health care republican party

<div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="health care republican party" height="500" src="http://c8.alamy.com/comp/FM8KG6/republican-house-majority-leader-from-ohio-john-boehner-prepares-to-FM8KG6.jpg" title="health care republican party" width="500" /> </div> <div align="justify"><p>released man after he had been hiding from authorities. >> republicans who control the minnesota legislature have their plans to address health insurance costs, gop lawmakers vowed to quickly move a relief package for a residence paying premium increases this year </p> <p>under the individual market. disagreements with governor mark dayton over how to shape the existence could drag the debate out a few weeks. >> we agree that that's important. it's important we get some of those reforms as well. </p> <p>i don't want to do anything to slow down the process, and we want to make sure that the governor is coming in and working with us, and we know for it to happen to have to have an groament. >> it would scale subsidies based on income but cut off </p> <p>support for those making 8 times the poverty level, about $190,000 for a family of four. house speaker kurt daudt said it </p></div> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rn1mcDdLCho?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

health care republican party

released man after he had been hiding from authorities. >> republicans who control the minnesota legislature have their plans to ad...

Read more »

health care repeal

<div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="health care repeal" height="500" src="http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/160108_ObamaVeto_Jessen1-1260x650.jpg" title="health care repeal" width="500" /> </div> <div align="justify"><p>this is me, and this is my sister, annie she’s 28, mom to two cats, freelance designer and part-time grad student there’s just something about freelancing. i feel a lot of creative freedom she’s also had had chronic back pain, neck pain, migraines for as long as she can remember she health insurance through obamacare, and without it, there’s no way she’d be able to affordall her doctors’ appointments and medications and because she doesn’t have to depend onan employer for insurance, she’s able to </p> <p>work for herself the flexibility works really well with being able to make my appointments around my work schedule on election night, my first thought was, "what does this mean for my sister?" donald trump, elected president of the united states and for the 22 million other people who get their health insurance through obamacare “today, after over a year of debate, health insurance reform becomes law in theunited states of america” </p> <p>“we’re gonna try and repeal this” “there’s only one way to fix obamacare, and that’s a full repeal” “can we replace this law, completely, in the next presidency, in the next congress. that is our goal, and the answer is yes wecan.” "when we win on november 8, we will be able to immediately repeal and replace obamacare” obamacare is a big law, with lots of different parts </p> <p>and there are some parts that trump and republicansin congress say they want to keep. for example: before obamacare, companies couldrefuse to sell insurance to people with lots of health problems. obamacare says they can’t do that anymore,and trump and the republicans say they want to keep it that way. the problem is, this piece of the law thatthey like only works because of another piece of thelaw that they don’t like...a piece they’ve promised to get rid of that’s the part of the law that says youhave to have health insurance, or pay a fine. </p> <p>for health insurance to be affordable, youneed a lot of healthy people to sign up for every one sick personthat’s because health insurance is worth more to sick people, and they’ll pay morefor it, which pushes up premiums for everyone. the healthy people in the pool help keep thosecosts down. if trump and the republicans get rid of theindividual mandate, which they say they will, a bunch of healthy people are going to stop buying insurance, premiumsgo up, more healthy people leave until all that’s left are sick people whoare really expensive to cover. without a bunch of healthy people to offsetthat cost, insurance companies would pull </p> <p>out of the marketplace we know this because in some places, it was already happening before the election. too many healthy people were choosing thefine over health insurance as a result, states like alabamaand oklahoma only have one insurance plan on the market--and without competition, premiumsshot up last year. if trump and the republicans get rid of theindividual mandate, we’ll likely see this happen in other states. like texas, where my sister lives </p> <p>so, what might her life look like under the republican replacement for obamacare? right now, obamacare makes it illegal forinsurance companies to charge her more just because she has health problems.under paul ryan’s plan, that changes. insurance companies would be allowed to chargeher more if she ever let her coverage lapse. instead of forcing insurance companies tooffer affordable plans to people like my sister, paul ryan’s plan would fund “high-riskpools,” insurance plans specifically for people with lots of health problems, but wedon’t know exactly who would be eligible for them. </p> <p>these pools were around before obamacare--and without healthy people to balance the sickpeople, these plans end up being about twice as expensive for participants. paul ryan’s plan does call for refundabletax credits to help offset those costs. congressional republicans have tried gettingrid of the individual mandate before. but those votes were largely symbolicbut it’s real now. my sister has built a life for herself where she can takeprofessional risks go back to school , be her own boss, and not have to rely on an employer for health insurance. </p> <p>now, she and 22 million others are askinghow long that will last. </p></div> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sp6d3JBLiAE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

health care repeal

this is me, and this is my sister, annie she’s 28, mom to two cats, freelance designer and part-time grad student there’s just someth...

Read more »

health care repeal bill

<div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="health care repeal bill" height="500" src="http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/160108_ObamaVeto_Jessen1-1260x650.jpg" title="health care repeal bill" width="500" /> </div> <div align="justify"><p>on thursday healthcare.gov posted its biggest enrollment day since the affordable care act exchanges opened in 2013 more than 670,000 people signed up for coverage ahead of the december 15 deadline for january first coverage and that's despite the fact that about 1 million people had to leave their contact information as they couldn't get </p> <p>on the site house republicans have voted 56 times to repeal the landmark legislation depending on whom you ask and senate republicans say the only thing stopping then is the president veto pen but what's donald trump is sworn in congressional republicans will be under intense pressure to make good on all the </p> <p>promises to block the tyranny of the individual mandate while the replacement effort is underway republicans will risk aggravating up to 30 million people who are covered by the law or by policies with prices affected by its insurance marketplace democrats will be sure to accuse the gop of threatening the health care of billions senate republicans can </p> <p>circumvent a filibuster by using a procedure called reconciliation to repeal part of the law that affect the federal budget like the individual mandate health insurance subsidies and medicaid expansion but health analyst and health provider groups are warning that repealing major pieces of the law without immediately replacing them could </p> <p>cause a collapse of the individual market that currently covers around 20 million people and many of the laws most popular provisions can't be repealed using reconciliation including guaranteed coverage of pre-existing conditions which used to prevent millions of americans from getting affordable health insurance recent </p> <p>polling shows two-thirds of americans want to keep this part of the law even trump's started dialing back the rhetoric it's political suicide which means they have to find some way to save the individual market even with the pre-existing conditions provision in place without the individual mandate in place millions of healthy americans will </p> <p>opt out of health insurance and that would be disastrous for an industry that spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying congress senator schumer says it reminds him of the story about the dog who caught the bus if you found the information in this video helpful go ahead and share it with a friend and don't forget to click on the subscribe </p> <p>button so you can find us again next week </p></div> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nIwM0gkLF0s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

health care repeal bill

on thursday healthcare.gov posted its biggest enrollment day since the affordable care act exchanges opened in 2013 more than 670,000 peo...

Read more »

health care reform

<div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="health care reform" height="500" src="http://dominionpayroll.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/health-care-reform.png" title="health care reform" width="500" /> </div> <div align="justify"><p>i think we use - i can't remember the examples - maybe itwas claritin and allegra. let's say the cer comes out and says one is better than the other. what's going to be the requirement forsomebody who's practicing medicine and allegra doesn't work for their patient but claritin does? the doctor decides with the concurrence of the patient. so, does he have to document that hedidn't follow cer guidelines? </p> <p>i'm not sure what the rules and regs would be. well, that would be part of what the secretary puts together. that's my whole problem with this is what's the secretary put together? the fact is that i have an amendment, coburn number 9. we really do have a lot of quality problems. we have a lower life expectancy </p> <p>than other countries. the united states ranks 45th in life expectancy. we have very poor infant mortality rates. and has startlingly high rates in infant mortality, depression, chronic diseases. from city to city, from physician to physician, and hospital to hospital </p> <p>there are huge differences in the amount of care given and the outcomes of that care. we need to identify the best practicesacross the country learn from the successes, and then duplicate those successes everywhere else. we're in the top 5 of medical expenditures in the world but we're </p> <p>in the bottom 37th in terms of health outcomes. the who says we rank 37th in the world onhealth care that's behind chile and san salvador. we deserve better than that. when you try to do an internationalcomparison, it is very complicated. i think all too often we tend to be overly simplistic. we look at crude indicators. one finds that americans smoke too much, they drink too much, and they eat too much, especially compared to their northern neighbors. in fact, </p> <p>and it pains me to say this as a physician, but probably one of the less important things is health care in that overall equation. one of the things in the bill talks about comparative effectiveness studies. information like your age, your diagnosis, gender, and etcetera goes into a national research pool. they collect this data so that when you enteryour information onto the computer system, which doctors have to go to this computer system now, because the government is mandating it, it collects it and then as this plan goes into place the computer is going to kind of pop up and say "do this, do that. you know, we have this data, here's our recommendation." you go with the recommendation it's good. you don't, it's bad. </p> <p>the fear is that if you don't go with what that little government computer is telling you to do, what if you don't get paid. the other area that some of these bills would put government into is collecting more data on healthcare practices and looking for things that are effective and beginning to develop recommendationsand protocols for what should work. we really don't have a good body of knowledge at this point. </p> <p>we don't know what works, and for whom it works, and we don't know how much of it you need. so, you have to sort of answer those three questions for a lot of conditions and a lot of treatments,and then you have to keep up with developments and new treatments. so you'retalking about quite a few years of building up a body of knowledge. and then you have to sort ofdemonstrate that it's valid, right? so people have to see that when you make these recommendations that you're not just blowing smoke. what this amendment would require </p> <p>that the director of the centerfor comparative effectiveness research shall not mandate any national standards of clinical practice or quality health standards. mandate. that doesn't mean they can't study and recommend. that means they won't mandate it. in this legislation and i've given chapter and verse that we domandate clinical practice. (committee members speaking over each other) there is no clear language that says "we prohibit the mandate </p> <p>of this interfering between a doctor and a patient's decision for their care." - go to page 323.- i want to read you the text. that's a big difference and saying theywill not be used as mandates. - could we come back though to qualityhealth standards?- sure. because i don't know what you object there in establishing a standard on quality health care. because all of a sudden we've now said there is one right way to do this and it's the government's way based on by iconic professors anddoctors of medicine </p> <p>and it still disregards the patient history, the clinical history, the experience of the physician, and all those combined, which is called theart of medicine. the most important aspect of health care is the doctor-patient relationship. prepare a doctor, sitting down talking to a </p> <p>patient who needs health care and the one-on-one relationship has gottenlost in today's society. i'm rick baxley, i'm a family practice physician in orlando, florida. the measured outcome system is another barrier between the doctor-patientrelationship. just a simple example: i have a patient who works a second shift </p> <p>and i hand them a perscription that saysthey need to take a pill three times a day because it's a generic and it doesn'tcost as much as the one time a day medicine. well that's fine, and i do that but i know that the patient is not take it butonce or twice a day no matter how many times i've put on the sheet, on that prescription. because of their lifestyle and the way they work and their time andthat kind of thing, and the kids that they </p> <p>gotta pick up after their second shiftand all that other stuff that the likelihood of them taking that pillthree times a day is almost zero. but, the pharmacy company says that they're notgoing to pay or the the insurance company says that they're not going to pay the pharmacy for the one pill a day brand. they're going to pay the 3 times a day... they'll pay for the 3 pills a day so whether they get used to not is irrelevant. </p> <p>so, there's a lot of nuances that the government and the insurance companieshave not figured out yet. and i don't think they're going to becauseof the economics of the medicine. they are thinking more of the economics than they are the art and science of medicine. this is a very important section of this bill. very important. medicine is personal. medicine is individual. it doesn't fit in a box. </p> <p>no, but it does fit practicing guidelines and you, yourself has said that. - that national academy of clinicians...- senator, can i finish my point? please, go ahead. guidelines are important but they're just that. they're guidelines. and if, in fact, you pass this bill out of here with this </p> <p>you're going to raise the cost of medicine. because now what we're gonna do - here's the guideline that you need to follow and sort it out, andimplement it. the people who will implement this willbe bureaucrats and the first rule of bureaucrat isnever do what is best when you can do what is safe for your own job. and that will be the logo under which they operate and administer whatever comes up out of </p> <p>cer. well, when the law passes the group that passes it may exist for only a moment in time. it's a group of people who probably willnever assemble again exactly the same way. so, who is really able to tell you whatthe bill meant? well, the committees who really wrote it make an effort at it. they write a report and they say, "this is what we mean, this is where we're trying to go, this is the way you should think about interpreting this." and, it's not the law, but it's an instruction to the bureaucracy. </p> <p>so, the bill goes over to thebureaucracy, to the agency that is responsible for administering thatprogram, and then the report would go to them. and they're pretty much on the hook to file that report to the extent that they can. and then where they have questions they can call up the staff of the committee saying, "what did you guys mean here?" they can also call up friends they have in the hospital industry and say, "you know we're thinking about writing up some regulations here but we're not sure this would work. what do you think of this?" another thing that people don't understand about the bureaucracy is that the same person has probably been working on that same issue for a </p> <p>long time and they're really experts now. sometimes they have their own ideasand so there's something called bureaucratic drift, which is when the bureaucrat sometimesmoves closer to what congress wants and moves further away from what the president wants or if the bureaucrat favors what the president is wanting. they might move closer to the president. and so, the political scientists have developed a term called the zone of indifference. and that is, the bureaucrat can get awaywith writing the rules in a way that </p> <p>takes lose interpretation of the law and as long as they don't do it too brashly, if they do it too much, one side or the other - the president or the congress - is going to notice and drive them around. you want to pay close attention to yoursubcommittee because that subcommittee very likely also controls your authorizing legislation. </p> <p>and so if you make them mad, they can do subtle things like take away your staff or they can make a recommendation to the appropriations committee thatyour budget get cut or that function be cut. the other place that the bureaucrat gets in a lot of trouble is if it's a highly salient issue. in the case of effectiveness standards in heath care, that's going to be a salient issue. every doc, every medical specialty group is going to be watching that like a hawk because it's going to limit the behavior of the physician. it's going to potentially reduce their income. and so, the zone of indifference get very </p> <p>narrow when the issue is salient. so they write these regulations and publish them, and then they have to overseethe process of them being implemented. and then, of course, the people who do the implementing make their own interpretations about what the regulations should be. the concerns were raised that if we dothis work with this several billion dollar effort that in fact we couldn't use the workproduct </p> <p>to inform and educate and benefit from the work product that is developed. and the concerns that were raised were raised essentially under the language that we had written that it might prohibit this task force and this agency from actually getting that information out and that's not our intention at all. so,what this amendment simply says, </p> <p>we strike a section that we was all thecontroversy last week and then we say are prohibited from being used by anygovernment entity for payment coverage or treatment decisions. nothing in thesection shall be construed as preventing the center for disseminatingreports and recommendations to health care providers. so, the one argument that was trulyraised about our previous language is addressed here, i believe fully, and would not limit in any way, shape, or form thedissemination of that information. </p> <p>if, in fact we're not going to use thisto limit care then, what we will be using this for is toimprove care. i disagree with the senator'srecommendation. it is very rigid. it is very stringent. it could absolutely have draconian impact on the practice of care because if you're going to be prohibiting them </p> <p>from being able to use by what it says "anygovernment entity." if there is, in fact, information thatarises that gives better information about tools andmethodologies that are being used they would, say at the va, be prohibited from using it. senator whitehouse:i'd like to join senator murkowski in opposing this. </p> <p>i understand where senator coburn iscoming from and i appreciate his desire not to have an interference in the doctor-patientrelationship, none of us want that, but i think the affected of this language will be to totally unhinge payment from performance and to do so in ways that could have farreaching affects throughout the rest of the system as we try toimprove quality. </p> <p>let's just say that it was clearlyproven that if you could get somebody whopresents at the emergency room with a respiratory infection on to the right antibiotics within three hours that the course of treatment was muchimproved for that individual that the costs went down forthe hospital and for the system and everything was better, if you could dothat. so, cms says, okay well what we're going to do it, we're going to do a 5% percent bounty or 10% percent bounty, anadditional reward payment for every hospitals that's able to get people on theright antibiotic, at the right </p> <p>time, within those three hours of theirpresenting. that seems like a kind of thing we wantto encourage the healthcare reimbursement system to do, assuming thatthe evidence truly supports it. so obviously it has to be simply a research enterprise initially, and then a dissemination effort, and you have, you have to find ways to get it into thehands of physicians who are busy and </p> <p>lots of demands on their time. they have to be, what you're offering has to be relevant totheir particular practice and their setting. and so, you overcome all those problems first and then you say, i think, at some point you say, if you follow this, </p> <p>these recommendations, follow them80% of the time or 75% of the time or something like that then we will not only pay you, but we will pay you a bonus. if you want the bonus, then you've got tofollow these recommendations. and if you don't want to follow the recommendations, you don't have to butyou won't get the bonus. and then at some point you say if you didn't follow the recommendations and you had a bad outcome we're sure as heck not going to pay for you to fix the outcome </p> <p>and we may not even pay for you to do that same procedure again. we're just not going to pay for it. but this is years in the future. of course, it's those years in the future that the physicians are worried about. at some point the a recommendation will become mandatory and they might not be right for yourpatient. and physicians tend to feel that their patients are unique. </p> <p>as somebody who deals with data, nothing is unique. it's all just a distribution, some people are in it and some people aren't. i've never bought the argument thateach patient is unique. senator whitehouse's argument forgets that medicine is personal. what is the right antibiotic, for me? let's say it's a fluoroquinolone, which is great for pneumonias. </p> <p>we talked about a respiratory infection. fluoroquinolones are absolutelycontraindicated most the time in elderly patients because they cause mental confusion. but, there's no question they're the bestmedicine when it comes to treating a large number of respiratory infections.they're oral, they work like an iv antibiotic. but yet they're oral. </p> <p>but we're gonna take out that personal knowledge and we're going to say we're going to do it. so, if we want the government to makethose decisions to ignore the art of medicine to ignore the personal nature ofmedicine, that will defeat this amendment. but, if we really want to </p> <p>benefit from this agency and get the information out there and then allow the physicians using their gray hair, using their training, using their experience,and also most importantly using the knowledge of the individual patient. not what's something that on a chart that says here's the best way tocookbook this, </p> <p>but what about the individual patient? could we save money? yeah. could we have the same kinds of outcomes? no. will we have the same kind of confidence? no. will we lead the world in cures? no. so, you know, it's a big issue and i understand we're not going to winthis vote but the political ramification is thatyou're going in a direction that most </p> <p>americans don't want you to go. senator, thank you very much. i presume we'd like a recorded vote on this issue. - yes, yes. - okay then we will call the role on the coburn amendment number 9. (names being called in the background) the bill is open to further amendments. senator coburn. senator coburn:i have coburn amendment number 10. </p></div> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gdj5bEXZ_0E?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

health care reform

i think we use - i can't remember the examples - maybe itwas claritin and allegra. let's say the cer comes out and says one is b...

Read more »

health care reform proposals

<div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="health care reform proposals" height="500" src="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/images/interactives-and-data/chart-maps/chartcart/issue-brief/trump-health-care-reform/image_02.jpg" title="health care reform proposals" width="500" /> </div> <div align="justify"><p>wallace graces main with the republicans they're not doinganything a he in the famous uh... they want people todie and they want to die quickly speech beginning part of the speech was abouthow the republicans had the sheets of paper uh... during oklahoma speech to thecongress and that had their health care plan on its own grayson was curious what was any way to go checkit out </p> <p>and he found out that the p_a_ paper wasblank and it's like so that's your planetblank piece of paper and in essence that is their plan and they say now that big raisins attackupon although no no no you don't nurse and we've got a lot of stuff them thingsthat were of proposing i probably will be covering uh... veryclosely the finance committee hearings and then republicans have offer a numberof different amendments uh... two million dollars been coveringthe first lady and he had found others and easy amendment that day grassleyintroduced </p> <p>where he was have a public option for health care insurance company so that they rent out of money but the government would give them money not osce no we don't get double publicaction a bailout for those companies in advanceof preemptive a lab well the republicans are in favor ofthat well then and now back to the washingtonpost has also been covering the hearings and he has other specific proposals ademocrat and that the republicans say </p> <p>have put forward your a for this all right well uh... truck grassleyagain now put up with the other f_-one modified amendment what was that you're gonna be shocked to find outsomething else that helps the healthcare industry but is that i spoke with two its seven million dollars a year feesthe government would normally charge private health insurance companies </p> <p>he was saying take that money can give it back to theprivate insurance companies got paid for somehow so easy causing a figure for reducing benefits to poor people andlegal immigrants he's gonna cut medicaid and he's gonna cut any kind of uh...relief legal immigrants piak is that magic it is a little mlmillbank talking with us a little bit or </p> <p>refer to it it's a reverse robin hood well look we've got ideas here on the republicanside okay we played a big seven billiondollars in the poor and and legal emigrated legally legalnow mothers i say oh no no we are when they were legal immigration judgesbut what do you legal immigration all of your legal immigrant who's gotyour would take money from you and do the private health insurance companies </p> <p>so now we get a sense of where they'regonna get more for you that patch amendment ab seven this is a goes long lines and sort transition relief for further excise taxon high cost insurance plans for any state with a name that begins with the letteryou which state would that be alright yukawa orrin hatch is fraught so he says ice the one excise tax </p> <p>cover for my state now i think you'd be a littletongue-in-cheek there okay because he's a guesses overall but these are not serious amends are you kidding me is a reaction to almost all the viewergo commented the sex an amendment to protect the first amendment rights </p> <p>no no no not americans health plan so health care providers the actual companies they have to be protected grassley was nearly seven billiondollars let alone the preemptive bailout okay or not you want to make sure that no excise tax reform the high in insurance premiums could getthe government state </p> <p>and not kailas said they listen let's make sure their first amendmentrights why so they can spend the money freedomof speech spend money in attack ads to try to kill health care reform you see how this goes uh... orrin hatch with another it's set of amendments well why don't make sense you know makesure that no money goes to supporting </p> <p>physician assisted suicide that's a whole different issue but here's what's clear it already does not go to physician-assistedsuicide in this plan so you know what you wanted in be greater republican amendment you know if i am i disagree on thatissue which i knew weeded out about </p> <p>other time but this plan never be the jet address position isasleep assisted suicide the first place so in other irrelevant and then the second amendment on that note fifty million dollars for abstinenceeducation this is your plant this is your plan tofix ok america people getting tonight it is apre-existing conditions and decision and saturn set up </p> <p>forty seven million uninsured and you are a waste more money aunt abstinence education that's your point way it is racial over and over again itdoesn't work but once the state st uh... teach answers education the most teen pregnancy rate alright at but what does it have to dowith health care </p> <p>look if you would given us real proposals and i was a tinypart of an ok but that you may do so part of all those bungalow sultans ofone alright it goes on kyle men denied in this case it was the worst he was super bet you here your address he was the perfect prevent cost effectiveness research </p> <p>caught that's a quote no cost effectiveness research but we wouldn't want things to be efficiently and effectively i mean wewould want less effectiveness right but if it involves research you know onthat alright and that then his own grassley had abandoned the brain that one of the eliminate funding forquote comparative effectiveness research they don't want to find out what works </p> <p>these amendments well robert port the paper the rich for protect the health care companies don't want to find out what's actuallypossible to by the way why why don't they wanna find out the insurance companies public when theymake more money for really ineffective stopped because it's is bloated and and i'm sort of issues companies in thatcase </p> <p>uh... but they'll have a drag up thepremiums but uh... uh... other health care providers alike all you want moretest optimism is cost effective every time you do it s idea level the pharmaceutical companiesetcetera etcetera have you heard any amendments so far it is addressed towards you the american people none right </p> <p>so for almost all of these amendments have been protecting the company's nonproductive not addressing their real health careissues in america i keep busting up all night long and i'mgoing to john ensign from nevada amendments e-ten an amendment are in the middle of theauthor debate unquote transparency installers </p> <p>this is the school and back foxnewsnonsense about solarz and it said arrests that are the seller these oracle ball there a waste of time that's whatthey're by the way that's exactly right that's what they want to do what whatwhat what we have three kids we propose yes to waste time to try to make sure that health caredoesn't get </p> <p>past no reform gets passed no bill getspassed little electoral uh... nothing about health care no wedon't address that will protect gorazde uh... albeit results glenn beck told me about suchtransparency is a no kansas but either way sometimes along those lines amendment f or uh...also from atkinson to strike the word fbi everywhere itappears in the bill and replace it with the word packs </p> <p>he's a man this might be a littlepolitical and not really substantive and second of all of their he's they'renot taxes those are two different words beat me to a different banks you moron if you are out there and you think that you know what i don'tlike the idea that i am compare all this money these insurancecompanies and my premiums went up a hundred and nineteen percent in just thelast ten years and when i get sick anemic covered a micturnarounds they are recisions sorry </p> <p>we decide to yourself your uh... street was two thousand wheni got to pay for it workable with some exit you will likethat do you think the republicans are here tohelp you doesn't sound like they're here to helpyou know they're here to help the people who pay them that healthcare companies and if you were conservative even theseconservative these republicans are </p> <p>conservative in on your side no i consult ironic is almost customersalike or baseball tensions arabella terrible other the back pockets of a body has the right reasons open politicians most of all some of the democrats are don't ever ona lot of them are the majority of them off now the majority if you can at leasthave a debate of the democrats at the </p> <p>republican side every single one of them if you think that the politicians are uh... people who are bought and sold and you're a republican you make nosense whatsoever every amendment as the protectorcorporations depicting your back pocket you don'teven know it </p></div> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oewwxfcy_4M?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

health care reform proposals

wallace graces main with the republicans they're not doinganything a he in the famous uh... they want people todie and they want to d...

Read more »

health care reform plan

<div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="health care reform plan" height="500" src="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/images/interactives-and-data/chart-maps/chartcart/issue-brief/trump-health-care-reform/image_02.jpg" title="health care reform plan" width="500" /> </div> <div align="justify"><p>the president:good evening, everybody. tonight, after nearly 100 years of talk and frustration, after decadesof trying, and a year of sustained effort and debate, the united states congress finallydeclared that america's workers and america's families and america's small businesses deservethe security of knowing that here, in this country, neither illness nor accident shouldendanger the dreams they've worked a lifetime to achieve. tonight, at a time when the punditssaid it was no longer possible, we rose above the weight of our politics. we pushed backon the undue influence of special interests. we didn't give in to mistrust or to cynicismor to fear. instead, we proved that we are still a people capable of doing big thingsand tackling our biggest challenges. we proved </p> <p>that this government -- a government of thepeople and by the people -- still works for the people. i want to thank every member ofcongress who stood up tonight with courage and conviction to make health care reforma reality. and i know this wasn't an easy vote for a lot of people. but it was the rightvote. i want to thank speaker nancy pelosi for her extraordinary leadership, and majorityleader steny hoyer and majority whip jim clyburn for their commitment to getting the job done.i want to thank my outstanding vice president, joe biden, and my wonderful secretary of healthand human services, kathleen sebelius, for their fantastic work on this issue. i wantto thank the many staffers in congress, and my own incredible staff in the white house,who have worked tirelessly over the past year </p> <p>with americans of all walks of life to forgea reform package finally worthy of the people we were sent here to serve. today's voteanswers the dreams of so many who have fought for this reform. to every unsung americanwho took the time to sit down and write a letter or type out an e-mail hoping your voicewould be heard -- it has been heard tonight. to the untold numbers who knocked on doors andmade phone calls, who organized and mobilized out of a firm conviction that change in thiscountry comes not from the top down, but from the bottom up -- let me reaffirm that conviction:this moment is possible because of you. most importantly, today's vote answers the prayersof every american who has hoped deeply for something to be done about a health care systemthat works for insurance companies, but not </p> <p>for ordinary people. for most americans, thisdebate has never been about abstractions, the fight between right and left, republicanand democrat -- it's always been about something far more personal. it's about every americanwho knows the shock of opening an envelope to see that their premiums just shot up againwhen times are already tough enough. it's about every parent who knows the desperationof trying to cover a child with a chronic illness only to be told "no" again andagain and again. it's about every small business owner forced to choose between insuringemployees and staying open for business. they are why we committed ourselves to this cause.tonight's vote is not a victory for any one party -- it's a victory for them. it'sa victory for the american people. and it's </p> <p>a victory for common sense. now, it probablygoes without saying that tonight's vote will give rise to a frenzy of instant analysis.there will be tallies of washington winners and losers, predictions about what it meansfor democrats and republicans, for my poll numbers, for my administration. but long afterthe debate fades away and the prognostication fades away and the dust settles, what willremain standing is not the government-run system some feared, or the status quo thatserves the interests of the insurance industry, but a health care system that incorporatesideas from both parties -- a system that works better for the american people. if you havehealth insurance, this reform just gave you more control by reining in the worst excessesand abuses of the insurance industry with </p> <p>some of the toughest consumer protectionsthis country has ever known -- so that you are actually getting what you pay for. ifyou don't have insurance, this reform gives you a chance to be a part of a big purchasingpool that will give you choice and competition and cheaper prices for insurance. and it includesthe largest health care tax cut for working families and small businesses in history -- so that if you lose your job and you change jobs, start that new business, you'll finallybe able to purchase quality, affordable care and the security and peace of mind that comeswith it. this reform is the right thing to do for our seniors. it makes medicare strongerand more solvent, extending its life by almost a decade. and it's the right thing to dofor our future. it will reduce our deficit </p> <p>by more than $100 billion over the next decadeand more than $1 trillion in the decade after that. so this isn't radical reform. butit is major reform. this legislation will not fix everything that ails our health caresystem. but it moves us decisively in the right direction. this is what change lookslike. now as momentous as this day is, it's not the end of this journey. on tuesday, thesenate will take up revisions to this legislation that the house has embraced, and these arerevisions that have strengthened this law and removed provisions that had no place in it.some have predicted another siege of parliamentary maneuvering in order to delay adoption ofthese improvements. i hope that's not the case. it's time to bring this debate toa close and begin the hard work of implementing </p> <p>this reform properly on behalf of the americanpeople. this year, and in years to come, we have a solemn responsibility to do it right.nor does this day represent the end of the work that faces our country. the work of revitalizingour economy goes on. the work of promoting private sector job creation goes on. the workof putting american families' dreams back within reach goes on. and we march on, withrenewed confidence, energized by this victory on their behalf. in the end, what this dayrepresents is another stone firmly laid in the foundation of the american dream. tonight,we answered the call of history as so many generations of americans have before us. whenfaced with crisis, we did not shrink from our challenge -- we overcame it. we did notavoid our responsibility -- we embraced it. </p> <p>we did not fear our future -- we shaped it.thank you, god bless you, and may god bless the united states of america. </p></div> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wgvC2fxo-WE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

health care reform plan

the president:good evening, everybody. tonight, after nearly 100 years of talk and frustration, after decadesof trying, and a year of sus...

Read more »

health care reform act

<div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="health care reform act" height="500" src="http://agencyfortheprofessions.com/wp-content/uploads/Healthcare-Reform-Act.jpg" title="health care reform act" width="500" /> </div> <div align="justify"><p>hello everyone and welcome to the young informer.today, we will be taking a look at the affordable care act, otherwise known as obamacare anddiscussing its pro's and con's. obamacare is actually pretty complicated,so first we'll need to understand it well before we can form an opinion. so, what isobamacare? in 2010, president barack obama signed a healthcare reform law which basically makes health insurance more affordable, higher quality,and overall less costs. this was brought with the condition that coverage must be obtainedby 2014 or you would need to pay a monthly fee. so now lets take a look at how it all works.there are a few ways us citizens are being </p> <p>covered with obamacare, the main ones arethrough the through employment, government, and private purchasing. now that the law isput into effect, roundabout half of people are getting insurance from jobs, a third aregetting it through special programs such as medicare and medicaid by the government, thena tenth of people are forced to buy it on their own, but where does that leave the othertenth, or 30 million people will not have coverage. not much will be changing for employed americanswho are already covered, an example of a positive change is that there is a cap on how muchan individual has to spend on their own, also, you can get free preventative care. the realdifferences are going to be felt by those </p> <p>working for large companies and that are yetto be covered. starting from this year, 2014, the government started requiring both smalland large companies, with upwards of 50 employees to cover them, unless they wish to pay a penalty.this therefore will definitely be beneficial toward the employee, but a burden on the employer.in order to facilitate this process, the government opened up insurance marketplaces where businessowners can easily purchase medical insurance online.so in all, most company employees will be able to enjoy a medical insurance plan. others will be covered through help of thegovernment through medicare and medicaid. these people shouldn't see too much of a change. </p> <p>and for the rest of the people, they willbe able to buy healthcare plans on their own, through websites such as healthcare.gov. onthere, you will find a plethora of insurers. and unlike before, insurers wont be able todrop a client if it turns out they are sick and they wont be allowed to ask for more moneyif the person wishing to obtain the plan has any already-present conditions. males andfemales alike, will be charged the same price and as the price will decrease for peopleof higher ages, the price will increase for young people, but this is shielded by thefact that kids up to the age of 26 will be permitted to live under their parents' plan. so now lets take a look at the pro's and con'sof obamacare. i was talking earlier about </p> <p>how employers with over 50 full-time employeeswill be forced to purchase a healthcare plan. this in itself is extremely important dueto the high costs of insurance plans. consequently this leads employers into cutting employeehours into part-time to avoid the costs. so in the end its not the company that pays forit, but the workers. another huge con is the individual mandate,this essentially forces people to be covered by an insurance plan, if not like in the caseof employers, they will be paying a fine. a gallup poll done not so long ago found that40% of americans who are not covered, did not know about the individual mandate, alongwith its penalty. in case you were wondering how much the penaltywould cost and how it would be taxed, well </p> <p>here it is. the penalty is supposed to increasegradually, in 2014, its 1% of income, in 2015 its 2% and in 2016 its 2.5%. but these numbersshould definitely increase as time moves on, an example being that the income tax was 1%when first implemented. keep in mind that if you are part of the verylow income bracket, well then you will qualify for a tax break to cover the costs. this whole system closely resembles to corporatismas insurance companies operate as a sort of middle man between the government and theindividual. so they will still be getting paid the complete amount and will of coursebe making a profit. this middle man is a pretty big issue. thefact that americans want to pay for any medical </p> <p>assistance such as checkups or pharmaceuticaldrugs, has led health insurance companies to drive up costs, increasing premiums forthe customer. but if you think about it, you'll still be paying the same for the same producteven without the insurance plan, except without the additional costs of the middle man inquestion. so at this point what the affordable careact does is just put this system into actual law, and to top it off adds the individualmandate in order to force you through intimidation of the state. consequently, insurance companiesare provided with a set customer base that has no way out. you'd think that the individual mandate wouldbe a necessity in keeping the price of insurance </p> <p>low, but on the contrary, premiums for coveragehas been rising consistently. some states are seeing an increase of 298%. for peoplewho cannot afford insurance, the government helps them in the form of subsidies, but still,the insurance companies get paid the full amount. as you can guess, this just a massivedriver of debt for the us government's already pretty big 17 trillion deficit. unfortunately it doesn't stop here, the insuranceplans of millions of americans was canceled because of obamacare, but its hard to go intodetail on that. although all these reasons are pretty compellingto convince you that obamacare is bad, you cannot ignore the most important fact. healthcareis a basic human right, simple as that. the </p> <p>amount you earn can't be the reason why youare deprived of healthcare. this is the main reason why president obama actually decidedto implement this law in the first place. before, many people would try to suppresstheir illnesses in order not to have to pay the medical bills. therefore, although plaguedwith several flaws, its hard to argue against what obamacare or the affordable care act,stands for. so what do you think about obamacare? do youagree, do you disagree? do you feel as though it enriches the lives or the people, or doyou think it only enriches the insurance companies? leave your thoughts and comments below. this was the young informer, thanks for watching,and i'll see you next ti </p> <p></p></div> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JZkk6ueZt-U?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

health care reform act

hello everyone and welcome to the young informer.today, we will be taking a look at the affordable care act, otherwise known as obamacare...

Read more »

health care proposals

<div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="health care proposals" height="500" src="http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/RTX2ICSM.jpg" title="health care proposals" width="500" /> </div> <div align="justify"><p>good morning hank it's tuesday. thanks for your excellent video about hillary clinton and bernie sanders' tax plans today i'm gonna discuss the tax plans put forth by donald trump and ted cruz. i would talk about john kasich's tax plan, but he hasn't put out a detailed one yet, so i can't. ok but first, a brief overview of the federal budget for which these taxes pay. about a third of the us's 3.8 trillion dollar federal budget goes to social security and unemployment, mostly to social security, which provides income for elderly and disabled people. 27% goes to healthcare spending. </p> <p>this is mostly medicare, our publicly-funded health insurance program for the elderly. 16% goes to the military, 6% to service the national debt, 4% to veteran's benefits, and after that, the pieces of the pie start to get pretty small. so hank, as you pointed out last week, [hank talking] taxes aren't any fun. they are also very, very complicated, and i want to emphasize that i am neither a tax policy expert nor an economist. although in 1994, i did win the bronze medal in economics at the alabama state academic decathlon. so for one brief shining moment, i was the third-best economist of all seventeen-year-old c students in the state of alabama. </p> <p>but i recognize that's not expertise. i have, however, read a lot of experts. ok, so both donald trump and ted cruz have proposed tax refoms that will dramatically simplify the american tax code. in fact, cruz has promised to make taxation so straightforward that we won't even need an internal revenue service anymore, so let's start there with his plan. so right now in the us we have seven tax brackets, so like if you're married and filing jointly, and you made a million dollars last year, first off, congratulations. but as for your taxes, the first 18,450 of your million dollars are taxed at 10%. </p> <p>the next 56,449 dollars are taxed at 15%, et cetera, with everything over 465-ish thousand dollars taxed at the top us marginal tax rate of 39.6%. except not, actually, because of deductions. like if you have a mortgage, you can deduct the interest you pay, money you give to charity can be deducted as well, your student loan interest might be deductible, some retirement savings, some childcare costs, lots of other stuff. but let's imagine an extremely unlikely scenario where you're making a million dollars a year, but don't claim any of these deductions. you can still claim the so-called 'standard deduction'. this is a tax deduction available to everyone. if you're married and filing jointly, it's currently $12,600 per year. so your first $12,600 of income wouldn't be taxed regardless. in the end, with a million dollars of income, </p> <p>taking only the standard deduction, you'd pay about $343,427 in tax, an affective tax rate of like, 34.3%. the same family earning $250,000 a year would pay $53,755, an effective tax rate of 21.5%. and if your family had the median household income of about $52,000, you'd pay just under $5,000 in federal income taxes, an effective tax rate of about 9.6%. ted cruz's plan is to collapse these seven tax brackets into a single 10% tax rate for all income. this is sometimes called a flat tax. crucially, cruz would also increase the standard deduction to $20,000 a year for married couples filing jointly. so the median us household income would end up paying $3,200 a year in federal taxes instead of 5,000, a reduction of $1,800, or 34%. the family making a million dollars a year would pay $98,000 a year in taxes, a reduction of $245,000 a year, or 72%. </p> <p>so everyone would pay less tax, but the wealthiest americans would see, by far, the biggest cuts, both in percentage and absolute dollars. cruz would also eliminate most of the aforementioned tax deductions, except for mortgage interest and charitable giving. he would also eliminate all federal gift and estate taxes, and repeal all corporate and payroll taxes, in favour of a 16% kind-of vat, which is where it gets really interesting. insofar that this stuff can be interesting. by the way, europeans were like, 'oh my god, he finally said a word i recognize, vat!' kinda. in most european countries, there's a broad tax on consumption called the vat or value-added tax cruz's vat is a little different. basically, it taxes businesses revenues minus their capital investments and the money they pay to other companies. i'm gonna oversimplify here a little bit, but imagine i wanted to </p> <p>start a company selling t-shirts that celebrated my love of pizza, that were available for $20 right now at dftba.com. now imagine that i had to pay a company $10 to manufacture each t-shirt. i would only pay vat on the $10 difference. the other company would pay vat on the $10 that i payed them. and then they would get to subtract any non-wage costs they incurred making the shirt, et cetera. also, if i wanted to buy my own machine to make t-shirts, i could subtract the cost of that machine from my revenue before paying the vat. the money left over is either profit that goes to owners, or wages that go to employees. so basically, it's a tax on both wages and corporate profits, and it would aim to do a better job than our current system does of actually, like, taxing economic activity. which would be good, because, as you might've heard, with the current system, there's a fair bit of tax avoidance going on. </p> <p>lots of economists, although certainly not all of them, like the idea of this kind of vat. but cruz's specific plan would dramatically reduce the amount of federal revenue. like, the nonpartisan tax policy center calculates that cruz's plan would reduce federal revenue by 8.6 trillion dollars over the next ten years. now, cruz says that by eliminating the irs and a few other federal agencies, the government can save 500 billion dollars over the next decade, but that's less than 10% the shortfall,. like, if you ceased all military spending in the united states, you still be 2 trillion dollars short. but cruz doesn't want to eliminate military spending, instead he wants to increase it dramatically. now, some economists argue the shortfall will partly be made up by increased economic growth, but even the most optimistic independent modelling i could find still showed a dramatic increase in the </p> <p>budget deficit under a cruz tax plan, barring huge cuts to either medicare, or social security, or some combination of the two. okay, so then there's donald trump's plan. trump would also increase the standard deduction, but by more, so that any couple making $50,000 a year or less would pay no federal income tax. and he would collapse the 7 tax brackets into 4, with the top rate being 25% on income over $432,000 per year. trump's plan is similar to cruz's in that he would also eliminate gift and estate taxes, and most deductions. but he would cut corporate tax rates rather than replace them with a vat, which would probably lead to a lot of people identifying as corporations instead of human beings for complicated reasons explained here if you wanna pause the video. the other facet of trump's tax plan that he talks a lot about on the campaign trailers that currently hedgefund managers and some of the other people who currently work in finance </p> <p>can be paid in what's called, carried interest, which allows them to pay a lower tax rate. and trump's plan would end this. but, because income tax rates would be so low under the trump plan almost all hedgefund managers will pay less tax than they do now while campaigning, trump has also repeatedly said that his tax tax plan will quote, "cost me a fortune" which is just not true. like under the trump plan, if you make a million dollars a year you'll pay about $200,000 a year in taxes, which is much higher than under the cruz plan </p> <p>but much, much lower than the current rates. but altogether, trump's proposed tax plan would actually cost the federal government more revenue than cruz's plan, somewhere between 10 and 12 trillion dollars over the next decade. that's about like, uh, 25% of the total federal budget. he has said that his tax policy will be revenue-neutral, but in response to that the right-leaning center for federal tax policy wrote an op-ed entitled, "donald trump's tax plan will not be revenue-neutral under any circumstances" the tax policy center, meanwhile, estimates that eliminating the united states military all together </p> <p>would cover just about half of the revenue gap created by trump's tax plan. so in summary, ted cruz's tax plan involves a radical simplification of the tax code. a flat 10% income tax would lead to lower taxes for all americans, but the wealthy would benefit the most and cruz's strategy for revamping the corporate tax code has support among a lot of economists, but the low rates would lead to dramatically higher budget-deficits. trump's tax plan would probably lead to even bigger deficits. as with cruz's tax plan, everyone would pay lower taxes, but the rich get the majority of the benefit. although, trump's tax plan does not benefit the rich as much as cruz's does. but more importantly, </p> <p>neither of these plans is at all feasible. unless, we completely reimagine the role that government plays in american lives. especially the lives of the elderly, the disabled, and military veterans. budget cuts to services benefitting those people are extremely politically unpopular, so much so, that both candidates have promised to find away to preserve those programs. but to speak frankly, neither of these candidates has offered a serious explanation for how they would do that. you simply cannot cut government receipts by 20% while preserving the programs that together make up more than 80% of the budget. hank, i'll see you on friday. </p> <p></p></div> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7Z_RVl-ph3s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

health care proposals

good morning hank it's tuesday. thanks for your excellent video about hillary clinton and bernie sanders' tax plans today i'...

Read more »

health care policy

<div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="health care policy" height="500" src="http://www.ma4web.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/health-insurance-policy.jpg" title="health care policy" width="500" /> </div> <div align="justify"><p>good morning, hank. it's tuesday. let’s talk about the healthcare proposalsof donald trump and hillary clinton, but first i should say that if you’re interestedin healthcare or health in general, you should check out health care triage, hosted by dr.aaron carroll. it’s an amazing show. okay, to understand the candidates’ proposals,we need to look at the current healthcare system and its problems, so journey back withme to 2008. at the time, most americans got insurancethrough private companies. there was a publicly funded program for theelderly to get insurance called medicare. </p> <p>many low-income families got coverage througha publicly funded program called medicaid, and about 15% of americans had no health insuranceat all. so, broadly speaking, back in 2008, our healthcaresystem had three huge problems. the first was those 15% of people withoutinsurance. many people who didn't work for big companies,including me, literally could not get health insurance for any price because private insurerscould deny you based on pre-existing conditions. and for many other people, private insuranceplans were just too expensive to afford. and that brings me to our second big problemback in 2008, which was that our health care just cost too much. </p> <p>we were spending 16% of our nation's totaleconomic output on healthcare. most other rich nations spent under 10%. like, our healthcare costs were so stupefyinglyhigh that in the united states, more tax dollars per capita went to healthcare spending thangermany, japan, the united kingdom, or canada. all those countries spending fewer tax dollarsper person on healthcare had universal, publicly funded healthcare. the united states had nothing close to that. also, lastly, for all this money we were spendingnot to insure everyone, we weren’t getting particularly good healthcare outcomes, like,by almost any measure. </p> <p>from life expectancy to medical errors tohospital admissions for preventable diseases, the united states was not near the top. so then comes the affordable care act of 2010,which was designed to address some of these problems, with the emphasis on the “some.” the aca was primarily designed to get morepeople health insurance. about half of the newly insured were supposedto get medicaid, which was expanded to include everyone making up to 138% of the povertyline, and the other half were supposed to get insurance through exchanges, these marketplaceswhere everyone can get health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions. </p> <p>and the insurance would be affordable becausehouseholds making up to 400% of the poverty line would have their insurance costs subsidizedby the government on these exchanges. the aca also sought to reduce spending bylowering costs within medicare, and it raised some new taxes, including one on medical devices. but it left the rest of the u.s. healthcaresystem largely unchanged. so that was the basic idea. now, the aca has never been fully implementedbecause a 2012 supreme court decision made the medicaid expansion optional for states,and nineteen states have so far declined to do it, which means that millions of pooreramericans remain uninsured. </p> <p>that said, the aca has been successful atreducing the number of uninsured people. today, it’s around 9.1%. and it may have played a role, although expertsdisagree about this, in the slowing growth of healthcare costs in the united states. for the twenty years before 2008, healthcarecosts in the united states rose by an average of 8%. in the last five years, they’ve risen byan average of 5.5%. but, to be clear, costs are still rising fasterthan inflation and median weekly earnings. healthcare outcomes continue to lag behind,and our healthcare system is still far, far more expensive than any other nation on earth,although the gap with europe has closed a bit. </p> <p>the aca wasn’t really designed to addressthose problems, and it hasn’t. and there are other problems, too. in the employer market, premiums and deductiblesare rising as employers cover on average a smaller percentage of healthcare expensesthan they did ten years ago. on the exchanges, some insurance companiesare offering fewer plans. and because companies are insurers are nowrequired to offer comprehensive coverage with no lifetime benefit limits, many people whopreviously had bare bones insurance plans have seen their insurance costs go way up. these are all real problems, but it’s veryimportant to understand that the structural </p> <p>shortcomings of the united states healthcaresystem are much, much older than obamacare. the aca is not the reason our healthcare costsare so high, and we know that because they were very high before the aca. so with all that in mind, let’s look atboth candidates’ healthcare reform proposals, using analysis from the rand corporation,which is nonpartisan and widely considered centrist. let’s start with trump’s plan. first, he would repeal the aca. now, trump has said he’ll find ways to makesure that private insurers continue offering plans to people with pre-existing conditions,but he hasn’t said how this would be possible. </p> <p>trump would also change the way medicaid isfunded, to block grants. this would basically mean that states wouldget to administer their own medicaid programs, but most analyses see these block grants over timeinvolving lots of cuts. and lastly, trump would allow insurance companiesto sell plans across state lines, and he would also make all health insurance premiums taxdeductible. but remember, these are deductions, not tax credits,so they would mostly benefit people with high incomes for reasons explained in this video. altogether, the rand analysis concludes, i’mjust gonna quote here: “the trump proposals decrease the number of insured, increase out-of-pocketspending for consumers enrolled in individual </p> <p>market plans, and raise the federal deficitcompared to the aca.” so, here’s how: around 19.7 million peoplewould lose their insurance if the aca were repealed, and medicaid block grants wouldprobably increase the number of uninsured further. sales of plans across state lines and taxdeductible premiums would get some people insured, but all in all, rand concludes thatabout 20.3 million fewer americans would have health insurance under trump’s plan. out-of-pocket expenses would go up, accordingto rand, for two reasons. first, because the tax deductions offeredby the trump plan are less generous than the tax credits offered by the aca. </p> <p>and secondly, they estimate that sales ofplans across state lines would raise out-of-pocket expenses because there would be an increasein the so-called bare bones plans. these are plans with high co-pays or deductibles,or limits to annual or lifetime benefits. rand estimates that the average annual out-of-pocketexpenses per person, including deductibles and co-pays and insurance premiums and everything,would go from about $3200 per person to $5700 per person. and the deficit would go up, because withthe repeal of the aca, the taxes it raised would also be repealed, as would the changesin medicare reimbursement. this would lower some taxes, but most of thesavings were in changes to medicare, so all in all, under trump’s plan, according torand, the deficit would go up by about 5.8 billion dollars. </p> <p>and i should add that all the nonpartisananalyses i could find agreed on all three fronts: that trump’s plan would reduce thenumber of insured people, increase out-of-pocket costs, and increase the deficit. okay, let’s move on to hillary clinton’sproposals. clinton would amend the aca in three big ways. first she would introduce a $2500 tax credit,or $5000 for married couples filing jointly, that could be applied to healthcare expensesover 5% of income. so if you’re a single person making $50,000a year and you pay $5000 a year in health insurance premiums, you would get a $2500tax credit. </p> <p>because this is a tax credit and not a deduction,it would be available to everyone, not just high-income households, but that also meansit would be more expensive. secondly, clinton would reduce the marketplacepremium maximum. i know this is a little confusing. healthcare policy makes tax policy look likea pleasant walk in the park. but basically, right now the cost of healthinsurance premiums on the marketplace exchanges is effectively capped at 9.6% of income. to not benefit from the cap, a family of fourhas to make $96,000 a year or more. basically, clinton’s plan would lower thecap from 9.6% to 8.5% for most households. </p> <p>but of course, that program would also costmoney. and then lastly, and maybe most interestingly,clinton would offer a public insurance option on the exchanges. this would allow anyone, not just seniorsand low-income people to get their insurance from the government. rand hasn’t yet updates its analysis ofthe public option, but basically, it would probably be cheaper than private insurancebecause it would share administrative costs with medicare, and so it would slightly reducethe deficit by reducing healthcare subsidies. so all in all, according to rand, i’m justgonna quote again: “all of the policies </p> <p>considered increase the number of insuredpeople and reduce consumers’ out-of-pocket spending on health care.” rand estimates that the clinton tax creditalone would lead to 9.6 million more people getting health insurance, and that householdsof all income levels would see their out-of-pocket healthcare expenses go down. the biggest reduction in healthcare costswould be for families making between thirty and sixty thousand dollars a year, but theywould go down for everyone. but of course these problems would also increasethe federal deficit by what rand estimates to be ninety billion dollars. </p> <p>so that is rand’s summary. trump’s plan would lead to significantlyhigher out-of-pocket costs, fewer insured people, and a modestly higher budget deficit. clinton’s plan would insure more people,lower out-of-pocket costs, but raise the deficit more. but of course you have to consider those deficitsin the broader context of the candidates’ budget and tax proposals. and to be clear, overall, under trump’sproposals, the budget deficit would be trillions of dollars more than under clinton’s proposals. the other question, of course, is will eitherof these proposals significantly reduce the </p> <p>overall cost of u.s. healthcare? and the answer is probably not. the trump campaign will argue that sellingpolicies across state lines will increase competition, but that is deeply contested. and also, even in the rosiest projections,it wouldn’t decrease spending much. the clinton campaign, meanwhile, will saythat a public option would put real price pressure on private insurers. and it might, but i’ll put a link in thedooblydoo explaining why a single-payer healthcare system would not magically fix the u.s.’sproblems. </p> <p>the truth is, this is a complicated, multifacetedproblem, and anyone trying to sell you simple solutions probably isn’t telling you thewhole story. and that includes me, by the way. this is definitely only an introduction. if you want to learn much more about healthcarepolicy and health insurance and different strategies for dealing with it, check outhealth care triage. they’ve got a great video out now aboutmedicaid’s return on investment, and next week, they’re have a much more comprehensiveanalysis of the candidates’ healthcare plans, so subscribe to them. </p> <p>you can find sources, as well as informationabout how to vote in the dooblydoo below. hank, i will see you on friday, unless youhave a child in the interim. end screen, hank always says i need an endscreen. so i put some videos here about health insurance,why you need it, what the healthcare system in the united states is like, why it’s soincredibly complicated. also, if you’re looking for a hot sliceof tax policy, that video is just one click away, and rosianna drew you a bunny to cheeryou up. thanks, rosianna. </p></div> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L4AUY4KrAJc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

health care policy

good morning, hank. it's tuesday. let’s talk about the healthcare proposalsof donald trump and hillary clinton, but first i should ...

Read more »

health care plans

<div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="health care plans" height="500" src="http://montanahealthanswers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Montana_healthcare_plans_2015_bronze.jpg" title="health care plans" width="500" /> </div> <div align="justify"><p>the president:here are the detailsthat every american needs to know about this plan. first, if you are among thehundreds of millions of americans who alreadyhave health insurance, nothing in this plan willrequire you or your employer to change the coverage orthe doctor you have. under this plan, it will beagainst the law for insurance companies to deny youcoverage because of a preexisting condition. </p> <p>as soon as i sign this bill,it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop yourcoverage when you get sick or water it down whenyou need it the most. they will no longer be able toplace some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage youcan receive in a given year or in a lifetime. we will place a limit on howmuch you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, becausein the united states of america, no one should go brokebecause they get sick. </p> <p>and insurance companieswill be required to cover, with no extra charge, routinecheckups and preventive care, like mammograms andcolonoscopies -- (applause) -- because there's no reason weshouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and coloncancer before they get worse. if you lose your jobor you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. if you strike out on your ownand start a small business, </p> <p>we'll do this by creating anew insurance exchange -- a marketplace where individualsand small businesses will be able to shop for healthinsurance at competitive prices. now, for those individuals andsmall businesses who still can't afford the lower-pricedinsurance available in the exchange, we'llprovide tax credits, the size of which willbe based on your need. for those americans who can'tget insurance today because they have preexistingmedical conditions, </p> <p>we will immediately offerlow-cost coverage that will protect you againstfinancial ruin if you become seriously ill. this was a good idea whensenator john mccain proposed it in the campaign,it's a good idea now, and we should all embrace it. but an additional step we cantake to keep insurance companies honest is by making anot-for-profit public option available in theinsurance exchange. </p> <p>let me be clear. it would only be an option forthose who don't have insurance. no one would be forced to chooseit and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keeptheir policies affordable and treat their customers better iwill not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits --either now or in the future. we've estimated that most ofthis plan can be paid for by finding savings within theexisting health care system, a system that is currentlyfull of waste and abuse. </p> <p>the only thing this plan wouldeliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollarsin waste and fraud, as well as unwarrantedsubsidies in medicare that go to insurance companies. and we will also create anindependent commission of doctors and medical expertscharged with identifying more waste in the years ahead. these steps will ensure that you-- america's seniors -- get the benefits you've been promised. </p> <p>and we can use some of thesavings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too manyseniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their ownpockets for prescription drugs. many in this chamber --particularly on the republican side of the aisle -- have longinsisted that reforming our medical malpractice lawscan help bring down the cost of health care. i know that the bushadministration considered authorizing demonstrationprojects in individual states to </p> <p>test these ideas. i think it's a good idea, andi'm directing my secretary of health and human servicesto move forward on this initiative today. the time for bickering is over. the time for games has passed. now is the season for action. now is when we must bring thebest ideas of both parties together, and show the americanpeople that we can still do what </p> <p>we were sent here to do. now is the time todeliver on health care. </p></div> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q7VpcSA1Z_U?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

health care plans

the president:here are the detailsthat every american needs to know about this plan. first, if you are among thehundreds of millions of a...

Read more »