Tag Archives: medical insurance

Savvy Ways College Grads Can Keep Medical Insurance

See original here:

As college and graduate school students turn the tassels on their graduation caps, many will instantly find themselves without health insurance — even in Massachusetts with its insurance mandate. Some students were insured through their school policies, which run out after graduation. Bad Memories Can Be Erased With A Pill – Consider staying on a parent’s plan. The Affordable Care Act now mandates that employer health plans cover their employee’s young adult children until age 26 even if they’re no longer dependents — though some companies may have been granted a waiver from this coverage if they had their old plans grandfathered in. – But do a little comparison shopping first. Take a look at what insurance plans costs. There may be more affordable ones around you – Make sure any plan offers in-network doctors in the state where you now reside. While it may have made sense for, say, a Harvard student to travel back to Michigan for annual physicals and twice-yearly dental exams during summer vacation and winter break, that may not work so well after graduation when “home” is no longer with the parents. CDC On Alert For New Deadly Strain Of E.Coli

Savvy Ways College Grads Can Keep Medical Insurance

Newsweek’s Stuart Taylor a Bit Misleading in Article on Court Challenge to ObamaCare

“The justices have not struck down a major piece of legislation, let alone a president’s signature initiative, as beyond Congress’s power to regulate commerce in some 75 years.” That’s how Newsweek’s Stuart Taylor Jr. today all but argued that, political ideology of the Supreme Court’s majority aside, a Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional the “individual mandate” of ObamaCare is quite unlikely. But while Taylor may be right  that no signature presidential initiative post-New Deal has been declared unconstitutional by the Court on the grounds that it violated the interstate commerce clause, he neglected to mention there are two key cases in the past 15 years where the Supreme Court did set outer limits to Congress’s exploitation of the commerce clause as a fountain of federal power. In 1995, a 5-justice majority in U.S. v. Lopez struck down a provision of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 that made it a federal crime to possess a firearm in a school zone. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that “the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce….  Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” What’s more, Rehnquist noted (emphasis mine), “To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.” In other words, if the Court had accepted the government’s rationale in Lopez, it would paved the way to destroy what is supposed to be an enumerated, limited federal power into a broader “police power” that is reserved for the several states of the Union.  Similar arguments regarding ObamaCare are certain to be made before the Supreme Court should the case get that far. Five years later in United States v. Morrison , the Rehnquist Court drew on the precedent in Lopez to strike down a portion of the federal Violence Against Women Act — legislation championed by current Vice President and then-Delaware Senator Joe Biden — on the grounds that it was an improper application of the interstate commerce clause. Wrote Rehnquist for the Court (emphasis mine): The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local , and there is no better example of the police power , which the Founders undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central government, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce. Both Lopez and Morrison were 5-to-4 cases, but they are relevant case law for the question of whether the ObamaCare individual mandate violates the interstate commerce clause by jury-rigging it into a police power-granting clause for Congress.

More here:
Newsweek’s Stuart Taylor a Bit Misleading in Article on Court Challenge to ObamaCare

Sebelius to Health Insurers: Shut Up Or Else About ObamaCare Increasing Premiums; To AP, It’s Mere ‘War of Words’

Adopting language and tactics more typical of tyrants, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius yesterday sent a public letter to the head of a health insurance industry group demanding that carriers stop “falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act,” and that “that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.” She reinforced her short-term threat with a longer-term one: We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections. Keep in mind that three months ago (noted at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), leaked government documents estimated that, depending on the assumption sets used, anywhere from 49 of small employer health plans and 34 of large employer plans would be forced financially or otherwise to “relinquish” their “grandfathered” status by 2013. This necessarily means that the market for private plans will decrease, while the market for those who would be forced to buy coverage through the “Exchanges” (what’s with the uppercase?) will necessarily expand. Thus, when Sebelius threatens exclusion from the “Exchanges,” she is really saying: “Shut up and eat your costs, or you’ll be out of business in a few years.” If you didn’t expect that the Associated Press’s coverage of Sebelius’s threats by Ricardo Alonso-Zalivar wouldn’t make this linkage, you’re right. In fact, the AP writer characterized them as “warnings” and part of a “war of words”  in his coverage (HT Hot Air ): HHS to insurers: Don’t blame us for your rates President Barack Obama’s top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration won’t tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law. “There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby. “Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections,” Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the law. They’d lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide. The letter to America’s Health Insurance Plans was the latest volley in a war of words over who gets the blame for rising premiums. Polls show that many people expect their costs to go up as a result of the law, but there’s also widespread mistrust of the insurance industry. Note how helpful the AP writer is to Sebelius’s cause with his reference to “bad actors,” as if a company passing on otherwise legitimate cost increases is presumptively so. It’s also a complete whitewash to describe what’s going on as a “war of words,” when the government is browbeating carriers into reducing otherwise presumably justifiable increases, while brazenly brandishing denial of access to the “Exchanges” and other sanctions as weapons. Though I can’t be sure, it appears that Alonso-Zaldivar got his 30 million figure from estimates of “the uninsured” — really those who don’t have insurance for a brief period during a given year — who would become covered under ObamaCare. If that’s the case, he has totally ignored Treasury’s preliminary estimates of those who would have to flee to the “Exchanges” as a result of employer plan terminations. Even at the low end of Treasury’s estimates (a blended 39% of small and larger employers, assuming that terminated plans have similar average numbers as those which remain), as many as 48 million Americans (39% x roughly 190 million Americans under age 65 x roughly 65% who currently have private plan coverage) would be herded into the exchanges by the end of 2013. Now there’s a threat, namely that the “Exchanges” will be so overwhelmed by new applicants that they will fail to function properly and disrupt the entire system of medical care delivery. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Link:
Sebelius to Health Insurers: Shut Up Or Else About ObamaCare Increasing Premiums; To AP, It’s Mere ‘War of Words’

Cramer: Democrats Not Fed Policy to Blame for Economic Malaise

Surprise – the Federal Reserve announced it will keep the Fed funds rate between zero and 0.25 percent. OK – it’s not really much of a surprise. However, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has responded to the slowing economic recovery with restraint, not tinkering with interest rates and showing a continued willingness to buy mortgage-backed securities and long-term Treasury bonds. And that was roundly applauded by the markets, and CNBC “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer. “Here’s what you need to know about the Fed,” Cramer said. “They’re not in the way. I’m a Fed-is-friend, Fed-is-foe guy.” On CNBC’s Aug. 10 “Street Signs,” during his “Stop Trading” segment, Cramer explained that the Fed is acting appropriately and noted it wasn’t the Bernanke that was holding the economy back. Who is to blame? It’s Congress, according to Cramer, with its complicated health care bill and even more indecipherable financial regulation bill. “I’ve never over-intellectualized anything,” Cramer said. “Fed said good things, buy. He didn’t say anything. Also, Bernanke … I heard someone say he was good in 2008. What – did he like get bad? What, is he like Tiger Woods? Bernanke is delivering. He’s not the problem. It’s a Congress that wants to make it so you don’t know how much it cost to hire a person because of health care. It’s a Fin-Reg bill that no one can figure out. I got guys calling me at major banks saying, ‘Jim, can you help me with the Fin-Reg?’ I don’t know the Fin-Reg. The Fin-Reg is impossible to understand. All I know is that it cuts profitability. Bernanke is not cutting profitability. He’s on the side of the good guys.” So what will people buy? As long as there is a perpetual fear in the economy, people will continue to put their money into treasury bonds, according to the “Mad Money” host. “Bonds never quit because a lot of people feel like we’re – look there’s enough guys that think this is 1934 – they will keep buying bonds,” he continued. “There’s this 1934 group of people, OK? And then there’s this group of people I would describe as being 2003 coming out of dot-bomb period.” And for now, Cramer said the Federal Reserve under Bernanke’s leadership was doing everything it could to aid the economy, despite Congress’ actions. “And what I would emphasize is that Bernanke – we can sit there and look at that statement and talk about whether it’s Treasuries versus mortgage-backed. What he’s saying is, ‘Listen, I know there’s no business being done in this country, and I’m going to do my best. This is a giving-her-all-she’s-got, Captain.'”

See original here:
Cramer: Democrats Not Fed Policy to Blame for Economic Malaise