Tag: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Reuters As a financial adviser who works with wealthy clients, I have seen just how hard it has become in recent years for many people to separate their politics from their investments. The occupant of the White House during the Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, and Bush (43) years did not elicit the same response from clients as we’ve seen during this administration. In some cases, those conversations spanned several quarters as many wanted to stay in cash in an economic environment that just didn’t make sense to them, while others impulsively gravitated to gold and precious metals in large part due to the barrage of advertisements on talk radio and television hitting their mark in making investors believe they were secure. Those were tricky conversations compounded by the fact that the economy was coming off what felt like the most painful run in our lifetimes, and I certainly couldn’t make any guarantee that the economy would fully recover. At the same time, my politically liberal clients felt emboldened with their money: Stability had seemingly been restored, health care was about to go through a renaissance and, with their party in power, they felt assured the U.S. stock market looked very investible coming off of those generational lows. Those eight years rewarded investors who stayed the course well and gradually even the people with the strongest opinions came to realize that their views were not necessarily in line with the market. The potential cultural effects of the election of President Donald Trump were hard for many to grasp, but when it came to investing, the outcome had a huge impact on the general attitudes of many of my clients. To them, the work of the Obama years was being threatened as financial and environmental regulations were about to be pushed aside, along with Obama’s signature accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act. Politicization of investing Investing behavior wasn’t always so influenced by politics. In the end, how your investments behave is much less important than how you behave.” It may not always be easy, but going forward, I’ll continue to encourage my clients to adopt a mindset that screens out our political leanings and keeps the investing focus on fundamentals, not feelings.

Image To understand the political risks for the Trump administration in starting a trade war, not to mention in undermining Obamacare or celebrating its tax overhaul, it helps to know one powerful human tendency: loss aversion. You can also find this attitude among individual voters affected by trade, and in the underlying message of President Trump’s 2016 campaign, with its emphasis on lost jobs in industries like steel making. Even some workers directly helped by globalization have focused on loss. factory in South Carolina who told The Wall Street Journal in 2016 that she was skeptical of international trade because her uncles had lost their jobs at a cotton mill 30 years earlier. In a trade war, it is the companies, and workers, that benefit the most from globalization that find their incomes at risk. Now, the sectors that stand to lose, like the auto industry, are considerably bigger than the ones likely to experience direct gains, like the aluminum and steel industries. But those lines crossed in late 2016 as Republicans gained more power to repeal the law, and now the A.C.A. Perhaps in the rollout of Obamacare, the people who had something to lose — either through higher taxes or the risk of losing a health plan they were happy with — were most engaged. Then there’s tax policy. In time, we may see the winners from globalization fight ferociously to avoid becoming the losers in a trade war.

'Democracy is at stake': Anthony Kennedy's exit causes a political earthquake Read more Recent changes to Senate rules mean that a simple majority vote is required for a supreme court nominee to advance. Holding the Democratic caucus together, however, will not be easy. The changes in Senate rules that set up this fight were themselves the product of bare-knuckle politics. Less than 18 months ago, during the confirmation battle over Gorsuch, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, ended senators’ ability to block supreme court nominees by filibuster. In 1988, Kennedy was confirmed by a 97-0 vote. In 2016, Senate Republicans refused to even hold a vote on Merrick Garland, the moderate nominated by Obama after the death of Antonin Scalia. On the Senate floor on Wednesday, the minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said: “Our Republican colleagues in the Senate should follow the rule they set in 2016, not to consider a supreme court nominee in an election year.” He added: “Senator McConnell would tell anyone who listened [in 2016] that the Senate had the right to advise and consent, and that was every bit as important as the president’s right to nominate. “Anything but that would be the absolute height of hypocrisy.” Anthony Kennedy's replacement: who could fill his supreme court seat? Lee is himself a possible nominee, named on Trump’s list. So they can wish that all they want, but they know that we’re going to confirm whoever President Trump happens to nominate.”

The Idaho state representative is a down-the-line partisan who supports President Trump, opposes abortion and boasts an A-plus rating from the National Rifle Assn. But Perry breaks with many fellow conservatives when it comes to helping those who can’t afford insurance. “People should be working and you should be carrying your own weight,” Perry said. “We haven’t seen anywhere we don’t think healthcare works as a political issue and also as a substantive issue,” said Brad Woodhouse, campaign director of Protect Our Care, an advocacy group fighting to buttress the Affordable Care Act. “They just have to say, ‘The other party wants to take coverage away from millions of people,’” he said. He was communications director at the Democratic National Committee in 2010, when Republicans campaigning against Obamacare won 63 seats and took control of the House in a landslide. Many running this year, however, aren’t pushing for a so-called single-payer system. Rather, they promise to fight repeal of the Affordable Care Act — which the Trump administration continues to pursue — or call for expanding Medicaid, the federal program for the poor, disabled and nursing home residents that, polls show, enjoys strong support even among Republicans. Here in Idaho, the focus is the estimated 62,000 residents who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to pay for coverage through the state’s healthcare exchange. Idaho’s secretary of state is expected to complete a review of signatures by mid-July, with preliminary tallies suggesting the initiative is all but certain to qualify.

— Background on the sequester: Congress in the 2011 Budget Control Act mandated a 2 percent across-the-board cut in Medicare payments — a cut that's been extended four times, most recently through fiscal 2027. The physician groups allege that U.S. It's 'health care.' The IRS didn't start sending out fines for 2015 non-compliance until late last year. Attorneys general warn CMS: Don't roll back nursing home rules. Read the letter. California: Two efforts to cover undocumented adults advance. … The Senate also passed a bill, CA SB1156 (17R), to crack down on third-party organizations that pay premiums for dialysis patients and profit in the process. Yet steep cuts by HHS to vital lab services put seniors on Medicare at great risk. Congress must act now to restore the true intent of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) and protect seniors from HHS’ penny-wise and pound-foolish approach.

“I consider him a friend,” Norment said, adding that it was pleasant to be part of the team of senators and House of Delegates members who trudged up to the third floor of the Capitol to tell Northam that the General Assembly was organized and ready to get down to the business of the special session. “He didn’t lecture us,” Norment said. McAuliffe’s style didn’t seem to encourage the kind of collaboration Norment said will be essential to close the gap between a House budget anchored on Medicaid expansion and the Senate Republican majority’s opposition to expansion. No, says Norment. Primary ballot It’s not enough to have the right number of signatures on a petition to be listed on a ballot in Virginia — they have to be qualified voters in the relevant district. Six Democrats are seeking their party’s nod to challenge Comstock in a district that’s been trending Democratic. In a possible sign that nothing is certain in any election, four Democrats are on the primary ballot. Gordon Helsel, R-Poquoson, rethought his longstanding opposition to Medicaid expansion this year and voted for a House budget anchored on the idea of using federal Affordable Care Act money to cover more low-income Virginians. He received about 10 emails from people upset with him — until, that is, he called them back and explained his view: that the federal money could help plug a gap of several hundreds of millions of dollars in the state budget. Talking it over with voters may not always convince them to agree with his change of view, Helsel said, but it is the kind of communication that is supposed to inform both legislator and constituent.

But Abbott rarely mentions any of that — even though it was his lawsuits against Obamacare when he was state attorney general that helped make him a national figure and Texas governor. It isn’t just moderates who want him to cover more people who are frustrated. Conservatives are miffed that he isn’t trying to add conservative features to Medicaid under the Trump administration, which has encouraged states to apply for waivers. Moderates have largely abandoned efforts to prod Abbott to turn his attention to health care — but they want him to expand coverage through Obamacare's Medicaid expansion. Health care is “an incredibly radioactive issue with Republicans and Republican primary voters and it continues to be red hot,” said state Rep. John Zerwas, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee who’s twice unsuccessfully tried to pass Medicaid expansion bills to cover about 1 million low-income people in the state. For Abbott, who declined multiple interview requests through a spokesman, talking about health care is a liability in a state where Obamacare remains deeply unpopular and conservative groups, like Empower Texans, deride Republicans who want to expand coverage as “liberals.” With about $40 million in his campaign war chest, Abbott’s main concern is fending off a possible primary challenger on his right, such as his own lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, a former radio talk show host from Houston. This month, Abbott announced his support for Susanna Dokupil, who previously worked under him in the attorney general’s office, in her challenge against state Rep. Sarah Davis, a Houston Republican who supports Medicaid expansion and abortion rights. Critics say that program hasn’t alleviated problems that rural residents have faced accessing care. Eight rural hospitals have closed in the state since 2015, according to the Texas Organization of Rural and Community Hospitals. “If you have cancer and you don’t have insurance, it’s better if you live in an urban area,” said Kay Ghahremani, former state Medicaid director and CEO of the Texas Association of Community Based Health Plans.

MICK MULVANEY: WHITE HOUSE IS 'OK' WITH DUMPING MANDATE REPEAL FROM BILL — The White House budget chief said Sunday that the administration doesn't want the emerging Obamacare fight to slow down Republicans' tax overhaul, even though Trump had called for repealing the individual mandate in the tax bill. "I’m worried about the impact on premiums" from repealing the mandate, she added. And I would like to see that done before we go to the tax bill." TAX BILL CONSEQUENCES: AUTOMATIC CUTS TO MEDICARE LOOM — Under Congress's current pay-as-you-go rules, Republicans' bill would trigger deep cuts to programs like Medicare because the legislation adds $1.5 trillion to the deficit. www.saynotoazar.org ** MEMO SAYS DEMOCRATS SHOULD FOCUS ON BILL's HEALTH CARE EFFECTS — The party's leading super PACs is urging lawmakers to focus attacks about the GOP tax reform plan on its cuts to health care programs, POLITICO's Kevin Robillard reports. See the report. For instance, the uninsured rate in states that run their own exchanges was 8.3 percent, nearly half of the 16.1 percent rate in states that rely on HealthCare.gov, the federal exchange. The state’s uninsured rate dropped to 6.8 percent for the first six months of the year, an all-time low, Victoria reports first. Agriculture chief touts investments in rural health care services in 41 states. “USDA invests in a wide range of health care facilities — such as hospitals, clinics and treatment centers — to help ensure that rural residents have access to the same state-of-the-art care available in urban and metropolitan areas,” Perdue said in a statement, noting that the agency helped fund 97 rural health care projects through the Community Facilities Direct Loan Program.

Caption said on Sunday that President Trump's decision to end key ObamaCare payments known as cost-sharing reduction (CSR) benefits would help U.S. families. "if you take the totality of what the president did, I think it actually helps the family," Cassidy said on "Fox News Sunday." "So those who are lowest income, the payments, the subsidies will still go to insurance companies for them to buy their...coverage, and someone told me that CBO says they actually might pay a little less," he continued. Cassidy, who co-authored the Graham-Cassidy repeal and replace bill that failed to pass in the Senate last month, spoke out against the termination of CSR payments in August. His remarks come days after the White House announced it would be ending the CSR payments, which are aimed at helping low-income people afford co-pays, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs associated with health insurance policies.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday ripped President Trump's decision to end key ObamaCare payments known as cost-sharing reduction (CSR) benefits, comparing the decision to "arson." "This is the equivalent of health care arson. He is literally setting the entire health care system on fire just because the president is upset that the United States Congress will not pass a repeal bill that is supported by 17 percent of the American public," Murphy said on "Fox News Sunday." "The fact of the matter is the president is trying to sabotage the American health care system, trying to put a gun to the head of our constituents by taking away their health care or raising their costs in order to force us to repeal a bill that the American public does not want us to repeal," he continued. Murphy's comments come after the White House announced on Thursday the administration would stop providing insurers with the CSR payments required under the Affordable Care Act. The payments are designed to help low-income people afford co-pays, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs associated with health insurance policies. The move has been met with fierce, bipartisan backlash. Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) described Trump's decision as "devastating," while Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said the move would not lead to more access to health care coverage.