29-06-2012 13:25 Watch the health care stories: Share this: Tweet this: I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it. If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance—this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. They can no longer discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions. They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms. Young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans. Seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs. And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care. All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act. Today, I'm as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from ...

Go here to see the original:

Obamacare: Delivering Affordable Health Care - Video

29-06-2012 15:48 The health care issue was supposed to be televised. But the people have gotten wise and Obama has realized that he can't socialize with the eyes of the people on 'em. You've been duped and cut from the loop. Health care reform will not be televised. Zo speaks truth to power here: See more at

See the rest here:

Health Care Reform Will Not Be Televised - Video

The health policy of India, in keeping with the WHO declaration at the Alma Ata conference of 1978, is to provide affordable, accessible and sustainable high-quality health care for all.

Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to come anywhere near the cherished goal and there is a sense of disillusionment and dissatisfaction amongst the public regarding the present state of affairs in the medical sector.

The time has now come for us to overcome this inertia and prepare a road map on a short, medium and long-term basis so that we can regain public faith in both the private and public sectors.

The basic infrastructure of the Indian health care delivery system was based on the recommendations of the Bhore Committee, which was formed before Independence under the chairmanship of Sir Joseph Bhore.

The committee, which had Dr B.C. Roy as a member, published its report in 1946. The committee recommended a three-tier health care delivery system (primary, secondary and tertiary). The emphasis was on primary care, the base of the infrastructure, providing both preventive and curative care.

The committee also recommended the ideal number of health centres, doctors, nurses and health assistants that would be needed to cater to a particular number of people.

After Independence, the recommendations were implemented in successive five-year plans although we are still struggling to make up the numbers, particularly if we consider the provisional census report of 2011.

In Bengal, according to the latest statistics, there are 269 rural hospitals, 79 block primary health centres, 909 primary health centres and 10,356 sub centres. And these numbers are well below the target level.

The lack of other infrastructure manpower, equipment and medicine is a perennial problem, particularly in the rural sector.

Moreover, there is a sharp urban-rural division in the health sector. A good example of this is that rural areas have only 31 per cent of the countrys hospital beds and only 26 per cent medical graduates practice there although 70 per cent of Indias population lives in villages.

Read the original post:

Health care with a humane face

If the political rhetoric that accompanied last week's Supreme Court ruling on health care reform was any indication, Texans can expect a raucous few months ahead as politicians consider whether to accept billions of federal dollars to expand Medicaid coverage to as many as 2 million low-income Texans.

The stakes are high, both politically and for the people who could gain coverage.

Gov. Rick Perry and other Texas leaders have shown little interest in participating, although that may change as the federal government dangles the money as bait.

Perry "has no interest in fast-tracking any portion of this bankrupting and overreaching legislation," deputy press secretary Josh Havens said.

The court's 5-4 decision upheld most of the controversial 2010 health care law, but gave opponents a minor victory when it ruled that states could decide whether to participate in the Medicaid expansion without jeopardizing the money they receive for the traditional Medicaid program.

The traditional program in Texas covers 3.4 million children, pregnant women, disabled adults and poor, elderly people; under the Affordable Care Act, it would be extended to everyone whose income falls below 133 percent of the federal poverty level, about $25,300 for a family of three.

GOP 'still in denial'

The Legislature could take up the issue when it meets in January.

"I'm not holding my breath," said Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, a San Antonio Democrat who is head of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus. "It almost seems to me the Republican leaders are still in denial about what happened at the Supreme Court."

At the least, they are waiting for the results of the upcoming election between President Barack Obama and presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

Continue reading here:

Politics, ideology clash over expanding Medicaid

The Supreme Courts long-awaited ruling on the Affordable Care Act known to both admirers and critics as Obamacare has been characterized as a compromise, meaning it made almost everyone a little bit happy and a little bit sad.

Looks like they split the baby on this one, said one political activist in Denver.

Even CNN and Fox News were confused, announcing originally that the law had been struck down, based on partial information saying that the Court had ruled that the attempt to justify the Act on the grounds of interstate commerce was unfounded. But Chief Justice John Roberts, a staunch conservative, found a way to uphold the law on the basis of the governments right to levy taxes.

Compromises have been few and far between in this increasingly polarized political landscape, and so perhaps we should all welcome this rare event.

But judging by the level of anger surrounding the ruling, matched by the almost total ignorance of its provisions and effects among the general population, nothing has been solved by Thursdays decision. Instead, the battle will continue right up until Nov. 6, when voters can finally have their say.

A recent USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that Americans are evenly divided 46 percent to 46 percent on whether or not they favor the Affordable Care Act. The split reflects the deep chasm between Democrats and Republicans: 85 percent of Republicans want the Act repealed in its entirety, while 65 percent of Democrats want the bill maintained or expanded.

This is not a debate over health care, or even about the proper role of government in our society. It is politics, pure and simple. Republican challenger Mitt Romney himself the author of a similar health care bill in Massachusetts, lost no time in weighing in.

"If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President Obama," Romney told a news conference on Thursday.

Over the past several months, I have spoken to dozens of people about the health care act. Reactions are split fairly neatly along party lines, although neither side had a monopoly on logic.

This is not America, fumed Dr. Debra Russell, a self-described neuropsychotherapist in Beaufort, South Carolina. This is socialism, communism. I never thought I would see this sort of thing in my country. It is as bad as FDR.

More:

Health care decision leaves Americans divided

A television screen at a trading post on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange headlines the Supreme Court decision on health care, Thursday, June 28, 2012. Stocks dropped sharply Thursday after the Supreme Court upheld the central provision of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, a requirement that almost all Americans carry health insurance. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the federal health law has raised new questions about exactly how -- and whether -- the state will further expand Medicaid health insurance coverage for low-income residents.

Meanwhile, a key Republican in the state Senate suggested there is no urgency to work with Democrats this summer to create a "health exchange" -- a new type of marketplace created by the law where Minnesotans can start buying coverage late next year. He is confident fall elections will create a Republican majority in Washington, D.C., able to repeal the law.

The partisan divide over how to implement the health law persists at the state Capitol even with the Supreme Court ruling Thursday, June 28, that the federal legislation is constitutional.

On Medicaid, the administration of Gov. Mark Dayton remains committed to a full expansion of the Medicaid program as was envisioned by the 2010 health law. But the court's ruling Thursday made the expansion optional for states -- and leading Republicans think Minnesota would be wise to put the brakes on a further expansion.

As for health exchange planning, some Republicans have called for engaging the Dayton administration in talks on the subject in hopes of promoting free-market elements in the plan. But Sen. David Hann, a leading Republican on health issues from Eden Prairie, said he and others in his party remain focused on what they see as fundamental flaws in the law -- not the need to try to make

On Friday, Hann said voters in November will clearly register opposition to the health law and put Republicans in a position to repeal it.

"People do not want this law," Hann said. Noting that the Legislature won't be back in session until next year, he added: "There's no possible way we can pass a health exchange between now and January."

Signed into law by President Barack Obama in March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act set a goal of significantly reducing the number of Americans who lack health insurance.

In Minnesota, there were about 500,000 uninsured residents last year. With implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the number of uninsured people in the state in 2016 should stand at just 210,000, according to an April analysis conducted for the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

See the original post here:

Health care: Law stands, so must Minnesota get moving?

Big step forward

In regards to the Supreme Courts decision June 28 on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) [Defining Decision, page one, June 29], I lived in Prague for 12 years and learned firsthand what it is to live with national health care. It is very humanistic to care for others and to be cared for by others.

From direct experience I can say health care for all, supported by all, is excellent for body, mind, and family.

Today is a big step forward for every one of us, thanks to the ACA in the USA.

Michael Minard, Seattle

Republicans, dont be afraid of Obamacare

The sky is falling! We must repeal! Doom and gloom ... thats the response from Republicans to the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act.

Do Republicans find the prospect of providing more people with affordable health care so scary? Maybe the fact that an insurance company can no longer say no to a person with existing health conditions is horrifying to them? Or perhaps allowing young adults to remain covered under their parents insurance plan induces night terrors. Just what exactly to do they fear?

Republicans have been remarkably devoid of any substantive arguments backing their positions; their entire rant is based on clich, ad hominem attacks and diversions aimed at denying President Obama any sort of success in this election year. Their tactics fall short, especially considering that many of the provisions in Obamacare were, in fact, first proposed and implemented by Republicans.

Further, they offer no alternatives other than retreating to the flawed and unsustainable patchwork of health care that failed so many Americans.

Link:

Affordable Care Act stays intact

TALLAHASSEE -- Gov. Rick Scott says Florida will not begin implementing the federal health care law because he believes it is bad policy and too costly.

Scott told Fox News he believes the law should be repealed, hopefully by a new president elected in November. But even if that doesnt happen, he said, Florida will not set up a health-insurance exchange or participate in an expansion of Medicaid.

Were not going to implement Obamacare in Florida, Scott told Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren on Friday night. Were not going to expand Medicaid because were going to do the right thing. Were not going to do the exchange.

Scotts announcement came hours after he told media that he was still considering his options in the wake of Thursdays U.S. Supreme Court ruling to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

State Rep. Mark Pafford, the ranking Democrat on the Florida House committee that handles health care funding, said he was not surprised.

This is a guy who was in the private sector. He created an organization to fight the Affordable Care Act, said Pafford, of West Palm Beach. He then was so upset that he became governor using his own money. So it wouldnt make sense that he would do anything else.

Under the health care law, by 2014 states must implement a health insurance exchange, a Web-based marketplace where people can shop for insurance, or defer to a federal program. States need to submit plans to the federal government that demonstrate their readiness to launch health exchanges by Nov. 16.

States also must decide whether to move forward with an expansion of Medicaid to reduce the number of uninsured residents. In Florida about 3.8 million people, or 21 percent, are uninsured.

The Supreme Court ruling made it clear that states can stick with the status quo without being financially penalized. The federal government has promised to shoulder nearly all of the burden of the Medicaid expansion in the early years so it will cost states relatively little to participate. But Scott said Medicaid is already too expensive and the expansion would put further strain on the state budget.

We care about having a health care safety net for the vulnerable Floridians, Scott said on Fox. But this is an expansion that just doesnt make any sense.

Continue reading here:

Scott vows he won’t implement Affordable Care Act

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet? Create an account

E-Mail or Member ID

Password

Remember Me Log In

See the rest here:

Health Care Ruling Lets the System Evolve - Economic View

You can now see Indystar.com in a format specifically designed for your tablet. Experience the best local news, video, and photos in a beautiful finger-friendly interface.

You will only see this screen once. You can always browse directly to Tablet.Indystar.com or Indystar.com depending on which version you want to see.

Read the original:

For state's uninsured, health-care ruling provides some relief

Affordable Care Act or not, Roosevelt General Hospital and Plains Regional Medical Center officials say they already serve the uninsured and underprivileged in Roosevelt and Curry counties.

If President Barack Obamas health care bill were to be fully enacted in 2014, officials noted the changes they would see wouldnt be in who they serve, but how they serve.

According to Hoyt Skabelund, administrator of Plains Regional in Clovis, about 10 percent of their patients do not have any form of insurance and that is not including those below 200 percent of the poverty limit.

Our belief is, we provide care regardless of (a patients) ability to pay, Skabelund said.

Under the individual mandate of the health care bill, their uninsured patients will be required to have some form of health care.

(The individual mandate) will increase the number of paying patients, relieving pressure off health care providers and increasing the reimbursements issued to (providers), Skabelund said.

He added that the bill has provided clarity for how they will operate come 2014.

Weve been waiting to find out whats our future and how to coordinate higher quality care, Skabelund said.

Skabelund highlighted other impacts Obamas health care bill will have on Plains Regional:

Having more insured patients will prevent cost-shifting.

Read more:

Health care providers talk about act's impact

Indiana's role in the constitutional challenge Indiana was one of 25 states that joined Florida in challenging the law. Indiana Sens. Richard Lugar and Dan Coats signed onto a brief written by GOP senators backing Florida's challenge. They argued that allowing the law to stand would upset the balance of power between the federal government and states, placing unlimited power in the hands of ...

Excerpt from:

Indiana's stake in health care ruling

28-06-2012 09:54 A divided Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Obama administration's health-care law, in one of the most anticipated high-court rulings in a generation. Jess Bravin reports on The News Hub.

Here is the original post:

Supreme Court Upholds Health-Care Law - Video

28-06-2012 13:11

Here is the original post:

A Conversation About the Health Care Ruling - Video

28-06-2012 19:26 The Supreme Court largely upheld President Obama's health care reform, including the controversial mandate. Ana Kasparian, Desi Doyen, and Jacki Schechner discuss on The Young Turks. Support The Young Turks by Subscribing Like Us on Facebook: Follow Us on Twitter: Find out how to watch The Young Turks on Current by clicking here:

Here is the original post:

Analysis: Obama Health Care Reform Upheld - Video

28-06-2012 21:26 A breakdown of why healthcare costs are soaring in America and how Obamacare is going to impact things going forward. by Omid Malekan @malekanoms

See the original post here:

Healthcare Explained - Video

This week's Supreme Court on health-care reform represented a legal victory for President Obama on many fronts, but the ruling made it easier for states to opt out of one important area, the expansion of Medicaid for America's poor.

View original post here:

After Supreme Court ruling, Medicaid expansion faces uncertainty

HuffPost's QuickRead...

Loading...

HuffPost's QuickRead...

Edition: U.S.

33k

71k

46k

54k

22k

53k

Go here to see the original:

Health Care Reform Reshuffles The Race: The 2012 Speculatron Weekly Roundup For June 29, 2012

VIROQUA, Wis.-- Whether you agree with the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold President Obama's health care law or not, it has no doubt sparked a debate in this country about health care reform.

We continue our series of reports with the "We the People" project, taking a closer look at the big issues this election year through the eyes of people from diverse backgrounds around the state. This month we're tackling the topic of the health care.

While health care reform is being framed as a political issue right now, it's also a very personal one. And even those who haven't been forced to choose between food and medicine or been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, have an opinion about our health care system.

As a volunteer driver with the Vernon County Unit on Aging, Palmer Hoffland sees our health care dollars in action. "If someone needs a ride to see the doctor or some kind of appointment, the lady from the Unit on Aging calls one of us and sees if we can make the trip," says Palmer.

On the day we caught up with him, he was driving a man from his home near Chaseburg to the clinic in Viroqua for therapy following heart surgery. Luckily, Palmer and his wife Martha, have been able to steer clear of any major medical problems themselves. "We've been very fortunate. Our medical costs are not a very big part of our life."

At 71 years old, Palmer has been on Medicare for the past six years. And while it's helped keep his medical expenses in check, he's surprised by just how much. "My health cost is less expensive now than when I was working. Medicare and what I use, I don't use supplemental insurance, but I use another plan, but I pay very, very little for my health insurance."

While Palmer believes Obamacare might be helpful for some people, he thinks in his case, it won't be as good as what he currently has. But he's also not convinced sweeping health care reform was needed in the first place. Palmer says, "it just doesn't seem to me that this problem was as big and as present until the Obamacare issue came up and then that made it sound to us like we have a huge problem here folks and we better take care of it. Quite frankly, I didn't see that problem around."

He also questions one big plan that applies to everybody in the country. "In other words, lets not mess with the people who have insurance and it's all taken care of and it's not been a problem, let's come up with something different to help, if it is in fact 30 million, it's got to be cheaper to help 30 million than 350 million."

We the People participant Jim Klarich from the Madison area is also a retiree and on Medicare. He believes Obamacare is a step in the right direction. "I think everybody should have car insurance, I think everybody should have health insurance and it's all about being responsible and I think at times you need the government to step in and say this is what we're doing for your good."

Klarich also says it's the people who choose not to have health insurance that are costing him and everyone else more. "As you get poeple going to the emergency room for health care, my insurance costs rise and I don't want to see that."

Follow this link:

We the People: Health Care

Health care and the high court

Health care and the high court

Health care and the high court

Health care and the high court

Health care and the high court

Health care and the high court

Health care and the high court

Health care and the high court

Health care and the high court

Health care and the high court

Link:

A moment for Obama's legacy