Quote:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/challenge-obamacare-contraceptives-rejected-154025992--politics.html

Challenge to Obamacare on contraceptives rejected

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a path devised by the Obama administration that allows religious nonprofit groups to avoid paying for contraception under the president's health care law.

In a 3-0 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a challenge by the groups, which claimed that the accommodation still imposes a substantial burden on their expression of religion.

The Affordable Care Act requires that women covered by group health plans be able to acquire Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods at no additional cost. In response to an outcry from religious groups, the government devised the accommodation, but the groups continued to oppose the regulations.

To be eligible for the accommodation, a religious organization must certify to its insurance company that it opposes coverage for contraceptives and that it operates as a nonprofit religious organization.

The religious groups argued that the notice to insurance companies requesting the accommodation is a trigger that will result in the government hijacking their health plans and using them as conduits for providing contraceptive coverage to their employees and students.

The Archdiocese of Washington on Friday called the ruling "very troubling and deeply flawed." It said in a statement that the law still forces church-affiliated groups "to cooperate in the delivery of morally objectionable products and procedures."

But the appeals court said that all the religious groups must do to opt out is to "express what they believe and seek what they want" via a letter or two-page form.

"That bit of paperwork is more straight-forward and minimal than many that are staples of nonprofit organizations' compliance with law in the modern administrative state," wrote appeals judge Cornelia Pillard, who was nominated by President Barack Obama.

"Religious nonprofits that opt out are excused from playing any role in the provision of contraceptive services, and they remain free to condemn contraception in the clearest terms," she added.

The contraceptive coverage requirement was adopted to "promote women's equal access to health care appropriate to their needs," the ruling stated. That need in turn "serves women's health, the health of children, and women's equal enjoyment of their right to personal autonomy without unwanted pregnancy."

Among the organizations challenging the accommodation are the religious group Priests For Life and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington.

"The court is wrong, and we will not obey the mandate," said Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests For Life.

The other judges in the case were Judith Rogers, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, and Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee.

Friday's decision follows a Supreme Court ruling that some companies with religious objections can avoid the contraceptive requirement in Obama's health care law. The justices left in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all methods of government-approved contraception. The Supreme Court ruling marks the first time the high court has declared that businesses can hold religious views under federal law.

Quote:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/17/that-time-gruber-said-an-obama-campaign-promise-was-not-credible-video/print/

That Time Gruber Said An Obama Campaign Promise Was Not Credible [VIDEO]

Posted By Chuck Ross

Embattled MIT economist Jonathan Gruber once disagreed with a bold claim made repeatedly by then-Sen. Barack Obama on the 2008 presidential campaign trail that the average American family would save $2,500 on their premiums per year under his health-care plan.

“We’ll work to lower your premiums by up to $2,500 per family per year,” Obama told an audience on Sept. 6, 2008. He made a similar claim at least 18 more times stump speeches during the campaign.

But that was news at the time to Gruber, who later advised the Obama administration on the creation of Obamacare and is now at the center of a firestorm for candid remarks he made about how the administration duped the American public in order to get the health law passed.

“I know zero credible evidence to support that conclusion,” Gruber told the non-partisan FactCheck.org in Feb. 2008 about proposals offered by Obama and his Democratic challenger at the time, Hillary Clinton.
[link to FactCheck: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/theyve-got-you-covered/ ]

Clinton claimed that her plan — which, unlike Obama’s, included the individual mandate — would save the average American family $2,200 per year. Obama said he plan would save families $2,500.

Gruber also offered his candid suggestion for how to actually control health-care costs.

“At the end of the day, the only way to control health-care costs in America is to deny Americans health care they want,” Gruber said.

He was seemingly referring to what has been dubbed the Cadillac tax, which is a 40-percent excise tax on the most expensive health insurance plans. Some economists, including Gruber, believe that the Cadillac tax will shore up inefficiencies in the health-care system and “bend the cost curve,” which will save money in the long term.

“Basically, we just don’t know. We just have no clue what it’s going to do,” Gruber added.

Obama’s $2,500 figure appears to have originated with a trio of Obama campaign health-care policy advisers. In a 2007 memo, the advisers wrote that the $2,500 was a “best-guess” that encompassed not just savings on premiums but overall health-care cost savings stemming from “improved health IT, better disease management, reduced insurance overhead, reinsurance, and reduced uncompensated care.”

But on the campaign trail, Obama adopted the easier-to-understand statement that the average family would save $2,500 per year on their insurance premiums.

In 2008, one of those advisers, Harvard University’s David Cutler, explained to The New York Times that “what we’re trying to do is find a way to talk to people in a way they understand.”

It is unclear when the Obama team dropped the $2,500 average premium savings figure. It is also unclear if Gruber had any hand in convincing the Obama team to do so. Gruber told PBS in 2012 that he began working for the Obama transition team shortly after the 2008 election “to help put the numbers together for the administration.”

He was ultimately paid $392,600 by the Obama administration for his work on Obamacare. The so-called Obamacare architect had previously helped create Romneycare, which served as the model for Obamacare.

Reached via email, Gruber told The Daily Caller that he is not offering comments at this time.

Quote:

 

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/big-changes-for-2015-workplace-plans-watch-out-for-these-six-possible-pitfalls/

Big Changes For 2015 Workplace Plans: Watch Out For These Six Possible Pitfalls

You don’t get a pass this year on big health insurance decisions because you’re not shopping in an Affordable Care Act marketplace. Employer medical plans — where most working-age folks get coverage — are changing too.

Rising costs, a looming tax on rich benefit packages and the idea that people should buy medical treatment the way they shop for cell phones have increased odds that workplace plans will be very different in 2015.

“If there’s any year employees should pay attention to their annual enrollment material, this is probably the year,” said Brian Marcotte, CEO of the National Business Group on Health, which represents large employers.

In other words, don’t blow off the human resources seminars. Ask these questions:

• 
  
• 1. Is my doctor still in the network?
  [...]
  
• 2. Is my employer changing where I get labs and medications?
  [...]
  
• 3. How will my out-of-pocket costs go up?
  It’s probably not a question of if. Shifting medical expense to workers benefits employers because it means they absorb less of a plan’s overall cost increases. By lowering the value of the insurance, it also shields companies from the “Cadillac tax” on high-end coverage that begins in 2018.
  
  Having consumers pay more is also supposed to nudge them to buy thoughtfully — to consider whether procedures are necessary and to find good prices.
  
  “It gets them more engaged in making decisions,” said Dave Osterndorf, a benefits consultant with Towers Watson.
  
  How well this will control total costs is very unclear.
  
  Your company is probably raising deductibles — the amount you pay for care before your insurance kicks in. The average deductible for a single worker rose to $1,217 this year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. One large employer in three surveyed by Marcotte’s group planned to offer only high-deductible plans (at least $2,600 for families) in 2015.
  
  Employers are also scrapping co-payments — fixed charges collected during an office or pharmacy visit.
  
  Once you might have made a $20 copay for a $100 prescription, with the insurance company picking up the other $80. Now you might pay the full $100, with the cost applied against your deductible, Marcotte said.
  
  
• 4. How do I compare medical prices and quality?
  [...]
  
• 5. Can I use tax-free money for out-of-pocket payments?
  [...]
  
• 6. How is my prescription plan set up?
  [...].

Quote:

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/11/18/good-news-for-boomers-buying-health-plans/

Good News for Boomers Buying Health Plans

Here’s some good news for boomers in need of health insurance: Premiums for the most popular plans available under the Affordable Care Act are slated to rise by a relatively modest 3% to 4% in 2015. Open enrollment runs from Nov. 15 through Feb. 15.... The news is especially helpful to boomers, the youngest of whom turn 50 this year....

kbp

Nov 18 2014, 10:44 AM

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/17/obama-challenges-press-to-look-at-transparency-of-obamacare-debate-so-i-did-video/print/
Obama Challenges Press To Look At Transparency Of Obamacare Debate, So I Did [VIDEO]


A very limited write-up on the topic. The fact is that most all of the debate that altered the bill in any way was conducted within the Democratic Senate Committees with input from outside sources working with the administration.