. Medicare-for-All is a system that is based on compassion. It is a commitment to preserve and expand the social safety net for those among us who need it most.

The new bi-partisan group in the House that is promoting health care compromise is called the Problem Solvers caucus. Sounds like a good idea, but what exactly is it that they want to do?

The four items that they have identified as part of their agenda may sound reasonable on the surface. However, it’s important to keep in mind that these suggestions are all based on preserving and protecting employer-based health insurance and ensuring the financial well-being of insurance companies.

For health care to work in a society, two, and only two, vital moving parts must be of central concern. The first is the people – citizens seeking preventive and curative health care. The second is the providers – doctors, nurses, hospitals, clinics, etc.

Insurance companies only muddy the waters. They position themselves between the demand for health care (people) and the supply of health care (the providers). Insurance companies exist because of the naïve belief that they provide competition in health care which results in better service at lower cost. What they in fact do is design policies to maximize their profits while elevating premiums and reducing services. They continue to exist because they lobby well, particularly among Republicans, but also many Democrats, as witnessed by the key role of insurance companies in the Affordable Care Act.

As reported by New York Magazine, here are their four suggestions from the Problem Solvers caucus, and reasons why these suggestions provide band-aids at the expense of necessary reform:

The bipartisan working group also wants to change Obamacare’s employer mandate so that it applies only to companies with more than 500 workers. Currently companies with at least 50 workers can be hit with a tax penalty if they don’t provide coverage to their workers.

Problem: Millions of American workers are employed by companies with fewer than 500 workers. If those companies do not provide coverage, then the workers are left in the individual market with no group bargaining power. With Medicare for All, everyone would be on an even plain. Also, perpetuating employer based health insurance (a) raises costs for American businesses, and (b) keeps parasitic insurance companies in business.

The group also wants to create a federal stability fund — dollar amount unspecified — that states can tap to reduce premiums and other costs for people with extremely expensive medical needs. Both the Senate and House repeal packages contained similar pots of money.

Problem: why should states have anything to do with health care? As witnessed by so many states opting out of Medicaid expansion, as provided in the Affordable Care Act, empowering states with health care responsibility puts an irresponsible guardian in charge of citizens’ rights to health care. Also, states, particularly in the South, have shown much less regard for human rights than the federal government.

The bipartisan proposal also calls for scrapping Obamacare’s medical-device tax, an idea that has received bipartisan support in the past.

Problem: Let’s keep in mind that with Medicare-for-All, the program could largely be funded by an expanded payroll tax for the wealthy. There would not be a need for nickel and dime taxes.

Finally, the working group is seeking greater flexibility for state innovation. Obamacare already allows state to seek waivers from coverage rules, but the lawmakers want additional guidance on how states can take advantage of them.

Problem: As we previously said, empowering states disempowers individuals. State innovation is code language for states to engage in races to the bottom. The losers are those who most need the safety nets.

Currently, we are a long way from legislating Medicare-for-All. It’s also possible that there will be a temporary hibernation of the Republican calls to Repeal and Replace the Affordable Care Act.

So, it makes sense to look for compromise. The ideas that the Problem Solvers Caucus is suggesting may in fact help ameliorate current conditions in the health care market. To the extent that it is possible, fixes should be made.

But Democrats should not lose sight of the knowledge that the concept of a health care market is a construct of parasitic business interests at the expense of consumers and health care providers.

Before Democrats engage in “problem solving,” it would be best for them to clarify what they really want and ensure that their final goals will not be jeopardized by dancing with the Republicans.

The post Dems – Beware of sleepwalking into compromise appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Republicans say they’re going to repeal the Affordable Care Act [ACA] as soon as possible. Is there anything that can stop them? Maybe there is.

During President Obama’s administration, they voted to repeal the ACA more than 50 times. They made a big show of every vote, because it fit their ideological narrative. But every time they voted to take health insurance away from the 20 million people who have benefited from ACA, they knew that they had political cover: They knew that President Obama would veto it. So, they had it both ways: They could pretend to repeal ACA, but have the political safety net of knowing that their vote would not take effect, and they could blame it on Obama.

Now, as Republicans prepare to take control of the whole shebang, ideology is about to collide with political reality—on more than one level. And that reality is what may save ACA—and the health and even lives of many people.

One aspect of that new political reality is that the benefits of the ACA are very popular. People may be confused by the nomenclature—Republicans have used the nickname “Obamacare” as a pejorative term—but they do know that they are now getting health insurance that was previously unavailable to them. When they realize that repeal will mean being thrown back out into the cold, even Republican constituents are likely to be very displeased. Are Congressional Republicans so complacent that they would risk the anger of their constituents?

On another level, ACA could potentially be saved by the health insurance industry itself. The Affordable Care Act—for all of its benefits to health-insurance consumers—was also a huge gift to health insurance companies. The individual and employer mandates delivered millions of new customers to health insurers. Profits have soared, despite what some insurers are claiming, as they pull out of healthcare.gov exchanges. If you don’t believe me, just look at the escalating annual salaries and bonuses of the top executives at the biggest health insurance companies. Typically, their salaries rise based on profitability and shareholder value. I doubt that they’d be getting these huge increases if their companies were not profiting.

So, why would health insurers want ACA to go away? Why would they want their industry thrown into chaos, which is what repeal would engender?  I don’t think they would

One analyst puts it this way, as quoted in Talking Points Memo:

“Insurers, more than any other business, hate uncertainty, so if there is still a big battle going on about the future then insurers are going to be gun shy,” said Timothy Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law, who is supportive of the ACA.

.And that’s why I think it’s logical to think that the health insurance lobby will work against repeal. As much as I hate to say this, we might all find ourselves rooting for them. And it just might work: Even if our Congressional representatives don’t give a hoot about what their constituents want, they sure as hell care about their donors.

Or maybe this is all just wishful thinking.

The post Could political expediency stop the repeal of ACA? Maybe. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Hillary Clinton has just released a plan would treat mental health care with the same priority as physical health care. It’s a well-thought-out, comprehensive policy that deserves attention and support. And, according to some observers, it actually has a chance of becoming a reality. Unfortunately, the announcement of the plan came in the midst of the media clamor over Donald Trump’s bogus trip to Mexico and his hate-fueled immigration speech.

Clinton’s plan calls for some very important changes to the way mental health care is currently addressed in the American healthcare system, where it has long been a neglected stepchild.

In broad terms, according to the Clinton website, the plan would

Promote early diagnosis and intervention, including launching a national initiative for suicide prevention.

Integrate our nation’s mental and physical health care systems so that health care delivery focuses on the “whole person,” and significantly enhance community-based treatment

Improve criminal justice outcomes by training law enforcement officers in crisis intervention, and prioritizing treatment over jail for non-violent, low-level offenders.

Enforce mental health parity to the full extent of the law.

Improve access to housing and job opportunities.

Invest in brain and behavioral research and developing safe and effective treatments.

More specifically, the big-ticket item in Clinton’s plan is, according to the Washington Post,

…$5 billion for community health centers providing substance abuse and mental-health treatment as well as traditional medical care…To address a shortage of mental-health professionals, meanwhile, she would encourage telemedicine, among other things. Clinton also proposed pumping up the budget for basic scientific research, some of which would be diverted into studying the brain.

There’s no doubt that these priorities merit attention. According to a government study, about 1 in 5 adults — or 43.6 million people — had a mental illness in 2014, with nearly 10 million of those experiencing a serious condition, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. The same study said that 2.8 million adolescents had a major depressive episode during the past year.

Unfortunately, conventional payment systems have shortchanged mental-health care. While the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] made some significant changes in requirements for mental health coverage,  there is much room for improvement. The good news, for example is that,since 2014, health insurance companies offering individual and small-group plans can no longer deny enrollment or charge higher premiums to people with medical histories of behavioral/mental health disorders. Also under the ACA, individual and small–group plans  are required to cover ten essential health benefits with no annual or lifetime dollar limits. Mental health and addiction treatment are among the essential health benefits. Nor can these plans offer mental-health benefits that are less favorable than the benefits for medical/surgical care.

But the National Alliance on Mental Illness published a report in 2015 detailing problems with access to behavioral health providers, and limited coverage for some brand-name drugs, particularly anti-psychotics, says healthinsurance.org. .The report also notes that health insurance companies are still more than twice as likely to deny authorization for mental health care, compared with authorization for general medical care.

Clinton’s plan, says the Washington Post, “emphasizes using the federal government’s role as a major payer in the health industry to encourage the integration of mental-health care into medical practices.”

As for practicality, Clinton’s plan is not just another pie-in-the-sky idea with no hope of implementation. The Washington Post notes that…

Congress has over the past several years put serious effort into reforming the federal government’s mental-health efforts, producing — but not yet passing — a slew of bills with bipartisan backing. This is one of the few issues on which lawmakers may be able to agree, even in a severely divided Washington, over the coming months. The House, in fact, has already passed a bill. Ideally, the Senate would pass its own reform before next year. But, if lawmakers fail to send a bill to President Obama — always a high likelihood given Congress’s slow pace — the next president should enter the policy debate, pressing for lawmakers to finally pass something.

As far as I can tell, there’s no parallel proposal from the Republican nominee, whose candidacy has been, essentially, a policy-free zone [until recently, when he doubled-down on an outrageously hateful, xenophobic immigration “plan.”]

For those of us seeking a President who has actual policy ideas designed to help people, and who is willing to do the work necessary to bring them to life, Hillary Clinton’s mental healthcare plan is very reassuring. I’m voting for the policy wonk.

The post Hillary Clinton speaks up for mental health care equality appeared first on Occasional Planet.

June 2015 was a remarkable month for President Obama. In particular. the last week of the month was a real “winner” for the president. Among the topic victories or accomplishments for the president are:

1. U. S. Supreme Court once again upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)
2. U. S. Supreme Court ruling same-sex marriage as constitutional in all 50 states
3. Out of the tragic shooting of nine innocent church-goers in Charleston, SC, the president eulogized Rev. Senator Clementa Pinckney and while doing so, he directly confronted the issues of race, gun control, the symbolism of the Confederate flag, and hate in America.
4. Announced plans to extend overtime pay to millions of additional Americans
5. Passage by both the Senate and the House of Representatives of authority for the president to enter a Trans Pacific Partnership agreement with fast-track processing of the treaty (no amendments allowed nor filibustering)
6. Sending an additional 450 military advisers to Iraq

Of these six developments, four seem to have immediate benefits for the American people; two are more geared towards the interests of corporations and/or the military-intelligence/industrial complex.

The ones that directly help the American people in the here and now are ones in which the President has openly expressed joy and approval; the two others are more, “excuse me while I …….”

More than six million people in the United States already have access to health insurance through the federal exchanges provided for recalcitrant states through the ACA. President Obama was truly thrilled that the Court signed off on the legality of the federal exchanges. His joy was matched by the individuals and families whose insurance is now secure, and by the millions more who will sign on in coming years. This was also a victory for those who see health care as a right and who ultimately want a Medicare-for-All system.

The Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage is also a victory for the underdog. A burden of oppression is lifted from millions, and their quality of life will be improved.

President Obama clearly spoke out for justice, fairness, compassion, and sensitivity in Charleston. He was a man who was connected to the millions of Americans who have felt the pain of prejudice or violence.

The president’s move to more than double the eligibility threshold for overtime pay, to $970 a week from the current cutoff of $455 a week, will help an estimated five million workers immediately, and more in the future. As the Republican-controlled Congress fails to move forward with raising the federal minimum wage, the president’s actions reveal a keen awareness of income inequality in the United States as well as the sound economic principle of providing more money to those who have a higher propensity to spend.

The two outliers in the president’s “month of success” are the passage of fast-track consideration for the TPP, and the increase in American military presence in Iraq. We did not see the president coming forward on either of these actions with pronouncements of improving the quality of life for the American people, particularly those who are struggling in our economy and feel encumbered by some of our social norms.

All of this makes me all the more interested in the president’s memoirs following his term in office. He may have some “splaining” to do to help us figure out what was really going on.

The post Some wins for Obama are better than others appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Luis Lang, of Fort Mill, South Carolina, was making quite a comfortable living, and chose not to buy health insurance, because he had always been able to pay his medical bills on his own. He smokes and has diabetes, which he admits he does not do enough to control.

The post He didn’t buy Obamacare. Now he’s sick, and mad at…Obamacare. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Good news for health-insurance shoppers, bad news for Obamacare haters. For the 2015 enrollment period [which begins on November 15, 2014], healthcare shoppers will have more options. In state after state, more health insurance companies are getting on board and offering plans. In fact, HHS, which oversees the Affordable Care Act, reports that, nationwide, insurance-company participation in ACA exchanges is up an average of 25 percent.

Apparently, some companies who stayed on the sidelines in the first year of ACA enrollments, and who watched enrollment in ACA plans soar to cover 7.3 million people, have made the calculation that there’s money to be made in the ACA healthcare exchanges. So, they’re jumping in. And the not-so-invisible hand of the market is making a move.

According to CNBC:

77 new issuers will be joining insurers that sell plans in 43 states and the District of Columbia where data about insurance participation was available, HHS said. Those states include the 36 states whose residents bought plans on the federal Obamacare exchange HealthCare.gov, as well as eight states that are operating their own health exchanges.

HealthCare.gov will get the lion’s share of the new insurers: 57 more than this year, a 30 percent increase that will bring the tally up to 248 issuers.

As an example of the direction participation in ACA is taking, United Healthcare, one of the biggest health insurance companies in the U.S., is increasing the number of states in which it’s offering marketplace or exchange plans, from four states in 2014 to as many as 24 next year. Its CEO recently said:

…We plan to grow steadily from this point forward, advancing our participation in a measured manner in public exchanges in 2015, 2016 and beyond…The Congressional budget office estimates that more than 75% of the exchange market is yet to develop. And we believe there will likely be meaningful membership activity in the market after the initial experience of this year and as second year pricing is presented.”

Did you catch that? “More than 75% of the exchange market is yet to develop.” The health-insurance industry sees a huge upside in the ACA exchange market. [No surprise, of course, as the ACA was designed as a giveaway to private insurance companies, who stand to gain tremendously from it and are now positioning themselves to cash in to the max.]

So, for the “free-market” Republicans who have opposed the ACA [or, really, to support it covertly while using anti-Obamacare propaganda as a fundraising trigger], the jig is up. The market is speaking. And the market—that is to say, the health-insurance industry, which ponies up large batches of cash for candidates, in exchange for votes that hew to whatever is the current corporate line—has a very loud political megaphone.

So, lawmakers and candidates, with the news of more health insurance companies mining the ACA market for the gold that’s out there, it would be politically unwise to continue to oppose the Affordable Care Act. It’s making money for your corporate donors and for the lobbyists you work for. While we probably won’t see a total switcheroo, just yet, there are going to be a lot of politicians who suddenly go mum about the ACA—muzzled by their funders and their own political self-interest.

But don’t be surprised when, in a few years, when the Affordable Care Act is as entrenched as Medicare and Social Security, Republicans completely turn around and try to take credit for creating it.

The post More health insurers offer “Obamacare” plans, shifting the political landscape appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In February, Mark D. Beardon, a retired psychologist living in Monroe, North Carolina wrote a letter to President Obama, letting him know how the Affordable Care Act is helping him. Here’s the letter, just in time for the big ACA deadline on March 31, 2014. Personally, I think this is how the ACA will continue to gain popularity and signups–even among people who say they won’t get near it, because it’s something created by President Obama. One person at a time–one at-work conversation at a time–one Obama-hater at a time who finds out that his or her previously uninsured co-workers or classmate got a good deal on health insurance via the dreaded “Obamacare” website–one uninsured illness or accident at a time that a patient or victim realizes, too late, could have been covered by Obamacare.

Here’s what Beardon wrote:

I am a staunch Republican, a self-proclaimed Fox News addict, and I didn’t vote for the President. And I’m here to tell you that Obamacare works. I’m living proof.

I’m a chemotherapy patient, and was previously paying $428 a month for my health coverage. I was not thrilled when it was cancelled.

Then I submitted an application at HealthCare.gov. I looked at my options. And I signed up for a plan for $62 a month.

It’s the best health care I have ever had.

So right now, here’s what I want to tell anyone who still needs health insurance, or knows someone who does:

Sign up. Follow the instructions on the website. Apply, and look at your options. You still have time, and take it from me: This is something you want to do.

I wrote a letter to President Obama this past February to tell him about my experience with the Health Insurance Marketplace. I hoped he’d read it, and he did.

I may not be a supporter of the President. But now, I get mad when I see Obamacare dragged through the mud on television.

And even though I regularly tune in to conservative pundits, I’d like to tell them they’re getting it wrong. Obamacare works.

So one more time: If you still need health insurance, you have just three days to get it. Do what I did. Go to HealthCare.gov, submit an application, and pick a plan that works for you.

It just might change your life.

The post “I’m a Republican…and Obamacare is the best health care I’ve ever had.” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a recent article at Truthdig, “The Public-Private Profiteers,” Barabara Garson is critical of President Obama’s reliance on public-private partnerships to solve major social problems. Such partnerships are entered into by the private sector, then deliberately undermined to prevent government from delivering services directly to constituents. Garson looks at Obama’s failed Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) for clues as to how the private sector may undermine the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to prevent movement toward single-payer.

How banks undermined the HAMP program

The disastrous Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was “a poorly designed, deeply flawed effort to nudge lenders into rewriting the terms of homeowners’ mortgages so that they could remain in their homes.” The statistics show it was an utter disaster. Garson reports that six million nine hundred thousand Americans applied for HAMP modifications. Only 13% got one, and 22% of those had their homes foreclosed on anyway.

Unfortunately, it was a planned disaster. The banks set up separate refinancing companies to deliberately slow down and undermine the mortgage modification process by demanding massive amounts of paper work, and dragging out the process, sometimes for a year and a half.

Economics blogger Steve Randy Waldman reports that, at a Treasury Department meeting in 2010, government officials admitted HAMP was designed to help banks and not homeowners:

Officials pointed out that what may have been an agonizing process for individuals was a useful palliative for the system as a whole. Even if most HAMP applicants ultimately default, the program prevented an outbreak of foreclosures exactly when the system could have handled it least. . . . The program was successful in the sense that it kept the patient alive until it had begun to heal. And the patient of this metaphor was not a struggling homeowner, but the financial system, a.k.a. the banks.

Clearly, HAMP was a bone tossed to desperate homeowners after hundreds of billions were doled out to save the banks. In my view, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that it was a cynical and cruel move by the Obama administration to help keep “the banks, not homeowners, afloat as the global financial system slowly recovered.” It kept desperate homeowners scraping to pay their mortgages in hopes of refinancing, while the banks, with the blessing of the administration, collected their money yet had no real obligation to help them. It also served the private sector by giving yet another “government program” a bad name.

How insurance companies will undermine the ACA

In the same way Obama delivered up desperate homeowners to the banks, he delivered those without healthcare to the insurance companies. You would think the industry would be grateful for the new business, but Garson explains how, in the months before the ACA took effect, insurance companies rushed to undermine it and why they will continue to do so. It’s a long quote but worth the read:

We’ve already seen the president take full blame for assuring people that, under the new law, they could keep their old policies if they chose.  Apparently he didn’t anticipate that, in the months between the passage of the Affordable Care Act and its implementation, insurance companies would rush to sell policies that didn’t meet the minimal standards set in the law. Insurance companies knew that they would have to cancel these and other non-compliant policies as soon as the law went into effect. In the meantime, however, what a great twofer: first you get to collect and invest the premiums, then you get to stick it to your government partner by announcing to customers that their policies are being canceled thanks to Obamacare.

For insurance companies, this blame game is more than just sport; it’s their only real defense against single-payer healthcare.  Vermont has already created a state health care plan that will go into effect in 2017.  Oregon, Massachusetts, and Washington State are seriously considering similar plans.  Seattle congressman Jim McDermott (who happens to be a doctor) hopes to attach “a patch” to the Affordable Care Act that would make it easier for governors to use the healthcare money Washington will send them to create statewide single payer options.

The insurance companies were successful in lobbying any kind of public option out of the national health care law and they will fight every local public option to the death.  For if it works anywhere, it offers Obamacare a way to evolve, state by state, into “Medicare for all.”

Private health insurance companies can only survive if people throw their hands up in horror at the thought of an incompetent and intrusive government.  Expect, then, that the untimely requests for death certificates, the delayed payments to doctors, the arbitrary denials of coverage, and all the other slings and arrows that the insured already endure will be baroquely embellished and cynically blamed on “government.”

If it was hard for underwater homeowners to distinguish between bankers and bureaucrats while they were losing their homes, it will be even harder for frustrated sick people to untangle the public and private strands so tightly braided into the Affordable Care Act. That, however, is what has to happen if Americans are to move toward a simpler, go-to-the-doctor-when-you’re-sick healthcare system.

The post Why insurance companies will undermine the Affordable Care Act appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Rep. Ann Wagner’s (R-MO) hopping mad — or, more likely, hopping around — trying to get off the liar’s hot seat (remember the refrain “liar, liar, pants on fire”?) What’s got her hopping? A recent editorial in the St. Louis Post Dispatch that had the temerity to suggest that the deficit was falling, the economic outlook is improving and that the findings of a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on Obamacare economic impacts have been grossly misinterpreted by folks like Wagner. So what does she do to relieve the gut-churning evidently induced by the good news? Why, write a letter to the editor, of course, insisting that they take it all back – a letter which she then proudly forwarded to her lucky constituents meant, undoubtedly to let the Tea Party types among them know what a big fearsome Obama-hater she really is.

Rep. Wagner attributes her motivation for writing to her tender concern for constituents who, according to her claims, have been telling her about all the ways their lives  have been ruined by Obama administration policies, especially Obamacare:

Every day I hear from hardworking families in the 2nd District who are struggling to make it to the 15th and the 30th of every month in this tough economy. These are real people struggling under the weight of President Obama’s failed agenda.

Wagner added a few details in the constituent email:

Every day I hear from far too many hardworking families in the 2nd District who have seen their premiums skyrocket, their health insurance cancelled, who have been forced to change their doctors, and have seen their hours cut back at work.

I haven’t followed every pronouncement from Rep. Wagner on the topic of Obamacare, but when she starts moaning and groaning about her constituents’ Obamacare-related suffering, concrete details are few and far between. Which is probably intentional given that similar “true” stories promulgated by Wagner’s GOP colleagues have not been able to withstand close scrutiny. Remember, for instance, the subsequently debunked Bette story in Cathy McMorris Rogers response to the SOTU? Of course, it’s also likely that the complaints that she has received in response to her solicitations for Obamacare hardship stories reflect a partisan bias that skews perceptions. A Gallup poll released last week showed that only 19% of Americans said that they had been hurt by Obamcare and, of that 19%, 60% were Republican or Republican-leaning.  Which, in turn suggests that what Steve Benen identifies as political “tribalism” leads people to respond to polls – and requests from politicians for political ammo – in the way they think they should.

The real point is not that Missourians are suffering due to Obamacare, but that Rep. Wagner has invested lots of capital in questionable rhetoric and she’s up in arms when folks like the Post-Dispatch editorial staff who, after looking carefully at the recent CBO report, point out that she and her GOP cohorts have distorted its contents. Her claims are simple:

The numbers in the CBO report couldn’t be clearer: Due to Obamacare, the equivalent of 2.5 million people will leave the workforce over the next 10 years, and government-run health care will add another trillion dollars to our national debt.

This is where the burning pants really ignite. Wagner is willfully wrong on both counts.

The CBO report does not say that jobs will be lost, just that some people will voluntarily leave the labor force or reduce their hours of work because they don’t need to keep working in order to secure affordable health insurance. Hours will not be reduced by employers, but by employees In fact, as the Washington Post points out, on the question of job supply, “The CBO declares that ‘there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA,'” thus  decimating one of Wagner’s talking points. There’s lots to be said on this topic, and I think most of it got said last week – and none of it supports Rep. Wagner’s hyperbolic assertions, including a statement from the author of the report she considers so clearly negative, CBO director Doug Elmendorf. In fact, as Elmendorf pointed out, the report indicated that Obamacare would have a positive employment effect:

Elmendorf also noted that the ACA is actually expected to boost the economy in the near-term by making health insurance and medical care affordable for the poorest Americans, giving them the freedom to spend money in other areas of the economy. “On balance, CBO estimates that the ACA will boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years,” states the report.

As for the business about increasing the deficit:

…the CBO reduced its estimate of the net cost of the ACA by $9 billion through 2024, in part because of the number of states that have refused to implement the law’s Medicaid expansions. And the CBO still maintains that, over the 10-year window of its analysis, the ACA will reduce the federal deficit. In fact, that trend is expected to increase in subsequent years, with the ACA leading to greater deficit reduction.

So what should we think about Rep. Wagner’s whining ways? Paul Krugman’s summary of GOP duplicity could have been tailor made to her measure:

… Remember, the campaign against health reform has, at every stage, grabbed hold of any and every argument it could find against insuring the uninsured, with truth and logic never entering into the matter. Think about it. We had the nonexistent death panels. We had false claims that the Affordable Care Act will cause the deficit to balloon. We had supposed horror stories about ordinary Americans facing huge rate increases, stories that collapsed under scrutiny. And now we have a fairly innocuous technical estimate misrepresented as a tale of massive economic damage.

To conclude, sorry Rep. Wagner, but Obamacare is beginning to work out, the economy is getting better despite harmful GOP budget cutting, and lots of things are really getting better for lots and lots of Americans – despite the best GOP efforts to hide the truth.

The post Dear Congresswoman Wagner: Disinformation about Obamacare can’t hide the facts appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Until we have single-payer, Medicare for All healthcare in America, insurance companies will continue to screw their customers in as many ways as possible. For now, though, the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is at least helping people who were previously uninsured–or uninsurable according to the skewed rules of the industry–to avoid health-crisis-induced bankruptcy. Many of the new rules in the Affordable Care Act eliminate the worst abuses of the old system. But bad practices persist. Recently, HealthCare-Now!–a group that advocates for  a Medicare-for-All system- asked its supporters to submit nominations for the 2013 Award for Profiteering and Deceit in the Private Health Insurance Industry. Of course, HealthCare Now’s contest was unscientific, and mostly a public-relations stunt, but the results are enlightening anyway. Based on the submissions HealthCare Now received, the top vote-getters  are:

UnitedHealth, for paying its CEO, Stephen Hemsley, $49 million in 2012. HealthCare Now notes that among CEOs, healthcare CEOs receive the highest median pay at $11.1 million. There are thousands of insurance companies, but the seven largest publicly traded health plans alone are paid their CEOs a collective $87 million.

Humana, for charging women over 50% more than men for the same insurance plan.

Anthem Blue Cross for predatory premium increases.

Moda Health for paying $40 million for naming rights to the Portland Trailblazers arena.

Each of these examples is emblematic of the stuff health-insurance companies continue to get away with, and that could be reigned in–if not eliminated–under a Medicare-for-All system. Or, as Health-Now puts it:

Under a single-payer health plan, health coverage would be offered as a public good to all, administered by civil servants who will not siphon millions of dollars meant for patient care into their personal bank accounts. So we could use that $87 million in wasted money on CEOs to pay for as many as 8,700 hip replacements.

The post The worst health insurance companies in America appeared first on Occasional Planet.