LyrArc Article Gist
Health insurance premiums for family plans increased by 9% in 2011 according to a survey by Kaiser Family Foundation. A similiar survey by Mercer showed premium increases around 6%. Another change is that health insurance plans are becoming less comprehensive and deductibles are higher, with higher copays and employees contributing more to premiums.

LyrArc Article Gist
Insurance premium rise 2022-2025 is costly for employee wages with employers slow to increase wages when so much money is going into healthcare premiums for their employees. Each year employee premiums in the US have increased by 7% for the last 3 years. $27000 is the cost of health insurance premium for American family in 2025 which is exorbitant and shows a breakdown in the health system that is affecting the cost of living, the wages of workers, and the money left in the economy for other essential needs.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Washington Post survey of 1200 readers on how the Republican healthcare plan of Speaker Ryan and the House of Representatives looks to them, how it affects them in their lives. Here Somasekhar of the Post gives the stories of 5 Americans. Some see the prospect of losing their insurance under the Republican plan even as they reach an older age, others a smaller segment says the Post, whose premiums jumped under the Affordable Care Act say they faced high premiums and high deductibles. The Post says the large majority of opinions have expressed anxiety over the proposed Republican Ryan House plan for healthcare. One of them is an uninsured poor farmer, Mr. Woosley,  income about $18000 who gained benefit from expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act,  one Mr. Smith, 32 years, a personal injury attorney who faces paying $10,000 if he did not take insurance and $10,000 if he took insurance because of high premiums so a wash either way deciding to do without it, one a tech worker Mrs. Powers, 62 years, income $22,000 on year and $4000 the next, from middle class during the tech boom but facing fewer opportunities and uncertain income from part time work, hit by the deep recession facing fewer opportunities as she gets older and now the prospect of losing insurance without government subsidies, one who is from the middle class who sees little benefit from the Affordable Care Act and is forgoing insurance because of the high premiums yet faces a penalty for not being insured under the ACA, another Mr. Blanchard, 52 years, is from the middle class, a computer programmer who lost his job in downsizing, earns $100,000 as a consultant self-employed, pays $767 in premium a month and relies on the Affordable Care Act which helps him gain freedom from working at a company that could downsize,  another is a middle class programmer Mr Riffle,age 44, and his wife, who does not qualify for a subsidy with a $71,000 family salary from working 4 jobs between himself and his wife- this person finds it too expensive for his salary to buy insurance $900 a month and $14,000 deductible under the Affordable Care Act. His views are worth listening to as they go to the crux of the problem- he says he may not be any better with the Republican plan. He sees the real problem as the high cost of health care in the U.S. and the only way this can be fixed is for members of Congress to be asked to use the insurance exchanges they create. If this sample is representative it shows that there are real problems with both the Affordable Care Act and the Republican plan, that the high cost of health care the problem lurking behind every plan that does not squarely address this, and till that happens and members of Congress experience what ordinary people face, this problem can never by fully solved.   Woosley, Smith, Powers, Blanchard, Riffle, and their personal experience is at the crux of what is right and wrong  with the Affordable Care Act, and also with the new Republican plan of Speaker Ryan and the House of Representatives. For every Woosley, Powers and Blanchard who benefit, there is a Smith and a Riffle who are indifferent or are affected by the high cost under Affordable Care Act and the current system of medical care with its high cost. The Affordable Care Act does not  tackle high cost, for that to happen the culture in America that makes it possible and acceptable to charge high prices must change. Another problem apart from bringing health care costs is that any solution needs to have the whole country behind it. If the notion that all people are entitled to basic health care is to stand, the whole country needs to believe it as they do in countries like France, Britain, Germany and Japan. If this has to be made a workable proposition health care has to be offered at a price that makes this possible to achieve, and that idea also needs the deep and broad sense of support from the culture in America similar to that in these other countries. Until that happens politicians in America will get elected and turned out of office in turns on issues such as health care, based on which side they take and which problems they choose not to face squarely and responsibly. ...

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
A WSJ study showing the plans offered under the new U.S. Health Care Law in the state of Oregon. For young people ages 18-34 earning about $17,000 and uninsured the law offers a bargain with insurance premiums monthly at about $52 and deductibles as low as $100, because of higher subsidies. The situation changes at incomes of $29,000 when the deductibles are about $6300 and the premiums per month at about $147 a month, because subsidies are much smaller, or deductibles dropping to $2500 at $172 in monthly premium. The federal subsidies disappear for single people under age 30 earning much more than $26,000 because of the way the law places them to specific plans on each state's exchange. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there are 11.6 million people in the U.S. ages 18-34 who are uninsured. The federal government has to get as many of these people to get insurance so that the cost of medical care for the elderly can be supported.

LyrArc Article Gist
Rosa Ines Rivera, a cook at the cafeteria for the Y.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, with 2 small children, describes the protests over the increase by Harvard administration of the premiums charged on health insurance that now take up over 10% of the income. She says she lives in public housing with her parents as she lost her apartment because she is behind on the rent, and now cannot afford to pay the increase in premiums. About 750 workers at Harvard are on strike on this issue. She says dining hall workers want the current pay of $31,193  a year increased to $35,000 to provide a living wage that helps them afford medical care, because of the high cost of living in Boston.  To get some idea of the plight of workers who provide the kind of nutritious meals that a lot of students depend on for healthy living- Rivera says she takes in about $450 a week after taxes, or about $1800, rent is $1150, which leaves $650 for herself and two children for all food, and expenses in Boston. The $4000 in premiums for health insurance would be about 330 per month, leaving her about $320 for food and living expenses with 2 children. Why the need to bring up children in poverty in America, for generation after generation, after putting in a full day of work? ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. House of Representatives votes to repeal and replace the Affordable care Act 217-213. Moderates were won over by an addition of $8 billion  to add coverage for a popular feature of the ACA that covered people for pre-existing conditions.  The bill that passed gives credits of $2000 to $4000 a year, depending mostly on age, upto $14,000 for a family. Credits are reduced for individuals making over $75,000 a year or families making over $150,000. There is no mandated insurance coverage. This trims the federal budget deficit, yet also is expected to keep 24 million more Americans without health coverage after 10 years. The bill now goes to the Senate where moderate Republicans are worried that this may increase premiums for older people, one of the drawbacks of the earlier version of the House Republican bill.

LyrArc Article Gist
This Economist magazine editorial says the Republican plan for health care with its roll back of Medicaid expansion by limiting funding to states after 2020, and by scaling back subsidies especially for older Americans and not basing them on income levels, is likely to have its own problems just as the Affordable Care Act. One concern is that keeping healthy people in the market with a mandate that everyone have insurance is present but in a milder form with premiums going up by 30% in one year if they change their mind. There is concern that this may not work among insurers leading to an increase in premiums, pricing people out of the market in "a death spiral." This could lead to more people being priced out of the market as premiums rise. About 12 million people were added to Medicaid by increasing eligibility level to $16400, or 138% of poverty line- this reduced the uninsured from 16% in 2010 to 8.8% today. The Economist concludes that the Republican health care bill has its own problems, and that this bill does not clear up the problems in Obamacare by substituting Ryancare as the Republican bill is called. Peggy Noonan writing in the WSJ says this may have negative consequences for the new Republican base shift to populist support. Critics on the right like Rand Paul see even the reduced subsidies as an entitlement program, yet the Republicans can only change parts of the Affordable Care Act as they need 60 votes in the Senate where they only have a small majority.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Under a plan called "premium support" Paul Ryan's U.S. budget proposal would have seniors choose a private insurance plan from a federally operated exchange. Each year the government would pay private insurers a specific amount to cover the cost of premiums with the rest borne by seniors. The total amount paid by the government would go up only at the rate of overall inflation, it would not go up at the higher rate of health care inflation. By doing this the government would take off the trillions of dollars of projected spending on health care that are largely the result of the higher inflation rate in health care costs. This higher inflation rate on health care costs is something that both parties have failed to control, and remains a major weakness in all health care proposals to date, including the Obama health care legislation. Allowed to continue growing at this rate when U.S. debt to GDP is nearing 100%, health care inflation costs pose major risks to the nation's finances.

LyrArc Article Gist
Medicare Supplemental insurance (also called Medigap) covers out of pocket cost that are not covered by Medicare Advantage. Over long period of retirement thes plans offer the best protection from unanticipated costs. The Plans use alphabetical leters A B C D F G K L M N with F discontinued. And are standardized, meaning regardless of insurer or state you are in they are the same being set by the US federal government. These plans are sold by private insurers the largest being AARP plan by United Healthcare. One can join when enrolling for Medicare Part B when premiums are usually better yet one can also join afterwards. About 36% of Medicare holders have Medicare Supplemental or Medigap policies for health insurance.

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ looks at Elizabeth Warren's Medicare for All plan that marks a major shift for the U.S. economy.  Households would see their costs go down by $11 trillion, boosting their ability to spend on other goods and services. Because income and wealth was highly skewed in the past three decades in one direction, the spending capacity of lower and middle income households was pushed down. This and other similar plans would help restore a higher level of spending and with it an essential element of inflation of 2-3% to the U.S. economy which was missing in the last decade. This sets the tone for the kind of broad based recovery that happened after 1950 that strengthened America's middle class and made it the core of the economy, the core of the post World War II recovery in America and Europe. The plan would be paid for by higher taxes on corporations, tax rate of 21% for corporations going back up to 35%, and reverse depreciation schedules in the 2017 Republican tax law. The argument that this would reduce business investment does not hold that much says the WSJ because amid new trade tensions business investment has declined over the last 2 quarters, and has been sluggish overall. The other source for the estimated $13 to $20 trillion cost of Medicare for All plan of Elizabeth Warren is a 6% annual wealth tax on billionaires, in an attempt to have all pay their fair share and reduce wide disparities in wealth. Mark Zandl, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, says his sense is at the end of the day from a macroeconomic view- because $11 trillion in the hands of 80% of households who could boost spending after lagging behind in the last decade- the negative effect on business investment will be cancelled out by the higher consumer spending. The overall effect and today's context is infused in this analysis. Private insurance, premiums for insurance, and out of pocket cost that the public pays would disappear in this new system where all health payments pass through the government. Health insurance premiums paid by employers would convert into a new employer Medicare contribution to the government starting at an amount employers pay now and adjusting gradually toward national averages over time. Smallest businesses are exempted. Mr. Zandl says the most important aspect of this now is that Mrs Warren has shown that her plan's revenue sources match the cost so that the plan would not lead to deficits increasing and pushing interest rates higher, leading to negative effects on the economy. Republicans under Mr. Trump have paid little attention to expanded deficits caused by their tax law, and economists across the landscape have also shown less concern. Still attacks are made if the plans don't add up. For this reason a sound assessment in today's context of depressed consumers and an overall impact becomes essential. The WSJ quotes from a pre- assessment of Warren's plan by Simon Johnson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who co-wrote it with Mr. Zandl and Betsey Stevenson of the University of Michigan. What they point out is that putting cash in the pockets of the lower and middle class for spending makes a lot of sense today, and taking money out of the pockets at the way upper wealthy end,  does not contract the economy at all. Other effects they say are constructive by letting all workers get health coverage from the government instead of employers, this makes it easier to change jobs increasing labor mobility and productivity. A worker getting a better job and better utilization of skills could then shift without looking at the employer health care plan. Warren says there would be a five year transition so that workers in health care insurance industry can work in other insurance fields and in Medicare, no one would be left behind. The important thing being to build America's middle class again. ...

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
The Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Republican House health Care bill shows 24 million Americans would lose health insurance over 10 years. In terms of budget savings the bill saves $337 billion over 10 years. The increase in uninsured comes from the roll back of expansion of Medicaid under the House plan, the reduction of tax credits, plus the removing of income based credits replacing it with tax credits based on age. President Trump is promoting the bill saying it will reduce the premiums that have gone up since Affordable Care Act was passed and increase competition. House Speaker Ryan in promoting his plan says he is not in "some coverage beauty contest." The House Plan says Ryan, does not mandate that all be covered, but simply says coverage is in a free market giving people the option to buy insurance that they want, so that the numbers of insured would not be as many as under a mandate.

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
Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor, who has done extensive modeling of U.S. health care systems. Gruber advised Massachusetts Governor Romney in crafting the health care law in that state. He also advised the Obama administration in crafting the health care mandate that requires all Americans to buy health insurance to keep costs down. Gruber estimates the number of newly insured Americans could drop to 8 million from an estimated 32 million if the Supreme Court strikes down the health care law mandate. The result he believes will drive insurance premium prices even higher.

LyrArc Article Gist
Einer Elhauge, professsor of law and founding director of the Petrie-Flom Center in Health Law Policy at Harvard University, says there are limits to Congressional powers under the Commerce clause such as enacting a law requiring Americans to eat broccoli. If the health care law required all Americans to subject themselves to health care this would be the case. But the law only requires all to buy insurance so that insurance can cover the costs of healthcare for all. He points to the "necessary and proper clause" as also authorizing the health care mandate. That clause gives Congress the power to pass laws that are "rationally related" to execution of constitutional powers, such as criminalizing the interference with mail, on the basis of the constitutional power to setup post offices. In this case the health care law mandate is related to the constitutional power to regulate premiums and prohibit rejecting the sick, says Elhauge.

LyrArc Article Gist
Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, where Dean helped set up health care improvements, says the bill currently in Congress for health care reform does not deserve to be called reform and may do more harm than good. He points out that it does not insert competition into insurance markets, does not significantly lower costs, and does not improve the delivery and use of health care services. And few Americans will see any benefits till 2014, by which time premiums will have increased significantly. He sees insurance companies as winers in this bill, and the American taxpayer about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even AIG. One of his keen criticisms is already apparent to the public in this health care bill, that clear thinking has been thrown out in favor of compromise and political calculus, and by political moves the bill has been stripped of real reform , the end result being a bill crafted for votes and not to reform health care. It also then sets an irreversible course of how future healthcare reform is done, doing more harm in the future. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The House bill on health care cleared the House Committee on Energy and Commerce with a vote of 31 to 28. Five Democrats joined all 23 Republicans. Compromises were reached with Blue Dog Democrats, centrist Democrats who had concerns about the cost of the health care overhaul. The bill will be taken up again in September after the August recess, when Congress will be faced with the task of recociling the House and Senate versions and reaching common ground on a number of proposals. Some common ground has already been achieved between centris and Blue Dog Democrats and Democratic members who support Obama's proposals. Among the changes on which consensus was reached in the House version: 1. Access Insurers will have to accept all applicants and will not be able to charge higher premiums because of medical history or current illness. All insurers will have to offer a minimum package of benefits, to be defined by the federal government, and nearly all Americans will be required to have insurance. Insurers will have to get prior approval from the government before increasing premiums over a certain amount. About 95% of Americans will be covered this time. The cost will still be approaching $ 1trillion over 10 years. Federal subsidies will be given to those who cannot afford health insurance and Medicaid coverage will be expanded. And the insurance will be made more affordable for the uninsured. Democrats also reached a consensus on creating some sort of government insurance plan or nonprofit cooperative to compete with private insurers. 2. Mobility And under this new plan it will be easier to change jobs as one would retains one's health insurance. This should actually help the job market, and help promote the mobility that is needed, now that jobs are shifting out of sectors like autos to sectors like energy. 3. Cost The Energy and Commerce Committee voted 47 to 11 to set aprocedure for the government to give federal approval of generic versions of expensive biotechnology drugs. By one estimate this saves $9 billion over 10 years. The Democratic proposals from the Energy and Commerce Committee would authorize the Health and Human Services Secretary to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare benificiaries. The agreement and consensus among the conservative, liberal and centrist Democrats, and Democrats with ties and connections to the health care industry was reached after intensive negotiations, and adoption of a package of amendments that helped bridge the differences they had. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Republican House Health Care pLan in 2017 relies on tax credits of between $2000 and $4000 based on age. Under the Affordable Health Care Act the elderly poor in high cost insurance areas received additional help. These people would lose over $2000 per person and may forgo full coverage or coverage entirely under the Republican House Health Care Plan. A report by Standard & Poor's estimates about 2 to 4 million people who are in 50's and 60's not yet qualifying for Medicare might lose their coverage they now have under ACA. The Republican plan also gives incentives through tax credits higher for older people, $4000 for a 60 year ol and $2000 for a 25 year old. Under the ACA the insurers are not allowed to charge more than three times what is charged for younger people, under the Republican plan this goes up to five times. 

LyrArc Article Gist
During the years 2002-2008 the growth in doctors per thousand people at about 1.5, and hospital or clinic beds per thousand people at 3, are essentially flat. See graph. Figures from China's Ministry of Health. Now the State Council, China's cabinet is giving details on a $120 billion plus initial phase of a revamp of the country's health care system. Its a big step for China. A construction surge by 2011 is to give every village a medical clinic, and every county at least one hospital. Under this plan state subsidies for insurance premiums will aim at giving at least basic coverage to 90% or more of China's 1.3 billion people. For 30 years since China moved to a more capitalistic type system health care costs have been borne by the people, and these cost made access to health care difficult for a large number of people. These are steps to rebuild the social safety net in China in this crisis.

LyrArc Article Gist
The basic outlines of new health care legislation takes shape as Senators Dodd and Kenedy come up with a plan that scales down subsidies to low-income people to buy insurance. Attached to their revised outline is a budget office analysis thatprojects the plan costing $611 billion over 10 years and with expected changes from the Senate Finance Committee would cover 97 percent of all Americans. And earlier plan received much criticism because the Congressional Budget Office estimated its cost at $1 trillion over 10 years and left 37 million Americans uninsured. In addition there is the revised Medicaid expansions for aid to the poor that would add a couple of humndred billion dollars to the total tab. The administration's goal is to keep the cost down to $1 trillion over 10 years. The legislation as it stands includes the public option which is designed to control insurance costs. Mr. Obama said this week that "the public option would keep insurance companies honest." Employer mandated insurance is part of the Kennedy-Dodd legislation proposal. Employers with 25 or more workerswould have to provide coverage or pay the government an annual fee of $750 for each full-time worker and $375 for each part-time worker. The government pays the startup costs for the public insurance option as a loan to be repaid, and premiums would make the option self-sufficient....

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ describes the sharp increase in premiums under the Affordable Care Act of president Obama. The average premium increase is about 24.2% according to a Barclay's analysis, and as high as 43.9% in states such as Illinois. Bill Clinton calls it the craziest thing with small business affected, and some premiums doubling. Of the 17 million people in the individual market eight million buy without subsidies. One in five enrollees cannot qualify for subsidies. Democrats say subsidies are too small. Hillary Clinton has proposed to have a Medicare "buy-in" for people ages 55-65, and a "public option" government run plan. Republicans want to rewrite the law. But this depends on which party wins the Senate, with the election in Missouri giving Democrats an opportunity to maintain a Senate majority.