Here’s the reality: the stimulus was too small; we’re not seeing growth at a pace that will bring unemployment down rapidly, if at all; we clearly should be doing more; but obstructionism from Republicans is preventing action. And the administration knows all this perfectly well.
So one way to play this politically would be to tell the truth, and try to place the onus on Republicans, accusing them of perpetuating high unemployment.
Instead, however, the administration has decided to engage in happy talk, saying that it’s all good.
Do they really think this will work? I mean, I live in fairly rarefied circles (that’s not a boast, it’s an admission of inadequacy), and even so I know a number of people whose lives have become a living hell: men in their late 50s who fear they’ll never work again, small business owners who have lost everything. Does the administration really believe that it can convince these people that it’s all on the mend?
Premium subsidies, bans on higher premiums and coverage denials based on gender, and required maternity and newborn care coverage among most significant in reducing women’s exposure to health costs
Thirty million women will benefit from the new health reform law over the next decade, either through new or strengthened insurance coverage, according to a new report from The Commonwealth Fund. In the first analysis of its kind, the authors report that the law will stabilize and reverse the growing exposure to health costs that women now experience by subsidizing health insurance for up to 15 million currently uninsured women, and strengthening existing coverage for 14.5 million women who are considered underinsured—those who have health coverage that does not adequately protect them from high medical expenses. Provisions important to women will expand eligibility for Medicaid; provide subsidies to purchase insurance; limit out-of-pocket spending; prevent insurers from charging higher premiums or denying coverage based on health status or gender; and require new plans to cover maternity and newborn care. These provisions will also help uninsured women who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid or premium subsidies gain comprehensive coverage.
Although women are just as likely to be uninsured as men, their health care needs leave them more vulnerable to high health care costs and problems related to loss of health insurance. Because insurance carriers consider women, particularly those of reproductive age, higher risk than men, women report greater difficulties gaining coverage in the individual insurance market and are charged much higher premiums for the same benefits than men of the same age. Further, most individual policies do not cover pregnancy.
Another important provision that will help an estimated 100,000 uninsured women gain coverage is the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) to provide temporary coverage to adults with pre-existing conditions who are uninsured during 2010 to 2013. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia began enrollment in PCIPs in July, and 12 will begin to enroll adults in August; in the 21 states without a PCIP the federal government began operation of a PCIP July 1st.
“Historically, women have been more vulnerable to high health care costs and have had greater difficulty paying medical bills because of their lower incomes,” said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. “This report provides good news to all women, who will be more likely to get the care they need, with reduced risk of incurring the unaffordable medical bills that have affected so many Americans.”
Realizing Health Reform’s Potential: Women and the Affordable Care Act of 2010 is the first in a series of Fund reports that will focus on how health reform is expected to impact various populations. It describes when provisions of the new law affecting women take effect, and how many women will be affected by specific provisions. Beginning in 2014, Medicaid coverage expansions and subsidized coverage through state health insurance exchanges could assist 15 million working-age women who currently lack insurance. The majority of these gains come from Medicaid coverage expansions that may affect up to 8 million currently insured women who earn up to $14,000 or are in families with incomes up to $29,000.
Women living in states with higher than average uninsurance rates stand to gain the most from the new law: New Mexico and Texas (29% uninsured in 2008); Florida and Louisiana (24% uninsured); and Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Mississippi, West Virginia, Idaho, Kentucky, Nevada and Oklahoma (at least 20% uninsured).
Although women will have to wait until 2014 to begin to reap the greatest benefits from expanded and improved insurance coverage, several early provisions beginning in 2010 will also provide important support, the study shows. These include:
• Strengthened and expanded insurance coverage for young adults, through policies that allow adult children up to age 26 to come on, or stay on, their parents’ plans, and bans on pre-existing condition exclusions;
•
• Bans on lifetime benefit limits and phase-out of annual limits;
•
• Bans on rescissions of insurance policies;
•
• Coverage of recommended preventive services without cost-sharing including mammograms;
•
• Eligibility for a new plan that covers uninsured people with pre-existing conditions that currently make it difficult for them to gain coverage; and
•
• Rebates to women enrolled in Medicare who reach the “doughnut hole” in their prescription drug plans; women, along with people with diabetes and Alzheimer’s or other forms of dementia are most likely to reach this gap in coverage.
•
Insurance Market Reforms
Nearly two in five women—an estimated 7.3 million—between the ages of 19 and 64 who tried to buy individual insurance plans over a three-year period were turned down, charged a higher price or had a pre-existing condition excluded from their plan. Beginning in 2014, all insurers must accept everyone who applies for coverage and cannot charge higher premiums based on health status or gender.
In addition, all health plans sold through new state insurance exchanges in both the individual and small group markets will have to cover maternity and newborn care as part of the federally determined benefit packages described below.
“Women who have an individual insurance market policy that charges them higher premiums than men, who have been unable to secure coverage for the cost of a pregnancy, or who have a preexisting health condition excluded from their benefits will ultimately find themselves on a level playing field with men, with a full range of comprehensive benefits, including maternity coverage,” said lead study author Sara Collins, a vice president at the Commonwealth Fund.
Insurance Exchanges and Subsidies
Uninsured women who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid will be able to purchase policies through state–run exchanges that will offer federally determined essential benefit plans with four levels of cost-sharing with an annual cap on out-of-pocket costs of $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families, beginning in 2014. In addition, women with incomes under 400 percent of poverty, or $88,000 for a family of four, will be eligible for subsidies to offset their premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Up to 7 million currently uninsured women may gain subsidized coverage through the exchanges.
“Today many health plans don’t provide a comprehensive set of affordable benefits, forcing women to choose between paying out-of-pocket for necessary service or delaying or skipping care. Better information and benefit plans that are easier to understand, along with subsidies to offset their costs, will make a significant difference for American families,” said Collins.
Women who own businesses with fewer than 50 or 100 employees, depending on the state, will also be able to purchase a health plan through the exchanges.
I’m endorsing Lisa Wilson-Foley of Avon for lieutenant governor in the Republican primary. A Foley-Foley ticket would be fun, wouldn’t it?
But that’s not the reason why I’m endorsing her. The reason is Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton, the other candidate.
As documented extensively by Al Robinson’s great HatCityBlog, Boughton’s fundraising has raised eyebrows. Even more troubling is Boughton’s anti-immigrant policies and practices.
Boughton(‘s) …record on immigration enforcement in Danbury and racial profiling, however, is so troubling that we could not in good conscience recommend him for this job. And he is inconsistent in his description of how illegal immigration even affects his city, on one hand saying that it is a drain on services, on the other bragging that Danbury has the lowest crime and unemployment in the state despite the presence of between 5,000 and 11,000 “illegals.”
Boughton hasn’t exactly been a a fountain of veracity, either, as telling the truth seems to be an elusive concept for him.
In the Republican Primary for Attorney General, NARAL Pro-Choice CT PAC has endorsed Ross Garber. Garber faces anti-choice challenger Martha Dean who has been endorsed by the anti-choice Family Institute of Connecticut (FIC).
“Ross Garber promises to enforce the laws of Connecticut,” said PAC Chair Cari Pierdes. “It is extremely important that the next Attorney General of the state of Connecticut remain pro-choice”.
Garber has represented businesses and individuals throughout the country before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in federal criminal investigations and in connection with enforcement actions by several state attorneys general.
Notably, he represented former Gov. John G. Rowland’s office when Rowland was the subject of a criminal investigation and threatened with impeachment. He has advised other high-profile political figures in criminal investigations and defended an accountant in a mafia racketeering case.
“Some people are hired guns,” Dean said in an interview. “Just like prostitutes, you know?”
Really Martha? Your failure to see the difference between a prostitute and an attorney representing a client is appalling.
Dean clearly intended to attack Garber. However, I view her comments as an attack on the legal profession. The idea that lawyers are prostitutes is both untrue and insulting.
….Perpetuating the notion that lawyers are prostitutes for political gain demeans the legal profession. It’s appalling coming from the mouth of an attorney who is seeking to become the State’s top attorney.
The Norwich Bulletin has endorsed Rob Simmons because he has spent his entire life in service to his country. On the other hand, Linda McMahon and I have spent our entire lives in pursuit of personal wealth and self-interest. With that one observation the editorial board reveals their Marxist tendencies and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the free enterprise system upon which our nation is based.
According to the Bulletin the pursuit of personal wealth does not serve the national interest — that the goods and services provided or the jobs created in the process mean nothing. According to the Bulletin guys like Thomas Edison, Henry Forbes, Bills Gates, Steve Jobs, etc. have done nothing to serve the national interest. I suppose the invention of the electric light bulb did nothing to improve the lives of Americans. That candlelight is just as good. That all the jobs provided by Edison Electric did nothing to improve the lives of their employees. They must have a similar view of affordable automobiles, personal computers, windows operating systems, or iphones.
This is nuttiness on so many levels that I don’t know where to begin. I’ll trust intelligent readers of this blog to recognize it for the nonsense it is.
Here’s more from Schiff:
What did Rob Simmons ever invent … nothing? How many millions has the Gates foundation given away in charitable contributions? Compare that to what Simmons is able to donate with his government paychecks…
Rob Simmons has spent his entire life collecting government paychecks. He has never run a business; he has never produced a product, provided a service, or created a job. Yet according to the Bulletin that makes his uniquely qualified to be a United States Senator.
According to the Bulletin my ideas are so radical and out of touch that they have no chance of success. Well I suppose to a bunch of socialist journalist, free market ideas are radical.
In the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, we enthusiastically endorse the candidacy of Rob Simmons.
Simmons is the only candidate with the experience, the knowledge, the understanding of how government works and the dedication and commitment to serve Connecticut citizens. While Simmons has spent his entire life in service to his country, his two challengers have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of personal wealth and self-interests — and their campaigns say as much.
Simmons has served as Senate staffer and congressman. He understands our intelligence community, a vital component in keeping Americans safe. He also understands the value of reaching across party lines…
Schiff’s strong Libertarian beliefs are so far out of touch with the majority of Connecticut residents that he offers no real change at all.
Although some of his ideas are interesting, too many are so radical they have no chance of success.
Sounds like “socialist” “Marxist” “left-wing” talk to me, too! But that’s typical of all the newspapers in Connecticut according to Schiff:
Not a single newspaper has endorsed me. In fact, each one basically dismisses me as a nut.
“Yet there is also much to concern GOP voters about her candidacy. Ms. McMahon made her riches through an exploitative and often degrading form of entertainment with links to steroid use. WWE glorifies violence and bullying. It has treated women as objects and people with disabilities as victims, not equals. Ms. McMahon says WWE has cleaned up its act to “PG” status. Still, the nature of her business background will turn off many voters.”
“When it comes to substance, her campaign is null, nothingness, a void. She is neither conservative nor qualified. She is a new face, a millionaire who supposedly was once bankrupt, a candidate with a fat checkbook. Period.”
“McMahon’s campaign is based on her successful business career, the former CEO of a sleazy “entertainment” business that exploits and degrades women, glorifies violence and is riddled with drug scandals. She refuses to deal with that honestly, instead dismissing it as “just a soap opera. When people die, it’s not just a soap opera.”
“McMahon has no vision or plan. Her campaign is nothing more than 30-second sound bites about the past.”
“It’s a strike against her that she won’t test her capacity to withstand hostile questions in additional debates with her rivals.”
“Further, WWE’s schlocky, off-color content is not everyone’s cup of tea, as one of her ads admits. To the extent that voters believe — unfairly or not — that the content of her business enterprise reflects her values, it distracts from her campaign message. Likewise, any new whiff of scandal could damage her candidacy.”
“Once again, the Mayor of Waterbury has demonstrated an utter disdain for the truth, and that he will say anything to win this election, when the facts that prove him wrong are readily available in the public record,” Jacqueline Kozin, campaign manager for Kevin Lembo said today.
“Connecticut voters are some of the most informed in the country,” said Kozin. “It’s clear that the Mayor of Waterbury not only has no respect for the truth, he has no respect for the Connecticut Democrats he is courting.”
While the Mayor’s latest mailing to voters in advance of the August 10 primary for State Comptroller says Lembo is a “puppet” of the insurance industry, exactly the opposite is true.
As Healthcare Advocate Kevin Lembo has helped thousands of Connecticut residents to get the care their doctor ordered, and their insurance company denied.
• 2005 – 1,468 served, $1.5 million in patient savings/denials overturned
• 2006 – 1,865 served, $2.5 million in patient savings/denials overturned
• 2007 – 1,749 served, $4.4 million in patient savings/denials overturned
• 2008 – 2,143 served, $5.4 million in patient savings/denials overturned
• 2009 – 2,613 served, $6.6 million in patient savings/denials overturned
Kevin Lembo led the charge for accountability for the insurance industry and patient protection:
• Called for mandatory reporting of profit vs. claim costs
• Require minimum “medical loss ratios,” the part of a premium dollar spent on actual health care
• Called for mandatory public hearings on rate increase requests before the State Insurance Department
• Together with AG Blumenthal, fought the Anthem rate increase request
• Investigated the insurance industry of “policy rescission/post-claims underwriting” – taking your policy away once you get sick
• Testified before the U.S. Congress on “rescissions” and urged Federal legislation to stop the practice – included in health care reform bill
• Co-authored and led to passage Connecticut’s law to stop rescissions – the first in the country
I was already prepared to endorse Rob Simmons in the Republican primary for Governor, based not only on his record as a moderate, pro-choice Republican congressman, despite his unfortunate and discontinued dalliance with the Tea Partiers, but also on the total lack of qualifications of his opponents.
But now he has sealed the deal, advocating for an almost complete withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan:
Video is from Paul Bass, New Haven Independent, a great on-line newspaper which I read every day.
What courage, what common sense, what integrity! Honestly, if he wins the primary I will be in a real quandary in the general election – that’s how important this issue is to me.
