Showing posts tagged affordable care act.
x

Under the Mountain Bunker

Leave me a message   Location: Colorado. More info here.



» Website

twitter.com/charyl:

    “We have a plan. It’s called Medicare.” ~ Nancy Pelosi →

    Greg Sargent interviewed Nancy Pelosi today, and she clarified what some understood to be her position that Medicare should be “on the table” for deficit reduction (emphasis mine):

    Pelosi insisted that any claims she could support cuts in the program are wrong. “No benefits cuts,” she said flatly. Pelosi added that Dems have already put on the table the type of reform they should continue advocating for: The Affordable Care Act.

    “We gave the blueprint for how we strengthen Medicare in the Affordable Care Act,” Pelosi said, a plan which is still “ripening” and “which does not reduce benefits. It lowers costs to taxpayers, the deficit, and beneficiaries.” She said the only type of Medicare cuts she’s open to are extracting savings via bureaucratic and pharmecutical reforms that don’t touch benefits.

    Pelosi said she hopes Dems frame their defense of Medicare as a matter of values, to remind voters what’s at stake. “It is a value, an ethic, a pillar.”

    […] “The fight of this Congress and beyond will be to preserve Medicare and not have it abolished,” she said. “The three most important issues we should be talking about are Medicare, Medicare, and Medicare.”

    — 3 years ago with 1 note
    #politics  #news  #affordable care act  #democratic plan  #Democrats  #greg sargent  #health insurance  #healthcare  #interview  #Medicare  #Nancy Pelosi  #no benefits cuts  #President Obama  #values 
    Conservative Senators introduce a bill to enrich health insurers and screw over the consumers
This figures: Senate Republicans and two DINOs have introduced a bill to take away money that was designated to go to consumers as part of the Affordable Care Act, in the 80 / 20 ratio:
New Legislation Would Pad Health Insurance Coffers While Screwing Over Consumers

As part of the Affordable Care Act, health insurers must spend at least 80% of the money they earn from premiums on actually providing health care, with the remaining cash used to cover all administrative, advertising and payroll costs. Those insurers with plans that don’t follow this ratio are soon supposed to start giving the extra money back in refunds and discounts. But new legislation introduced in the Senate this week could jeopardize this,while giving insurance companies even more money to stick in their dog pillows.
The bill, introduced by Senator Mary Landrieu (DINO) of Louisiana and co-sponsored by John Isakson (R) of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski (R) of Alaska and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson (DINO), is intended “to preserve consumer and employer access to licensed independent insurance producers“ by eliminating insurance broker commissions from the administrative overhead.

Does that “intent” sound like bullshit to you? Does to me. Broker commissions not coming out of insurance companies’ overhead helps WHO exactly? That’s right. It helps insurance companies and those who receive commissions.

So under the current rules, an insurer that takes in $100 million dollars in premiums must spend $80 million on paying for health care and those broker commissions are included in the remaining $20 million.
But if this bill becomes law, those commissions — let’s just put a number of $3 million on them for this example — would no longer be part of the equation. That would mean the insurer would only have to spend $77.6 million on health care but would now have $22.4 million to use for its own purposes.
The National Association of Insurance found that altering the rule to remove broker compensation will result in a loss of more than 60% of forthcoming rebates for consumers.

Conservatives in Congress like Landrieu, Isakson, Murkowski, and Nelson just can’t stop themselves from fighting for the best interests of the corporations and the one percent.
And, by the way, this is part of Obamacare, part of health care reform, so would all the Republican base voters who hate, hate, hate Obama and the Democratic Party,and pay for health insurance, please explain how this new conservative trick bill will work out better for them personally? I’d like to hear that argument.

    Conservative Senators introduce a bill to enrich health insurers and screw over the consumers

    This figures: Senate Republicans and two DINOs have introduced a bill to take away money that was designated to go to consumers as part of the Affordable Care Act, in the 80 / 20 ratio:

    New Legislation Would Pad Health Insurance Coffers While Screwing Over Consumers

    As part of the Affordable Care Act, health insurers must spend at least 80% of the money they earn from premiums on actually providing health care, with the remaining cash used to cover all administrative, advertising and payroll costs. Those insurers with plans that don’t follow this ratio are soon supposed to start giving the extra money back in refunds and discounts. But new legislation introduced in the Senate this week could jeopardize this,while giving insurance companies even more money to stick in their dog pillows.

    The bill, introduced by Senator Mary Landrieu (DINO) of Louisiana and co-sponsored by John Isakson (R) of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski (R) of Alaska and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson (DINO), is intended “to preserve consumer and employer access to licensed independent insurance producers“ by eliminating insurance broker commissions from the administrative overhead.

    Does that “intent” sound like bullshit to you? Does to me. Broker commissions not coming out of insurance companies’ overhead helps WHO exactly? That’s right. It helps insurance companies and those who receive commissions.

    So under the current rules, an insurer that takes in $100 million dollars in premiums must spend $80 million on paying for health care and those broker commissions are included in the remaining $20 million.

    But if this bill becomes law, those commissions — let’s just put a number of $3 million on them for this example — would no longer be part of the equation. That would mean the insurer would only have to spend $77.6 million on health care but would now have $22.4 million to use for its own purposes.

    The National Association of Insurance found that altering the rule to remove broker compensation will result in a loss of more than 60% of forthcoming rebates for consumers.

    Conservatives in Congress like Landrieu, Isakson, Murkowski, and Nelson just can’t stop themselves from fighting for the best interests of the corporations and the one percent.

    And, by the way, this is part of Obamacare, part of health care reform, so would all the Republican base voters who hate, hate, hate Obama and the Democratic Party,and pay for health insurance, please explain how this new conservative trick bill will work out better for them personally? I’d like to hear that argument.

    — 2 years ago with 1 note
    #news  #politics  #war on the middle class  #affordable care act  #ben nelson  #DINOs  #enriching health insurance companies  #GOP  #health care reform  #John Isakson  #Lisa Murkowski  #Mary Landrieu  #obamacare  #Republicans  #screwing health insurance consumers  #class war  #income redistribution  #one percent  #corporations 
    Catholic cardinal withdraws apology for covering up sex abuse

In an interview this week with Connecticut Magazine, Cardinal Edward Egan, withdrew his 2002 apology for the Church’s handling of the sex-abuse scandal, which was once read in all New York parishes.
A decade after that letter, the former archbishop of New York, and former bishop of Bridgeport, now describes the handling of the priest-abuse crisis under his watch as “incredibly good.” He said of the letter, “I never should have said that,” and added, “I don’t think we did anything wrong.”
“I never had one of these sex abuse cases.” he said, before adding pompously, “If you have another bishop in the United States who has the record I have, I’d be happy to know who he is.” He also claimed that the Church had no obligation to report abuse to the civil authorities.
More…

It’s interesting that so many self-proclaimed Christians, the ones who get a lot of attention or claim to be so religiously devout, seem like they’ve never quite got the hang of being Christlike.  Mahatma Gandhi said, I like your Christ but not your Christians and most of us agree with him completely.
And while we’re on the subject of the Catholic Church, have you caught the ‘row’ over contraception in health care plans that’s been going on lately? Continue…

Catholic Cardinal Edward Egan makes Jesus cry

    Catholic cardinal withdraws apology for covering up sex abuse

    In an interview this week with Connecticut Magazine, Cardinal Edward Egan, withdrew his 2002 apology for the Church’s handling of the sex-abuse scandal, which was once read in all New York parishes.

    A decade after that letter, the former archbishop of New York, and former bishop of Bridgeport, now describes the handling of the priest-abuse crisis under his watch as “incredibly good.” He said of the letter, “I never should have said that,” and added, “I don’t think we did anything wrong.”

    “I never had one of these sex abuse cases.” he said, before adding pompously, “If you have another bishop in the United States who has the record I have, I’d be happy to know who he is.” He also claimed that the Church had no obligation to report abuse to the civil authorities.

    More…

    It’s interesting that so many self-proclaimed Christians, the ones who get a lot of attention or claim to be so religiously devout, seem like they’ve never quite got the hang of being Christlike.  Mahatma Gandhi said, I like your Christ but not your Christians and most of us agree with him completely.

    And while we’re on the subject of the Catholic Church, have you caught the ‘row’ over contraception in health care plans that’s been going on lately? Continue…

    Catholic Cardinal Edward Egan makes Jesus cry

    — 2 years ago with 11 notes
    #news  #politics  #religion  #affordable care act  #cardinal edward egan  #Catholic Church  #catholicism  #contraception  #did nothing wrong  #george weigel  #health care plans  #holy man!  #jesus wept  #no obligation to report abuse to civil authorities  #oy vey  #sex abuse  #withdrew apology  #Catholic FAIL 
    Contraception in health plans and the Catholic Church

    Charles P. Pierce says,

    In arguing for the existence of some mythical “Catholic backlash” to the Obama administration’s decision to require that contraception be included in any health plans sanctioned under the Affordable Care Act, Weigel said the following:

    “This has struck a tribal nerve in Catholicism,” Catholic scholar George Weigel said to Chuck Todd on the Daily Rundown. “The Catholic Church has been beaten up over the last 10 or 11 years and I think Catholics are tired of the government and others beating up on the church.”

    Holy mother of god, to coin a phrase. […] And what are we talking about here?

    The Church has been “beaten up” over the last 10 or 12 years because, at its highest possible echelons, it functioned as an international conspiracy to obstruct justice regarding the crime of sexual assault. In the old formulation, these crimes — which have still gone largely unpunished, as when Bernard Cardinal Law from Boston beat feet to his sinecure at the Basilica Of Our Lady Of The Bullshit Alibi in Rome — were such a “scandal to the faithful” that most of the Catholic laity, here and around the world, were fundamentally disgusted by the sub-primate morality of many of the primates in question. Most Catholics I know don’t believe the Church has taken a beating over the last decade; in fact, they believe a lot of ermined layabouts haven’t gotten half of what they deserve. They’re certainly not as prepared as Weigel apparently is to link the pale and sporadic justice dealt out to the victims of the hierarchy’s monstrous crimes to the current politically driven foolishness regarding whether or not Catholic institutions should have to choose between obeying the law or abandoning some tax breaks. If the White House surrenders in any way to this nonsense, somebody in the political operation should be cleaning out his desk by the end of business today. There is no risk in sticking to your guns here. Unless, of course, E. J. Dionne plans to vote a couple of million times next November.

    No, This Is Why We’ve Been Beating Up on the Church

    (Source: underthemountainbunker.wordpress.com)

    — 2 years ago with 2 notes
    #news  #politics  #religion  #catholic FAIL  #affordable care act  #cardinal edward egan  #Catholic Church  #catholicism  #contraception  #did nothing wrong  #george weigel  #health care plans  #holy man!  #jesus wept  #no obligation to report abuse to civil authorities  #oy vey  #sex abuse  #withdrew apology 
    …
As Number Of Insured Americans Decreases, Affordable Care Act Will Provide More Coverage Options - The number of Americans who received health insurance from their employer dropped again in 2011, continuing a three-year decline. According to a Gallup survey, 44.6 percent were insured through their employers in 2011, compared to 45.8 percent in 2010 and 49.2 percent in 2008. And at the same time, the number of Americans without insurance has increased, growing from 14.8 percent in 2008 to 17.1 percent last year.
WHO BENEFITS? - The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes two primary mechanisms for helping people afford health coverage. Starting in 2014, people with family incomes up to 138% of the poverty level ($31,809 for a family of four and $15,415 for a single person in 2012) will generally be eligible for the Medicaid program. […] On average, an estimated 17% of the non-elderly population nationwide would benefit from the Medicaid expansion and tax credits. In parts of Florida, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and California, 36-40% of population could benefit. In areas of Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, and Connecticut – states that generally have high levels of employer-provided health insurance or have already implemented reforms to make insurance more accessible and affordable – 2-4% of the non-elderly could benefit from the coverage expansions in the ACA.

    As Number Of Insured Americans Decreases, Affordable Care Act Will Provide More Coverage Options - The number of Americans who received health insurance from their employer dropped again in 2011, continuing a three-year decline. According to a Gallup survey, 44.6 percent were insured through their employers in 2011, compared to 45.8 percent in 2010 and 49.2 percent in 2008. And at the same time, the number of Americans without insurance has increased, growing from 14.8 percent in 2008 to 17.1 percent last year.

    WHO BENEFITS? - The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes two primary mechanisms for helping people afford health coverage. Starting in 2014, people with family incomes up to 138% of the poverty level ($31,809 for a family of four and $15,415 for a single person in 2012) will generally be eligible for the Medicaid program. […] On average, an estimated 17% of the non-elderly population nationwide would benefit from the Medicaid expansion and tax credits. In parts of Florida, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, and California, 36-40% of population could benefit. In areas of Massachusetts, Hawaii, New York, and Connecticut – states that generally have high levels of employer-provided health insurance or have already implemented reforms to make insurance more accessible and affordable – 2-4% of the non-elderly could benefit from the coverage expansions in the ACA.

    — 2 years ago with 3 notes
    #news  #politics  #affordable care act  #health insurance  #aca  #affordable health coverage  #obamacare 
    The GOP wants to give your boss “moral” control over your health care →

    It’s been a week of outrage with the Republican Party and healthcare (specifically,women’s), and Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) amendment to the Affordable Care Act is certainly the most despicable contribution of all – or as Elizabeth Warren calls it below, “cold, political calculation“:

    The GOP Plan to Give Your Boss “Moral” Control Over Your Health Insurance | Mother Jones

    Last week, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) offered a “conscience amendment,” to the law, pitching it as a way to allay religious employers’ qualms about providing birth control to their employees.

    But Blunt’s proposal doesn’t just apply to religious employers and birth control. Instead, it would allow any insurer or employer, religiously affiliated or otherwise, to opt out of providing any health care services required by federal law—everything from maternity care to screening for diabetes.Employers wouldn’t have to cite religious reasons for their decision; they could just say the treatment goes against their moral convictions. That exception could include almost anything—an employer could theoretically claim a “moral objection” to the cost of providing a given benefit. The bill would also allow employers to sue if state or federal regulators try to make them comply with the law.

    If Republican leaders get their way and Blunt’s bill becomes law, a boss who regarded overweight people and smokers with moral disgust could exclude coverage of obesity and tobacco screening from his employees’ health plans. A Scientologist employer could deny its employees depression screening because Scientologists believe psychiatry is morally objectionable. A management team that thought HIV victims brought the disease upon themselves could excise HIV screening from its employees’ insurance coverage. Your boss’ personal prejudices, not science or medical expertise, would determine which procedures your insurance would cover for you and your kids.

    “One of the fundamental purposes of the Affordable Care Act was making sure all health insurance plans cover basic services. The Blunt amendment would do away with that,” says Sarah Lipton-Lubet, a policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. “A business could deny coverage for cervical cancer screening for unmarried employees, out of opposition to premarital sex.

    Read more…

    Here’s Jon Stewart describing how he, as an employer, would use Blunt’s amendment on his own employees and their health:


    “Lets just start with what the statute says. The statute says that in effect any employer or any insurance company can decide that it has a personal moral objection to providing any kind of health care coverage for anyone and therefore they’re not going to do it. So, if your employer says, ‘You know, I don’t like that vaccine thing, I’m going to have an insurance policy that doesn’t cover it for your children’… that’s just too bad you’re out there on your own now. This is just a cold political calculation. That they can appeal to the employers and insurance companies, who might not want to spend money, and at the same time try to stir up some kind of misinformation among people of good faith by calling this an attack on religion. I think this is why people really hate politics.” – Elizabeth Warren

    — 2 years ago with 41 notes
    #news  #politics  #religion  #vote!  #affordable care act  #basic services covered  #blunt amendment  #cold political calculation  #conscience amendment  #Daily Show  #Elizabeth Warren  #GOP  #health insurance  #Jon Stewart  #laughter is the best medicine  #moral objection  #religious freedom  #Republicans  #Roy Blunt  #why people hate politics 
    …
Rick Santorum: Americans With ‘Special Needs’ Won’t Survive Under Obama’s Health Reform - But the Affordable Care Act actually prevents insurance carriers from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions (and disabilities), prohibits health plans from putting a lifetime dollar limit on benefits and specifically invests in programs for people with disabilities. For instance, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has “announced $2.25 billion to extend the existing Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration Program, which is designed to facilitate people with disabilities staying in their communities instead of being placed in institutional settings” and has provided additional funding for aging and disability resource centers and other programs for sicker Americans. This why groups like the American Association of People with Disabilities, National Organization For Rare Disorders, and The Arc of the United States not only support the law, but have filed an amicus brief in its defense.

    Rick Santorum: Americans With ‘Special Needs’ Won’t Survive Under Obama’s Health Reform - But the Affordable Care Act actually prevents insurance carriers from denying coverage to individuals with pre-existing conditions (and disabilities), prohibits health plans from putting a lifetime dollar limit on benefits and specifically invests in programs for people with disabilities. For instance, The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has “announced $2.25 billion to extend the existing Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration Program, which is designed to facilitate people with disabilities staying in their communities instead of being placed in institutional settings” and has provided additional funding for aging and disability resource centers and other programs for sicker Americans. This why groups like the American Association of People with Disabilities, National Organization For Rare Disorders, and The Arc of the United States not only support the law, but have filed an amicus brief in its defense.

    — 2 years ago with 6 notes
    #news  #politics  #health care  #special needs  #rick santorum  #affordable care act 
    …
Medicaid waivers pave way for reform - Medicaid waivers aren’t new. Nor were they created by President Barack Obama’s health law. But the waivers, which allow states some flexibility in how they deliver health care to the poor, can help the states prepare for the roughly 16 million people who will be newly eligible for Medicaid in 2014 under ACA. And the health care law did give states the opportunity to expand their Medicaid rolls early. The administration has granted waivers to states that have embraced the law, like California, and those that detest it, like Texas. Both of those states are getting billions, with the caveat that they undertake quality reforms, which happen to coincide with the goals of the ACA. […] Waivers must be “budget neutral,” meaning the state must create savings equal to any new federal spending. But the health care reform law provides states with new incentives and tools to create savings, enabling them to draw down more federal dollars.
At least 105 million Americans have benefited from a provision in the Affordable Care Act that eliminates lifetime limits on health benefits, a report released by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finds… The Department of Health and Human Services estimates 39.5 million women and 27.8 million children will benefit from the changes.

    Medicaid waivers pave way for reform - Medicaid waivers aren’t new. Nor were they created by President Barack Obama’s health law. But the waivers, which allow states some flexibility in how they deliver health care to the poor, can help the states prepare for the roughly 16 million people who will be newly eligible for Medicaid in 2014 under ACA. And the health care law did give states the opportunity to expand their Medicaid rolls early. The administration has granted waivers to states that have embraced the law, like California, and those that detest it, like Texas. Both of those states are getting billions, with the caveat that they undertake quality reforms, which happen to coincide with the goals of the ACA. […] Waivers must be “budget neutral,” meaning the state must create savings equal to any new federal spending. But the health care reform law provides states with new incentives and tools to create savings, enabling them to draw down more federal dollars.

    — 2 years ago
    #news  #politics  #medicaid  #waivers  #obamacare  #aca  #affordable care act  #expand medicaid rolls  #millions will benefit  #heathcare reform 
    This morning begins three days of arguments in the most significant Supreme Court case in decades. The central question: Will the Affordable Care Act stand?
Solicitor General warns of ‘grave’ consequences if Supreme Court overturns health reform – Q:) What is at stake in this hearing? A:) If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn’t just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: ‘Look, we’ve got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can’t have it. And that’s a really profound thing for an unelected court to say. Q:) What are the possible outcomes? A:) The two main outcomes that one can predict — the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate as unconstitutional because it’s unprecedented or it upholds it and says it is part of Congress power over commerce and over taxation. The latter is far more likely because it is such a grave thing for unelected judges to take a decision of such a magnitude for American people. I expect the Supreme Court’s ruling at the end of its current term, June 30. I wouldn’t be surprised if everyone else was surprised in this case, and the court didn’t reach a standard 5-to-4 judgment with the five Republican justices — those nominated by Republican presidents on one side, and the four nominated by Democratic presidents on the other.
Tea Party to rally against health care law: “‘We want our freedom back,’ former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain told hundreds of ralliers standing in the rain in Upper Senate Park, a few hundred yards from the steps of the Supreme Court. … The rally largely marks the big return to Washington for the Tea Party, a loose organization of grassroots groups that helped conservative Republicans take over the House in the 2010 wave election.” [Fox News]

    This morning begins three days of arguments in the most significant Supreme Court case in decades. The central question: Will the Affordable Care Act stand?

    Solicitor General warns of ‘grave’ consequences if Supreme Court overturns health reform – Q:) What is at stake in this hearing? A:) If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn’t just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: ‘Look, we’ve got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can’t have it. And that’s a really profound thing for an unelected court to say. Q:) What are the possible outcomes? A:) The two main outcomes that one can predict — the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate as unconstitutional because it’s unprecedented or it upholds it and says it is part of Congress power over commerce and over taxation. The latter is far more likely because it is such a grave thing for unelected judges to take a decision of such a magnitude for American people. I expect the Supreme Court’s ruling at the end of its current term, June 30. I wouldn’t be surprised if everyone else was surprised in this case, and the court didn’t reach a standard 5-to-4 judgment with the five Republican justices — those nominated by Republican presidents on one side, and the four nominated by Democratic presidents on the other.

    Tea Party to rally against health care law: “‘We want our freedom back,’ former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain told hundreds of ralliers standing in the rain in Upper Senate Park, a few hundred yards from the steps of the Supreme Court. … The rally largely marks the big return to Washington for the Tea Party, a loose organization of grassroots groups that helped conservative Republicans take over the House in the 2010 wave election.” [Fox News]

    — 2 years ago with 4 notes
    #news  #politics  #supreme court  #aca  #affordable care act  #obamacare  #healthcare reform  #teabaggers  #teaparty  #gop  #republians  #repeal healthcare reform 

    tpmmedia:

    Groups of doctors for the law and conservative protesters against it gather at the Supreme Court, track the debates with our special coverage section.

    (via sarahlee310)

    — 2 years ago with 10 notes
    #Affordable Care Act  #supreme court  #Health Care  #healthcare reform 
    "

    When people choose not to buy broccoli, they don’t make broccoli unavailable to those who want it. But when people don’t buy health insurance until they get sick — which is what happens in the absence of a mandate — the resulting worsening of the risk pool makes insurance more expensive, and often unaffordable, for those who remain. As a result, unregulated health insurance basically doesn’t work, and never has.

    There are at least two ways to address this reality — which is, by the way, very much an issue involving interstate commerce, and hence a valid federal concern. One is to tax everyone — healthy and sick alike — and use the money raised to provide health coverage. That’s what Medicare and Medicaid do. The other is to require that everyone buy insurance, while aiding those for whom this is a financial hardship.

    Are these fundamentally different approaches? Is requiring that people pay a tax that finances health coverage O.K., while requiring that they purchase insurance is unconstitutional? It’s hard to see why — and it’s not just those of us without legal training who find the distinction strange.

    "

    Paul Krugman, “Broccoli and Bad Faith” (via ryking)

    (Source: diadoumenos, via sarahlee310)

    — 2 years ago with 45 notes
    #politics  #Paul Krugman  #Affordable Care Act  #health care reform  #healthcare  #broccoli  #SCOTUS 
    "MASSACHUSETTS SENATOR SCOTT BROWN (R) doesn’t see anything wrong with the fact that he has voted to overturn the Affordable Care Act four times, in spite of the fact that it enables him to keep his 23-year-old daughter on his Congressional health plan. Brown told The Boston Globe that his daughter Ayla’s use of the coverage is in no way inconsistent with his criticism of the ACA, which most Republicans call “Obamacare.”"
    — 2 years ago with 4 notes
    #news  #politics  #scott brown  #massachusetts  #obamacare  #aca  #affordable care act  #brown's daughter  #congressional health plan  #voted 4 times to overturn aca 

    Think Progress: Insurers Will Pay $1.3 Billion In Rebates To 16 Million Consumers Because Of Obamacare – Thanks to a provision of the Affordable Care Act, 16 million consumers and businesses are expected to receive about $1.3 billion in rebates from health insurance companies, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The medical loss ratio rule requires insurers to spend at least 80 to 85 percent of premiums on patient care; if not, then the companies owe rebates to their customers. As Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius explains, “We want to know that most of what we are paying for is for health care, not advertising, executive bonuses or overhead. It’s pretty simple: we want to get a good value for our premium dollars.”

    (Source: underthemountainbunker.com)

    — 2 years ago with 2 notes
    #news  #politics  #obamacare  #affordable care act  #rebates to consumers