The House voted 245-189 to approve the Republican bill that would scrap the law, which was passed by Congress last year after a bitter debate and signed by Obama when his fellow Democrats still controlled both the House and Senate.
"Our pledge was to repeal 'Obamacare,'" said House Speaker John Boehner, using a derisive term for the law. "Why? Because it is going to increase spending, increase taxes and destroy jobs in America."
Polls show that Americans are split on the law. An ABC News/Washington Post poll this week found that more Americans now believe it will hurt rather than help the struggling U.S. economy.
Republicans say the law saddles businesses with high costs and complicated regulations. Democrats say the law is an historic move to deliver health insurance to more than 30 million people who currently cannot afford it while also lowering medical costs and providing more consumer protections.
The law will also bar insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions.
Six other people were killed in the attack that prompted calls for politicians to tone down their rhetoric.
Republicans delayed debate on the bill for a week after Giffords was shot. Lawmakers from both sides largely avoided inflammatory rhetoric.
"Let's be clear, this law is working," said Representative Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. "Repealing it would have real-life consequences for millions of Americans."
Some, but not all, of the provisions in the law have gone into effect. They include allowing young people to stay on their parents' health insurance until age 26, improving drug savings for the elderly on the government's Medicare insurance program, and creating temporary high-risk pools to help people with medical conditions obtain health coverage.
Other elements such as the creation of insurance exchanges to help individuals and small business compare and purchase plans do not go into effect until 2014.
Federal courts have issued differing positions on whether a mandate that Americans purchase health insurance is permissible under the U.S. Constitution. The question is expected to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Health Care 2011
WASHINGTON -- The amount employers spend on their workers' healthcare costs will reach a five-year high in 2011, and employees will also face larger out-of-pocket costs for their medical care next year, according to a forecast released Monday by the consulting group Hewitt Associates.
Because of higher medical claim costs, an aging population, and changes under the new healthcare reform law, employers can expect to pay nearly 9% more toward their employees' healthcare costs than they did in 2010.
The findings are in line with a recent survey by the National Business Group on Health that asked large employers what they expected to pay for their workers' medical costs in 2011. The answer: about 9% more than in 2010.
The average total healthcare premium per employee working at a large firm will be $9,821 in 2011 -- up from $9,028 in 2010.
Employees will contribute, on average, $2,209, or 22.5% of the total premium, which is a few hundred dollars more than in 2010, when the average employee at a large firm paid 21.8% of their total premium, to total slightly less than $2,000. Once out-of-pocket costs for co-pays and deductibles are factored in, employees can expect to pay about $486 more than they paid toward their medical costs in 2010.
The authors of the Hewitt report say that the new figures mean that healthcare premiums have more than doubled in the past decade and employees' share of their medical costs will have more than tripled.
The high 2011 cost projections are based on a number of factors, the study authors said. For one, employers haven't hired many new employees in recent years, which has resulted in a slightly older work force that is more prone to expensive medical conditions.
Certain insurance market reforms contained in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- such as covering dependents until age 26 and eliminating lifetime and annual limits -- contributed to about 1% to 2% to the 9% increase in what employers are likely to pay in 2011.
"After 18 months of waiting for healthcare reform to play out, employers find themselves in a very challenging cost position for 2011," said Ken Sperling, Hewitt's healthcare practice leader, in a press release. "Reform creates opportunities for meaningful change in how healthcare is delivered in the U.S., but most of these positive effects won't be felt for a few years. In the meantime, employers continue to struggle to balance the significant healthcare needs of an aging work force with the economic realities of a difficult business environment."
Hewitt's data came from a database with detailed census, cost, and plan design information for 350 large U.S. employers representing 14.4 million participants and $51.9 billion in 2010 healthcare spending.
Because of higher medical claim costs, an aging population, and changes under the new healthcare reform law, employers can expect to pay nearly 9% more toward their employees' healthcare costs than they did in 2010.
The findings are in line with a recent survey by the National Business Group on Health that asked large employers what they expected to pay for their workers' medical costs in 2011. The answer: about 9% more than in 2010.
The average total healthcare premium per employee working at a large firm will be $9,821 in 2011 -- up from $9,028 in 2010.
Employees will contribute, on average, $2,209, or 22.5% of the total premium, which is a few hundred dollars more than in 2010, when the average employee at a large firm paid 21.8% of their total premium, to total slightly less than $2,000. Once out-of-pocket costs for co-pays and deductibles are factored in, employees can expect to pay about $486 more than they paid toward their medical costs in 2010.
The authors of the Hewitt report say that the new figures mean that healthcare premiums have more than doubled in the past decade and employees' share of their medical costs will have more than tripled.
The high 2011 cost projections are based on a number of factors, the study authors said. For one, employers haven't hired many new employees in recent years, which has resulted in a slightly older work force that is more prone to expensive medical conditions.
Certain insurance market reforms contained in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- such as covering dependents until age 26 and eliminating lifetime and annual limits -- contributed to about 1% to 2% to the 9% increase in what employers are likely to pay in 2011.
"After 18 months of waiting for healthcare reform to play out, employers find themselves in a very challenging cost position for 2011," said Ken Sperling, Hewitt's healthcare practice leader, in a press release. "Reform creates opportunities for meaningful change in how healthcare is delivered in the U.S., but most of these positive effects won't be felt for a few years. In the meantime, employers continue to struggle to balance the significant healthcare needs of an aging work force with the economic realities of a difficult business environment."
Hewitt's data came from a database with detailed census, cost, and plan design information for 350 large U.S. employers representing 14.4 million participants and $51.9 billion in 2010 healthcare spending.
Health Care 2011
WASHINGTON -- The amount employers spend on their workers' healthcare costs will reach a five-year high in 2011, and employees will also face larger out-of-pocket costs for their medical care next year, according to a forecast released Monday by the consulting group Hewitt Associates.
Because of higher medical claim costs, an aging population, and changes under the new healthcare reform law, employers can expect to pay nearly 9% more toward their employees' healthcare costs than they did in 2010.
The findings are in line with a recent survey by the National Business Group on Health that asked large employers what they expected to pay for their workers' medical costs in 2011. The answer: about 9% more than in 2010.
The average total healthcare premium per employee working at a large firm will be $9,821 in 2011 -- up from $9,028 in 2010.
Employees will contribute, on average, $2,209, or 22.5% of the total premium, which is a few hundred dollars more than in 2010, when the average employee at a large firm paid 21.8% of their total premium, to total slightly less than $2,000. Once out-of-pocket costs for co-pays and deductibles are factored in, employees can expect to pay about $486 more than they paid toward their medical costs in 2010.
The authors of the Hewitt report say that the new figures mean that healthcare premiums have more than doubled in the past decade and employees' share of their medical costs will have more than tripled.
The high 2011 cost projections are based on a number of factors, the study authors said. For one, employers haven't hired many new employees in recent years, which has resulted in a slightly older work force that is more prone to expensive medical conditions.
Certain insurance market reforms contained in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- such as covering dependents until age 26 and eliminating lifetime and annual limits -- contributed to about 1% to 2% to the 9% increase in what employers are likely to pay in 2011.
"After 18 months of waiting for healthcare reform to play out, employers find themselves in a very challenging cost position for 2011," said Ken Sperling, Hewitt's healthcare practice leader, in a press release. "Reform creates opportunities for meaningful change in how healthcare is delivered in the U.S., but most of these positive effects won't be felt for a few years. In the meantime, employers continue to struggle to balance the significant healthcare needs of an aging work force with the economic realities of a difficult business environment."
Hewitt's data came from a database with detailed census, cost, and plan design information for 350 large U.S. employers representing 14.4 million participants and $51.9 billion in 2010 healthcare spending.
Because of higher medical claim costs, an aging population, and changes under the new healthcare reform law, employers can expect to pay nearly 9% more toward their employees' healthcare costs than they did in 2010.
The findings are in line with a recent survey by the National Business Group on Health that asked large employers what they expected to pay for their workers' medical costs in 2011. The answer: about 9% more than in 2010.
The average total healthcare premium per employee working at a large firm will be $9,821 in 2011 -- up from $9,028 in 2010.
Employees will contribute, on average, $2,209, or 22.5% of the total premium, which is a few hundred dollars more than in 2010, when the average employee at a large firm paid 21.8% of their total premium, to total slightly less than $2,000. Once out-of-pocket costs for co-pays and deductibles are factored in, employees can expect to pay about $486 more than they paid toward their medical costs in 2010.
The authors of the Hewitt report say that the new figures mean that healthcare premiums have more than doubled in the past decade and employees' share of their medical costs will have more than tripled.
The high 2011 cost projections are based on a number of factors, the study authors said. For one, employers haven't hired many new employees in recent years, which has resulted in a slightly older work force that is more prone to expensive medical conditions.
Certain insurance market reforms contained in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- such as covering dependents until age 26 and eliminating lifetime and annual limits -- contributed to about 1% to 2% to the 9% increase in what employers are likely to pay in 2011.
"After 18 months of waiting for healthcare reform to play out, employers find themselves in a very challenging cost position for 2011," said Ken Sperling, Hewitt's healthcare practice leader, in a press release. "Reform creates opportunities for meaningful change in how healthcare is delivered in the U.S., but most of these positive effects won't be felt for a few years. In the meantime, employers continue to struggle to balance the significant healthcare needs of an aging work force with the economic realities of a difficult business environment."
Hewitt's data came from a database with detailed census, cost, and plan design information for 350 large U.S. employers representing 14.4 million participants and $51.9 billion in 2010 healthcare spending.
How to fix Health care system?
Require employers to pay their fair share. The U.S. system of providing health care coverage is employer-based. Unfortunately, this system leaves too many working families uninsured or under-insured. Fifty-six percent of uninsured workers worked full-time in 2002. New incentives and rules can change this. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) has proposed legislation to require employers of more than 50 workers to provide employees with health insurance, and in 2003, California passed a state law (PDF) that requires employers to provide insurance for workers or pay into a state fund to insure workers. With little federal action on health care, more states are addressing health care issues.
Beware of new “defined-contribution” health care coverage. Shifting health care costs onto working families already is creating hardship at the doctor's office and the bargaining table. Now, many employers are talking about passing most or all of the risk of rising health care costs onto employees by adopting "defined-contribution" plans (also described with terms including "vouchers,” “consumer driven health care,” “tiered benefits” and “fixed premiums”).
Beware of new “defined-contribution” health care coverage. Shifting health care costs onto working families already is creating hardship at the doctor's office and the bargaining table. Now, many employers are talking about passing most or all of the risk of rising health care costs onto employees by adopting "defined-contribution" plans (also described with terms including "vouchers,” “consumer driven health care,” “tiered benefits” and “fixed premiums”).
Politics
The politics of health care depend largely on which country one is in. Current concerns in England, for instance, revolve around the use of private finance initiatives to build hospitals which it is argued costs taxpayers more in the long run.[18] In Germany and France, concerns are more based on the rising cost of drugs to the governments. In Brazil, an important political issue is the breach of intellectual property rights, or patents, for the domestic manufacture of antiretroviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS.
The South African government, whose population sets the record for HIV infections, came under pressure for its refusal to admit there is any connection with AIDS[19] because of the cost it would have involved. In the United States 12% to 16% of the citizens do not have health insurance. State boards and the Department of Health regulate inpatient care to reduce the national health care deficit. To tackle the problems of the perpetually increasing number of uninsured, and costs associated with the US health care system, President Barack Obama says he favors the creation of a universal health care system.[20] However, New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman said that Obama's plan would not actually provide universal coverage,[21] and Factcheck.org alleges that Obama's predicted savings were exaggerated.[22] In contrast, the state of Oregon and the city of San Francisco are both examples of governments that adopted universal healthcare systems for strictly fiscal reasons.
The South African government, whose population sets the record for HIV infections, came under pressure for its refusal to admit there is any connection with AIDS[19] because of the cost it would have involved. In the United States 12% to 16% of the citizens do not have health insurance. State boards and the Department of Health regulate inpatient care to reduce the national health care deficit. To tackle the problems of the perpetually increasing number of uninsured, and costs associated with the US health care system, President Barack Obama says he favors the creation of a universal health care system.[20] However, New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman said that Obama's plan would not actually provide universal coverage,[21] and Factcheck.org alleges that Obama's predicted savings were exaggerated.[22] In contrast, the state of Oregon and the city of San Francisco are both examples of governments that adopted universal healthcare systems for strictly fiscal reasons.
Economics
Health economics is a branch of economics concerned with issues related to scarcity in the allocation of health and health care. Broadly, health economists study the functioning of the health care system and the private and social causes of health-affecting behaviors such as smoking.
A seminal 1963 article by Kenneth Arrow, often credited with giving rise to the health economics as a discipline, drew conceptual distinctions between health and other goals.Factors that distinguish health economics from other areas include extensive government intervention, intractable uncertainty in several dimensions, asymmetric information, and externalities.Governments tend to regulate the health care industry heavily and also tend to be the largest payer within the market. Uncertainty is intrinsic to health, both in patient outcomes and financial concerns. The knowledge gap that exists between a physician and a patient can prevent the patient from accurately describing his symptoms or enable the physician to prescribe unnecessary but profitable services; these imbalances lead to market failures resulting from asymmetric information. Externalities arise frequently when considering health and health care, notably in the context of infectious disease. For example, making an effort to avoid catching a cold, or practicing safer sex, affects people other than the decision maker.
A seminal 1963 article by Kenneth Arrow, often credited with giving rise to the health economics as a discipline, drew conceptual distinctions between health and other goals.Factors that distinguish health economics from other areas include extensive government intervention, intractable uncertainty in several dimensions, asymmetric information, and externalities.Governments tend to regulate the health care industry heavily and also tend to be the largest payer within the market. Uncertainty is intrinsic to health, both in patient outcomes and financial concerns. The knowledge gap that exists between a physician and a patient can prevent the patient from accurately describing his symptoms or enable the physician to prescribe unnecessary but profitable services; these imbalances lead to market failures resulting from asymmetric information. Externalities arise frequently when considering health and health care, notably in the context of infectious disease. For example, making an effort to avoid catching a cold, or practicing safer sex, affects people other than the decision maker.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Barack Obama HEALTH CARE
Barack Obama said When he spoke last winter, the nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse. But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day. He said that everyone should qualified for health care but is this good? in one way this is good everyone would get treated if they are sick but what about those people that dont qualified? the thing is that they will have to pay to get health care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)