budget deal restores some cuts

WASHINGTON >> Shedding gridlock, key members of Congress reached a modest budget agreement today to restore about $63 billion in automatic spending cuts from programs ranging from parks to the Pentagon.

The spending increases would be offset by a variety of increased fees and other provisions elsewhere in the budget totaling about $85 billion over a decade, leaving enough for a largely symbolic cut of about $23 billion in the nation's debt, now $17 trillion and growing.

Federal workers, retired members of the military under age 62, airline travelers and health care providers who treat Medicare patients would bear much of the cost.

The budget deal was one of a few major measures left on Congress' to-do list near the end of a bruising year that has produced a partial government shutdown, a flirtation with a first-ever federal default and gridlock on President Barack Obama's agenda.

In a blow to Democrats, the agreement announced by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., omitted an extension of benefits for workers unemployed longer than 26 weeks. The program expires on Dec. 28, when payments will be cut off for an estimated 1.3 million individuals.

Aides predicted bipartisan approval in both houses in the next several days, despite grumbling from liberals over the omission of the unemployment extension and even though tea party-aligned groups are pushing Republican conservatives to oppose the deal.

The White House quickly issued a statement from Obama praising the deal as a "good first step." He urged lawmakers to both parties to follow up and "actually pass a budget based on this agreement so I can sign it into law and our economy can continue growing and creating jobs without more Washington headwinds."

The deal "reduces the deficit by $23 billion and it does not raise taxes. It cuts spending in a smarter way" than the ones in effect, said Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who chairs the House Budget Committee.

Murray said the agreement "breaks through the recent dysfunction to prevent another government shutdown and roll back sequestration's cuts to defense and domestic investments in a balanced way." Sequestration is Washington budget-speak for across-the-board cuts.

"It's a good step in the right direction that can hopefully rebuild some trust and serve as a foundation for continued bipartisan work," Murray said.

Obamacare cheaper than expected

Amidst the dark skies of the Healthcare.gov launch, some daylight may finally be emerging with respect to one of the critical goals of the Affordable Care Act -- bending the cost curve of America's expensive health care system.

According to a New York Times report earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office has quietly removed hundreds of billions of dollars from the projected costs of Obamacare, primarily the result of an anticipated decrease in the federal government's contribution to the Medicaid expansion program along with the projected cost of the subsidy payments to those buying private insurance policies on the healthcare exchanges.

Why the good news?

The more favorable projections are the direct result of the slowing trend in the growth of health care spending over the past five years leading to a slowdown in rising costs. While, 10 years ago, per-capita spending on health care had been growing by an average annual rate of 5 percent, that number was dramatically cut to 1.8 percent during the 2007-2010 period and reduced even further to 1.3 percent in the years following 2010.

Do we have Obamacare to thank for this highly successful "bending" of the cost curve?

Naturally, the answer depends upon who you ask as there simply is no definitive way of knowing -- yet.

Nelson Mandela

JOHANNESBURG » Nelson Mandela, who became one of the world's most beloved statesmen and a colossus of the 20th century when he emerged from 27 years in prison to negotiate an end to white minority rule in South Africa, has died. He was 95.

South African President Jacob Zuma made the announcement at a news conference late today, saying, "This is the moment of our deepest sorrow. Our nation has lost its greatest son."

His death closed the final chapter in South Africa's struggle to cast off apartheid, leaving the world with indelible memories of a man of astonishing grace and good humor. Rock concerts celebrated his birthday. Hollywood stars glorified him on screen. And his regal bearing, graying hair and raspy voice made him instantly recognizable across the globe.

As South Africa's first black president, the ex-boxer, lawyer and prisoner No. 46664 paved the way to racial reconciliation with well-chosen gestures of forgiveness. He lunched with the prosecutor who sent him to jail, sang the apartheid-era Afrikaans anthem at his inauguration, and traveled hundreds of miles to have tea with the widow of Hendrik Verwoerd, the prime minister at the time he was imprisoned.

His most memorable gesture came when he strode onto the field before the 1995 Rugby World Cup final in Johannesburg. When he came on the field in South African colors to congratulate the victorious South African team, he brought the overwhelmingly white crowd of 63,000 to its feet, chanting "Nelson! Nelson! Nelson!"

For he had marched headlong into a bastion of white Afrikanerdom — the temple of South African rugby — and made its followers feel they belonged in the new South Africa.

Detroit's bankruptcy

Earlier this year, Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy making it the largest municipal bankruptcy in American history. On Dec. 3 at 9 a.m., Judge Steven Rhodes will decide if the city can proceed with its bankruptcy. The ultimate decision will have huge implications for pensioners, bondholders, and ordinary residents, who are wondering if the city will be allowed to revise the terms of its long-term obligations.

Regardless of the judge's ruling, Detroit faces daunting challenges on both the revenue and expense side of the ledger. I recently looked at some of the documents relating to the bankruptcy, and was struck by how desperate the situation has become. Below are some of the more shocking facts I discovered.

1. Detroit's revenue, in inflation-adjusted dollars, fell 40% from 1962 to 2012.

2. The city currently has just 9,700 workers, yet has 21,000 retirees drawing benefits.

3. Detroit's population has declined 63% since 1950, including a 26% decline since 2000. As of December 2012, its population was 684,799 – down from 1,849,600 in 1950.

4. Unemployment has tripled since 2000. As of June 2012, it's 18.3%, which is more than double the national average.

5. The number of employed residents has dropped more than 53% since 1970.

report on ObamaCare

Taking Care of Your Healthcare

A new era is dawning for health insurance. As of January 1, 2014, nearly all Americans, for the first time in our history, will be required to carry some form of health insurance—the so-called individual mandate.

But most people won't notice a radical impact on their healthcare coverage—not in 2014, anyway. If you're already on Medicare or Medicaid, for example, or VA health benefits or CHIP, you don't need to do anything to comply with the ACA mandate. Ditto if you're covered by an employer's insurance plan (assuming the employer doesn't decide to discontinue it).

On the other hand, if you're uninsured, the new law, with its financial penalties, is squarely aimed at you. For most families lacking insurance in 2014, Uncle Sam will nick you $95 per adult and $47.50 per child, or 1% of your income (whichever is larger). The toll goes up in future years.

Online Insurance Shopping

Apart from the mandate and its penalties, the new law has altered the healthcare landscape in other ways not so widely (and heatedly) discussed. The most remarkable development is that just about anybody can now shop for health insurance via the online "exchanges" available in each state. Regardless of any pre-existing medical condition you may have, you'll find an insurer willing to take you on, without a higher premium.

The federal government operates the insurance exchanges for 34 states, while the other 16 and the District of Columbia sponsor their own marketplaces. Even if you're employed and already possess some form of health insurance, I recommend checking out your state's exchange to see whether you might be able to land a better deal than you've now got. The statewide exchanges went live October 1 and will be accepting 2014 enrollments through March 31.

For anyone interested in exploring options under the new law, your first stop should be the federal government's website www.healthcare.gov. From there, you can navigate to your state's health-insurance exchange and get quotes on a variety of plans that may suit your needs.

Unfortunately, the federal site—which by some estimates cost $634 million to build—had a very poor technical launch. It took me about two weeks of trying, on and off, to establish a user account. Even after my account was set up, the site repeatedly froze (and issued seemingly random error messages) as I was filling out my application. In the end, though, I was able to locate a plan that will provide essentially the same coverage I've got already for a 10.6% lower premium in 2014.

Five Levels of Coverage

As you surf among what may at first seem like a bewildering array of choices, keep in mind that the exchanges offer five distinct levels of insurance. All the plans feature essentially the same set of benefits, the main difference being the amount you have to pay out of pocket for drugs and medical services. Plans with a lower out-of-pocket expense charge you a higher premium, and vice versa. For people below certain income thresholds, tax credits may shrink your premium.

Whatever plan you choose, you can expect to shoulder part of your healthcare costs by way of an annual deductible. "Cadillac plans" that cover almost every last dime are a thing of the past. Here are the five main plan classifications under the new regime:

Catastrophic. Available only to people under 30 (and certain low-income individuals who can't afford other insurance), these bare-bones plans cover three annual primary-care visits and preventive services at no cost. After that, you have to meet a deductible of several thousand dollars. Because of the high deductible, catastrophic plans typically cost far less than other plans. For example, a 27-year-old single in Missouri (a state with healthcare costs close to the national average) could pay as little as $100 per month for a catastrophic plan with a $6,350 yearly deductible.

Bronze. The cheapest of the broadly available plans, bronze plans are designed to pay 60% of the average person's covered healthcare expenses, with 40% remaining in your court. Don't forget, though, that you'll have to satisfy a substantial deductible before the benefits kick in. Deductibles vary, but can range upwards of $5,000 for singles (double for families). Nationwide, premiums for bronze plans average $249 per month, with a low of $144 in Minnesota and a high of $425 in Wyoming.

Silver. Government projections call for these plans to cover 70% of the average person's healthcare expenses, with the remainder coming out of your pocket. While silver plans charge a higher premium than bronze, your deductible is likely to be significantly lower—in the neighborhood of $2,000 to $3,000 a year for an individual. Some silver plans require you to copay a portion of your medical costs; others don't.

Gold and platinum. These plans are best for people who expect a lot of doctor visits or need expensive prescription drugs. Gold plans are intended to meet 80% of the average person's healthcare costs, while platinum plans are supposed to cover 90%. Deductibles tend to be low (under $1,000), although some plans include a sizable copay provision. As the names imply, premiums for gold and platinum insurance run very high, as much as $1,600 a month (and more) for a family plan. Even with tax credits, I suspect that these plans will turn out to be too expensive for most people.

On the Bright Side

As the examples above should make clear, the Affordable Care Act carries no magic wand to whisk away the high cost of medical care. Still, the law—despite its annoying mandates and penalties—has spawned two opportunities you may be able to take advantage of, at least in the near term:

1) Uncle Sam offers tax credits for families of moderate means. The credit diminishes as your income goes up, but a family of two adults and two children, earning $50,000 a year, can collect a credit of up to $4,925 a year. This credit is automatically applied to your insurance premiums before you pay them.

2)  Insurers, looking forward to an influx of new customers from the individual mandate, are quoting somewhat lower premiums for 2014 than many observers had forecast. Thus, you may find that, for the next year anyway, your health-insurance costs remain steady or even drop modestly versus what you've been paying in 2013.

Why do I say these are only "near term" opportunities for insurance consumers? Because in the long run, the ACA will have many economic effects that its cheerleaders have ignored or downplayed. The tax credits will cost $19 billion in 2014 alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office—and the burden will increase rapidly as insurance premiums shoot up again in future years.

How do I know premiums will escalate? Because the insurers are almost certainly overestimating the number of healthy younger people who will sign up for insurance rather than risk a penalty. If not enough young people enroll, the brunt of medical-cost inflation in coming years will fall on a smaller population than the insurers now foresee. That can only mean huge premium hikes for people who stay in the system.

In short, Washington has only stuck a band-aid on the problem of financing medical care. However, if I can save a few nickels in 2014 by using the exchanges, I'll do it. I advise you to do the same.

-- via Richard Band

too simple promises

WASHINGTON >> It sounded so simple. Too simple, it turns out.

President Barack Obama's early efforts to boil down an intricate health care law so Americans could understand it are coming back to haunt him, leaving a trail of caveats and provisos in place of the pithy claims he once used to sell the law.

In the summer of 2009, Obama laid out his health care agenda in a 55 minute speech to the American Medical Association. It was, his former speech writer Jon Favreau recalls, "one of the longest speeches he ever gave."

Fine as an initial policy speech, Favreau thought, but not a communications strategy.

"My lesson from that was, well, he can't be giving a speech this long and complicated every time he talks about health care," Favreau said.

Indeed, a good sales pitch must be brief, compelling, accurate. But when it comes to a complex product like health insurance, brevity and persuasiveness can take a toll on precision.

For example, Obama had promised, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period."

Instead of a period, the statement required an asterisk. It turned out that, yes, some plans would be taken away as an indirect result of the law's tougher standards.

The enrollment experience, Obama said, would be simple: Hop online and comparison-shop "the same way you'd shop for a plane ticket on Kayak or a TV on Amazon."

Instead, as the entire country now knows, October was a website disaster.

Then there was the cost. "Through the marketplaces," Obama said, "you can get health insurance for what may be the equivalent of your cell phone bill or your cable bill, and that's a good deal."

A good deal, indeed -- for those who qualify for federal subsidies to offset the cost. But not for all.

*** [11/20/13]

Obama at the Wall Street Journal CEO Council [excerpts]

On Healthcare.gov: I think we probably underestimated the complexities of building out a website that needed to work the way it should.

There is a larger problem that I probably could have identified earlier, and that's the way the federal government does procurement and does IT is just generally not very efficient. There's probably no bigger gap between the private sector and the public sector than in IT.

We've see that, for example, the [Department of Veterans Affairs] trying to deal with electronic medical records for our servicemen as they move into civilian life. Most of that stuff is still done on paper. We have spent billions of dollars -- I'm not saying "we" as in my administration, I mean we've now had about a decade of experimentation, spent billions of dollars -- and it's still not working the way it should.

On health care: Even though the rollout of the new health-care marketplace has been rough, to say the least, about 500,000 Americans are now poised to gain health care coverage beginning Jan. 1. That's after only a month of sign-up. We also have seen health care costs growing at the slowest rate in 50 years. Employer health costs are growing at about one-third of the rate of a decade ago, and that has an impact on your bottom line. ...

This has been a big problem for a very long time, and so it was always going to be challenging not just to pass a law, but also to implement it. There's a reason why, despite a century of talking about it, nobody had been able to successfully try to deal with some of the underlying problems in the health care system.

The good news is that many of the elements of the Affordable Care Act are already in place and working exactly the way they're supposed to. Making sure consumers who have employer-based health insurance are getting a better deal and better protected from the fine print that left them in the lurch when they actually got sick. That's in place. Making sure young people under age 26 can stay on their parents' plan. That's helped 3 million children already. That's making a difference. Helping seniors to get better prescription drug prices. Rebates for people who see insurance companies who are not spending enough on actual care, more on administrative costs or profits -- they're getting rebates. They may not know it's the Affordable Care Act that's giving them rebates, but it's happening. There were a number of things that were already in place over the last three years that got implemented effectively.

The other thing that hasn't been talked about a lot is cost. There was a lot of skepticism when we passed the Affordable Care Act that we were going to be giving a lot of people care but we weren't doing anything about the costs. And, in fact, over the last three years we have seen health-care costs grow at the slowest pace in 50 years. That affects the bottom lines of everybody here.

On optimism: I'm actually a congenital optimist. I have to be -- my name is Barack Obama, and I ran for president. And won, twice.

On politics: When you go to other countries, the political divisions are so much more starker and wider. Here in America, the difference between Democrats and Republicans -- we're fighting inside the 40-yard line. [really?]

People call me a socialist sometimes, but, you've got to meet real socialists. [Go to other countries and] you'll get a sense of what a socialist is. You know, I'm talking about lowering the corporate tax rate. My health-care reform is based on the private marketplace. The stock market is looking pretty good last time I checked. It is true that I'm concerned about growing inequality in our system, but nobody questions the efficacy of market economies in terms of producing wealth and innovation and keeping us competitive.

A lot of [Republicans] believe in basic research, just like I do. A lot of them want to reform entitlements to make sure that they're affordable for the next generation. So do I. A lot of them say they want to reform our tax system. So do I. There are going to be differences on the details. Those details matter, and I'll fight very hard for them, but we shouldn't think that somehow the reason we've got these problems is because our policy differences are so great.

why the GOP hates Obamacare

The grounds for the Republican Party’s opposition to the Affordable Care Act are far from a single coherent argument. It is all the more confusing because one of the health care reform’s key provisions, the individual insurance mandate, has conservative origins. The requirement that individuals be required to purchase health insurance first emerged in Republican health care reform bills introduced in 1993 as alternatives to the Clinton administration’s plan.

That mandate was also a prominent feature of the Massachusetts plan passed under Gov. Mitt Romney in 2006. According to Romney, “we got the idea of an individual mandate from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation,” Forbes reports. Furthermore, as Bill Keller argued in an op-ed for The New York Times, the GOP should be “the people who ought to be most vigorously applauding this success story” because the reform of the United States’s “overpriced, underperforming health care system” was done almost entirely with market incentives instead of government decree.

The fact that the idea of the individual mandate developed out of GOP rhetoric proves that the party is not opposed to the thought of making insurance affordable to millions of Americans. “Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection,” Stuart Butler, a health care expert for the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, wrote in a 1989 brief titled Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans. “Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness.”

So the argument goes that just as legally mandated insurance makes economic sense for automobiles, it makes sense for health care, as well.

Several theories as to why Republicans want to see Obamacare defunded and repealed have been tossed around.

Republicans have said that the health care reform will destroy the economy. “Well, if you don’t believe Obamacare is the biggest job killer in the country, look to the facts,” Republican Rep. Ted Cruz of Texas said during his 21-hour speech on the Senate floor earlier this month. “This year, report after report has rolled in about employers restricting work hours to less than 30 hours per week — the point where the mandate kicks in. The data also points to record-low workweeks in low-wage industries.”

But for most companies, the employer mandate is not a huge burden. The companies that do not provide insurance and will be required to probably employ around 1 percent of American workers.

The theory put forward by Keller in his op-ed and by Eduardo Porter in his New York Times piece entitled “Why the Health Care Law Scares the G.O.P.” is that Republicans are worried that Americans will like the benefits of the reform too much. “You have probably figured out that the real mission of the Republican extortionists and their big-money backers was to scuttle the law before most Americans recognized it as a godsend and rendered it politically untouchable,” Keller wrote.

That argument makes sense to some degree. Speaking to radio host Rush Limbaugh in late August, Cruz said that President Obama “wants to get as many Americans as possible addicted to the subsidies, addicted to the sugar, because he knows that in modern times, no major entitlement has ever been implemented and then unwound.”

But in Keller’s opinion, it is too late. Health care reform has already accomplished its first goal of enrolling millions of uninsured Americans, “many of whom have been living one medical emergency away from the poorhouse,” he wrote in the op-ed. The fact that the computer glitches that plagued the first week the exchanges were open for enrollment was evidence of demand for affordable coverage. This demand “is the 90 percent of the story that doesn’t make the headlines,” Sam Glick of the Oliver Wyman consulting firm told Keller.

[1488 comments so far..]

government shutdown

[10/16/13] Senate leaders announced on Wednesday that they have reached a deal to end the government shutdown and avoid a possible U.S. default.

According to sources, the Senate deal under discussion would reopen the government, funding it until January 15. It would also raise the debt limit until February 7 to avert a possible default on U.S. debt obligations for the first time.

It also would set up budget negotiations between the House and Senate for a long-term spending plan, and would include a provision to strengthen verification measures for people seeking government subsidies under Obama's signature health care reforms.

If the Senate passes an agreement, House Speaker John Boehner will probably face the decision of whether to allow a vote that he knows can only pass with virtually all Democrats and only a few of his fellow Republicans supporting it.

That would break a Republican tradition known as the Hastert rule. The informal tenet, named after former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, says that the House speaker does not introduce legislation unless a majority of Republicans say they will vote for it first.

On Tuesday, Obama called for House Republicans to "do what's right" by reopening government and ensuring the United States can pay its bills. "We don't have a lot of time," he said.

But he acknowledged Boehner's difficulty in getting his fellow House Republicans on the same page.

"Negotiating with me isn't necessarily good for the extreme faction in his caucus," Obama said, referring to the tea party and its conservative allies. "It weakens him, so there have been repeated situations where we have agreements. Then he goes back, and it turns out that he can't control his caucus."

***

Parts of the federal government officially shut down at 12:01 Tuesday morning after Congress played hot potato with a spending bill for several hours but failed to come to an agreement to fully fund normal operations.

By midday Monday, the congressional debate had fallen into a predictable pattern and a shutdown seemed inevitable. The House would pass a version of the spending bill that delayed or chipped away at the Affordable Care Act. The Senate would proceed to strip the bill of its amendments, pass it, and send it back to the House, and the cycle would start again.

Late Monday night, in a last ditch effort to end the ping-ponging between the House and Senate, House Republicans offered to setup a bipartisan conference committee to negotiate the differences between the House and Senate bills.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., rejected that proposal outright, repeating his mantra that the Senate isn't interested in passing anything but a "clean" spending bill and that they won't be forced to negotiate "with a gun to our head."  Senate Democrats also pointed out that they had been calling for a bipartisan conference for months, a request that had been brushed off by House Republicans.

Earlier Monday, President Obama placed calls to Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Monday afternoon, but did not seem to be looking for a negotiating partner. He reiterated his preference for a "clean" spending bill free of any amendments and said he would continue to oppose any attempts to defund or delay the healthcare law, a White House official said.

In the morning, an estimated 800,000 of the 2.1 million federal workers who are deemed nonessential for the operations of the government will be sent home after they have shut down their work. Only employees who are necessary to ensure national security and protect Americans' lives and property will be allowed to work, albeit without pay, along with a few other types of workers.

free health care after all

Our deep dive analysis of the 48-state public exchange rates from HHS suggests that affordability may not be a roadblock to achieving the CBO projected 7M exchange lives in 2014. Based on our analysis we estimate ~6.5M people alone will be eligible for a $0 premium plan. Simply put, we don't see any logical reason why anyone in this population wouldn't take free healthcare coverage vs. remaining uninsured. Therefore the question of exchange uptake, in our opinion, is really whether outreach, education, and logistics/IT is successful in order to hit CBO projections as opposed to a question of affordability. We note that any higher uptake would be positive for hospitals while assessing the impact to managed care remains difficult.

Based on our analysis of exchange pricing compounded by Census/Kaiser data on the uninsured by income brackets, we estimate that approximately ~6.5M currently uninsured will have a $0 premium bronze plan available to them. We arrive at this estimate using a bottom-up approach through which we evaluate each individual state and determine the highest income level at which individuals can purchase a $0 premium bronze plan after subsidies. We also determine the income floor for subsidy eligibility, which is determined by whether a state expands Medicaid (138% FPL) or does not (100% FPL). Finally, we cross reference the range of incomes that can purchase a $0 premium bronze plan with Census data segmenting the uninsured by income level on a state-by-state basis to arrive at our ~6.5M estimate.

-- from Credit Suisse, First Edition, U.S. Alert, September 26, 2013

MinuteClinics

The parent company of Longs Drugs will open more than half a dozen in-store clinics this month.

CVS Caremark Corp.'s MinuteClinic division is opening seven locations in some Longs stores as part of an aggressive nationwide expansion.

The first walk-in MinuteClinic in Hawaii opens on Thursday at the Moiliili store. Locations in Kahala, Aiea, Kapo­lei, Hawaii Kai, Kaneohe and Kai­lua are scheduled to open Sept. 30, according to local store managers.

The so-called convenient care clinics popping up nationwide treat minor illnesses and provide preventive health services such as flu shots within retail stores, supermarkets and pharmacies.

The walk-in medical centers, which will be staffed by nurse practitioners specializing in family health and common illnesses such as strep throat, ear, nose, eye, bladder and bronchial infections, will be open seven days a week with no appointment necessary.

The openings come as the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rolls out on Oct. 1, making health insurance available to an estimated 100,000 uninsured people in the islands.

"Hawaii's Long's locations are an important milestone in MinuteClinic's national expansion plan to open 150 clinics nationwide in 2013," the company said in a news release.

There are more than 700 MinuteClinic locations in 25 states and Washington, D.C.

government shutdown?

[9/23/13]  Thousands of workers and the American economy stand to lose if the government shuts down next week, but some political leaders might see their hands improved by such a crisis.

Nearly every economist warns of negative repercussions for the U.S. economy should Congress fail to forge an agreement to fund the government’s day-to-day operations past Sept. 30.  But a handful of Republicans – and even President Barack Obama – are among the select few Americans who have something to gain should negotiations fail and a shutdown come to pass.

The fact that it’s in the political best interests of some people (or groups) to force a government shutdown has actually contributed to the fiscal impasse, which shows no sign of resolution with little more than a week to go until all but the most essential government functions cease.

President Obama
A year removed from his re-election, Obama isn’t the most popular second-term president ever, and his signature health care overhaul law still engenders deep skepticism from the American public.

But if Obama has at least one thing going for him heading into his battle against Republicans, it’s that poll after poll has shown that Americans don’t think that eliminating “Obamacare” is worth the cost of a government shutdown.

Republicans complain that it’s been Obama – not them – who is being inflexible in fiscal talks. But if the numbers are to be believed, a shutdown could reinvigorate Obama politically, and thereby likely decrease his willingness to cut a deal that is more favorable to Republicans. It could also strengthen his hand heading into next month’s fight over raising the nation’s debt ceiling.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz
Perhaps no figure in Washington has hitched his political fortunes to the fate of this fall’s spending battles more than the hard-charging, first-term senator from Texas.

Though other high-profile conservatives have joined Cruz in vowing not to fund the government unless spending for “Obamacare” was eradicated, Cruz has emerged as the effort’s figurehead. He did this by traveling the country throughout the August recess, turning up the heat – not on rival Democrats, but on fellow Republicans to make good on their campaign promises to fight health care reform.

If the government reaches a shutdown, it will no doubt be because Cruz managed to convince enough fellow Republicans to stand pat on the issue of Obamacare. Though this scenario would likely have wide-ranging (and largely negative) implications for the broader Republican Party, a shutdown would serve as a validation of Cruz’s influence in Congress after only nine months on the job.

The Tea Party
If the rise of Obamacare was the catalyzing moment for the Tea Party, then a shutdown could give insurgent conservatives an upper hand in their protracted struggle against the GOP establishment for control of the Republican Party.

“Win, lose or draw, the Tea Party and the conservatives have routed the establishment wing of the party,” said Shirley, pointing to House Republican leaders’ decision to pursue legislation that defunds Obamacare after having shelved a more modest proposal.

Conservative groups like the Club for Growth and Heritage Action – while not strictly Tea Party groups, per se – will have demonstrated a commanding degree of influence over the modern Republican Party if they manage to hold enough GOP lawmakers together to prevent party leaders from reaching an agreement to avoid a shutdown.

That situation might send House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on a hunt to find Democratic votes to help win approval for any eventual compromise. But that might further undermine Boehner’s already-shaky grip on the speaker’s gavel, prompting a possible challenge to his reign by conservatives in his conference who more closely align with the Tea Party.

And if the Tea Party gains, so might Democrats, too.

Hillary Clinton?
The 2016 election is years away, and any number of variables could shape the trajectory of American politics before then. But as the early favorite for the next Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton could benefit from any damage done to the Republican brand by a government shutdown.

For starters, since Clinton is out of office following a four-year stint as secretary of State, she won’t have to carry the baggage of the ugly negotiations between Congress and the administration over government funding and the debt ceiling.

But if Republicans end up forcing a shutdown, it could do collateral damage to the GOP brand such that it hurts the party’s chances of retaking the White House come 2016.

*** [9/24/13]

Cruz vows to speak until he is no longer able to stand

As his speech neared its sixth hour, Cruz took an odd turn by reading his young daughters a bedtime story via the Senate floor cameras. Cruz said his book of choice, Dr. Seuss' "Green Eggs and Ham," was a favorite of his as a child.

***

Sen. Marco Rubio is among the big names in the Republican Party salivating at the chance to defund Obamacare.

But Florida’s Republican senator says there’s no need to shut down the federal government over it, and conveniently enough, he says the American public agrees with him on both fronts.

After the U.S. House of Representatives passed a short-term continuing resolution to defund Obamacare and keep the federal government open, Rubio issued a press release on Sept. 20, 2013:

"The American people support defunding Obamacare and oppose shutting down the government. The House voted today to follow the will of the American people and the Senate should now follow suit."

We decided to examine recent poll results to determine if Rubio correctly characterized the public’s view on Obamacare and a government shutdown.

*** [9/25/13]

A solid majority of Americans opposes defunding the new health care law if it means shutting down the government and defaulting on debt.

The CNBC All-America Economic Survey of 800 people across the country conducted by Hart-McInturff, finds that, in general, Americans oppose defunding Obamacare by a plurality of 44 percent to 38 percent.

Opposition to defunding increases sharply when the issue of shutting down the government and defaulting is included. In that case, Americans oppose defunding 59 percent to 19 percent, with 18 percent of respondents unsure. The final 4 percent is a group of people who want to defund Obamacare, but become unsure when asked if they still hold that view if it means shutting down the government.

The Republican-party-led House voted 230-189 on Friday to adopt a short-term government spending bill that would eliminate all funding for the new health care law. The measure could lead to a government shutdown in less than two weeks. The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percent, was conducted Monday through Thursday of last week. Full results will be released this Thursday.

(Read more: Anxieties mount over Obamacare)

In general, men are roughly split on the issue, with 43 percent supporting defunding, 42 percent opposing and 15 percent unsure. But when the issue of a government shutdown and default is included their support declines: 56 percent oppose defunding and only 14 percent solidly favor the measure.

Women are more firmly opposed to defunding the new health care law under any circumstances, with 47 percent opposed, 33 percent in favor and 20 percent unsure.

(Read more:You're going to be paying more for this next year)

A 51 percent majority of Republicans generally support defunding with 36 percent opposed and 13 percent unsure. However, when including the issue of a government shutdown and default, the picture changes: 48 percent of Republicans oppose defunding Obamacare, while 36 percent support it.

However, a 54 percent majority of Republicans who also identify themselves as Tea Party supporters want the new health care law defunded even if it means a government shutdown – the only demographic measured in the poll with such a majority.

Republicans who do not identify themselves as Tea Party supporters hold views closer to those of Democrats than to Republicans that do identify themselves as Tea Party supporters: They oppose defunding Obamacare 44 percent to 36 percent with 20 percent unsure.

(Read more: Obamacare's biggest test: How many enroll?)
Independents are more troubled by the prospect of defunding Obamacare and shutting down the government than the broader population. In general, they oppose defunding by a slight plurality of 44 percent to 40 percent. However, when the issue of shutting down the government is included, opposition to the measure swells to 65 percent, while support drops to just 14 percent.

*** [9/25/13]  What a government shutdown would mean.

*** [9/27/13] WASHINGTON—House Republican leaders struggled Friday to come to terms with conservative lawmakers who want to halt the new federal health-care law, leaving unclear how an increasingly dysfunctional Congress might be able to pass a spending bill by Monday night to avert a fiscal crisis.

The Democratic-led Senate approved legislation Friday to fund federal agencies for the first six weeks of the fiscal year and to restore money for the health law. The GOP-led House last week passed a bill to avert a shutdown that also defunded the law, as demanded by the chamber's conservatives.

The next move belongs to House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio), who has said the House will not pass the Senate bill but hasn't yet laid out how he plans to amend it.

House leaders face a difficult situation. Mr. Boehner doesn't want to alienate the dozens of lawmakers who won't back any spending plan that doesn't in some way limit the reach of the health law.

At the same time, Senate Democrats say they will reject any measure that alters the health law.

Underscoring the dilemma, a group of 62 conservative GOP lawmakers emerged with their own demand late Friday: delay the health-care law for one year as part of the spending bill. The proposal is sure to be discussed during a rare Saturday meeting of House GOP lawmakers called by Mr. Boehner to figure out a way forward.

The standoff both between the two major parties and within the GOP brings the federal government to the brink of a shutdown with little obvious room for resolution. Unlike in previous showdowns, there have been no major negotiations among congressional leaders or with the White House, which is taking an increasingly combative tone.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) on Friday added to the pressure on the House by adjourning the Senate until Monday afternoon, narrowing the window of time for any last-minute legislative volleys between the chambers.

Rep. Matt Salmon (R., Ariz.) said that delaying the health law for a year made sense, given that major elements of the law have been delayed, such as a provision imposing penalties on large employers who fail to provide insurance for their workers.

"We think that's fair and reasonable. Close to half of Obamacare has already been delayed," Mr. Salmon said.

Mr. Salmon also said that House lawmakers had met with tea party-aligned Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, both Republicans, on Thursday night to discuss the House's next steps, and agreed to hold out for a one-year delay of the health law. Some 15 House conservatives met with the two senators at a townhouse on Capitol Hill, according to a Republican lawmaker.


The strategy keeps House Republicans on a collision course with Senate Democrats. "We are going to accept nothing as it relates to Obamacare,'' Mr. Reid said after the Senate approved its spending plan.

Republicans plan to cut food stamps

[9/19/13] WASHINGTON –  The House voted Thursday evening to cut nearly $40 billion in the next decade from the country's food stamp assistance program.

The 217-210 vote was a major victory for Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and largely cast along party lines. All House Democrats and 15 Republicans voted against slashing the budget for the program.

Despite its passage in the House, the bill is unlikely to make it through the Democrat-controlled Senate.

The bill's savings would be achieved by allowing states to put broad new work requirements in place for many food stamp recipients and to test applicants for drugs. The bill also would end government waivers that have allowed able-bodied adults who don't have dependents to receive food stamps indefinitely.

Conservatives have said the program has become bloated. More than 47 million Americans are now on food stamps, and the program's cost more than doubled in the last five years as the economy struggled through the Great Recession.

Finding a compromise -- and the votes -- to scale back the feeding program has been difficult.

Conservatives have insisted on larger cuts, Democrats have opposed any cuts, and moderate Republicans from areas with high food stamp usage have been wary of efforts to slim the program.

***

[9/16/13] Congress is back in Washington, meaning that the House of Representatives will soon be able to resume its cherished function in our democracy: casting symbolic votes to slash federal spending on the poor. In particular, Majority Leader Eric Cantor is pushing a Republican plan to cleave at least $40 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—aka food stamps—over the next ten years, a reduction the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says would push some 4 to 6 million Americans off its rolls.

As The New York Times noted in a weekend editorial, the GOP is making this crusade at a time when some 14.5 percent of U.S. households are having trouble putting meals on the table due to their finances.

Already, Washington doesn't do enough to totally mitigate the problem (remember, in 2012, the maximum benefit for a family of three worked out to $5.75 per person per day.) The USDA estimates that about half of the households that received federal nutrition assistance still suffered some amount of food insecurity. And yet, one of our major political parties wants to yank the dinner plate away from 6 million more Americans.

But hey, at least there's still plenty of money in the budget to doll out to wealthy farmers.

-- via Feeding America

***

One of the biggest pieces of business Congress has yet to resolve is the farm bill, legislation that has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades. Unfortunately, the process to reauthorize this crucial bill has taken a sharp and disheartening turn this year. The Senate and the House are in a standoff over extremely different versions of it with a deadline looming this month.

At stake is the ability of millions of Americans who still struggle in our economy to provide adequate and healthy meals for their children and families. In an unprecedented move, the House stripped the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (formerly known as food stamps), from the bill with an intention to pass a separate nutrition bill, one with significant cuts to programs that fight hunger.

There have always been disagreements between our parties over the farm bill, but for decades we have reached across the aisle to tackle the concerns on both sides. We proudly count ourselves among a series of bipartisan teams of legislators who worked past those differences to address hunger through provisions in the farm bill.

We are a country with ample resources, especially the plentiful supply of food produced by our farms. As Americans, we have always used this abundance to help those who are hungry, both here and abroad. For generations, the United States has welcomed new Americans escaping famine and hunger in their homelands.

The special relationship in the legislative process between agriculture and those who need assistance from the SNAP program is also built on this tradition. In the modern era, funding for this vital program has been extended as part of the farm bill with relatively little partisan bickering — until now. By stripping the nutrition title from the legislation this year, the House has severed the vital tie that helps connect our food system with those who struggle with hunger in our own backyard.

Tackling our nation's hunger issues has always resulted in a win-win situation for farmers, low-income families and our economy. The latest proposal from the House is an about-face on our progress fighting hunger. It would eliminate food assistance for 4 million to 6 million Americans.

If Congress lets this bill fall victim to the misguided and detrimental partisan politics we face today, the results for families and children challenged with hunger will be severe. In a country struggling to emerge from the worst economic recession since the Depression, this is no time to play politics with hunger. As friends and colleagues, we hope that the House will do the right thing and follow the Senate's lead in passing a farm bill with adequate funding for food assistance. Our nation's future depends on it.

--- By Bob Dole and Tom Daschle

Bob Dole is a former Senate majority leader (R-Kan.) and was the 1996 Republican nominee for president. Tom Daschle is a former Senate majority leader (D-S.D.) and is a distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Putin speaks to America

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

***

And the Yankee knee-jerk response.

And another.

***

And how did I know this was big news?  From all the political commentary, that's how.  For example,

Vladimir Putin has taken his criticism of America up a notch. Today he wrote an Op-Ed for The New York Times asking the U.S. to be more civilized. Unfortunately, Putin couldn't finish it because he had to take his shirt off and arrest gay people. [Conan]

Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote a scolding Op-Ed piece in The New York Times. He thinks people still read The New York Times.

If you haven't seen The New York Times piece, Putin said America should stay out of Syria. And then Putin said Khloe should dump Lamar because it's for his own good. [Craig Ferguson]

 The New York Times published an Op-Ed piece written by Vladimir Putin. Putin warns against American exceptionalism. He says it is dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. He sounds like a fun dad, huh?

Putin said that when Americans claim to be exceptional it offends other countries. This from a man who arrests his political opponents, persecutes people based on sexual orientation, and put a girl band in a labor camp for singing songs he didn't like. We don't think we are better than everyone else. We just think we are better than him, specifically. [Jimmy Kimmel]

Russian President Vladimir Putin actually wrote an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times where he said it’s dangerous for Americans to see themselves as “exceptional.” Then he said, "Except for that Justin Timberlake. That guy is amazing." 

Putin said it’s dangerous for Americans to see themselves as “exceptional” and said that, quote, “God created us equal.” Then he got back to arresting people for being gay. [Jimmy Fallon] 

How Obamacare affects you

The Affordable Care Act kicks into high gear in October, when Americans will have their first chance to buy health insurance through new state exchanges.

Women, those with chronic health issues and seniors are among those likely to be the biggest winners under the new law, popularly known as Obamacare. For example, insurers will no longer be able to charge women more than they do men, a practice that currently forces women to pay an extra $1 billion per year (.pdf file) in higher health-insurance premiums, according to the National Women's Law Center.

Similarly, many older and sicker Americans will also benefit, said Sara Collins, the vice president for affordable health insurance at The Commonwealth Fund.

"The market reforms really level the playing field," Collins notes. "You can no longer be excluded based on your health, for instance, if you have diabetes or asthma. That will really benefit those who are older."

Click ahead to read how Obamacare might affect people in different demographic groups.

dumping employer health care

NEW YORK, Sept 9 (Reuters) - As many as 37 million Americans who receive health coverage through employers may be better off with the government-subsidized insurance plans that will be offered under President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law for next year, according to a study released on Monday.

The analysis, compiled by researchers at Stanford School of Medicine and published in the journal Health Affairs, suggests that some employees may choose to dump the coverage they receive at work. It also points to a potential counter-trend to surveys of employers, which show that up to 30 percent would consider terminating health coverage for their workers within the first few years of "Obamacare."

"There is definitely going to be some pressure in that direction," said Thomas Buchmueller, a professor of insurance at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, who was not involved in the study.

"Workers could say, 'we appreciate that you offered us coverage all these years, but we'll be better off on the exchanges, so give us the cash and we'll go.'"

That scenario, which would cost the federal treasury billions of dollars above what it has already projected, reflects the complicated financial carrots and sticks at the heart of Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA).

On the one hand, it requires large employers with 50 or more workers to offer health insurance or pay a $2,000-to-$3,000 annual penalty per full-time worker. About 170 million Americans have health insurance through their own job or through a family member's; such coverage is available to 80 percent of full-time workers.

On the other, the law allows workers to buy coverage on new state-based exchanges and receive federal subsidies to help pay the premiums and deductibles, if their employer-sponsored insurance is deemed unaffordable according to a government calculation.

Roughly "37 million people would be financially better off switching to the exchange" from employer-sponsored insurance, said Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford School of Medicine, who led the study.

"The reason is that these workers would qualify for substantial subsidies to buy exchange insurance," he said. As a result, the subsidized Obamacare premium will be less than what they pay for employer-based insurance. The cost to the federal treasury if all 37 million switch: $132 billion a year in subsidies, according to the study.

Remembering the March

Fifty years ago, on Aug. 28, 1963, one of many American protests became the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, achieving worldwide acclaim with four simple words: “I have a dream.” The legend endures beyond memory from a dwindling number of witnesses, but no one alive that day anticipated its sweetly patriotic glow. Dr. Martin Luther King groaned under pressure, planning to say nothing like those four words. Bayard Rustin, a fabled pacifist in charge of logistics, prepared feverishly for the unknown. “If you want to organize anything,” he shouted to volunteers, “assume that everybody is absolutely stupid. And assume yourself that you’re stupid.” Some of Rustin’s helpers slapped together 80,000 cheese sandwiches. Others hauled 21 first-aid stations to outdoor spots along the stately National Mall.

The public girded for mayhem. NBC’s Meet the Press aired official predictions that it would be “impossible” for Negroes to petition in numbers without civic disorder. A preview in Life magazine surveyed Washington’s “worst case of invasion jitters since the First Battle of Bull Run.” The Kennedy administration quietly deployed 4,000 riot troops near downtown, with 15,000 paratroopers on alert. A District of Columbia order banned liquor sales for the first time since Prohibition. Local hospitals stockpiled plasma and canceled elective surgery to save beds. Most federal agencies urged employees to stay home. Eighty percent of private business closed for the day. A week ahead, to be safe, Major League Baseball postponed not one but two home games for the Washington Senators.

Early arrivals confounded these apprehensions. One jaunty teenager wafted along Pennsylvania Avenue on roller skates, finishing a week-long journey from Chicago. Trainloads of pilgrims spilled from Union Station singing spirituals. A CBS camera mounted high in the Washington Monument showed a panorama that swelled crowd estimates upward of 250,000. Bob Dylan strummed his new folk anthem, Blowin’ in the Wind, and the first black “airline stewardess” led cheers for progress. Rustin herded dignitaries briskly through a long program, allowing emcee A. Philip Randolph to introduce the final speaker ahead of his appointed time.

King looked over a vast spectacle. He had failed this closing task once before from these steps at the Lincoln Memorial, with many of the same civil rights leaders present.

He opened his address by reaching back to Lincoln. “Five score years ago,” King paraphrased, “a great American in whose symbolic shadow we stand today signed the Emancipation Proclamation.” Against Lincoln’s fidelity to national purpose, he threw up a clanging image of deadbeat history. “America has given the Negro people a bad check,” King proclaimed, “a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.’ ” He said segregation stamped default on freedom’s core promise. Heartfelt voices cheered his raw illustrations along with his wishful hope not to find always that “the bank of justice is bankrupt.”

Suddenly King balked. He could not bring himself to continue his carefully speech.

King hesitated before a unique nation that was young and yet also the world’s seasoned pioneer in freedom.

“--I still have a dream,” King resumed. “It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed…” He took flight extemporaneously on rhetoric ingrained in him but new to the huge national audience. His cadence rose gradually through nine dreams of racial justice into a tenth, spiritual vision from the prophet Isaiah. “I have a dream, that one day every valley shall be exalted,” he said, in pulsing delivery. “Every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together!

“This is our hope,” King continued, pulling back from a glimpse of purified humanity. “This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith…” Like a jazz musician, he composed off this phrase a second riff on determination in pursuit of dreams. “With this faith,” it ended, “we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.” King dramatized that prospect by reciting the first verse of My Country, ’Tis of Thee, from sweet liberty and pilgrims to “Let freedom ring.”

Quickening again, he pushed his baritone into high register. “And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true,” King intoned. “So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire…Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!” Eleven times he launched variations on this third refrain, embracing not only the treasured landscape but also fearsome bastions of white supremacy. “Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi!” he shouted. “From every mountainside, let freedom ring!”

By then his distinctive voice enveloped the words in a furnace of warring release, fusing ecstasy with anguish and disappointment with hope.

“And when this happens,” King cried out, “when we allow freedom to ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up the day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, ‘Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!’ ”

***

The speech

James Blue's film The March (1963)

PBS clip / full video (expires 9/10/13)

355 dead after Syria 'chemical' attack

DAMASCUS, Syria » Syrian state media accused rebels of using chemical arms against government troops in clashes today near Damascus, while an international aid group said it has tallied 355 deaths from a purported chemical weapons attack earlier this week.

Doctors Without Borders said three hospitals it supports in the eastern Damascus region reported receiving roughly 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms" over less than three hours on Wednesday morning, when the attack in the eastern Ghouta area took place.

Of those, 355 died, said the Paris-based group.

what you'll pay under ObamaCare

Millions of Americans won't have to pay full price for their Obamacare health insurance next year. But just how much they'll have to fork over depends on a couple different things.

Thanks to subsidies from the federal government, which will help pay for health insurance on state-based exchanges starting in 2014, many low- to moderate-income Americans will get a break on their premiums.

 The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 48% of Americans who buy individual insurance today would be eligible for subsidies. They would receive an average of $5,548, which would cover 66% of the price.

"The subsidies are pretty large for the people who get them," said Gary Claxton, vice president at the foundation, noting that a larger share of new enrollees in the individual market will be eligible for subsidies since they are likely to be lower income Americans who cannot not afford coverage now.

Here's how you qualify:

Your income: Anyone earning up to 400% of the poverty line will be eligible for a subsidy, which is up to $45,960 for an individual and $94,200 for a family of four.

The lower your income, the larger your subsidy. For instance, those making $17,235 a year will pay no more than 4% of income, or $57 a month, while those with incomes between $34,470 and $45,960 will pay a maximum of 9.5% of income, or $364 a month. The federal government will cover the rest.

Anyone earning more than $45,960 would be responsible for the entire tab on the Obamacare health plan of his choice.

In addition to premium subsidies, those making less than 250% of the poverty line, or $28,725 for a single person and $58,875 for a family of four, are eligible for extra subsidies to defray out-of-pocket costs, such as deductibles and co-payments.

 While the subsidies will certainly help, many folks may still think Obamacare is pretty pricey.

"For a lot of people who are barely making the rent and struggling to pay for groceries, even a very modest premium can seem out of reach," said Sabrina Corlette, senior research fellow at Georgetown's Health Policy Institute.

To see how large a subsidy you might receive, check out Kaiser's calculator.

[via roy on facebook]

Zimmerman found not guilty

SANFORD, Fla. >> Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was cleared of all charges today in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teenager whose killing unleashed furious debate across the U.S. over racial profiling, self-defense and equal justice.

Zimmerman, 29, blinked and barely smiled when the verdict was announced. He could have been convicted of second-degree murder or manslaughter. But the jury of six women, all but one of them white, reached a verdict of not guilty.

Martin's mother and father were not in the courtroom when the verdict was read; supporters of his family who had gathered outside yelled "No! No!" upon learning of the not-guilty verdict.

The teen's father, Tracy, reacted on Twitter: "Even though I am broken hearted my faith is unshattered I WILL ALWAYS LOVE MY BABY TRAY."

Trayvon Martin's brother, Jahvaris Fulton, said simply: "Et tu America?" — a reference to the Latin phrase "Et tu, Brute?" known as an expression of betrayal.

The jurors considered nearly three weeks of often wildly conflicting testimony over who was the aggressor on the rainy night the 17-year-old was shot while walking through the gated townhouse community where he was staying and where Zimmerman lived. None of the witnesses who were called had a clear view of their encounter.

Defense attorneys said the case was classic self-defense, claiming Martin knocked Zimmerman down and was slamming the older man's head against the concrete sidewalk when Zimmerman fired his gun.

Prosecutors called Zimmerman a liar and portrayed him was a "wannabe cop" vigilante who had grown frustrated by break-ins in his neighborhood committed primarily by young black men. Zimmerman assumed Martin was up to no good and took the law into his own hands, prosecutors said.

student loan rates double

Borrowing costs for lower-income students shot up on Monday, jumping from 3.4% to 6.8% on subsidized Stafford loans from the federal government. For the average borrower, that means an additional $761 for every loan they take out through the program, according to Mark Kantrowitz, a financial aid expert and publisher of Edvisors Network.

Neither party is thrilled about the outcome. But in contrast to last year’s student loan fight, when both presidential candidates took to the bully pulpit on the issue, there seems to be little sense of urgency coming from Congress or the White House, despite the absence of any clear resolution.

Here’s why: First, the rate hikes only affect new loans that are taken out, not existing ones. Most students don’t start taking out loans until August or September for the coming school year, and only about 26% of all federal student loans are taken out through the subsidized Stafford program, which requires proof of financial need. What’s more, Congress could pass a retroactive fix to lower the rates for the loans that are taken out at the 6.8% rate, according to Senate Democratic aides.

So while the optics of doubled rates aren’t great, Congress still has some time to come up with a solution before they actually hit students’ pocketbooks. And that took the political pressure off legislators who failed to come to a deal last week and simply packed their bags for the July 4 recess.

Senate passes immigration reform bill

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday approved the most significant overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws in a generation with broad support generated by a sense among leading Republicans that the party needed to join with Democrats to remove a wedge between Republicans and Hispanic voters.

The strong 68-32 vote in the often polarized Senate tossed the issue into the House, where the Republican leadership has said that it will not take up the measure and is instead focused on much narrower legislation that would not provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the country. Party leaders hope that the Senate action will pressure the House.

Leading up to the final votes, which the senators cast at their desks to mark the import of the moment, members of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” who drafted the framework of the legislation took to the Senate floor to make a final argument for the measure. Among them was Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, one of the Republicans leading Hispanic voices.

When Rubio finished, the other senators in the group surrounded him on the floor, patting him on the back and offering words of encouragement. “Good job,” one said. “I’m proud of you,” another offered.

The future will show whether voters in Republican presidential primaries share that pride.

here comes ObamaCare

[7/21/13] Gordon Ito, state insurance commissioner, may be feeling a bit under the gun these days.

Just around the corner lurks the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly called the ACA or "Obamacare," so naturally people want to know from Ito how much they'll be paying for health insurance in the near future.

At the earliest, people won't see that bottom line until Oct. 1, when the Hawaii Health Connector, like other online insurance marketplaces developed in states nationwide, is due to open for business under the new federal law. And that will spell things out for individuals and small businesses that are eligible for the online exchange, not for people who get their insurance as most now do, through their employer.

Employer groups are still in discussions with insurance carriers about pricing for benefit packages under the new rules, which may hinge more directly on factors such as the age of the workers. But Ito does have one clear message he offers, meanwhile.

"When people ask about rates, the first thing I say is, ‘Don't shoot the messenger!'" he said, drawing laughs from the attentive audience.

[7/2/13] The White House on Tuesday delayed for one year the new requirement under the Affordable Care Act that businesses provide health insurance to employees, a fresh setback for President Obama’s landmark health-care overhaul as it enters a critical phase.

The provision, commonly known as the employer mandate, calls for businesses with 50 or more workers to provide affordable quality insurance to workers or pay a $2,000 fine per employee. Business groups had objected to the provision, which now will take effect in January 2015.

[6/24/13 ] WASHINGTON (AP) - Fewer than 100 days before uninsured Americans can sign up for coverage, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Monday the administration is gearing up with new call centers, a revamped website - and a confab with the National Football League.

No deals yet, Sebelius told reporters. But she said the idea of partnering to publicize the benefits of health insurance has gotten an enthusiastic reception from the NFL and other pro sports leagues.

Health promotion is a goal for the leagues and "good for the country," Sebelius said.

Football season would be in full swing Oct. 1, when consumers can start shopping for coverage under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Benefits take effect Jan. 1, around the time of the playoffs.

Opponents are looking for a goal-line fumble by the Obama administration as the long-awaited expansion of coverage for the uninsured finally happens. But if Sebelius is nervous, she doesn't let on.

"It's a huge undertaking across the country, and I'm confident we're going to get it done," she said. Not only sports leagues, but community organizations, religious denominations and public health groups will be involved with outreach.

Starting Oct. 1, consumers will be able to access new online marketplaces through HealthCare.gov and shop for private insurance plans in their communities. The federal government site will be the main portal to the new law, since about half the states are letting Washington run the coverage expansion.

Middle-class people who don't have job-based coverage will use the marketplace to apply for tax credits to help pay their premiums — a process that's supposed to take place smoothly and in close to real time, though skeptics doubt it. Low-income people will be steered to an expanded version of Medicaid in states that accept it.

All told, it's the biggest expansion of the social safety net since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid nearly 50 years ago. With polls showing that the law remains unpopular, and even many uninsured don't think they'll be helped, things are likely to get off to a slow start.

About 7 million people are expected to sign up for coverage in the new marketplaces next year, also called exchanges. That number is projected to more than triple in a few years.

Healthcare costs slowing down?

There have been 2,470 mentions of the phrase "spiraling health care costs" in the media over the last year, according to Google. But as investor Eddy Elfenbein points out, medical costs are doing anything but spiraling. "Healthcare costs have outrun the cost of everything else for decades," he writes. "Suddenly, that trend has come to an end. Over the last year, healthcare costs have actually trailed broader consumer prices."

The year-over-year change in the medical care portion of the Consumer Price Index is now at the lowest level in 40 years.

Or as Eddy points out, medical care is growing slower than core inflation for the first time in decades:

40% of food uneaten in the U.S.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to require residents to compost their food waste may cause headaches for some families, but experts say it could also help cut their rising grocery bills.

Under the proposal, by 2016 the city will require residents to separate their food waste for collection. Organic waste in New York City — which could otherwise be recycled for fertilizer or natural gas — currently accounts for 1.2 million tons or 35% of landfills, and a pilot program on Staten Island achieved a participation rate of 43%, according to the mayor’s office. Last year, Vermont introduced a bill to by 2020 require residents to recycle their food waste — and 33% of the organic waste in that state already gets composted.

Aside from the environmental advantages of composting, the effort may also be a boon for pocketbooks. Throwing out separate bags filled only with uneaten food could work as a big wake-up call for consumers, experts say. “We have a tendency to overbuy and overcook,” says Phil Lempert, CEO of grocery information site SupermarketGuru.com. “Awareness of how much food you’re wasting does help people buy properly. As prices go up, people also become more aware.” And consumers today have every reason to be more judicious in the grocery store. The price of food purchased for consumption at home is expected to rise 2.5% to 3.5% in 2013, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

As much as 40% of food goes uneaten in the U.S., according to estimates from the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. Americans are, in other words, throwing out the equivalent of $165 billion in wasted food every year, according to a recent analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental group. In fact, one study estimates, just 15% of wasted food would be enough to feed more than 25 million Americans every year. And one in six Americans currently lacks a secure supply of food, says Dana Gunders, an NRDC project scientist in San Francisco.

Grocery bills are the biggest household expense. The average American family of four spends between $632 and $1,252 per month on grocery bills, according to the Department of Agriculture’s April 2013 “Cost of Food” survey. Composting forces people to actually see how much food they’re throwing away and how much money they’re wasting, says Andrew Shakman, president of LeanPath, a Portland-based company that tracks food waste in industrial kitchens. LeanPath helped cut food waste at the University of California, Berkeley, campus by 43%.

There are, of course, easier ways to cut one’s supermarket bill than composting. Consumers can waste less food by bringing a calculator to the store, making a note of when food goes bad, cooking only what they need and eating their leftovers, experts say. iPhone apps like Green Egg Shopper ($3.99) and Food Storage & Shelf Life ($1.99) can help keep track of perishables. One caveat to Bloomberg’s plan, however: “Recycling can also give less conscientious people a good excuse to waste,” Shakman says.

-- via twitter

Hawaii's population mix

Hawaii has the highest percentage of Asians (or part-Asians) of any state in the United States, far outsurpassing California 56.9% to 15.8%.  It also has the lowest percentage of whites (or part-whites) of any of the states (including Washington D.C.) at 43.8%.

However I believe Caucasians (or hapa) make up the highest percentage of any race over Japanese.

If you can classify Caucasian as a race that is.  Maybe not.  If you classify Caucasian as a race (which includes United States, Canadians, German, Italian, French, etc.), then I guess you could classify Asian as a race (included Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino, etc.)  I dunno.

Suffice to say, Hawaii is the most mixed state in the United States.