States Using Obamacare Dollars to Fill Budget Holes Instead of to Fund Child Health Programs

In March 2010, while the details of Obamacare were still being hammered out, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) famously declared to a frustrated and bewildered American public, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy.”

Congress did pass Obamacare, and citizens and states have steadily been finding out what’s actually in the legislation ever since.

One of the recent “finds” includes a provision that will shift to the federal government a significant amount of the financial burden previously placed on states for the funding of the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

CHIP, formerly called the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, was created as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to help states provide insurance for children in low-income households who are not eligible for Medicaid. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an estimated 8.1 million children were enrolled in CHIP in fiscal year 2014.

To help offset the expected growing costs of Obamacare to the states, legislators included a provision in Obamacare that shifts all or nearly all of the CHIP burden to the federal government, beginning this year.Sarah Ferris reports in The Hill that under Obamacare, states will not pay more than 12 percent of CHIP expenses, and 11 states plus Washington, D.C. will not contribute anything. In previous years, federal contributions to CHIP amounted to 65–83 percent.

Shifting the CHIP burden to the federal government could free up as much as $6 billion for states over two years. Special-interest groups and advocacy organizations say the increased federal funding should only be used to improve CHIP, but instead of expanding or shoring up CHIP programs, many states are choosing to use those dollars to help fill budget holes completely unrelated to health care.

Via: The Blaze

Continue Reading.....

Obamacare Customers Mostly Unsatisfied With Plans

Only 30 percent of Obamacare customers are satisfied with their plans, with cost an important reason why.

The finding in a recent survey is significantly lower than people who get their insurance through their employer (42 percent), Medicaid (48 percent) or Medicare (58 percent). It also doesn't help the administration which has fought back criticism of expected premium hikes set to go into effect next year.

Obamacare customers are less confident than other insured customers they can get affordable healthcare, the research firm Deloitte reported in the survey released Monday. Only 24 percent of enrollees are confident they can get affordable care when they need it, which is slightly lower than the 27 percent who feel that way about their employer's plans.

In addition, only 16 percent of Obamacare enrollees feel financially prepared to handle future healthcare costs, compared to 24 percent for employer plans and 27 percent for Medicare and 17 percent in Medicaid plans.

A majority of the enrollees in Obamacare have lower incomes than those in employer plans, which could play a part in the worries about cost.

The survey of more than 3,800 adults also offered keen insights into the proliferation of narrow networks that restrict doctor choice. A majority of insured enrollees in Obamacare, employer and federal plans were willing to accept a smaller network of hospitals or doctors in exchange for lower payments.

About 59 percent surveyed would choose a smaller network of hospitals and 58 percent for doctors. That is an increase from 2013, when about 50 percent would choose smaller networks.

The reason is again linked to concerns about cost.

All insured consumers, not just Obamacare enrollees, rank price at or near the top of the factors they deem important to choosing a health plan, Deloitte said.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading....

Wal-Mart sued for denying health insurance to gay worker's wife

A Wal-Mart Stores Inc (WMT.N) employee sued the retailer on Tuesday, saying its prior policy of denying health insurance to the spouses of gay employees violated gender discrimination laws.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Boston, seeks nationwide class-action status.

Wal-Mart, the largest private U.S. employer, began offering health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses last year, after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act that denied federal benefits to married gay couples. Even after that change, the lawsuit says, Wal-Mart workers still live with the uncertainty of losing spousal coverage.

"Benefits provided by Wal-Mart as a matter of grace ... are not secure and could potentially be withdrawn just when large health care costs are incurred," the lawsuit says.

Jackie Cote, who has worked at Walmart stores in Maine and Massachusetts since 1999, said in the lawsuit that her wife, Diana Smithson, developed cancer in 2012 and the denial of insurance led to more than $150,000 in medical debt.

Cote and Smithson were married in Massachusetts in 2004, days after a court ruling made the state the first to allow gay nuptials.

Smithson worked for Wal-Mart until 2008, when she left to care for Cote's elderly mother, according to the lawsuit. The company then repeatedly denied requests by Cote to add her wife to her insurance policy. Smithson is now in hospice care, Cote said.

Last year, Cote filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a prerequisite to filing an employment discrimination lawsuit. The commission said in January that Wal-Mart violated gender discrimination laws by denying benefits to Smithson.

The commission in recent years has pioneered the argument that employment discrimination against gay people is a form of gender discrimination, since it would not happen if an employee were of the opposite sex, but it has not been vetted by courts.

Via: Reuters

Continue Reading....

House Dems want Medicaid to cover abortion

House Democrats are renewing their attack on the Hyde Amendment, the controversial budget provision that bars federal funds from paying for abortions.

Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Diana DeGette (D-Col.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) introduced a bill Wednesday that would require Medicaid to cover abortion services – currently banned under the Hyde Amendment.

The legislation, the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Woman Act, is backed by dozens of women's health groups, who say it will help reduce unplanned pregnancies. About 65 lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors.

Under current law, women enrolled in Medicaid, the government’s low-income insurance program, are not covered for abortion. The Hyde Amendment, though not part of a permanent law, has been attached to appropriations bills since 1976.

The bill was unveiled Wednesday at a packed press conference at the House Triangle, where dozens of supporters gathered with posters.

“Henry Hyde and others said, 'Well if we can’t stop people from making their own moral decisions ... we will do it financially. Through the Hyde Amendment, we will say to low income women, you can’t use your health insurance for abortions because we say it’s wrong,'” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) told the crowd.

"Today we are fighting back against that moral arrogance."

The effort to undermine the Hyde Amendment has been led by a coalition called All Above All, which includes Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union. 

“For far too long, this country has penalized low-income women seeking abortion — forcing those who have the least to pay the most in order to access safe, legal care,” Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, wrote in a statement Wednesday.

About 56 percent of voters support the bill, according to the group’s polling.

Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

ILLEGAL ALIEN HEALTH INSURANCE EXPANDED IN 35 CALIFORNIA COUNTIES

A panel of eight County Medical Services Program (CMSP) board members appointed largely by unelected, government administrative officials unanimously decided Thursday to give health insurance to illegal aliens that aren’t low income and don’t qualify for California’s Obamacare health exchange Covered California.

Under the CMSP decision, those illegal aliens, mostly identified as adults by theSacramento Bee, would be provided health coverage. This applies to the 35 member counties of CMSP. They are largely rural counties. It’s aimed at covering those that remain uninsured after the state’s Obamacare exchange and Medi-Cal, low-income health insurance, are considered. Expansion includes several doctor visits and $1,000 in prescription drugs the Bee reports. It could begin in 2016.

Migration Policy Institute estimates 3 million illegally present foreign nationals in California alone.

While this program operates outside of the health exchange, California is aggressively moving toward providing health insurance to foreign nationals illegally present in the state under the state’s Obamacare exchange Covered California as well.

Governor Jerry Brown Wednesday signed California’s budget including a provision to give an estimated 170,000 illegally present foreign national children Medi-Cal coverage at a cost of $130,000. This despite President Obama’s 2009 lie as he promised before Congress that illegal aliens would not be able to enroll. It’s reminiscent of another Obama lie, “If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to keep your healthcare plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Democrats have also introduced legislation in California, SB 4, that would provide a waiver allowing illegal aliens to enroll in state healthcare exchanges.

Meanwhile Gov. Brown has declared illegal aliens are welcome in California and even went so far as to threateningly call it un-Christian to deny them amnesty.

The CMSP also approved bumping eligibility for both legal and illegal residnets, up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level according to the Bee. The federal poverty level for a single individual is just under $12,000 for 2015. Extra cost of the program will amount to approximately $6-9 million.

The CMSP, “has responsibility for setting program eligibility standards, defining the scope of covered healthcare benefits, and determining payment rates for healthcare providers delivering emergency and non-emergency services to CMSP members,” according to its own website. Advanced Medical Management serves as the CMSP’s third party administrator.

CMSP faced budget strain before Medi-Cal expansion and creation of Covered California. According to the Bee it now enjoys a cushy $225 million reserve.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

King v. Burwell in Perspective: Only 1 Out of 5 Whose Insurance Costs Grew Because of Obamacare Got Subsidies

The Supreme Court will soon hand down its decision in King v. Burwell. That case asks the Court to decide if the statutory text of the Affordable Care Act authorizes the Treasury to pay subsidies to individuals who purchased coverage through Healthcare.gov—the federally operated health insurance exchange for states that did not establish their own exchanges.

Yet behind the legal dispute over who is eligible to receive subsidies lurks the larger policy issue of the subsidies’ function. While their stated purpose was to help more low-income individuals purchase health insurance, the subsidies also served to mask the significant health insurance premium increases that would inevitably result from the law’s new insurance benefit requirements and regulations.

For instance, if a 45-year-old received $540 annually in subsidies, he may not realize that the premium for the lowest-cost health insurance plan in his area actually had increased by $600 a year thanks to Obamacare regulations—because the government was paying most of that additional cost.

That imposition of costly new requirements on health insurance coverage was one of Obamacare’s fundamental errors. Good health care policy, by contrast, would have started by focusing on finding ways to make coverage less costly rather than just having the government pick up some or all of the extra cost.

Via: The Daily Signal

Continue Reading....

If Supremes slap ObamaCare, it’s health insurers who lose

Photo: Reuters

This week health insurers announced they will hike premiums on ObamaCare plans by double digits in 2016. Yet it’s not ObamaCare buyers who are getting gouged.

For the most part, what consumers have to pay is calculated based on their income.

They don’t pay the sticker price. It’s you — the taxpayers — who get taken to the cleaners, because you foot the bill for the subsidies paid directly to the insurers.

That makes the Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell, expected this month, even more consequential. It will determine the fate of these subsidies in 37 states.

Without subsidies, ObamaCare buyers in those states will have to pay the actual — and unaffordable — sticker price of ObamaCare. And you — taxpayers — will not have to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize insurers over the next decade.

But the dirty secret is that insurers stand to lose the most from King v. Burwell.

The Affordable Care Act compels the public to buy their product, and forces taxpayers to subsidize it. What a sweetheart deal.

The giant players — United Healthcare, Cigna, Aetna, Anthem and Humana — have seen stock prices double, triple, even quadruple since the law was passed in 2010. The coming ruling threatens to put an end to their gravy train.

Democrats are predicting disaster if the court rules against President Obama.

Republicans will “rue the day” they let millions of people lose their subsidies, says Nancy Pelosi. That’s crazy talk.

No one will lose their coverage immediately, the poor will be unaffected and the biggest losers will be insurance companies.

Employers, job-seekers and taxpayers actually stand to win here.

In addition, most Republicans in Congress are inclined to compromise with the president to provide some type of financial help for insurance buyers. If the Supremes gut ObamaCare, there will be many more winners than losers. Here’s how it shakes out:

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading.....

Obama: Health Insurance Isn't Expensive - Just Cancel Your Cable and Phones!

This is a few days old, but it’s amusing nonetheless. Barack Obama appeared in a town hall for Spanish-language media on March 6th to discuss ObamaCare and promote enrollments, and got challenged by a viewer on the economics of it for low-income Americans who are now forced to buy comprehensive health insurance. On a $36,000 annual income, the requirement to buy the broad policy rather than something a little more economical — say, hospitalization coverage combined with an HSA, a strategy which is now all but illegal — makes it impossible to comply. Pshaw, Obama replied. Why, all those low-income folks need to do is stop spending money on luxuries like cable television and cell phones!

The President responded that “if you looked at their cable bill, their telephone, their cell phone bill… it may turn out that, it’s just they haven’t prioritized health care.” He added that if a family member gets sick, the father “will wish he had paid that $300 a month.”

The Libre Initiative points out that premiums have skyrocketed, thanks to the forced changes in ObamaCare, along with the mandate for comprehensive coverage:

According to the National Center for Public Policy Research, the health care law is reducing choice and increasing premiums for millions of Americans. Ehealthinsurance reports that consumers are paying an average of 39% more than they did before the law was implemented. The high cost of policies is contributing to the continued weak enrollment numbers under the law, which are now showing signs of decreasing with less than 3 weeks left to enroll. When he sought the Presidency, Mr. Obama said his plan would deliver affordable care that people would be “desperate” to purchase.

Daniel Garza, Executive Director of The LIBRE Initiative released the following statement:

“If the President actually believes that a family earning less than $40,000 per year can afford nearly $4,000 in health insurance premiums, then he truly does not understand middle-income families. Americans do not need the President to tell them how to budget their households. People are already cutting back on things like cable television and cell phones, just to compensate for an awful economy.This President promised he would deliver on affordable health care. Instead, premiums are up, out-of-pocket expenses are up, and overall cost of living is up. The President simply doesn’t get it. And his condescending attitude adds insult to injury.”

Let’s take a look at that $300 a month, too. Assuming that we’re talking about a family of four, that would force the family to spend $3,600 a year. While that might be money well spent in the case of catastrophe, it’s a bad investment on several levels otherwise. If both kids break a bone, it might run them $500 each to get treated, or perhaps even a thousand each if they go to an emergency room. If they get the flu, perhaps another $200 each for a doctor visit. Throw in wellness checks for everyone at $250 each, and we’re talking about $3400 in medical care, $200 less than their premiums.

But wait! In most plans of that cost, the family will have to spend thousands of dollars in deductibles first for everything but the wellness checks — so the only benefit will be covering the $1000 those cost. In this example, the family that normally would have spent $3400 out of pocket in that year will now spend $5,800.

That’s why families such as the caller’s used HSAs to spend pre-tax money on routine care and smaller emergencies, and chose so-called catastrophic insurance to deal with serious issues requiring hospitalizations. They could do that and still afford to have a phone and cable TV, at least until Barack Obama assumed he could prioritize their budgets better than they could.

Via: Hot Air

Continue Reading.....

WaPo Headline Frets About Possible Issa File Releases, Not Insecure HealthCare.gov

Major establishment press outlets ignored Friday's news that "Teresa Fryer, the chief information security officer for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) ... explicitly recommended denial of the website’s Authority to Operate (ATO), but was overruled by her superiors." Fryer also "refused to put her name on a letter recommending a temporary ATO be granted for six months" In other words, HealthCare.gov should not have launched.

Brian Fung at the Washington Post's "The Switch" blog didn't consider the idea that HC.gov shouldn't even have gone live the most important story element. While failing to disclose Fryer's no-go recommendation and refusal to go along, he and his post's headline instead obsessed over whether Republican Congressman and House Oversight Committee chair Darrell Issa might "release files" that "could aid hackers." It wouldn't be a surprise to learn that hackers already have them, or at least have figured out how to work with or around them. Excerpts follow the jump (bolds are mine):

These HealthCare.gov files could aid hackers. And Darrell Issa may release them.

Significant security vulnerabilities are still being uncovered in the Obama administration's health-insurance Web site, nearly three months after the launch of HealthCare.gov.

Officials discovered two such vulnerabilities, known as "high findings," within the last month, including one this week, Teresa Fryer, the chief information security officer for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told the House Oversight Committee this week in an interview. Fryer said that both issues were being addressed.

The debate over the security of HealthCare.gov has raised questions about whether similar vulnerabilities exist in systems across the federal government. Because the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration and other agencies communicate with HealthCare.gov, security gaps in those agencies could, if discovered, allow hackers to penetrate their systems and indirectly compromise the functioning of the new health-care law, according to outside security experts.

... While software vulnerabilities in Healthcare.gov have been documented, the potential risk stemming from the site’s interconnection with other federal systems has not. Officials from the White House, the Health and Human Services Department and others did not answer questions posed by The Washington Post about whether serious vulnerabilities exist in other federal IT systems linked to HealthCare.gov.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading.....

[CARTOON] Obamacare Exception

Via: California Political Review

[VIDEO] North Dakota: 30 People Sign Up For Obamacare While 35,000 Lose Their Health Insurance…

Another job well done.

Via: Weasel Zippers

In California, hundreds of thousands to pay more for health insurance

Hundreds of thousands of Californians who purchase their own health insurance are bracing to pay more for their plans, as the cost of the federal health care overhaul lands harder on middle-class customers.

Notices began arriving in recent weeks informing consumers that their plans are being phased out and replaced with policies that comply with requirements of the health care law. Many are being told to expect double-digit percentage increases in monthly costs, in part to help balance the cost of covering the underprivileged and those with pre-existing medical conditions who may not have had coverage.

The notices throw into sharp relief an e stirring reality of the law: While many will benefit, a smaller segment may not.

“There is certainly going to be heat around this, and lots of understandably unhappy people,” said Janet Coffman, a professor at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies and the department of family and community medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

“This is one important slice that is experiencing some very substantial increases in premiums,” she said. “But it’s important to understand this is one of many areas in which the impact of the health care law on individuals and families varies widely.”

Via: Sacramento Bee

Continue Reading.....

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/04/5877848/in-california-hundreds-of-thousands.html#storylink=cpy

Analysis: Tens of millions could be forced out of health insurance they had

WASHINGTON — Even as President Barack Obama sold a new health care law in part by assuring Americans they would be able to keep their insurance plans, his administration knew that tens of millions of people actually could lose those their policies.

“If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period,” Obama said as he pitched the plan, the unqualified promise he made repeatedly.

Yet advisers did say in 2010 that there were large caveats and that anyone whose insurance plan changed would lose the promised protection of being able to keep existing plans. And a report in 2010 said that as many as 69 percent of certain employer-based insurance plans would lose that protection, meaning as many as 41 million people could lose their plans even if they wanted to keep them and would be forced into other plans. Another 11 million who bought their own insurance also could lose their plans. Combined, as many as 52 million Americans could lose or have lost old insurance plans.

Some or much of that loss of favored insurance is driven by normal year-to-year changes such as employers changing plans to save money. And many people could end up with better plans. But it is not what the president pledged.

Caught in the firestorm of his broken promise, Obama on Thursday apologized.

“I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he told NBC News Thursday evening. “We’ve got to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and we are going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this.

Via: McClathcyDC

Continue Reading.....

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/07/207909/analysis-tens-of-millions-could.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/07/207909/analysis-tens-of-millions-could.html#storylink=cpy

The Ten Essential “Benefits” Of Obamacare

This is a list of the ten essential “benefits” that are required to be in all health insurance plans (whether you want to pay for them or not). No wonder the costs under Obamacare are skyrocketing; it’s all the providing for all those pregnant men.

10 Essential Benefits:

The Affordable Care Act requires health-insurance plans to meet certain minimum criteria, including a prohibition against denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. It also limits a subscriber’s out-of-pocket medical costs. For 2014 that amount is $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families (the amount includes deductibles and co-payments, but not premiums). In addition, all plans must include services for the so-called 10 essential benefits:

• Preventive and wellness services and chronic-disease management.

• Prescription drugs.

• Emergency services.

• Hospitalization.

• Ambulatory patient services.

• Rehabilitative services and devices.

• Laboratory services.

• Mental-health and substance-use-disorder services, including behavioral-health treatment.

• Maternity and newborn care.

• Pediatric services, including dental and vision care.

Via: Weasel Zippers

Continue Reading.....