LyrArc Article Gist
A critical part of the Affordable Care Act is the setup of marketplaces or exchanges to let people without insurance buy individual health plans. Some states setup their own exchanges, and some states let the federal government step in and run them. To help the lower middle class and poor the Act provides health subsidies to buy insurance in the exchanges, and 85% of customers in the exchanges qualify for this benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in 2015, compared to a tight vote in 2012 on the Affordable Care Act, to maintain the health subsidies. Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them." Justice Scalia dissented calling it "interpretive jiggery-pokery." Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. dissented. Voting in favor were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Justice Kennedy dissented in the 2000 case. The challengers petition to the courts was based on a reading of phrases in the Affordable Act which had not occurred to the writers of the law. The reading suggests only people enrolled in state setup exchanges are eligible for subsidies. If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs the 6.4 million Americans who are enrolled in the federal exchanges would lose the subsidies provided under the law and lose health insurance. And the economic foundations of the Affordable Act would be undermined with insurance companies required to provide insurance to all regardless of pre-existing conditions and subsidies removed, leaving the companies with sicker pool of customers resulting in destabilizing the exchanges and higher premiums. The court ruled in favor of an interpretation that is compatible with the whole law and the intentions of the statute to help the middle class and the poor buy health insurance. The chaos in the insurance markets that would result in going with the plaintiffs because of a careless writing of a phrase, was uppermost in the majority's mind. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized this, saying- "The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners' interpretation, because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange and likely create the very 'death spirals' that Congress designed the act to avoid." This case originated with 4 plaintiffs from Virginia who challenged the IRS regulation that said subsidies were allowed regardless of whether the exchanges were run by the state or the federal government, arguing that this was at odds with the particular phrase in the law that was ambiguous about federal exchanges eligibility for health subsidies. Judge Roger Gregory of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virgina, ruled that the phrase was indeed ambiguous, but the IRS was owed deference in its opinion. Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that this was not a case for the IRS, saying "it is instead our task to determine the correct reading." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions about the true cost of the Obama health care legislation and the assumption that the legislation cuts the deficit by billions of dollars. This WSJ editorial says one has to look at this closely, and not merely look at CBO projections, which may be based in a certain context and not reflect the true costs, especially because many accounting gimmicks and use of numbers to present a particular picture is taking place. The information this editorial cites is that: it uses 10 years of taxes to fund six years of subsidies, Social Security and Medicare revenues are double-counted to the tune of $398 billion, a new program funding long-tem care frontloads taxes but backloads spending, and the assumption of an automatic 25% cut to physician payments that Congress is unwilling to authorize. Rep. Rand Paul has tried to present an alternative view which needs to be studied just as closely, because of the enormous impact of a jump in spending at a time when the public finances are fragile. WSJ also cites the work of Richard Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, as an alternate perspective of how things could turn out, Doug Holtz-Eakin, and Eugene Steuerle. It calls for common sense in evaluating programs, entitlements, defense or other government spending. They not only cost money, but costs escalate over time as history has shown over decades, till they eventually are discovered to be not affordable unless the middle class is willing to dig deeper into its finances to pay for them. Alternate perspectives from a range of informed opinion, Howard Dean, Martin Feldstein, and the head of Harvard's Medical School show that the issue needs to be looked at closely and carefully and cannot be something in which CBO numbers can be trusted to tell the whole story. Especially when common sense, history, and informed opinion across a spectrum of thought advises caution, and fragile public finances also suggest caution. Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, says the health care bill is not real reform, and may do more harm than good. He says in a Washington Post article, December 17, 2009, the Obama health care bill does not insert competition into insurance markets, does not significantly reduce costs, and does not improve the delivery and use of health services. It was he says done with a political calculus and crafted for votes not real reform. Jeffrey S. Flier, Dean of the Harvard Medical School, gave the Obama health reform bill an "F" grade, saying in a Nov 18, 2009, WSJ article, that it was disingenuous to call this reform, Congress and the White House were simply deceiving the public. He said the bill will accelerate US health care spending, postpone most of the major health care problems, expecially the ones that drive cost, including the "fee for service" system and delivery of health care. He says in his discussions with economists and other health care leaders the opinion was unanimous that the bill will accelerate health care spending. He cites Massachusetts as an example, where access to care was expanded under the same dysfunctional system, and spending went up, and it doesn't work. Feldstein, who in early 2008 suggested proactive solutions to the mortgage debt crisis which were never adopted, says that the Obama health care law means higher taxes in the long run to pay for the $1 trillion cost of health care for the uninsured group over 10 years. Feldstein says that the Obama plan is to cut Medicare to cut spending, and will reduce the amount of medical services, as reduced spending comes from fewer services, not reducing payments to providers. And he asks if the cost reductions are weighted too heavily towards reduced services and not reduced payments to providers ,would this result in large cuts to services to affect the quality of healthcare for the 85% of the American people who are accustomed to a different pattern of healthcare. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Serious problem of rapid premium increases for middle class people not eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Insurance companies have increased premiums rapidly to pay for the cost of treating people with previous conditions and the uninsured, as well as population with poor health conditions.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Republican House health care bill AHCA  keeps some some of the more popular parts of the Affordable Care Act such as not taking pre-existing conditions to deny insurance, keeping children covered on parents insurance till age 26, and increase contributions to Health Savings accounts. It is different in that the expansion of Medicaid at 138% of poverty rate threshold is rolled back. Age is used for tax credits instead of income, hitting those approaching Medicare age harder. The maximum charged to older people is now set at  5 times compared to 3 times what young have to pay. In general the Republican bill is seen as targeting the elderly to keep premiums down. The elderly on low incomes are hit hardest. Fox News O'Reilly Show showed the host questioning House Republicans, citing the CBO estimates that elderly on low incomes may have to pay as much as $14,000 a year for insurance making it basically unaffordable, and 52 million Americans would be affected adversely. Large companies are no longer required to offer mandatory health insurance under the new bill. Conservatives from Freedom Caucus wanted to see the essential areas of benefits covered by the law limited to fewer than the ten areas in the Affordable Care Act. The ACHA Republican bill leaves to states to determine what are required essential benefits. At one point maternity benefits were to be dropped but this was changed to let states decide. As a result the bill is 33 votes short of the number needed for passing the house in March 2017.   Neither the Democrats Affordable Care Act or the Republican House bill of Speaker Ryan do much to tackle the real problem- the absolute amount and increases for health care dollars for treating each disease in the U.S. compared to European and other countries. As a result health care has become more of a partisan struggle between the two parties than a real effort by all to overcome the problems that have to be tackled. Republicans want to see premiums drop and keep the burden on the deficit down- but with the level of U.S. health care costs disproportionately high compared to Europe and the rest of the world the arithmetic is tough and ends up leaving out vulnerable groups such as the elderly on low incomes, thus making the whole proposition prone to fail. For the same reason the Democrats failed to keep premiums down with a wider safety net leading to calls for repeal of their version.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
NYT reports show the Republican health care bill AHCA 33 votes short of passing the House and likely to fail. Conservative Republicans were looking to whittle down the safety net in the Affordable Care Act, and moderate Republicans could not stomach the whittled down bill removing guarantees of essential benefits for instance. The basic problem- no real consensus among Americans about providing health care to all Americans, and no real solutions possible as long as there is acceptance of disproportionately high levels of medical care costs for treating each disease in the U.S. compared to Europe and other countries.

LyrArc Article Gist
Ann Matthews describes how the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Obama health care law affects 4 managers in the health care industry and U.S. businesses.

LyrArc Article Gist
This is an exceptionally humorous operating room story of Dr. Trump and Dr. McConnell by Kristof of the NYT. Sometimes humor tells the story- and Kristof does this using a story of a surgeon president Trump in the operating Room trying to address the concerns of the patient Janet, as he keeps telling her she needs a new heart with great benefits, great benefits, before she implodes or goes down failing. Flat out take the old heart out even if a replacement hasn't been found, believe me great benefits the surgeon tells her, just that the patient just isn't getting convinced as its happening to her. The analogy is with replacing a health care plan, not just the Obama plan, any plan without something to take its place. For a few days before this article by Kristof, the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act without having a replacement was presented as a good idea. Janet is like the three Republican women- Collins of Maine, Capito of West Virginia, and Murkowski of Alaska who wanted to keep the heart they had till a replacement was found, against the surgeon Trump's advice. In a way it is about politicians in the last decade who never had any discussions as they rushed through with their own agendas, as the Republican and Democratic health care plans were rushed through Congress with relatively little participation and debate to hear all viewpoints. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Republican healthcare plan advocated by Mr. McConnell, Senate Majority leader, is that it would add 22 million uninsured if implemented. That plan ran into opposition from Republican Senators Collins, Capito, Murkowski, Paul, and Moran, and lacked enough support in the Senate. All Democrats opposed it and with the thin majority Republicans were divided. By taking away some benefits given under the existing Affordable Care Act the plan hurt the elderly and low income people, making some Republicans listen to their constituents in home districts and not the Republican leadership. The NYT profiled two in particular who astonishingly in a sign of today's strange politics were the only ones publicly holding townhall type meetings to hear the views of people in their voting districts- Susan Collins of Maine and Jerry Moran of Kansas. Both senators were listening to rural communities and Moran stated his opposition with the words- "I am a product of rural Kansas." With it the nation takes a breather and the message goes out that it is best to listen first and then to seek middle ground, not do what both parties Democrats and Republicans did in 2009 and 2017- rush serious legislation through without support across party lines and without serious discussion.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This NYT editorial on June 26, 2015, says the arguments of the plaintiffs before the U.S. Supreme Court for the Affordable Care Act were specious, based as they were on a reading of four words phrase in the Act leaving ambiguity about what exchanges were covered by health care subsidies. It says the plaintiffs with strong emotions on the subject decided to pull their argument out of thin air. That only one Justice acted as the swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, shows the Supreme Court like the rest of the nation is not above emotion- Justice Scalia called the 6-4 decision based on "jiggery-pokery" and not "honest jurisprudence"- and needed Chief Justice Roberts to provide the larger view in 2015 as he did in 2012.