YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE!!!!!

 

This reminds me of my sister's home owners insurance being canceled because her roof was damaged beyond repair by severe hail storms twice in one Summer in Colorado a few years ago. She had been with the same national insurance company for decades, and had not filed a claim before...

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT / OBAMACARE IS HERE TO STAY...TELL THE REPIGLICANS & TEA-BAGGERS TO KEEP THEIR HANDS OFF!!!! 28JUN12

THE ink is barely dry on the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act / Obamacare and the repiglican / tea-bagger members of Congress along with their presidential candidate mitt romney are pledging it's repeal. Health Care For America Now needs us to sign their petition telling them Obamacare is here to stay and to keep their hands off the Affordable Care Act. Click the link to sign on, and you can add your own comments to the letter to your Representative (see my letter to Rep frank wolf r VA at the bottom of this post)

 

Obamacare has been upheld.

The Supreme Court says Obamacare is constitutional but the Republicans in Congress still want to repeal it!
Tell the Republicans in Congress to stop playing politics with our health care.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the debate over the Affordable Care Act is done. Obamacare is here to stay. The days of health insurance company price-gouging and denials of care are over.
This ruling clears the way for moving full steam ahead on implementing Obamacare. Thanks to this law, working and middle-class families will have financial and health security. More than 30 million Americans will gain insurance coverage for the first time, joining more than 100 million who are already benefiting from the law’s consumer protections and benefits.
The Republicans have already pledged to continue their relentless campaign to undermine the health care security of America’s families. They want to end Medicare as we know it, dismantle Medicaid and repeal Obamacare, including the ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions
Please join us in telling Congress: “The debate is over. Stop playing politics and follow the law.”

Thank you,
Will O'Neill
Health Care for America Now

MY letter to Rep frank wolf r VA
Unless you plan to offer the American public the exact same health care plan you have as a member of Congress at the same cost you pay (the taxpayer subsidized rate) I expect you to keep your hands off the Affordable Care Act! The Supreme Court has ruled: Obamcare is here to stay. This is good for all Americans because
Insurance companies still must provide insurance to children who have pre-existing conditions,
There are no long lifetime caps to coverage,
Adult children will still be able to get insurance through their parents,
Coverage has been expanded for 30 million people,
No costs to consumers for preventative care,
No one will be denied for have a pre-existing condition,
Medicaid will be expanded to people with incomes up to 133% above poverty,
Health insurance exchanges will drive down the cost of private insurance.

This ruling clears the way for moving full steam ahead on implementing Obamacare. Thanks to this law, working and middle-class families will have financial and health security. More than 30 million Americans will gain insurance coverage for the first time, joining more than 100 million who are already benefiting from the laws consumer protections and benefits.

President Obama worked with Congress for more than a year to pass the Affordable Care Act, and even now many of the consumer protections have yet to go into effect. The American people do not have time for Congress to continue playing politics with health care.

You and the Republican Party should side with the seniors, families, and small businesses in your district, not the profit-seeking health insurance companies.

One Year After Failed Repeal Effort, Affordable Care Act Continues to Help Americans 19JAN12

THE Affordable Care Act was passed one year ago 19JAN12. I remember staying up and watching the vote on C-SPAN, praying it would pass, thank God it did. Here is a short article from the WH noting the first anniversary of the legislation and the benefits already being realized.

Nancy-Ann DeParle

Like many Americans, Gail Freyer needs health insurance to help her manage her diabetes.  For years, she has struggled to find an insurance plan that would accept her with her pre-existing condition – and with a premium she could afford.  Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, Gail was able to enroll in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan in Arizona.  Now, Gail knows she’ll be able to access the care she needs to manage her diabetes and stay healthy.
This story could have ended very differently if Republicans in the House had their way.  One year ago today, on January 19, 2011, the House of Representatives voted to repeal the health reform law, and take us back to the days when insurance companies had the power to decide what care residents of the United States could receive – allowing them to once again deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, cancel coverage when people get sick, and place lifetime or low annual dollar limits on the amount of care people can get, even if they need it.  What’s more, without the law, insurance companies could overcharge for insurance just to boost their profits. And if House Republicans had gotten their way:
•             2.5 million young adults wouldn’t have health insurance.
•             2.65 million seniors would have paid $1.5 billion more for prescription drugs
•             24.2 million seniors would pay for preventive services they are getting for free.
Thankfully, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land and it’s helping Gail and millions like her. Check out the short report we’ve done about some of the Americans who are being helped by the law and what would have happened if the law has been repealed here.

Nancy-Ann DeParle is the Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff.

ABOLISH MEDICARE? CUT MEDICAID? TAX CUTS FOR MILLIONAIRS? 6APR11

THE gop / tea-bagger plan to abolish Medicare will result in more Americans without health care while increasing the profits of the health care industry...BIG SURPRISE THERE, EH? Check out the links below for details about this proposal and then contact Pres Obama and your Representative and Senators and tell them to reject ALL aspects of this plan. E mail Pres Obama here
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
e mail your representative here
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml 
and e mail your Senators here
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
HERE is the link to see what gop / tea-bagger representatives are  supporting or opposing this plan.
http://pol.moveon.org/whip/index.html?rc=report&id=26818-17549061-BnFyq5x 

Here's the most important thing you need to know about the Republicans' new budget plan: It abolishes Medicare within 10 years.¹

Republicans were already threatening to shut down the government at the end of the week,² but the budget plan they released yesterday takes things to a new level.

They want to eliminate the guarantee of medical care to seniors in America. Their budget plan would replace Medicare with vouchers that seniors would use to pay Big Insurance. And if the vouchers aren't enough to pay for their care—and the Congressional Budget Office says they won't be—too bad.³

The plan is so radical that many Republicans won't say whether they support it or not, so we're trying to get every Republican member of Congress on the record by the end of the week answering a simple question: "Will you oppose the Republican plan to abolish Medicare?" 

Republicans will try to spin the plan as "cuts" or "reforms" to Medicare, because they know how unpopular it is. But the plan isn't reform, it's wholesale privatization of Medicare. Their plan abolishes the guarantee of care that defines Medicare. 

In fact, by 2030, the CBO estimates the average senior would be paying Big Insurance more than $20,000 each year out of pocket.⁴ If they can't afford it, then they won't get care. And seniors aren't alone—the Republican plan also includes devastating cuts to Medicaid, repeals the health care reform we all fought so hard for, and gives millionaires huge tax breaks.⁵

The Republicans who proposed this plan are driven by a deeply dangerous ideology that would undo many of the greatest progressive achievements of the last 100 years. But the programs they're attacking are hugely popular, so we have an opportunity to make Republicans afraid of the consequences of their radical proposals. 

Thanks for all you do.

–Daniel, Peter, Milan, Laura, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "A Conservative Vision, With Bipartisan Risks," The New York Times, April 5, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/us/politics/06ryan.html?hp

2. "Obama, congressional leaders make no progress on budget," The Washington Post, April 5, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=207462&id=26818-17549061-BnFyq5x&t=4

3. "CBO: Seniors Would Pay Much More For Medicare Under Ryan Plan," Kaiser Health News, April 5, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=207463&id=26818-17549061-BnFyq5x&t=5

4. "Representative Ryan Proposes Medicare Plan Under Which Seniors Would Pay Most of Their Income for Health Care," Center for Economic and Policy Research, April 6, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=207464&id=26818-17549061-BnFyq5x&t=6

5. "CBO: Seniors Would Pay Much More For Medicare Under Ryan Plan," Kaiser Health News, April 5, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=207463&id=26818-17549061-BnFyq5x&t=7

"Tax Plan From GOP Promises Rate Cuts," The Wall Street Journal, April 6, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=207465&id=26818-17549061-BnFyq5x&t=8

Bush-Appointed Federal Judge Tosses Out Challenge To Health Reform from THINK PROGRESS 4FEB11

THE challenges to the Affordable Care Act are based on the greed of corporate insurance companies who want to spend their funds on obscene pay scales and bonuses for their executives and boards and not on providing health care for their customers. The challenges to the Affordable Health Care Act are being disguised as championing states and individual rights by the very politicians who have been bought and paid for by corporate America, politicians who rail against "Obamacare" while deeming they themselves are entitled to their own government subsidized health care. From ThinkProgress...

Judge Keith Starrett of the Southern District of Mississippi

Judge Roger Vinson’s error-filled opinion was one of the biggest news stories this week, at times even overshadowing the revolution underway in Egypt. Yet another opinion signed by George W. Bush-appointed Judge Keith Starrett highlights just how much of an extreme outlier Vinson is — and how wrong it was for so many observers to overreact to Vinson’s tea partying opinion.
The Constitution requires a plaintiff to show that they will actually be injured by a law before they can challenge it in court, a requirement known as “standing.” Judge Starrett concluded that the plaintiffs in this suit did not demonstrate that the act’s minimum coverage provision — which requires most uninsured Americans to pay slightly more income taxes — would actually cause them to pay more taxes when the law goes into effect in 2014:

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Petition contains insufficient allegations to establish that they will certainly be “applicable individuals” who must comply with the minimum coverage provision.
For example, Plaintiffs did not allege any facts which, if true, would certainly establish that they would not be subject to the provision’s religious exemptions. Plaintiffs simply alleged that they will be subject to the minimum essential coverage provision – a bare legal conclusion which the Court may not accept as true.
Furthermore, it is not certain from Plaintiffs’ allegations that, in the event they were considered “applicable individuals,” they would incur the tax penalty for non-compliance. Their First Amended Petition contains insufficient allegations to establish that they will not be subject to one of the exemptions to the penalty.
For all of the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the ten primary Plaintiffs have not plead sufficient facts to establish that they have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of the minimum essential coverage provision of the PPACA.

In tossing out this lawsuit, Starrett joins the overwhelming majority of judges who have heard health care challenges. At least 14 lawsuits have been tossed on procedural grounds such as standing; only four judges have reached the merits of an Affordable Care Act challenge, and two of those suits upheld the law.
It’s worth noting, as well, that the absence-of-standing argument is likely to resonate with conservatives on the Supreme Court. The most important decision limiting access to federal courts under the standing doctrine — Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife — was written by Justice Scalia and litigated by Chief Justice Roberts. If just one of the conservative justices decide that the anti-health reform plaintiffs lack standing, they will provide the fifth vote necessary to prevent the Act from being struck down until after the minimum coverage provision goes into effect in 2014
And if they do force the health care challengers to start over again in 2014, that will mean the issue will not reach the justices again until after the Act has been fully operational for at least a year. By that point, 32 million Americans will have received health insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. It is exceedingly unlikely that the justices will test their own legitimacy by trying to take that insurance away.

Rep. Blake Farenthold says health care law will force 70 percent of workers to lose their current plan from POLITIFACT 23JAN11

IF you are interested in the truth concerning this issue then read this from PolitiFact...

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

"Despite claims that you can 'keep the health care plan you like,' the Obama Administration has predicted that as many as 7 out of 10 Americans with employer-provided health coverage could lose their current health plan."

Blake Farenthold on Wednesday, January 23rd, 2011 in an op-ed

Rep. Blake Farenthold says health care law will force 70 percent of workers to lose their current plan

On Jan. 23, 2011, Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas -- a freshman lawmaker who ousted a Democratic incumbent in 2010 -- wrote an op-ed in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times explaining his decision to vote to repeal the Democratic-backed health care law.

One of the reasons he cited was this:

"Despite claims that you can 'keep the health care plan you like,' the Obama administration has predicted that as many as 7 out of 10 Americans with employer-provided health coverage could lose their current health plan," Farenthold wrote.

Farenthold was referring to President Barack Obama’s frequent claim that under the proposed law, "if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." We fact-checked that claim in 2009 -- before the final version of the bill was passed -- and ruled it Half True. Later that year, Obama began using a less sweeping version of the claim -- that if you "already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." We rated that statement True.

When we saw Farenthold’s statement, we wondered whether the Obama administration really acknowledged that "as many as 7 out of 10 Americans with employer-provided health coverage could lose their current health plan."

We tried contacting Farenthold’s office, but his staff did not respond to our inquiries. However, Michael Tanner -- a health care expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, which has been critical of the health care bill -- suggested that Farenthold may have been referring to a fact sheet the administration assembled and posted at the informational website HealthCare.gov.

This fact sheet explained how health plans can be "grandfathered" under the law, which was passed in early 2010 and which becomes fully operational in 2014.

The law allows plans that existed on March 23, 2010, to be "grandfathered," which means that they do not have to comply with new provisions that took effect last fall, such as requirements to provide preventive services without cost-sharing and direct access to ob-gyn care without a referral. To keep their grandfathered status, these plans must not significantly cut benefits or increase out-of-pocket spending for consumers. (Minor policy changes and increases to keep pace with medical inflation do not threaten a plan’s grandfather status.)

While acknowledging significant uncertainty about how employers will react to their options, the fact sheet offers estimates of how many plans the administration expects to opt for grandfathered status, both for the 133 million Americans whose plans are provided by large employers and the 43 million with plans provided by small employers (fewer than 100 employees). We aren’t looking at the nation’s 17 million individually purchased policies, because Farenthold’s claim specifically referenced employer-provided health care.

According to administration projections, between 71 and 87 percent of large-employer plans will be grandfathered in 2011, and between 36 and 66 percent will remain grandfathered by 2013. For small plans, the administration expects between 58 and 80 percent to be grandfathered in 2011 and between 20 and 51 percent to be grandfathered in 2013.

So, in his op-ed, Farenthold used the highest estimate for the percentage of plans that will have lost their grandfather status by 2013 and therefore changed to comply with the health care law, though he does hedge somewhat by saying "as many as."

Still, we don’t think these numbers fully support Farenthold’s claim.

For one thing, if your plan loses its grandfather status, it won’t necessarily mean that you’ll "lose (your) current health plan," as Farenthold writes.

Health care specialists said they expect that in many cases an employer (or the insurance carrier the employer uses) will change the plan in ways that are significant enough to end grandfather status but which will not terminate the plan or result in a radical change in its coverage. While some employers may decide to end health care coverage entirely (and thus pay a penalty under the bill), many will continue to offer a similar plan but perhaps with more extensive requirements mandated under the law, possibly along with higher premiums.

Indeed, one way that your employer’s plan could lose its grandfather status would be if the employer decides to make it more generous to patients. In this case, "losing" the plan would be a net gain for the patient, not a net loss. This is certainly how supporters view the law -- they see the shift from a grandfathered plan to one with new patient benefits and protections as a good thing, not a bad thing. Opponents counter that un-grandfathered plans will force patients to pay more even if they don’t want the new benefits.

There’s also a broader issue. Saying that the law could force 70 percent of Americans to lose their current health plans ignores that many people lose their current health coverage every year for reasons having nothing to do with the new law. Both Obama and Farenthold failed to acknowledge this point, but more on that in a moment.

Answering the question of how many Americans "lose their current health plan" for reasons that have nothing to do with the new law is surprisingly tricky. Health care experts we contacted said they’d never seen a comprehensive statistical look at that question, so we pieced it together as best we could.

We found one study by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, which looked at a statistically representative sample of Americans over a period of 48 months. Unfortunately, the data is old -- it’s from the mid-to-late 1990s -- but one finding was that 26.3 percent of fully employed Americans lacked health coverage for at least one month in the 48-month period studied.

That statistic only addresses people who lost coverage entirely, at least temporarily. It doesn’t include people who switched jobs (and thus health plans) without losing coverage. That’s common in an economy as dynamic as the United States’. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that, on average, slightly more than 3 percent of employees leave their jobs in any given month.

The Census Bureau study also didn’t count those who stayed in the same job but whose company changed insurance carriers, or whose insurance carriers changed the terms of a client company’s plan. Data on this phenomenon is scarce.

We found some data in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 2007, just over 14 percent of the entire U.S. population "switched" health insurance coverage. However, this probably underestimates the rate of switching for the people Farenthold was referring to -- those who have employer-based coverage. The HHS study included people of all ages, including those covered by Medicare, who rarely switch. In addition, the study would capture a switch between, say, an Aetna plan and a United Health Care plan but would not necessarily catch a shift between one type of Aetna plan and another type of Aetna plan.

We found another relevant study by Mercer, a private consulting firm. Mercer's National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, an annual study of nearly 3,000 employers released every November, includes a question on whether employers will ask employees to pay a greater share of health care costs in the upcoming plan year -- for instance, by changing from an HMO to a PPO or by raising deductibles and other forms of cost-sharing.

Beth Umland, the head of research for Mercer's health & benefits consulting practice, said that in each of the years from 2005 to 2008, roughly 25 percent of companies said they made changes to their plans that would result in employees paying a greater share of the cost. In 2009 and 2010, she said, that percentage rose to one-third of companies each year.

So if you add up the workers who lose coverage entirely, who change jobs, who work for companies that change insurance carriers or plan terms significantly, or whose employer’s insurance carrier is merged or bought out, a significant number of Americans were already losing "their current health plan" before the new law was passed. The data is too scattershot to know how large or small the percentage is, but it seems reasonable to assume that the number is not trivial. In fact, the percentage could well be higher than the administration's lower- to mid-level projections for de-grandfathering.

Why does this matter? Because knowing that many workers every year are already required to change plans -- even if they like them -- would provide a different impression of the statistics Farenthold cites.

And this confusion owes a lot to Obama’s original promise.

When Obama said, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan," he never acknowledged that many working Americans were already unable to keep the same coverage every year. That set up an unrealistic perception of what the health care bill would do -- and it gave his opponents a perfect opportunity to make the bill’s impact seem problematic.
Later he modified the claim to say that if you "already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor that you have." But by the time Obama changed how he made this point, it was already too late -- his opponents had seized on the initial comment and cited it repeatedly.

That said, this item is about Farenthold’s claim, not Obama’s, and we find problems with it. If Farenthold is using the administration’s estimates for lost grandfather status, he’s taken the most extreme point on a wide range of possible outcomes. More important, it’s not clear that an employee whose plan loses grandfather status would be losing his current health plan in anything more than a technical sense; many workers could actually end up with a more generous plan. Finally, Farenthold ignores that many employees lose their current health plans for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the health care law. To suggest that the law is the reason for 70 percent of employees being forced off their plans, as Farenthold does, ignores all other reasons for such changes. And he is incorrect when he says the Obama administration predicted that. We rate the statement False.

About this statement:

Published: Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011 at 6:25 p.m.
Subjects: Health Care, Workers
Sources:
Blake Farenthold, "Rep. Blake Farenthold: The reasons I voted to undo ObamaCare" (op-ed in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times), Jan. 23, 2011

HealthCare.gov, "Keeping the Health Plan You Have: The Affordable Care Act and 'Grandfathered' Health Plans," June 14, 2010

U.S. Census Bureau Survey of Income and Program Participation, "Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Health Insurance 1996-1999," August 2003

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey" (main search page), accessed Feb. 2, 2011

PolitiFact, "Barack Obama promises you can keep your health insurance, but there's no guarantee," Aug 11, 2009

PolitiFact, "Health insurance stays in place under reform proposals," Sep. 9, 2009
Washington Post, "New health-care rules could add costs, and benefits, to some insurance plans," June 15, 2010
Interview with Michael Tanner, senior fellow with the Cato Institute, Feb. 1, 2011

E-mail interview with Henry Aaron, senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, Feb. 1, 2011

E-mail interview with Edwin Park, health policy co-director at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Feb. 2, 2011

E-mail interview with Gary Burtless, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Feb. 1, 2011

E-mail interview with Beth Umland, head of research for Mercer's health & benefits consulting practice, Feb. 2, 2011

E-mail interview with Jeffrey A. Rhoades, statistician with the U.S. Department Health and Human Services' Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Feb. 2, 2011
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Martha Hamilton

How Much Would It Cost to Repeal Health Care Reform? from MOJO 4JAN11

WHAT the gop and tea-baggers aren't tell us about their plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act, from Mother Jones

— By Suzy Khimm

Republicans have released their health-care repeal bill—snappily titled "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act"—which the party has now scheduled for a vote on January 12. The bill would repeal every part of the Affordable Care Act except for an overhaul of the student loan industry.
One thing the bill won't include, however, is a price tag. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that health care reform would save an estimated $143 billion over the next 10 years. According to that figure, repealing the law would add the same amount to the deficit. Republicans, however, have dismissed the CBO's estimates, arguing that Democrats have gamed the number by front-loading the legislation with savings in the first decade and that the law would cost taxpayers in the long run. As a result, they've refused to let the CBO score their repeal bill.
Democrats, in the meantime, have backed off their line that health care reform will save the country money—not because of the substance of their argument, but  because it hasn't proven politically popular with voters, according to Politico. So Democrats have basically conceded that Republicans have won the message war when it comes to the price tag of health reform, and taxpayers have little way of confirming exactly how much the GOP repeal effort could end up costing them.

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• Healthcare Reform and the Public

• The Dems' Wasted Opportunity on Health Reform

  In the message war on health care reform, Republicans are still winning.

• Health Care Reform: All In Vain?

  A federal judge strikes down part of the health care law—and rewrites the Constitution.

• Why the Health Care Repeal Movement Is Failing

  Even conservative opponents have praise for the law's most popular provisions--and swing voters don't want to junk it either.

DEFEND THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT from HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA NOW 5JAN11

A CALL TO ACTION TO DEFEND HEALTH CARE REFORM PASSED BY CONGRESS LAST YEAR, to sign the petition click the links or header, and share with family and friends. Check out the article about the hypocritical House members who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act but aren't willing to forgo their own government subsidized health care below and the entire earlier post on this blog REP STEVE KING (R IA) WON'T GIVE UP GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE DESPITE BASHING REFORM 5JAN11
It’s here. The first day of the 112^th Congress with its Republican majority bought and paid for by Wall Street-run corporations and their shill groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It comes as no surprise that one of the Republicans’ first items is to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and all the benefits and consumer protections that are making a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans right now .¹ What are they replacing it with? NOTHING.

Click here to automatically sign the petition that says: "Republicans in Congress shouldn't give our health care back to the insurance companies and sentence more than 30000 Americans a year to death because they can't afford health insurance."

Everyone already knows that the Republican Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the health insurance industry² and other profit-hungry corporations. In case there was any doubt, the Republicans have hired insurance and health care industry lobbyists for key positions on committees and members’ staffs.³ So far, two health care industry lobbyists have joined the powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over health care legislation. One of them was named staff director. In addition, a top lobbyist from the medical device industry has joined Boehner’s staff as policy director.⁴

Click here to automatically sign our petition.  When you cut through the political hyperbole the GOP’s search-and-destroy mission is serious business. Thankfully we have a strong Democratic caucus in the House and a majority in the Senate to fight back.  The repeal vote in the House scheduled for next week is part of an all-out assault on the new law in the Congress

After a century of legislative and political combat over health care, working families and small businesses and ended the insurance companies’ stranglehold on our health care. Naturally, Boehner wants to roll back the new health care law and let the health insurance companies resume their reign of terror. That’s why Boehner and his band of corporate shills, including House Majority Leader Eric Cantor⁵, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell⁶ and a raft of presidential wannabes⁷, have made repealing the health care law the top priority for 2011 for the Republican Party.

Click and automatically sign our petition.  Now is the time for us to send this Congress a message.  We will not go back.  We will not let them play partisan political games with our rights as consumers or with the lives of our families.

In Solidarity,

Melinda Gibson
Health Care for America Now

1. http://www.healthcare.gov
2. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/24/anthony-weiner-subsidiary/
3. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/gop-turns-to-k-st-to-unravel-health-care-law.php
4. http://www2.nationaljournal.com/member/daily/boehner-taps-top-lobbyist-to-be-policy-director-20101209
5. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7016891n
6. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/21/key-health-care-opponent-ambushed-with-cash/
7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/28/elections-2012-_n_801856.html

Rep Steve King (R IA) Won't Give Up Government Health Care, Despite Bashing Reform & Rep.-Elect Walsh Joins Just Four Other Republicans In Forgoing Government Health Care For Themselves 5JAN11

TYPICAL of political hypocrisy, especially among the gop and tea-baggers, Rep steve king (r IA) will keep his federally subsidized health insurance.....he has his, why should he care about the rest of the country? Bet he votes for repealing health care reform too....
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a fervent opponent of last year's health care law, said Tuesday that he had no plans to give up his own federally subsidized health plan, despite saying that others "standing on this principle" deserved some praise.
"I don't intend to pull off of it, but I give [incoming Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.)] a lot of credit for that," King said on CNN. "I went to Chicago to help him in the campaign, and I give him a lot of credit for standing on this principle."
Earlier Tuesday, Walsh reiterated his intention to forgo his congressional health care plan because he saw it as a conflict of interest in his battle against the Democratic health care law.
"My wife and I now are going to have to go through the struggles that a lot of Americans go through, trying to find insurance in the individual market and having to deal with problems of preexisting conditions," Walsh said.
ThinkProgress reports that Walsh is one of five representatives who opposed the law and have decided to reject their own government plans. In doing so, they have accepted a challenge from Democrats, who last year asked Republicans to "walk that walk" on turning down the type of "affordable health care" they say the overhaul bill makes more available to Americans.

The new year brings health-care changes 1JAN11

More benefits from the health care reform legislation passed last year....the only people who loose out are the greedy executives of the insurance companies because now they have to spend money paid to them by their clients for care for their clients! WHAT A CONCEPT! Health insurance companies paying for health care!!!!!



The new year will bring important changes to U.S. health insurance rules, as new provisions related to last year's health-care overhaul take effect.
The new rules are designed to help those caught in Medicare's prescription drug "doughnut hole," offer seniors more preventive care, and limit how much of customers' money health-insurance companies can keep for overhead and profit.
They all go into effect Saturday.
These provisions were not affected by a Dec. 13 federal court ruling in Virginia that declared another piece of the new health-care law - the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance - unconstitutional.
The judge allowed implementation of the overhaul to continue until a higher court rules on the issue.
The new rules include:
l A provision that limits what health insurers can do with the money their customers send in as premiums.
The rule requires that insurers spend at least 80 percent of this money on the customers themselves. The companies must either spend this money to pay insurance claims or use it for activities that improve customers' health.
For policies that are sold to large groups instead of small companies and individuals, the number is even higher: 85 percent. The remaining 15 or 20 percent of the money can be used for company salaries, marketing and overhead - or kept as profit.
Previously, there was no federal restriction on insurance companies' spending. The federal government says some insurers kept 30 or even 50 percent.
Insurance companies say this could cause them to cut back on the services they offer, or even pull out of states where administrative costs are higher.
State officials also worry that the companies might cut the fees they pay to insurance brokers. That, they fear, would eliminate key middlemen who help individuals navigate a complicated insurance system.
l A provision that provides prescription drug discounts for seniors who find themselves in Medicare's "doughnut hole."
The doughnut hole is a controversial gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit passed in 2006. In 2010, for instance, Medicare paid for part of the cost of drugs - until the total cost of the drugs hit $2,830.
After that, seniors were responsible for 100 percent of the cost of their drugs, until they had spent $3,610 of their own money. That was the other side of the doughnut hole, and federal insurance kicked in again.
This provision will give Medicare recipients stuck in the doughnut hole a 50 percent discount on the price of brand-name prescription drugs. Health-care activists are worried, however, that drugmakers will jack up their prices. In that case, customers would receive 50 percent off that higher number - which might not be much less than what they were paying before.
l A rule giving seniors free screenings for cancer and other diseases.
Nearly all Medicare beneficiaries will be able to receive for free all "preventive services" screenings given an A or B rating by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. That could include mammograms, colorectal cancer screening, bone mass measurement and nutritional counseling. Medicare will also provide one free "wellness visit" per year for patients who want a checkup.
l The creation of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. This new agency is aimed at slowing down the rapid rise of health-care costs. It is supposed to foster innovation in both caring for patients and processing their payments and claims.

White House White Board: Health Reform & Rate Review 21DEZ10

AMERICA continues to realize benefits from health care reform passed earlier this year, including protection from premium rate increases based on insurance company greed. This from HHS
For the past decade, Americans have seen double-digit health insurance premium increases.  From 2000 to 2010, premiums rose 114 percent and nothing suggests that the quality of insurance coverage improved.  In many cases, insurance companies had free reign and weren’t held accountable when they attempted to raise rates on consumers. Only 26 states and the District of Columbia can reject premium increases that are excessive or unjustified, and many of these states lack the resources to use this authority to protect consumers.
That’s beginning to change.  Here’s how:
First, the Affordable Care Act gives states $250 million to enhance their rate review procedures so they can better protect consumers and stop unreasonable premium hikes from taking effect. 46 states and the District of Columbia have already received a share of these resources and they’re using the new funds to make more information about premiums available to the public and get the authority they need to oversee the insurance marketplace and protect consumers.
Second, the Affordable Care Act brings new transparency to the health insurance market by requiring insurance companies to publicly justify any unreasonable premium increases.  Under the new rules, if an insurance company proposes to raise rates by 10% or more, they must publicly disclose on their own, as well as HHS’ website the justification for the increase. The appropriate state insurance commissioner or, if a State does not have an effective rate review process, HHS, will then review the insurance company’s justification to determine whether or not the increase is justified.  In some states like, Washington and Maine, all new insurance premium rates, regardless of whether they are below 10% need to be approved by the state insurance commissioner’s office ahead of time, and will continue to be reviewed moving forward.
Shining a bright light on health insurance premium increases and conducting aggressive rate review will help control costs for American families. And we know rate review works. States like Washington and Maine have strong review laws that have been effective at protecting their residents from out-of-control premium increases.  And just recently, Connecticut regulators recently rejected a proposed 20 percent rate increase that would have impacted 48,000 consumers after their review found that such an increase was unjustified and excessive.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has recorded a new White House White Board video to explain just how this new rule works, and how rate review helps states review and crack down on unjustified premium hikes and protect consumers:

Stephanie Cutter is Assistant to the President for Special Projects

Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans 18DEZ10

A candid article by the former senior executive of cigna and their fight to defeat health care reform to protect their profits...I saw Wendell Potter on The Countdown a couple of weeks ago, Keith Olbermann interviewd him and Michael Moore and Mr Potter apologized to Mr Moore on the air for his lies, deception and propaganda campaign against Michael Moore's documentary 'Sicko' .

As the former senior exec for CIGNA, Wendell Potter details the health insurance industry's dirty tactics at garnering both public and presidential support.

The following is an excerpt from Wendell Potter's new book, Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans (Bloomsbury Press, 2010).

The Beginning
“My name is Wendell Potter and for twenty years, I worked as a senior executive at health insurance companies, and I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick— all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors.”
 
That is how I introduced myself to the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on June 24, 2009. The committee’s chair, Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., had asked me to testify as part of his investigation into health insurance company practices that for years had been swelling the ranks of the uninsured and the underinsured in the United States.

I explained how insurance companies make promises they have no intention of keeping, how they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and how they make it nearly impossible to understand—or even obtain—information needed by consumers. I described how for-profit insurance companies, in their constant quest to meet Wall Street’s profit expectations, routinely cancel the coverage of policy-holders who get sick, and how they “purge” small businesses when their employees’ medical claims exceed what underwriters expected.

I knew that as soon as I said those words my life would change forever. It did—but in ways I never could have imagined.

I had quit my job as head of public relations at CIGNA—a job that had paid me deep into six figures—because I could no longer serve in good conscience as a spokesman for an industry whose routine practices amount to a death sentence for thousands of Americans every year.

I did not intend to go public as a critic of the industry. But it gradually became clear to me that the industry’s duplicitous PR strategy was going to manipulate public opinion and likely shape health care reform in ways that would benefit insurance company executives and their Wall Street masters far more than most other Americans.

I was eventually compelled to pull back the curtain on the industry’s deception-based PR strategy, which comprised two active fronts. One was a highly visible “charm offensive” designed to create an image of the industry as an advocate of reform—and a good-faith partner with the president and Congress in achieving it. The second front was a secret, fearmongering campaign using front groups and business and political allies as shills to disseminate misinformation and lies, with the sole intent of killing any reform that might hinder profits.

I had left my job at CIGNA in May 2008, but it wasn’t until 10 months later that I realized I couldn’t stay on the sidelines. As it turned out, it would be a fellow Tennessean who gave me one of the final shoves off the sidelines and into the spotlight and the new role of whistle-blower, as many people have called me.

It was March 5, 2009, and I was channel surfing for some news about the health care reform summit that President Obama was holding at the White House that day. Of the 120 or so people at the summit, many were from special interests that had the largest stakes financially in a reformed health care system: doctors, hospitals, drug and medical- device manufacturers, and, of course, insurers. Knowing that these groups had played a lead role in killing Bill and Hillary Clinton’s reform plan 15 years earlier, Obama wanted to keep them from doing the same this time around. Having campaigned as someone who could bring people with diverse points of view together to work toward the common good, Obama had brought the top lobbyists of each special interest group to his kickoff reform “table”—which the Clintons had not done—and openly solicited the groups’ support and cooperation. To win their support, his administration would eventually cut side deals with some of them, most notably the drugmakers.

I flipped to MSNBC just as Tamron Hall was getting ready to interview Republican representative Zach Wamp, from Tennessee’s Third Congressional District. I’m also from east Tennessee, although I have lived in Philadelphia since CIGNA relocated me to the company’s headquarters there in 1997. I grew up in Mountain City and Kingsport, both in the northeastern part of the state near the Virginia line. Wamp lives in Chattanooga, in the southeastern part of the state near the Georgia line.

When Hall asked Wamp about his views on the president’s ideas for reform, he just about called Obama a Marxist: “It’s probably the next major step toward socialism. I hate to sound so harsh, but ... this literally is a fast march toward socialism, where the government is bigger than the private sector in our country, and health care’s the next major step, so we oughta all be worried about it.”

He then started accusing the Democrats of wanting to redistribute wealth in the country by taking money away from those who already had health care to pay for those who didn’t have it, many of whom, in his view, were just irresponsible bums waiting for a handout.

“Listen,” he said. “The forty-five million people that don’t have health insurance—about half of them choose not to have health insurance. Half of ’em don’t have any choice, but half of ’em choose to, what’s called ‘go naked,’ and just take a risk of getting sick. They end up in the emergency room, costing you and me a whole lot more money. How many illegal immigrants are in this country today, getting our health care? Gobs of ’em!”

As I listened to Wamp’s rant, I knew exactly where he’d gotten his talking points: from me.

He was using the same misleading, intentionally provocative and xenophobic talking points that I had helped write while serving on the Strategic Communications Advisory Committee of the insurers’ biggest trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). We PR types had created those talking points, with help from language and polling experts, and given them to the industry’s lobbyists with instructions to get them into the hands of every “friendly” member of Congress. Most of the friendly ones were Republicans, and most were friendly because they had received a lot of money over the years in campaign contributions from insurance company executives and their political action committees.

(In spirited remarks on the House floor shortly before the vote on final reform legislation in 2010, Representative Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., called the Republican Party a “wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry.” As someone who had managed CIGNA’s PAC contributions for several years, I knew Weiner’s remark had the ring of truth. CIGNA and other big insurers have contributed considerably more to Republicans than to Democrats.)

I was dismayed to hear Wamp’s demagogic remarks— and not just because I’d had a hand in writing his script, but also because I know his district well. If anybody in America could benefit from the Democrats’ vision of reform, it would be those who live in the counties he represents. Many are rural and remote, with high percentages of people who are either uninsured or underinsured. The per capita and house hold incomes in most of his counties are far below the national average. Yet the Third District’s representative—contrary to the best interests of his constituents— was saying exactly what the insurance industry wanted him to say.

Later that evening, I saw a couple of TV reports about the summit. One of the clips featured Karen Ignagni, AHIP’s president, standing up at the summit and telling the president he could count on her and the health insurance industry.

“Thank you, Mr. President,” she said. “Thank you for inviting us to participate in this forum. I think, on behalf of our entire membership, they would want to be able to say to you this afternoon and everyone here that we understand we have to earn a seat at this table. We’ve already offered a comprehensive series of proposals. We want to work with you. We want to work with the members of Congress on a bipartisan basis here. You have our commitment. We hear the American people about what’s not working.  We’ve taken that seriously.”

Turning in one of her best performances to date, she added, “You have our commitment to play, to contribute, and to help pass health care reform this year.”

The president— having just been played like a Stradivarius by one of the best lobbyists ever to hit Washington—said, “Good. Thank you, Karen. That’s good news. That’s America’s Health Insurance Plans.”

The crowd cheered and applauded. They all seemed to be buying it—but I wasn’t, not by a long shot. I wasn’t surprised, either, at the president’s and the crowd’s reactions to what she had said.

Ignagni is one of the most effective communicators and—with a salary and bonuses of $1.94 million in 2008—one of the highest-paid special interest advocates in Washington. I’ve known her since she left the AFL-CIO in the early 1990s to lead one of AHIP’s predecessors, the Group Health Association of America, an HMO trade group of which Humana was a member when I worked for that insurer. I knew from the first time I met her that she was the perfect choice to lead the insurance industry. She is smart, telegenic, articulate, charming, a strong leader, and a brilliant strategist. Following her success in shaping to her industry’s liking the legislation creating the Medicare prescription drug program, Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt commented, “Whatever AHIP pays her is not enough.”

I realized after watching the exchange between Ignagni and Obama that I had seen both sides of the industry’s duplicitous PR campaign in a single day. Ignagni was saying what she knew the president and the inside-the-Beltway crowd wanted to hear, while Wamp was saying what the industry wanted him to say to the rest of the world. He was a tool in the industry’s effort to use “third parties” to kill key elements of the president’s plan, if not all of it, by scaring and lying to the public.

But it was another televised interview the following Monday that pushed me from the sidelines and into the fray. Four days after the White House summit, Chris Matthews was interviewing Mike Tuffin, AHIP’s executive vice president of strategic communications, on his MSNBC show, Hardball. “The same people who helped kill the Clintons’ efforts back in the ’90s are on the other side now,” Matthews said in introducing Tuffin. “Times have changed. The worm has turned. The cosmos has shifted. Some of the bad guys are becoming perhaps the good guys.”

There was no doubt about it: Tuffin was on the show as part of AHIP’s charm offensive.

“This time,” he told Matthews, “we’re coming to the table with solutions. We want to be part of the process. We pledged that to the president.  We’re calling for new regulations on our industry to make sure everyone has guaranteed access to coverage.” He thus joined Ignagni in spinning the fiction that, for the first time ever, insurers were willing to accept more regulations and change their ways so that everybody in America could “have access to affordable, quality care” (a favorite term of industry leaders).

And just like Obama, Matthews seemed to be falling for it.

Copyright 2010 - Bloomsbury Press: All Rights Reserved

Wendell Potter, former vice-president of corporate communications at CIGNA, is the author of 'Deadly Spin: An Insurance Company Insider Speaks Out on How Corporate PR Is Killing Health Care and Deceiving Americans' (Bloomsbury Press).

Your Health Care Dollars 3DEZ10

HERE'S an update on the Affordable Care Act (health care reform bill passed earlier this year), enactment of the provision starting in 2011 requiring insurance companies to spend 80% of insurance premiums on health care not on overhead or executive compensation, and if they don't do it they have to pay out rebates starting in 2012. This is what the gop and tea-baggers oppose.......I wonder why????? GREED?????

Over the past few years, many Americans have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket, while the quality of their health care declined. One of the reasons I pushed so hard to pass health care reform this year was to make sure that American consumers get what they pay for when it comes to their health care. Today, we're launching a new provision of the Affordable Care Act that does exactly that. Next year, insurance companies will be required to spend at least 80 percent of the health insurance premiums you pay on your health care, instead of overhead costs like advertising and executive compensation.  If they don't, they will be required to give you a rebate or cut your premiums starting in 2012. I asked Nancy-Ann DeParle, the Director of the Office of Health Reform here at the White House, to break down what this means for you and why it's so important: This new rules will make our health care marketplace more transparent and ensure you get the best value for your premium dollars. And it is just one of the many parts of the Affordable Care Act that are already making our health care system stronger. Here are just a few ways the Affordable Care Act is helping you and your family: HealthCare.gov. This new website helps you find private health insurance coverage that's right for you and your family and now allows you to compare pricing for the options available to you.  In 2014, there will be many more affordable private plan choices. Patient's Bill of Rights. Insurance companies can no longer place lifetime limits on your care.  If you're a young adult under the age of 26, you can stay on your parents' plan, and if your child has a pre-existing condition, insurance companies can't deny his or her coverage. Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. If you have a pre-existing condition and are having a problem finding coverage, the Affordable Care Act created a special insurance plan just for you.  Help for Small Businesses. If you're a small business owner, you may be eligible for tax credits to help provide insurance for your employees.   Free Preventive Care. If you're purchasing a new plan, you’ll get preventive care like cancer screenings, well-baby and well-child check-ups, and blood pressure or diabetes tests for free. These aren't just talking points. These changes are saving people’s lives and saving you money, and we will continue our work to implement this landmark law and make our health care system better for all of us. Sincerely, President Barack Obama P.S. Nancy-Ann's video follows a few others from the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Austan Goolsbee, who explains some important economic policies.  You can see them all here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/whiteboard

A Second Federal Judge Holds That The Affordable Care Act Is Constitutional 30NOV10

AGAIN federal courts have ruled the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, a big smack down of the gop and tea-baggers in their fight for the greed of the insurance companies and corporate America. Yet these right wing fanatics will continue to waste tax payers money and clog the courts with these frivolous lawsuits and spreading lies, manipulating their supporters with their propaganda....pathetic....See earlier post on this blog 'ENTITLEMENT HYPOCRISY & GOP FROSH: WHERE'S MY HEALTHCARE? 19NOV10', '$86.2 MILLION DOLLARS & HEALTHCARE LAW GIVES NOTABLE IMPROVEMENT TO DEBT OUTLOOK IF IMPLEMENTED:GAO REPORT 18NOV10', AND 'HEALTH CARE REFORM CHALLENGE REJECTED BY SUPREME COURT 12NOV10'.


Last month, the first judge ever to consider the issue reached the obviously correct conclusion that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.  Today, a second federal judge reached the same conclusion.  The lengthy opinion by Judge Norman Moon of the Western District of Virginia gives several reasons why the Act’s provision requiring all Americans to either carry insurance or pay slightly higher income taxes easily fits within Congress’ broad authority to regulate the national economy, including the fact that striking down this provision would make it impossible to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to persons with preexisting conditions:

The conduct regulated by the individual coverage provision is also within the scope of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause because it is rational to believe the failure to regulate the uninsured would undercut the Act’s larger regulatory scheme for the interstate health care market. The Act institutes a number of reforms of the interstate insurance market to increase the availability and affordability of health insurance, including the requirement that insurers guarantee coverage for all individuals, even those with preexisting medical conditions. As Congress stated in its findings, the individual coverage provision is “essential” to this larger regulatory scheme because, without it, individuals would postpone health insurance until they need substantial care, at which point the Act would obligate insurers to cover them at the same cost as everyone else. This would increase the cost of health insurance and decrease the number of insured individuals—precisely the harms that Congress sought to address with the Act’s regulatory measures.

Today’s decision is just another nail in the coffin of the many meritless lawsuits challenging health reform.  While conservatives have touted a pair of procedural victories they won in two high-profile lawsuits, the fact remains that every single judge to consider merits of these challenges has upheld the law.  Indeed, even ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has indicated that he agrees with today’s decision.  As Scalia wrote in Gonzales v. Raich, “where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.”

$86.2 MILLION DOLLARS & Health Care Law Gives 'Notable Improvement' To Debt Outlook If Implemented: GAO Report 15NOV10

THE insurance companies have $200 million to spend on fighting health care reform and to get the law repealed. Imagine the health care they could have provided with that money! Shows where their priorities are.....Check out the interactive map to find out how health care reform is benefiting your state and the GAO report on reforms deficit reduction benefit.

$86.2 Million

Posted by Stephanie Cutter on November 17, 2010 at 01:12 PM EST

Today, Bloomberg News reported that big insurance companies – companies like UnitedHealth Group Inc. and Cigna Corp – spent $86.2 million to fight health insurance reform in 2009.  Insurance companies and their allies were desperate to preserve their ability to discriminate against you if you had a preexisting condition, drop your care when you got sick and limit the amount of care you could receive in a year or a lifetime.
Thankfully, they didn’t succeed, but some folks still want to take us back to the bad old days when insurance companies had all the power and doctors and patients took a back seat. In fact, the New York Times recently reported that since the law was passed, opponents of reform spent $108 million on negative television advertisements about the law. And these powerful interests may spend millions more opposing reform in the future.
Millions of Americans are already benefitting from the law.  Americans like Dawn Josephson of Florida, whose child finally received comprehensive health insurance coverage, even though he had a pre-existing condition and Jennifer Restemayer of North Dakota, whose daughter Allison was diagnosed with a rare disease. Jennifer feared hear daughter would hit her lifetime benefit cap until reform made those benefit caps illegal. You can read their stories and many more by visiting our 50 States/50 Stories map on WhiteHouse.gov/HealthReform.
Some may be willing to spend millions to take us backwards, but we will continue to move forward by fighting for Americans like Dawn and Jennifer and delivering the benefits of reform to the American people.
Stephanie Cutter is Assistant to the President for Special Projects

Health Care Law Gives 'Notable Improvement' To Debt Outlook If Implemented: GAO Report

A new non-partisan report finds that the cumulative effects of President Obama's health care reform package would be beneficial for the government's efforts at debt reduction if the law is implemented fully.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office put out a report on Monday afternoon that provides some welcome news for defenders of the Affordable Care Act and, perhaps, a bit of pause for those eager to overturn or de-fund the legislation. The debt is an increasingly dire crisis, the investigative arm of Congress found. But one thing alleviating the problem, though by no means eliminating it, is the health care reform package passed this past spring.

The federal government faces long-term fiscal pressures that predate the economic downturn and are driven on the spending side largely by rising health care costs and an aging population. GAO's simulations show continually increasing levels of debt that are unsustainable over the long-term. Under the Alternative simulation, debt held by the public as a share of GDP would exceed the historical high reached in the aftermath of World War II by 2020. Both of these simulations incorporate effects of health care legislation enacted in March 2010, which includes a number of provisions to control the growth of federal health care spending. There is a notable improvement in the long-term outlook under the Baseline Extended simulation, which assumes full implementation and effectiveness of cost control provisions.

(Emphasis is ours)
The report goes on to air skepticism from Social Security Trustees, the Congressional Budget Office and the CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) Actuary that those cost control provisions will be put in place or, for that matter, that they will be "sustainable" over time. But that is a problem that reform advocates would argue is worth having. Better to tinker with the cost control mechanisms, after all, then to have to restructure an entire bill because it failed to control costs in the first place.
It's also worth noting that the GAO was fairly judicious with how they calculated its projections. It was assumed, for instance, that Congress would pass some form of a "doc-fix" in which Medicare physician payment rates were adjusted to "grow with inflation." The GAO also took into account the federal spending for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and subsidies for the newly created health insurance exchanges.
Even with these costs assumed, the overall grade for health care reform is a positive one, even if the country's fiscal future is deemed dour.
"These long-term simulations show that absent additional policy actions the federal government faces unsustainable growth in debt," the GAO reports. "Health care legislation enacted earlier this year has the potential to slow the growth of federal health care spending. However, even under the more optimistic Baseline Extended scenario, which assumes the full implementation and effectiveness of cost control provisions, debt grows continuously over the long term indicating that more needs to be done."

Story continues below

HERE IS THE GAO'S REPORT:

GAOhealthcare

Boehner and the Republicans Didn't Win a Majority to Deny Our Care 3NOV10

EVERYBODY who worked so hard to get this passed, grass-roots activist, progressive groups, politicians in Congress, many who will not be back in JAN 2011, can be very proud of this legislation, and be assured that while the gop and their fanatical tea-bagger allies will concentrate on repealing it, the legislation is safe from them, and the American people are going to benefit. This from Health Care For America Now.

Here's a crucial fact that should not be obscured by the ballyhoo surrounding the shift in control of the House: Most of the Republicans who won last night got a lower percentage at the ballot box than the percentage of Americans who support the new health care law's requirement that insurance companies cover people regardless of pre-existing medical conditions.
That's why yesterday was hardly a repudiation of the health care law.

Furthermore, this election was clearly dominated by voter worries about the economy and jobs. Only 19 percent of voters named health care as their top concern, a distant second to the 61 percent most focused on the economy, according to CNN. There were winners and losers among both supporters and opponents of health reform. For example, more than half of the 34 Democrats who voted against the health care legislation still lost their races.

After a wildly toxic political debate over the issue, people are split over the larger question of "reform" and key components of the law enjoy overwhelming public support. Specifically, over the last several months, even as the public has been divided on reform, two-thirds of Americans have supported the outlawing of pre-existing condition exclusions (Anzalone Liszt Research poll conducted for the Herndon Alliance of 1,000 2010 likely voters, conducted April 19-25, 2010. Margin of error +/-3%). For example, while a recent New York Times/CBS poll showed the public split over on the new law, only one-quarter of repeal supporters stuck with their position when told repeal would mean that insurance companies would no longer be required to cover people with medical conditions or prior illnesses.

This is the reality even after a contentious political season marked by an unprecedented deluge of attack ads that spread one lie after another about health reform. In fact, opponents of the new law spent $108 million since March to advertise against it - six times more than supporters.

That's something members of the new Republican majority will have to navigate as they square real-world legislative proposals on health care (if they have any) with their campaign rhetoric about repeal. They may try on Day One to repeal the health care law's individual mandate, but they can't do that without also throwing out the many new consumer protections, including the prohibition on insurers denying people care simply because they're sick or ending lifetime limits on coverage. Both of those provisions are more popular with the American public than the Republicans are.

The Republicans also talk about de-funding the law, interfering with its implementation and holding endless oversight hearings to gratuitously harass Obama administration officials. That's not progress, that's pointless, cynical politics.

We all know that the law is not going to be repealed, so the debateisn't going to be about what gets done--it will be about defining whose side members of Congress are on. For Republican repeal-mongers, that will be clear. They're for the insurance companies and against consumers.

The Republicans want to protect the excessive profits of the insurance companies and the bloated salaries of company CEOs, no matter how badly that hurts America's consumers. That's what repeal means. It means rolling back the clock and letting the insurance companies deny people coverage due to pre-existing conditions and drop people's coverage when they get sick. It means that small businesses will continue paying higher rates for health insurance than big corporations. It means repealing measures to cut down waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare. It means opposing much-needed relief in prescription drug costs for seniors. That's the Republican repeal agenda - the insurance companies get the profits and we get the shaft.

The American people don't want to give our health care back to the insurance companies. Repeal would cause real harm to real people. That may not matter to the Republican majority, but it matters a great deal to the people they now represent.

---

 

PATIENT'S BILL OF RIGHTS

It's been less than four months since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act -- and, because of reform, about 1 million uninsured Americans are expected to receive coverage by next year. And that's just the start. A new bill of rights for patients is starting to take effect, and the worst abuses of the insurance industry are coming to an end. As the President recently announced, the Patient's Bill of Rights will ban rescission of coverage, stop discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions, and place restrictions on annual limits. This is an incredibly important first step for reform, and we need your help. We've put together an information sheet that breaks down exactly what the Patient's Bill of Rights does. To start spreading the word in your own community, print it out and pass it along to your friends, post in your local coffee shop and grocery store, or bring it along with you when going door-to-door. There are those who still aren't sure about health reform, but as the law takes effect, we have a new opportunity to convince the skeptics. OFA supporters are the very best communicators and organizers in communities all across the county -- you can bring the debate out of D.C. and into your town, and this information sheet is a great tool we believe will help. The Affordable Care Act works to put consumers back in charge of their health coverage and care. And because of the Patient's Bill of Rights, Americans can know that their insurance will be there when they need it most. The more information sheets we put in visible places, the stronger the message we'll send about our support for health reform and President Obama. Share it with your friends. Mail it to your family members. If you're a medical professional, post it in your office or waiting room. Be creative -- anything you do will be a huge help in making sure Americans understand what the new law does for them. Will you help us make the case for change? Download your information sheet and share the Patient's Bill of Rights with five friends today: http://my.barackobama.com/patientsbillofrights Thanks, Mitch Mitch Stewart Director Organizing for America
“Starting in September, some of the worst abuses will be banned forever. No more discriminating against children with pre-existing conditions. No more retroactively dropping somebody’s policy when they get sick if they made an unintentional mistake on an application. No more lifetime limits or restrictive annual limits on coverage. Those days are over.” – PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA President Obama announced a Patient’s Bill of Rights made possible under health reform—a basic set of consumer protections that end some of the health insurance companies’ worst abuses. The Patient’s Bill of Rights: 1. Prevents insurance companies from canceling your policy if you get sick. Right now, insurance companies can retroactively cancel your policy when you become sick if you or your employer made an unintentional mistake on your paperwork. 2. Stops insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Beginning in September, discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions will be banned—a protection that will be extended to all Americans in 2014. 3. Prohibits setting lifetime limits on insurance policies issued or renewed after Sept. 23, 2010. No longer will insurance companies be able to take away coverage at the very moment when patients need it most. More than 100 million Americans have health coverage that imposes lifetime limits on care. 4. Phases out annual dollar limits on coverage over the next three years. Even more aggressive than lifetime limits are annual dollar limits on what an insurance company will pay for your health care. For the people with medical costs that hit these limits, the consequences can be devastating. 5. Allows you to designate any available participating primary care doctor as your provider. You’ll be able to keep the primary care doctor or pediatrician you choose, and see an OB-GYN without referral. 6. Removes insurance company barriers to receiving emergency care and prevents them from charging you more because you’re out of network. You’ll be able to get emergency care at a hospital outside of your plan’s network without facing higher co-pays or deductibles or having to fight to get approval first. The Patient’s Bill of Rights starts to take effect this fall—but the benefits for individuals and families under health care reform don’t stop there. Over the course of the next several years, the historic health reform law will make care more affordable, hold insurers accountable, and finally give all Americans the coverage they deserve. To learn more about what’s in the health care reform bill, please visit: WHITEHOUSE.GOV