LTC8K6

Nov 6 2014, 09:34 PM

http://twitchy.com/2014/11/06/three-pinocchios-for-pres-obamas-claim-on-obamacare-and-cost-reductions-every-single-year/

‘Three Pinocchios’ for Pres. Obama’s claim on Obamacare and cost reductions ‘every single year’

Quote:

 

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/rate-of-premature-births-fall-as-health-law-provisions-begin-to-take-effect/
Rate Of Premature Births Fall As Health Law Provisions Begin To Take Effect

The percentage of babies born prematurely fell to 11.4 percent in 2013, its lowest level in 17 years, according to an annual March of Dimes report released this week. While many factors contributed to the decline, officials say the health law’s expansion of Medicaid to adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level has played a role.

Going forward, other health law provisions will likely contribute to further reductions in preterm births, defined as live births at less than 37 full weeks, women’s health advocates suggest.....

Quote:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/us/politics/a-post-election-day-certainty-new-scrutiny-for-the-affordable-care-act.html

A Post-Election Day Certainty: New Scrutiny for the Affordable Care Act

This week’s elections ensure a new round of political attacks on the Affordable Care Act, but they also create potential opportunities to repair provisions of the law that people on both sides of the partisan divide would like to fix.

With the shift in power in the Senate, Republicans can turn up the heat on the White House, which has dismissed as political stunts repeated House votes to repeal the law.

Republican leadership aides in the Senate and the House said that a few more such votes were likely because many of the new Republican lawmakers had vowed in their campaigns to dismantle the Affordable Care Act....
[No, that would 100% of the new Republican lawmakers.]

...Short of repealing the whole law, Republicans list other changes they may seek: repealing a federal excise tax on medical devices; eliminating an independent board that is supposed to limit the growth of Medicare spending; and abolishing special payments to insurers that Republicans criticize as a bailout for the industry.

Mr. Boehner made the case for piecemeal changes on Thursday. “Just because we may not be able to get everything we want, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to get what we can,” he said.

Whether the administration is willing to negotiate is unclear. Even if the president authorized negotiations, Senate Republicans would still need 60 votes in most cases, and they say they doubt that Mr. Obama could deliver the votes of Democrats needed to achieve such a majority.

White House officials have repeatedly complained that Republican hostility to the health care law made it impossible to pass “technical corrections” or other legislation to clarify or modify its provisions. Supporters of the law would, for example, like to clarify that premium subsidies are available to people in all states, regardless of whether they have an insurance exchange established by the state or by the federal government. The administration and its critics are locked in court fights over that question, which arises from ambiguous language in the law.
[That is not fact accepted by all until SCOTUS rules on it.]

...Mr. Obama said Wednesday that he could not accept repeal of the individual mandate. But he did not make such a statement about enforcement of the employer mandate, which he has twice delayed.
[Taxing the less fortunate through penalties?]

...The election results do not immediately alter the outlook for expansion of Medicaid, but could strengthen the hand of Republican governors negotiating with the Obama administration for permission to expand it in their own way. Gov. Gary R. Herbert of Utah and Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, both Republicans, have been engaged in such negotiations for months.

Speaking to state Medicaid directors on Tuesday, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, said the administration was eager to cut deals. “We’re eager and willing to work with states that have yet to expand,” Ms. Burwell said.

...Under the law, the federal government offers large financial incentives to states that agree to provide Medicaid to anyone with income less than 138 percent of the poverty level (less than $16,105 a year for an individual). Among states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid, some want to extend eligibility up to the poverty level ($11,670 for an individual), but no further.

Quote:

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/humanas-profit-dips-in-third-quarter-1415360635

Humana’s Profit Dips on Higher Costs
Health Insurer Reports Membership Gains, Encouraging 2015 Earnings Forecast

Humana Inc. said its earnings fell in the most recent quarter as the health insurer continued to feel pressure from costs related to insurance exchanges and new, expensive hepatitis C drugs.

The company said these effects were offset in large part by increasing membership, although its results fell below analysts’ expectations.

[...]

Benefits costs surged 20% to $9.67 billion, lifting overall operating expenses 20% to $11.65 billion.

Humana’s consolidated benefit ratio, which is benefits expense as a percent of premiums, was 83.3% in the third quarter, better than Mr. Rigg expected and helped by a lower ratio in the retail segment

Meanwhile, the insurer had 13.8 million enrollees in its medical plans at the end of the quarter, an 11% increase from the same point last year.

Its Medicare Advantage membership rolls have grown 17% so far this year, with an 18% year-over-year increase in the most recent period to 2.4 million members. The plans, which are the private-sector version of Medicare, represent a large part of Humana’s results.

[...]

• 
  
• @BrianBeutler
  Morbid upshot of SCOTUS agreeing to hear King, is that a 4--4 split, in absence of one justice, would leave the law intact.

Quote:

 

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-supreme-court-will-hear-king-thats-bad-news-for-the-aca/

The Supreme Court will hear King. That’s bad news for the ACA

...As I see it, what’s troubling here is... that four justices apparently think—or at least are inclined to think—that King was wrongly decided. As I’ve said before, there’s no other reason to take King. The challengers urged the Court to intervene now in order to resolve “uncertainty” about the availability of federal tax credits. In the absence of a split, however, the only source of uncertainty is how the Supreme Court might eventually rule. After all, if it was clear that the Court would affirm in King, there would have been no need to intervene now. The Court could have stood pat, confident that it could correct any errant decisions that might someday arise.

There’s uncertainty only if you think the Supreme Court might invalidate the IRS rule. That’s why the justices’ votes on whether to grant the case are decent proxies for how they’ll decide the case. The justices who agree with King wouldn’t vote to grant. They would instead want to signal to their colleagues that, in their view, the IRS rule ought to be upheld. The justices who disagree with King would want to signal the opposite.

And there are at least four such justices. If those four adhere to their views—and their views are tentative at this stage, but by no means ill-informed—the challengers just need one more vote to win. In all likelihood, that means that either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Kennedy will again hold the key vote.

None of this bodes well for the government. That’s not to say the government can’t win. It might. As I’ve said many times, the statutory arguments cut in its favor. But the Court’s decision to grant King substantially increases the odds that the government will lose this case. The states that refused to set up their own exchange need to start thinking—now—about what to do if the Court releases a decision in June 2015 withdrawing tax credits from their citizens.

LTC8K6

Nov 10 2014, 08:46 AM

http://twitchy.com/2014/11/09/such-a-sad-dishonest-little-hack-jonathan-chait-writes-that-the-gop-is-trying-to-kill-people/

‘Such a sad, dishonest little hack.’ Jonathan Chait writes that the GOP is trying to ‘kill’ people

• 
  
• Step 1: Ambiguous
  
  
• Step 2: Congressional intent