Quote:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/2014-elections-anti-obamacare-democrats-110237.html
Only 4 anti-Obamacare House Dems left for fall elections

Thirty-four House Democrats bucked their party to vote against Obamacare when it passed in 2010. Today, only four of those lawmakers are still in office and running for reelection this fall.

The dramatic downsize underscores not only how consequential the health care law vote was but how quickly moderate Democrats have been eliminated on Capitol Hill. Even those who opposed the law had trouble surviving the highly partisan atmosphere it helped to create.

With the divide only more pronounced in 2014, the final four are trying to avoid a similar fate. Obamacare remains a volatile issue, and all still tout their “no” vote. Yet their vulnerability also reflects a more daunting and long-lasting problem for lawmakers who would occupy the middle ground.

“I don’t think you can just look at the Affordable Care Act — you have to look at the broader picture,” said Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota. “You just don’t have many people like myself left. The moderates on the Republican side are gone, too.”
[...]

kbp

Aug 22 2014, 09:02 AM

Quote:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/2014-elections-anti-obamacare-democrats-110237.html
Only 4 anti-Obamacare House Dems left for fall elections

Thirty-four House Democrats bucked their party to vote against Obamacare when it passed in 2010. Today, only four of those lawmakers are still in office and running for reelection this fall.

The dramatic downsize underscores not only how consequential the health care law vote was but how quickly moderate Democrats have been eliminated on Capitol Hill. Even those who opposed the law had trouble surviving the highly partisan atmosphere it helped to create.

With the divide only more pronounced in 2014, the final four are trying to avoid a similar fate. Obamacare remains a volatile issue, and all still tout their “no” vote. Yet their vulnerability also reflects a more daunting and long-lasting problem for lawmakers who would occupy the middle ground.

“I don’t think you can just look at the Affordable Care Act — you have to look at the broader picture,” said Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota. “You just don’t have many people like myself left. The moderates on the Republican side are gone, too.”
[...]

We are seeing a stronger divide, but I'm not sure what he means by "moderates on the Republican side" there. I'm not aware or do not recall any Republicans that voted for Obamacare.

Quote:

 

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2014/August/25/obamacare-health-law-republican-politics-election.aspx

Obamacare Still 'Red Meat' For GOP Candidates But Focus Of Attacks Shift

JUPITER, Fla. – Beverly Hires, a former nurse running for Congress here in one of the nation’s rare competitive House races, ticks off her problems with the federal health care law: higher premiums, cancelled policies and employers cutting full-time jobs.

“The Affordable Care Act is not making insurance more affordable,” she said in an interview, citing many of the same criticisms as her five GOP opponents in the Aug. 26 primary, who are vying for the chance to oust first-term Democrat Rep. Patrick Murphy.

Hires’ messaging on Obamacare in this South Florida district targeted by the GOP tracks a pattern around the country as Republican candidates follow a focus-group tested script recommended by pollsters.

“The messages that work best are succinct, clear statements about the effects of Obamacare on consumers directly,” by increasing costs, taxes and taking away jobs, said Whit Ayres, president of North Star Opinion Research, a Republican polling group that’s surveyed likely voters to determine the best way to attack Obamacare.

Heading into the first congressional election since millions of Americans gained coverage under the health law, many Republican candidates are taking a more nuanced approach to how they criticize the law. Rather than just calling for repeal, they are following Ayres’ recommendations to focus on arguments about how the law is hurting consumers, government budgets or the economy.

And while political ads on television are still common, the number of new ads about the law has declined since spring when the administration rebounded from the troubled launch of healthcare.gov, said Elizabeth Wilner, senior vice president for Kantar Media Intelligence in New York, a nonpartisan group that tracks political advertising.

“Obamacare is no longer front and center in the way it was earlier this year and late last year,” she said. “It remains an issue, but it’s no longer the only one.”

She cited other frequently mentioned topics such as government spending and the economy.

[...]

Quote:

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-offers-new-accommodations-birth-control

New Obama birth control fixes for religious groups

...Effective immediately, the U.S. will start allowing faith-affiliated charities, colleges and hospitals to notify the government — rather than their insurers — that they object to birth control on religious grounds.

A previous accommodation offered by the Obama administration allowed those nonprofits to avoid paying for birth control by sending their insurers a document called Form 700, which transfers responsibility for paying for birth control from the employer to the insurer. But Roman Catholic bishops and other religious plaintiffs argued just submitting that form was like signing a permission slip to engage in evil.

In a related move, the administration announced plans to allow for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby Inc. to start using Form 700. The Supreme Court ruled in June that the government can't force companies like Hobby Lobby to pay for birth control, sending the administration scrambling for a way to ensure their employees can still get birth control one way or another at no added cost.

The dual decisions mark the Obama administration's latest effort to address a long-running conflict that has pitted the White House against churches and other religious groups. The dispute has sparked dozens of legal challenges, fueling an election-year debate about whether religious liberty should trump a woman's access to health care options.

"Today's announcement reinforces our commitment to providing women with access to coverage for contraception, while respecting religious considerations raised by nonprofit organizations and closely held for-profit companies," said Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell.....

Quote:

 

http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/aca-state-exchanges.jhtml
A preliminary look at 2015 individual market rate filings

...The average rate increase across states reporting data is 8.0%, and the average 2015 monthly premium across all metal tiers (without subsidies) is around $384. While these rates are not specific to the exchanges, in many states the individual and exchange markets are essentially the same.

Though the average rate increase hovers in the single-digit range, actual increases vary widely from -23% in Arizona and Colorado to 50% in Arkansas. Regulators in most states haven't yet reviewed these proposed rate increases, as they do those variations will likely shrink....

Baldo

Aug 25 2014, 09:10 AM

Millions Helped by ACA May Get Hit with Reduced Tax Refunds Unless They Act Soon

Quote:

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-health-law-flaw-20140825-story.html

Could a wording 'glitch' doom Obama's healthcare law?
By David G. Savage

When a federal appeals court ruled last month that a seemingly arcane wording flaw in the Affordable Care Act should invalidate a central part of the law, many of those who drafted the statute five years ago reacted with shock and anger..

In 2009, they had spent months piecing together a compromise that sought to create a national system of subsidized insurance — but one run by the states. Now, they fear their work could be undone by what some call a "drafting error" and others portray as a political miscalculation.

The judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit based their ruling on language saying that subsidies would be offered for health policies bought through an "exchange established by the state."

That wording meant only marketplaces established by 14 states, including California, would qualify, the three-judge panel ruled; 5 million people in 36 states where consumers used the federal government's exchange should not get subsidies. (Another federal appeals court panel, in Virginia, took the opposite view in a ruling issued the same day. Until the litigation is over, subsidies are continuing in all states.)

The ruling seems likely to propel Obamacare once more before the Supreme Court, where opponents came within a single vote of overturning the law in 2012.

That prospect has sparked an intense debate over how the disputed language ended up in the law.

The story begins in 2009, when Democrats held a solid majority in both houses of Congress. In the House, most Democrats favored having one nationwide federal insurance exchange. They predicted — correctly, as it turned out — that many Republican-controlled states would balk at extending insurance to low- and middle-income residents.

But in the Senate, some Democrats worried over the specter of a "federal takeover." They insisted that states have a prime role.

To complicate matters further, two Senate committees adopted health bills. The more conservative Finance Committee relied entirely on states to set up exchanges; its bill said low-income buyers would receive a federal subsidy for insurance obtained "through an exchange established by the state."
The proper description would be the less liberal Finance Committee, as the "Democrats held a solid majority" in the Senate.

The more liberal Health Committee included a "federal fallback" in case some states refused to cooperate. Its bill said the federal government "shall establish and operate a Gateway" for insurance in any uncooperative states, and their low-income residents "shall be eligible" for subsidies.
The "fallback" plans involved were not as simple as they may want you to believe, which showed their intent.

When the two bills were merged at the end of 2009, the "shall be eligible" promise for all low-income residents was dropped. Left intact was the Finance Committee provision that said subsidies would be provided for insurance purchased through an "exchange established by the state." The Senate approved the bill on Dec. 24, 2009.

Two surprises followed. In January 2010, Republican Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, depriving Democrats of the 60 votes needed to end filibusters. Because the Senate faced a stalemate, House Democrats agreed to adopt the Senate's bill as written, without further tinkering.

Then, once the bill became law, more than half the states signaled they would not operate insurance exchanges, leaving the task for Washington.

Conservative opponents of the law soon spotted a potential weakness. In September 2011, the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon said the "Obamacare glitch" could block insurance subsidies in all the states that relied on a federal exchange.

Lawsuits soon followed.

Congressional staff members who worked on the law insist that everyone intended to provide subsidies nationwide. They didn't focus on the now-crucial phrase, they said. And they admit they did not foresee a rebellion among conservative states.

"This was an issue no one thought of. We were focused on hundreds of other issues — abortion, illegal immigrants, the size of the subsidies. Yes, you can look back now and say, 'That was stupid. Why didn't we catch it?'" said Harvard University health policy professor John McDonough. "That's why every major law has a technical corrections bill afterward."

Many former Senate aides say other parts of the law make clear the federal exchange is the stand-in for a state exchange and that, as a result, subsidies should be allowed. That's the position taken by the Obama administration and upheld by the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia.

One provision that administration lawyers point to says if a state refuses to create an exchange, the health secretary shall "operate such exchange within the state" and "take such actions as are necessary to implement" the law.

Still others point out that no one advised states that failing to establish an exchange could deprive their citizens of subsidies.

"I would hope the courts take a look at the intent and the overall structure of the law, because the intent was very clear," said David Bowen, former health policy advisor for Kennedy.

Some are troubled that a legal claim, once seen as a long shot, has gained such traction. Topher Spiro, a former Senate health policy staffer now at the Center for American Progress, said he viewed the lawsuits as "silly, not to be taken seriously."

"Other than a few right-wing activists, no one thought this was a legitimate challenge," he said.

All the backward looks at the law's intent may not determine the outcome, however. The Supreme Court is likely to have the final word, and its conservatives, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, frequently say they decide cases based on what a law says, not what Congress may have intended.

Quote:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/business/nonprofit-hospitals-2013-revenue-lowest-since-recession-report-says.html

Nonprofit Hospitals’ 2013 Revenue Lowest Since Recession, Report Says

Nonprofit hospitals last year had their worst financial performance since the Great Recession, according to a report released on Wednesday.

[...]

Demand for hospital services also seemed to be declining, according to the report. Increasingly, patients were being treated outside of a hospital. In addition to declining admissions, the growth in outpatient services provided by hospitals also slowed as competition from places like retail clinics increased.

Patients increasingly paid a higher share of their medical bills, through higher deductibles and co-payments, causing some to forgo care altogether. The Moody’s analysts said they expected this trend to continue as more employers shifted a greater percentage of medical costs to their employees. Hospitals also saw high levels of bad debt from people who could not or would not pay what they owe.

[...]

The nonprofit hospitals’ results were in sharp contrast to some for-profit hospital chains, like LifePoint Hospitals and HCA Holdings. These companies have recently reported higher quarterly earnings, some of which they attributed to the influx of patients from the Affordable Care Act, especially in states where there was an expansion of the Medicaid program. Those earnings included results from the first six months of the Affordable Care Act.

“The ownership models do create differences,” said Lisa Goldstein, an associate managing director at Moody’s, who said the for-profit companies were by their nature focused on delivering higher earnings to their shareholders.

In July, LifePoint, a chain based in Brentwood, Tenn., reported a 17 percent increase in revenue, compared with the same quarter in 2013. In states that expanded Medicaid coverage, LifePoint reported seeing fewer people without insurance. Its quarterly earnings increased by 44 percent.

[...]