Saturday, February 11, 2017

Where were those Save Obamacare activists last year? Asleep ? Fooled?

Originally posted 2/11/17: updated 2/22/17 and 2/25/17  Sky Hi News 3/1/17 print edition (in part)

Crowd chanting and party platforms cheered on  GOP candidates  to  support repeal of  Obamacare. in 2016. Now that the GOP controls both the White House and Congress, they are finding themselves on the receiving end of a consumer revolt.  Twenty million  are suddenly  realizing they may lose high quality  health insurance they can afford for the first time in years. The chants of audiences at the  rowdy town halls are instead " don't take away my insurance ".

Donald Trump calls the town hall attendees a small, noisy minority  of paid  activists. The GOP and he are fooling themselves.  Take a look at the polls. Those angry attendees represent the majority opinion. Obamacare  for the first time is polling more popular than not.

Where were these defenders  of Obamacare last November? They were lulled and fooled. They awoke in January/February. thanks to the marches and rowdy town halls. They had been  soothed by promises of some in the GOP, and especially  Donald Trump, that the health care law would be replaced with something “better”.  Others were dreaming for single payer systems.   Ignorance also shaped public opinion.   35% of Americans  polled did not know Obamacare and the ACA were one in the same and are just learning their newly acquired insurance they may lose was indeed Obamacare.
Many of GOP plans in formation now would  eliminate subsidies that make the plans affordable for those in the lower middle class, and  even eliminate medicaid expansion , taking away insurance from those who cannot afford to pay even minimum premiums.

What polls do show is that "mandates" are what most voters want repealed. "Mandate " is a  turn -off  term.  For most that means to eliminate requirements all must carry heatlh insurance or face a penalty.   But "benefit" is a nicer word and the GOP wants to call "benefits" mandates, too.   Those nasty mandates are  benefits are required by  the ACA to be included in all insurance plans, whether individually bought, employer provided, subsidized through the exchanges,and  Medicare, Medicaid. They include: low co-pay annual physicals , and cancer screenings for both sexes such as mammograms and colonoscopies, pink and prescription blue pills, banning life time limits, and providing pre-natal care. The GOP wants to make these benefits optional in the name of being "patient centered".

Unfortunately those "mandates/benefits" are what makes the ACA affordable because it keeps the "pool" large enough so that those who do not use or need all of  benefits now or in the future  pay for those who do. The larger the pool, the lower the cost for all, an actuarial  fact.

The GOP has challenges replacing the ACA.  They will have to show that the costs to the federal budget will be less than is the ACA.  Cutting benefits and to take away insurance from many who have it now will be an unpopular political option.  The hottest  political backfire will happen in the states Trump carried in 2016. 64% of the 2017 ACA subscribers are in those states. GOP governors are protesting repeal, too, since abandoning Medicaid expansion would seriously dent their budgets. Rural hospitals would lose paying customers and close their doors. Miners would lose black lung coverage.  Jobs would be lost in the health care sector. The GOP has grabbed a political tiger by its tail.

__________________________________________________________________________________
Some more thoughts:

The complaint about Obamacare  most received in my inbox is that  the premiums are too high for those who make too much income to qualify for subsidies. That can be fixed without throwing all of the ACA babies out with the bathwater. IThe most unpopular part about the ACA, per the polls, is the mandate that requires adults to have health insurance, but unfortunately that is element that keeps the cost and premiums low.

Not on the radar of the polls either are complaints that the ACA contains benefits  some customers would never use, such as pre natal care or prostate exams. While the GOP dangles the lure of letting consumer cherry pick  if  any and what kind of benefits they want to pay for  (they call that "patient centered choice") instead of the Obamacare required minimum eight benefits , they overlook the fundamental truth of insurance financing : the size of the pool and the mix of the  number of those they forecast who would make claims vs those who do not.   



That is going to be where the GOP's plans are going to run smackdab into reality.  When the Congressional Budget Office scores the costs of whatever GOP plans that have been rumored so far, the deficit hawks are going to get their scissors out and the temptation would be to cut the numbers of voters who would be able to get affordable insurance. that will contain benefits consumers want

To deal with the cost problem, the GOP's panacea are permitting  cross state purchases, which the CBO itself earlier said it would have minimal impact. High risk insurance pools have been less than successful  in covering pre-existing conditions because of costs. Systemic problems keep multi state risk pools from succeeding.


Not only would taking away insurance from voters have a politiacl backlash, there could be some unintended consequences. It would result in job loss and rural hospital closings.  A significant number of jobs added to the economy since 2009 have been in the healthcare sector. Over 20 million new paying customers have entered hospitals and doctors doors thanks to the ACA. Hospitals and doctors can count on getting paid instead of writing it off as charity or losing payments for services in bankruptcy court.


To deal with the cost problem, the GOP's panacea are permitting  cross state purchases, which the CBO itself earlier said it would have minimal impact. High risk insurance pools have been less than successful  in covering pre-existing conditions because of costs. Systemic problems keep multi state risk pools from succeeding.

That Obamacare will implode because insurance rates have gone up and it is a "disaster", the Trump and GOP mantra, is very misleading and those 12 million plus who signed up for it in the exchanges do not see it as a disaster, but a necessity . They just would like to see premiums cheaper and deductions or out of pocket expenses less.
That GOP claim is based on the knowledge that major insurance companies have not made as much of a profit as they hoped and left only one plan in some states's exchanges and that premiums have increased 600%. or doubled. (not in every state). Those getting subsidized or Medicaid insurance have seen increases in premiums and up front deductions. It has especially increased in the individual market but the facts are that the "cost curve" has been reduced...that is, premiums have not gone up as much as projected without Obamacare.Repeal Obamacare, and we would really see premiums soar. The real disaster will be dumped on those who lose insurance they have just now been able to afford. The other disaster: block grants on Medicaid to states which are really federal aid reduced and leaving the states holding the bag. That is not "better"by any definition.



Addendum: Feb. 27, 2017:
Ali Velshi  on CNN interviews person from Columbia U. Half of the 20K covered by Obamacare get Medicaid Expansion (11 mil).. 31 states did Medicaid expansion; half have GOP governors. A total of 75million are now on Medicaid.   Right now states and federal government split costs and GOP proposals floated would give the states a block grant, but no guarantee in future would be enough or would the block grants be the same. 
Currently subsidies for those on Exchanges based upon sliding scale of income. GOP proposals would change that to one based on age and young people would get $2K credit (enough for catastrophic, but not much more) and older people would get $4K credit. However, cost of older people 5x younger so not enough for the older, sicker. 



_____________________________________________________________________________
For more about how GOP "patient centered" proposals would discriminate against women's health,
see my blog posting below of 2/3/17 "GOP and Trump planning to discriminate against women's health access"

http://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2016-12-01/poll-americans-want-to-see-changes-to-obamacare

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/314610-obamacare-reaches-new-popularity-heights-poll

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-paul-ryan-healthcare-plan-20170214-story.html

http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/obamacare-affordable-care-act-repeal-poll/

http://www.cbsnews.com/.../millions-sign-up-for-obamacare-de...?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2016/10/10/sorry-trump-selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines-wouldnt-lower-costs/#841bf005f015

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/02/news/economy/repealing-obamacare-health-insurance/

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/what-is-the-effect-of-obamacare-economy-000164

http://canadajournal.net/world/kaiser-family-foundation-poll-one-five-want-obamacare-repeal-without-replace

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/high-risk-pools-for-uninsurable-individuals/

http://www.newsweek.com/obamacare-repeal-threatens-rural-hospitals-and-trump-voters-who-depend-them-538627

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/01/08/as-obamacare-repeal-looms-hospitals-brace-for-job

Related blog postings:


0
33
2/15/17
0
55
2/11/17
0
89
2/3/17
0
159
1/24/17
0
225
1/17/17
0
218
1/16/17
0
233
1/13/17
1
318
1/5/17
0
354
12/31/16
0
378
12/27/16
1
536
12/6/16
0
530
12/3/16

Sunday, February 5, 2017

How Donald Trump is learning that being POTUS is not the same as being a CEO

A Seattle federal judge ruled against President Trump's executive order of an entry ban of those coming from seven Muslim majority countries and the judge's ruling was upheld by a Court of Appeals.
Darn, that pesky rule of law and an independent judiciary. Trump is learning that being a CEO is not the same as being POTUS. As a CEO he could set the rules with his memos. Presidential executive orders are still subject to laws, the Constitution, and judicial rulings.
Once again, as he has done before in the Trump University case, he launched on a tirade against the judge who first ruled against his "ban".

The lesson for all in our democracy is that the rule of law and an independent judiciary are the keystones for maintaining the democracy we treasure. The lawsuits against the Trump executive order are increasing in number daily. The bases range from discrimination to the lack of factual reasons for the ban (i.e. if the purpose is to prevent terrorists who would harm the US from entering the country, then none of the terrorist attacks we have had on our homeland came from the banned countries, yet the terrorist attacks we have had come from other Muslim majority countries not banned..) The fact that the Trump administration would give priority to Christians over Muslims in entry adds fuel to
argument against the ban based on religious discrimination. It also illustrates the question of Trump's business causing conflict of interest in his role as president since the majority Muslim countries left out of the ban were the same in which Trump had business interests.

He may have been fulfilling a campaign promise, making his followers happy, but it is a promise he should not have made and he often had to backtrack and recraft as many pointed out to him during the campaign the legal issues such a ban would raise. Nonetheless, he forged ahead within a couple of weeks of being sworn in as President.

His lack of respect for the judiciary, launching personal attacks against the ruling judge, as he did against the "Mexican judge" who ruled against him the Trump University civil case, is the type of behavior we would expect of a tyrant in a non-democratic society.

Watch now how he goes about trying the stack the lower courts with his appointments he can count on to walk lock step with him. That is a technique used by wannabe dictators to get around their own constitutions similar to ours. That replacement of the judiciary is the tool of choice by those attempting to undermine the democratic process, upsetting any checks on the executive, and to seize power. It is going on now in Turkey. Their president attempting to become the dictator of the country by replacing judges with those who support his power grab.

Attacking and disrespecting the rule of law or judicial rulings is the Trump modus operandi. This is a very dangerous time for our US democracy and requires vigilance and push back from those who understand the Constitution and the fundamental importance of separation of powers.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-denies-justice-request-immediately-090952370.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-christian-refugees/

http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/state-washington-vs-donald-j-trump-et-al

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-judiciary-idUSKCN0ZH4IZ

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/29/trump-s-muslim-ban-excludes-muslim-countries-linked-to-his-busin/21702521/

Friday, February 3, 2017

What is world leadership and Trump's bad start to be a world leader.

So much is what is your definition of a world leader? One who cuts and runs and leaves the field to others or one who provided the leadership to assemble many countries to meet a common goal?  In the first couple of weeks, Trump has managed to try to bully Australia, Germany, Mexico and  put the English PM in trouble back home, and  ticking off others  with the Muslim ban by another name as a way to achieve foreign policy goals.  This may be his making of a deal, but the deal it has raised has been bad will, a great deal of it.



In response to a facebook posting, a reader responded: "After the debacle of 8 years of Obama, it will be very difficult to re-establish our role as world leader. Obama virtually did away with NATO, totaled screwed up the situation in Syria, botched the Crimean problem and drove a dagger in the heart of Israel. How's that, for world leadership?"


My response: "He declares NATO obsolete as a mutual defense pact, wants to lift sanctions against Russian encroachments in Crimea and Ukraine, sanctions that Obama negotiated, Leaves the TPP, action that will only enhance Chinese trade and influence in SE Asia, a treaty which Obama negotiated; wants Russia to take over the Syrian war and thereby strengthening Iran's hand; ..How is all of this making the US a world leader? It is simply leaving the world with a vacuum to be filled by Russians and China. "    That is not world leadership by any definition.

World leadership is also not delivering muddled messages.  Recently the Trump administration announced "it was putting Iran on notice" after a ballistic missile test.  Does that mean throwing out the Iran nuclear deal as Trump proposed in his campaign, or keeping it and making Iran stick to the agreement?   

It is also issuing executive orders that result in chaos and misunderstandings with the enforcers. Incompetence was the case in the recent order to halt incoming people even with legal entry who come from the seven Muslim countries.
It  may not only be poor leadership and an inconceived, messy , confusing rollout, but also may be unconstitutional. A Seattle federal court issued a restraining order, halting the ban from the seven Muslim countries on the basis that it was not issued on the basis of fact since none of the acts of terror committed on US soil were by anyone from those countries and noted that where the 9/11 terrorists came from, used to justify the ban,  was from Saudi Arabia, not on the ban list. Others have  observed that the Muslim countries escaping the ban list were those in which the Trump organization had business interests.

The fallout from these first few weeks in office indicate trouble down the road as Trump tries to reshape US foreign policy.  If the US sees it in its national interest to get involved militarily,  by ticking off  our closest allies, we could , be on our own, meaning it will be our blood and treasure alone that will be on the line.  

There is also a nagging fear that Trump could use such a military adventure for domestic political reasons if he needs to increase his favorable ratings  Right now, 53% of Americans disapprove of his handling the office since he was sworn in.  44% approve.  Those are historically low ratings for the beginning of an administration.  One thing we know about TV star Trump is that he relishes his ratings above all and that he would take action to boost them is not out of the realm of possibility.   

Bernie Sanders, speaking in Arlington Virginia recently, as reported by Yahoo News, expressed a fear I have heard from others personally around me.  The question is what leadership position would a Trump take if he finds his poll numbers falling and the rest of the world refusing to take his lead?  We have seen this movie again and again over history:  start a war so everyone rallies around the flag (i.e.Trump).   Said Sanders, "ARLINGTON, Va. — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, speaking at a conference on the “Politics of Love” Thursday evening, said he feared that President Trump would plunge the nation into war.
“This is one of the things that scares me most: For a demagogue to succeed, they need to cultivate hatred. Now the hatred may be against immigrants — we’re all supposed to hate immigrants, and maybe it’s other minorities, African-Americans, Latinos,” Sanders said. “But also I worry that the hatred will spill over to foreign affairs, and that we are maybe entering into a situation where a Trump needs a war — and war and war — to rally public support.”


http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/donald-trump-approval-rating/index.html?sr=fblead0203trumppoll

re: incompetence in the "Muslim" ban order process:     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQCrSPXujwU&utm_

https://www.yahoo.com/news/seattle-judge-blocks-trump-immigration-order-000739102.html

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/01/29/trump-s-muslim-ban-excludes-muslim-countries-linked-to-his-busin/21702521/
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/27/is-trump-abandoning-americas-role-as-a-world-leader/

GOP and Trump planning to discriminate against women's health access

Back to the old ways. When Trump and the GOP say they want you to pay for just the parts of health insurance that suits you and you do not have to pay for the parts you do not need, that is code for women paying more for health insurance and deductibles so that men do not pay for women's health needs, , as required now by  the Obama law.. Even if women opt out of insurance that provides the blue pill, screenings for prostate cancer and  male urinary, reproductive  tract problems, they will still pay more because health care for women include well care, mammograms,  pre natal examinations, delivery, the pill , services that just cost more. It is not an even trade.

 The number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions have decreased dramatically with the coverage of the pill. By each sex paying for their respective care as "choice" would allow, the cost is no longer  spread around  in a large pool so that it becomes more affordable for all. Especially helpful in Obamacare was coverage  of  care of both sexes  required of all insurance, those by employers, those in the exchanges, those in the private market. Those, too, would go away and it is back to ye old high deductibles and increased out of pocket expenses. In fact, costs would increase since costs are no longer in a pool of those who use it and those who do not. . Those who are well heeled have no problem, but most in the middle class and lower usually just skip preventive medicine until some symptoms nag them. By then, sometimes it is either too late or or extremely expensive to treat. 

Before Obamacare, health care related debts  were the leading cause of bankruptcies but now that amount is about 20% of bankruptcies. That is still not good enough, especially since the federal reserve estimates that 47% of families have only $400 in reserve for emergencies. If you feel on the edge of finances, be aware you are in danger of going over the edge if Obamacare is repealed. You will find yourself skipping annual physicals and cancer screeinings to meet your own limited budgets. If you are sold a GOP plan that lets you cherry pick coverage and you take just take catastrophic coverage and do not include these preventative measures, you will just become part of "making America sicker again"...and women once again draw the short stick.

Even more discriminatory is the religious right campaign to cut out required benefits of birth control pills specificially part of Obamacare. However, if presecription drug benefits are included in any replacement, and the pink pill is not, the blue bill would still be covered if it is by presecription. Beware of the GOP bearing gifts of choice in any replacement plan.  The choice may be a bitter pill for women to  swallow.


Read more:

My blog post: 1/16/17 Some GOP's proposals to replace Obamacare are  baiting  and switching consumers 

Blog post of 1/5/17: Ignorance and not caring about others, two biggest political problems facing Obamacare

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-abortion-rates-20170117-story.html

https://www.yahoo.com/news/risk-womens-health-benefits-seen-health-law-repeal-083450656--politics.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2598797

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

http://amjmed.org/under-aca-medical-bankruptcy-continues/

http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/under-tom-prices-aca-killing-plan-18m-lose-insurance-and-premiums-rise/




https://www.federalreserve.gov/2015-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201605.pdf

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/29/503720671/5-things-to-know-about-rep-tom-prices-health-care-ideas

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-tom-price-republicans-obamacare-233605

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/brink-repeal-obamacare-has-never-been-more-popular-n707806