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
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Tuesday, September 24, 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.
Monday, September 23, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, September 16, 2013
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.
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.
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.
Friday, September 13, 2013
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.
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.
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 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]
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, September 09, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)