16-07-2012 10:08 Wolf Blitzer responds to a twitter question asking how difficult it would be to repeal health care if Romney is elected. For more CNN videos, check out our YouTube channel at Or visit our site at
The rest is here:
Ask Wolf: How difficult would it be to repeal health care reform? - Video
The debate in Texas over whether to fully implement the new federal health care law has little to do with health care, and a lot to do with ideology and politics.
See the rest here:
When Laird Le found a check for $70.02 in the mail, he wasn't quite sure why. Turns out, he's one of the estimated 13 million Americans that will receive a rebate on their health insurance premiums as a result of the health care reform law recently upheld by the Supreme Court.
Look inside your mailbox: By the end of the month, you could be getting one of these refunds, which are are expected to total $1.1 billion this year. Health insurance companies have begun sending letters to customers informing them of a new rule requiring them to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they receive on actual medical care, not on overhead, advertising, profits or other costs. Health insurers must cite the health care reform law, known as the Affordable Care Act, in the letter.
Le, a 35-year-old self-employed information technology consultant in Chicago, didn't know about the new rules until he got the check from UnitedHealth Group subsidiary Golden Rule Insurance Company. "I was pretty surprised," Le said. At first, he was afraid the company was canceling his plan, which costs about $160 a month. Once he realized what it was, getting a check like that was "powerful," he said. "I wouldn't have gotten a penny if it wasn't for the law."
The authors of President Barack Obama's health care reform law aim to pressure health insurance companies to cut down on administrative costs and other expenses and to prevent them from raising premiums to maximize profits. The idea is to eliminate waste by health plans so they charge lower premiums in the future, said Blake Hutson, a health care advocate with Consumers Union in Austin, Texas.
"It's a way to increase value in health insurance," Hutson said. "What the rule does is encourage insurance companies to operate more efficiently."
"Insurance companies that are paying rebates now, they either charged you too much or they didn't spend enough of your money on things that benefit customers," he said, noting that health insurance companies are already reducing expenses or lowering premiums to comply with the rule. In the future, he predicted, more plans will do these things to avoid paying rebates. "We're starting to see some of the tangible benefits of the law," he said.
Health insurance companies selling plans to small-business workers and individuals who buy coverage on their own have to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect on medical care. For health insurance from a larger employer, the standard is 85 percent. Since last year, health insurance companies have been required to publicly disclose what share of premiums actually goes to medical treatments for customers and from now on must refund the difference to individual customers or their employers.
More than 30 percent of people who buy health insurance on their own will be owed rebates this year, according to an analysis conducted by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation of Menlo Park, Calif., in April. The foundation isn't affiliated with the health insurance company Kaiser Permanente.
The health insurance industry protests that capping their profits does nothing to address rising prices for medical services and products. Health insurance companies refer to the difference between premiums collected and claims paid as the "medical loss ratio" and the Obama administration describes its new standard as the "80/20 rule."
Employers and workers who get health benefits from their jobs will see most of money from the rebates, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported. So-called "self-insured" employers that directly pay for workers' medical expenses and contract with a health plan solely for administrative work won't get rebates.
Read more here:
Health Care Reform Rebates For Health Insurance Costs Rolling In
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Yes, if Mitt Romney wins the White House and his Republican allies retake the Senate, he could shred most of President Barack Obama's health care law without having to overpower a Democratic filibuster.
But it won't be as easy as some Republicans portend, and it certainly won't be quick.
Why?
Because any realistic effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act - as opposed to last week's quixotic vote in the GOP-controlled House - is sure to get jumbled together with lots of other issues, including Medicare, taxes, food stamps and defense spending.
And that's because Republicans have to first pass a budget. It's the only way than can invoke special Senate rules that allow legislation to pass with just a simple majority vote - instead of the 60 votes needed in the 100-member Senate to beat a filibuster.
Passing a budget requires answering a raft of questions unrelated to the relatively simple idea of repealing "Obamacare." How much to cut the deficit? Should Medicare be overhauled and Medicaid bear sharp cuts? Is it realistic to sharply boost defense programs, as Romney would like, in such an atmosphere?
The first step is to pass a budget resolution - a nonbinding, broad-brush outline of budget goals like cutting or increasing taxes, or slowing increases in Medicare. A budget resolution sets the terms for follow-up legislation that's called a reconciliation bill in Washington argot.
Two years ago, Democrats used a reconciliation bill to finalize the health care law with a 56-43, party-line vote in the Senate.
Republicans have a problem in that there's a lot more on their agenda than just repealing the health care law, and it's all going to have to be crammed into a budget resolution and follow-up reconciliation bill, too.
See the original post:
There is hope for the newly insured. One gem of our health care system is the vast network of community health centers.
Follow this link:
By STEVE LeBLANC
July 16, 2012 12:00 AM
BOSTON In Massachusetts' contentious U.S. Senate race, few issues divide the two candidates more sharply than the health care law signed by President Barack Obama and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Republican Scott Brown ran for the Senate in 2010 vowing to be the crucial 41st vote needed to block the initiative, which ultimately passed despite his opposition. He remains critical of the law.
His Democratic challenger, Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Warren, has praised the Affordable Care Act, which was modeled after a 2006 Massachusetts law signed by then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican. Warren said the federal law has helped expand access to health care in Massachusetts and the nation.
Last month's Supreme Court ruling has only intensified the debate.
The latest salvo came from Brown in response to reports that U.S. employers added only 80,000 jobs in June, a third straight month of weak hiring. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.2 percent.
Brown called the numbers "grim" and faulted in part what he said were the "job-killing taxes on individuals, families and small businesses" that Warren supports, including those in the health care law.
"These are bad ideas under normal circumstances, but with our economy teetering on the brink, professor Warren's economic prescription would push us over the precipice," Brown said in a statement.
Warren has been equally emphatic in her support of the law and her criticism of Brown.
Continue reading here:
AUSTIN As Gov. Rick Perry stood defiantly against expanding Medicaid in Texas under the federal health care reform law Monday, he and other officials said they'd work for alternative solutions in a state where a quarter of the people are uninsured.
It's unclear what those solutions would look like, although Perry has long called for the federal government to give money to Texas in block grants without as many restrictions on how it's spent.
Some suggested expanding federal subsidies for private insurance to allow more low-income people to buy insurance on the private market with government assistance.
The feds have basically said this is the amount of money we are going to spend. So if you are going to spend it, why don't you let us spend it in a way that we think is better for Texas, as opposed to loading up our Medicaid program? said state Rep. John Zerwas, R-Richmond.
If Perry's decision holds, Texas will forgo billions of federal dollars to help cover about 1.5 million low-income Texas adults through Medicaid.
The federal government would pay the full cost of the Medicaid expansion for the first three years; after that, Texas would pay a share that would gradually increase but be capped at 10 percent.
The Health and Human Services Commission projects the expansion would cost $27 billion in state general revenue and bring in $164 billion in federal money over 10 years.
Perry also said Monday that Texas has no intention of setting up its own insurance exchange to allow people buying their own plans to compare coverage, another provision of the health care law.
If Texas doesn't set up an exchange, the federal government will do so. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states have a choice about expanding the Medicaid program.
Perry said in a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that he opposes both programs because both represent brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state.
See the original post here:
Lansing— Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and his fellow Republicans could find themselves knee-deep in health care issues Wednesday when lawmakers briefly return after a five-week break.
View post:
By CARLA K. JOHNSON
CHICAGO - As the dust settles from the U.S. Supreme Court's momentous decision on health care, top state leaders have faced off with conflicting figures about the cost to Illinois of expanded Medicaid coverage. President Barack Obama's health care overhaul expands Medicaid to more Americans, but the court's ruling, in effect, makes the expansion optional for states.
The day of the court's decision, Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka, a Republican, warned that the state would pay "an additional $2.4 billion" over six years. She urged lawmakers "to start saving now for those added costs."
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, countered that the federal government would pay "the entire cost" of the expansion. "I want to send to Miss Topinka, who is a friend of mine, a copy of the bill," Durbin told one TV news station, implying that Topinka would back down once she had read the law.
Who's right? As it turns out, they've both got facts on their side. But both fail to mention critical information.
Voters are likely to hear more sound bites from politicians about the cost of expanding Medicaid for states from now until November's presidential election. Governors in at least five states have said they'll reject the Medicaid expansion now that it's optional, citing costs.
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has embraced the president's health care law, including the Medicaid expansion. Quinn's office says cost estimates have been incorrect and "unduly high."
Here's the reality: Most of the cost of expanding Medicaid program will be paid by the federal government, but states will pay some additional costs primarily because of a quirk called "the woodwork effect."
State and federal governments share the cost of Medicaid. In Illinois, the split is about 50-50. Health policy people talk about the "federal Medicaid match" because the federal dollars roughly match the state dollars. The formula varies from state to state.
Under the new health law, as Durbin suggests, the federal government will pay the entire cost - 100 percent - for people newly eligible for Medicaid for the first three years, starting in 2014. The federal share falls to 90 percent by 2020.
View post:
As the dust settles from the U.S. Supreme Court's momentous decision on health care, top state leaders have faced off with conflicting figures about the cost to Illinois of expanded Medicaid coverage. President Barack Obama's health care overhaul expands Medicaid to more Americans, but the court's ruling, in effect, makes the expansion optional for states.
The day of the court's decision, Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka, a Republican, warned that the state would pay "an additional $2.4 billion" over six years. She urged lawmakers "to start saving now for those added costs."
U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, countered that the federal government would pay "the entire cost" of the expansion. "I want to send to Miss Topinka, who is a friend of mine, a copy of the bill," Durbin told one TV news station, implying that Topinka would back down once she had read the law.
Who's right? As it turns out, they've both got facts on their side. But both fail to mention critical information.
Voters are likely to hear more sound bites from politicians about the cost of expanding Medicaid for states from now until November's presidential election. Governors in at least five states have said they'll reject the Medicaid expansion now that it's optional, citing costs.
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has embraced the president's health care law, including the Medicaid expansion. Quinn's office says cost estimates have been incorrect and "unduly high."
Here's the reality: Most of the cost of expanding Medicaid program will be paid by the federal government, but states will pay some additional costs primarily because of a quirk called "the woodwork effect."
State and federal governments share the cost of Medicaid. In Illinois, the split is about 50-50. Health policy people talk about the "federal Medicaid match" because the federal dollars roughly match the state dollars. The formula varies from state to state.
Under the new health law, as Durbin suggests, the federal government will pay the entire cost 100 percent for people newly eligible for Medicaid for the first three years, starting in 2014. The federal share falls to 90 percent by 2020.
But as Topinka suggests, states will be on the hook for other costs. States continue to pay about half the cost for people who are already eligible for Medicaid but who've never enrolled before. Those people are predicted to come out of the woodwork to sign up because of new outreach campaigns and more attention to the benefits of health insurance coverage. Thus, the "woodwork effect."
Go here to see the original:
13-07-2012 20:08 KOCO caught up with US Rep. James Lankford about the state's lawsuit against the new federal health care law.
Read more:
LANSING (AP) - Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and his fellow Republicans could find themselves knee-deep in health care issues Thursday when lawmakers briefly return after a five-week break.
Snyder needs to get reluctant House Republicans on board with his efforts to create an online site where individuals and small businesses can comparison shop for private health insurance.
Hell also likely be comparing notes with GOP legislative leaders over whether it will be a good idea in 2014 to extend Medicaid to around 500,000 more low-income residents with the help of $2 billion annually in federal aid.
Both the health insurance exchange and the Medicaid expansion are required under the Affordable Care Act recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. But the court also ruled that the federal government cant withhold a states entire Medicaid allotment if it doesnt participate in the expansion, and some states now say they dont plan to cover more residents.
Snyder spokeswoman Sara Wurfel said the governor would like the House on Thursday to follow the lead of the GOP-controlled Senate and approve setting up the exchange.
House Republicans initially blocked the administrations efforts to tap $9.8 million in federal planning money for the exchange until the court ruled, hoping the law would be struck down. The state has been granted the money but cant spend it without legislative approval. Nor can it apply for additional federal planning funds if the first grant isnt used.
Now some GOP House members say any action on the exchange should be put off until November, when theyll know if GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney wins the White House and Republicans capture the U.S. Senate, making it possible some parts of the federal health care law will be repealed.
Ari Adler, spokesman for GOP House Speaker Jase Bolger, said its unclear if House Republicans will approve the exchange on Thursday.
Theres a push, obviously, to set up an exchange There is a separate push if we dont set one up that we start some of the planning process, Adler said. And then there is a lot of pressure to delay things a little longer. We are receiving a lot of feedback with a lot of different ideas.
At least one conservative group, Americans For Prosperity-Michigan, has sent campaign literature into more than 20 House districts and three Senate districts trying to discourage lawmakers from approving the exchange or castigating senators who already have.
Read this article:
WASHINGTON When the Supreme Court upheld the health care reform law on federal tax grounds, it restoked a housing issue that had been relatively quiet for the past year: the alleged 3.8 percent real estate tax on home sales beginning in 2013 that is buried away in the legislation.
Immediately following enactment of the health care law, waves of emails hit the Internet with ominous messages aimed at homeowners. A sample: Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you will pay a 3.8 percent sales tax on it? When did this happen? Its in the health care bill. Just thought you should know.
Once litigation challenging the laws constitutionality surfaced in federal courts, the email warnings subsided. But with the law scheduled to take effect less than six months from now, questions are being raised again: Is there really a 3.8 percent transfer tax on real estate coming in 2013? Does it pre-empt the existing $250,000 and $500,000 capital gains exclusions for single-filing and joint-filing home sellers, as some emails have claimed?
In case youve heard rumors or received worrisome emails about any of this, heres a quick primer. Yes, there is a new 3.8 percent surtax that takes effect Jan. 1 on certain investment income of upper income individuals including some of their real estate transactions. But its not a transfer tax and not likely to affect the vast majority of homeowners who sell their primary residences next year. In fact, unless you have an adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 as a single-filing taxpayer, or $250,000 for couples filing jointly ($125,000 if youre married filing singly), you probably wont be touched by the surtax at all, though you could be affected by other changes in the code if Congress fails to extend the Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of this year.
Even if you do have income greater than these thresholds, you might not be hit with the 3.8 percent tax unless you have certain types of investment income targeted by the law, specifically dividends, interest, net capital gains and net rental income. If your income is solely earned salary and other compensation derived from active participation in a business you have nothing to worry about as far as the new surtax.
Where things can get a little complicated, however, is when you sell your home for a substantial profit, and your adjusted gross income for the year exceeds the $200,000 or $250,000 thresholds. The good news: The surtax does not interfere with the current tax-free exclusion on the first $500,000 (joint filers) or $250,000 (single filers) of gain you make on the sale of your principal home. Those exclusions have not changed. But any profits above those limits are subject to federal capital gains taxation and could also expose you to the new 3.8 percent surtax.
Julian Block, a tax attorney in Larchmont, N.Y., and author of Julian Blocks Home Sellers Guide to Tax Savings, says it will be more important than ever to pull together documentation on the capital improvements you made to the property and expenses connected with the house including settlement or closing costs, such as title insurance and legal fees that increase your tax basis in order to lower your capital gains.
Since the health care law targets capital gains, you could find yourself exposed to the 3.8 percent levy on the sale of your home next year. Heres an example provided by the tax staff at the National Association of Realtors. Say you and your spouse have adjustable gross income (AGI) of $325,000 and you sell your home at a $525,000 profit. Assuming you qualify, $500,000 of that gain is wiped off the slate for tax purposes. The $25,000 additional gain qualifies as net investment income under the health care law, giving you a revised AGI of $350,000. Since the law imposes the 3.8 percent surtax on the lesser of either the amount your revised AGI exceeds the $250,000 threshold for joint filers ($100,000 in this case) or the amount of your taxable gain ($25,000), you end up owing a surtax of $950 ($25,000 times .038).
The 3.8 percent levy can be confusing, and can bite deeper when your taxable capital gains are far larger or you sell a vacation home or a piece of rental real estate, where all the profits could subject you to the investment surtax. Definitely talk to a tax professional for advice on your specific situation.
Continued here:
BOSTON (AP) In Massachusetts contentious U.S. Senate race, few issues divide the two candidates more sharply than the health care law signed by President Barack Obama and upheld by the Supreme Court.
Republican Scott Brown ran for the Senate in 2010 vowing to be the crucial 41st vote needed to block the initiative, which ultimately passed despite his opposition. He remains critical of the law.
His Democratic challenger, Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Warren, has praised the Affordable Care Act, which was modeled after a 2006 Massachusetts law signed by then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican. Warren said the federal law has helped expand access to health care in Massachusetts and the nation.
Last months Supreme Court ruling has only intensified the debate.
The latest salvo came from Brown in response to reports that U.S. employers added only 80,000 jobs in June, a third straight month of weak hiring. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.2 percent.
Brown called the numbers grim and faulted in part what he said were the job-killing taxes on individuals, families and small businesses that Warren supports, including those in the health care law.
These are bad ideas under normal circumstances, but with our economy teetering on the brink, Professor Warrens economic prescription would push us over the precipice, Brown said in a statement.
Warren has been equally emphatic in her support of the law and her criticism of Brown.
This decision ensures that millions of children, seniors, and families will continue to benefit from health care reform, Warren said in a statement after the ruling was announced.
Warren has highlighted some of the laws more popular elements including banning insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing medical conditions and allowing adult children to stay on their parents insurance until age 26.
See the article here:
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and his fellow Republicans could find themselves knee-deep in health care issues Wednesday when lawmakers briefly return after a five-week break.
Read the original here:
Health care on agenda when Michigan lawmakers return this week
The following error was encountered while trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.newschief.com/article/20120714/news/207145010
Access Denied.
Access control configuration prevents your request from being allowed at this time. Please contact your service provider if you feel this is incorrect.
Your cache administrator is webmaster.
See original here:
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and his fellow Republicans could find themselves knee-deep in health care issues Wednesday when lawmakers briefly return after a five-week break.
Snyder needs to get reluctant House Republicans on board with his efforts to create an online site where individuals and small businesses can comparison shop for private health insurance.
Snyder spokeswoman Sara Wurfel says the governor would like the House on Thursday to follow the lead of the GOP-controlled Senate and approve setting up the exchange. Lawmakers aren't scheduled to be in session again until mid-August.
State officials are scrambling to get a state-run exchange in place by 2014. They're running out of time to show they've done enough initial planning and may have to partner with the federal government on an exchange.
See the original post here:
While some of the nation's governors are balking at implementing key provisions of the health care law, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton appears eager to move forward.
Read more:
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and his fellow Republicans could find themselves knee-deep in health care issues Wednesday when lawmakers briefly return after a five-week break.
The rest is here:
Photos by Associated Press
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (from left), Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman and Delaware Gov. Jack Markell attended the National Governors Association meeting on Friday in Williamsburg. The governors will meet through Sunday.
A re-enactor dressed as Patrick Henry addresses the meeting as Gov. Dave Heineman watches. The governors discussed the challenges of implementing the health care law.
WILLIAMSBURG The nation's governors flocked to the Colonial icon on Friday and brought with them clashing views on how to implement provisions of the controversial federal health care overhaul.
The annual meeting of the National Governors Association convened just two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but effectively gave states flexibility to decide whether to expand the Medicaid program that serves the poor. And the session kicked off on the same day that President Barack Obama began a two-day campaign swing through the state.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, is taking a wait-and-see approach to the issue, seeking more information from the federal government while also hoping that Congress will repeal the law after the upcoming election. In a news conference at the historic old Capitol on Friday, McDonnell said it "doesn't make sense" to expand the program if its costs can't be contained.
"Medicaid expansion without reform is irresponsible," McDonnell said.
McDonnell also revealed during the news conference that Virginia finished the recent fiscal year with a budget surplus for the third consecutive year. A McDonnell aide said after the news conference that the amount of the surplus won't be known until all of the revenue numbers are compiled. McDonnell will brief legislative budget-writers next month.
Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, a Democrat and NGA vice chairman, said Medicaid expansion "could absolutely be a good deal for Delaware taxpayers" because it would extend coverage to a population that otherwise seeks medical care in hospital emergency rooms.
McDonnell, Markell, and Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, a Republican and the NGA chairman, spent much of the opening news conference discussing the challenges states confront in implementing provisions of the health care law.
View original post here:
Governors discuss health care expansion at national gathering - http://www.roanoke.com