The River Wanders...

corporationsarepeople:

Darden Restaurants, the company that owns Olive Garden and Red Lobster, revised earning projection downwards today. The culprit, at least in part: Negative media attention that the company received after promising to test limiting workers’ hours as a way to dodge Obamacare’s insurance mandate.

Advertising that treating employees poorly is a top priority may play well with shareholders, but it’s not something customers generally want to hear.

Especially restaurant customers.

The most interesting thing to me is the way he calls attention to the fact that there was a reporter in the room; does he regret his comments OR regret that someone with journalistic capability shared them?  Makes you wonder what he says when there’s no reporter in the room.  Ah, well.  Maybe he’s too busy rotating his limos on his underground turntable to worry about what the public thinks.

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

Part of the problem, experts say, is that people who will be affected don’t realize the urgency because the subsidies won’t begin for another year. But policy decisions are being made now that will affect tens of millions of Americans, and the lack of public awareness could jeopardize a system that depends on having many people involved. Low enrollment could lead to higher premiums, health policy experts say. Hospitals worry that, without widespread participation, they will continue getting stuck with patients’ unpaid medical bills. And advocates say the major purpose of the Affordable Care Act – extending health insurance to more Americans – will go unmet if large numbers of vulnerable people don’t take advantage of it.

But because “Obamacare” has been so controversial, and its fate caught up in the presidential campaign, there has been little public discussion about the specifics of putting it into action. States such as Texas and Florida, where opposition to the legislation was strong, have been slow to embrace the law and critics have been loath to promote it.

Initial White House efforts at outreach caused congressional Republicans to accuse the administration of using taxpayer money for political gain. In mid-November, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) subpoenaed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, demanding information about how her agency has used federal money to promote the Affordable Care Act. The administration is preparing a final budget for an outreach program focused on the opening of the exchanges in October.

[…]

Even as Congress was finishing the debate that led to the law, a coalition of health-care advocates formed to help promote it. Led by Families USA co-founder Ron Pollack, the group started Enroll America, a nonprofit largely funded by health-care industry and philanthropy groups.

In the coming months, the group will begin an advertising campaign meant to encourage Americans to sign up for the health-care law’s subsidized insurance coverage. Still in its planning stages, it is likely to start in the summer or fall of 2013, just before the state-based insurance marketplaces open for enrollment.

The still-unnamed campaign is likely to put more intensive resources toward a handful of key states. Those could include Florida and Texas, which have a combined 10 million uninsured residents, and have made little effort to do such outreach.

The group has raised $6 million from a coalition that includes the American Hospital Association, pharmacy chain CVS-Caremark, physician groups and individual health insurance companies. Although that initial funding has covered survey research and the hiring of seven staff members, board chairman Pollack said the group hopes to raise “tens of millions” more for the outreach campaign.

“We know now that the Affordable Care Act has to be implemented,” said Rachel Klein, Enroll America’s executive director. “It’s imperative that the people who will benefit hear about the new coverage available and learn how to sign up.”

Currently, 48.6 million U.S. residents lack health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 30 million will gain coverage. That would leave nearly 19 million uninsured.

About a quarter of those are illegal immigrants, who aren’t eligible for the reform law’s subsidies. Two million, the CBO projects, live in states that will opt out of the Medicaid expansion.

The rest, however, probably are eligible for new benefits. The CBO, for example, expects that nearly 6 million of those newly eligible for Medicaid just won’t sign up for the program.

Even though the subsidies for currently uninsured people won’t go out until Jan. 1, 2014, the state exchanges that will offer health plans are being set up now, and participants will need to start signing up next Oct. 1. Supporters of the health-care law say the plan won’t be a success without a massive public relations campaign to build awareness.

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

abaldwin360:

big thanks to reddit user CaspianX2 for typing all this out!

What people call “Obamacare” is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it “Obamacare” before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It’s a term mostly used by people who don’t like the PPaACA, and it’s become popularized in part because PPaACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.

Anyway, the PPaACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPaACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn’t have to.

So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):

Already in effect:

• It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)

• It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)

• It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn’t directly control, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money.

• It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy.

• It makes a “high-risk pool” for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of “pre-existing conditions” altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered “pre-existing conditions” can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.

• It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.

• It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths.

• It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won’t get any more coverage because they have hit a “lifetime limit”. Basically, if someone has paid for life insurance, that company can’t tell that person that he’s used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won’t cover him any more. They can’t do this for lifetime spending, and they’re limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending.

• Kids can continue to be covered by their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26.

• No more “pre-existing conditions” for kids under the age of 19.

• Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.

• People in a “Medicare Gap” get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.

• Insurers can’t just drop customers once they get sick.

• Insurers have to tell customers what they’re spending money on. (Instead of just “administrative fee”, they have to be more specific).

• Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they’re turned down.

• New ways to stop fraud are created.

• Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.

• Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.

• Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.

• A new website is made to give people insurance and health information.

• A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.

• A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they’re not price-gouging customers.

• A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn’t paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.

• Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.

8/1/2012

• Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.

1/1/2013

• If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%)

1/1/2014

This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.

• No more “pre-existing conditions”. At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.

• If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the “mandate” that people are talking about. Basically, it’s a trade-off for the “pre-existing conditions” bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can’t just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you’ll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you’re not buying insurance because you just can’t afford it.

• Insurer’s now can’t do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need.

• Make it so more poor people can get Medicare by making the low-income cut-off higher.

• Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.

• Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.

• Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.

• Cut some Medicare spending

• Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.

• Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower-class, basically making it so poor people can get some medical coverage.

• Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won’t be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.

• A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.

• A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.

• A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they’ll get taxed.

• The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

1/1/2015

• Doctors’ pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat.

1/1/2017

• If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPaACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPaACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).

2018

• All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).

• A new tax on “Cadillac” health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).

2020

• The elimination of the “Medicare gap”

.

Aaaaand that’s it right there.

The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something in unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it’s not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.

Plus, as previously mentioned, it’s necessary if you’re doing away with “pre-existing conditions” because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.

(via mommapolitico)

thepoliticalfreakshow:

To most women, Paul Ryan’s ideas are pretty much the political equivalent of menstruating forever. But it seems like some new analysis of legislation he wrote really takes the cake: if Paul Ryan had his way, theoretically, a rapist would be able to sue his victim in order to prevent her from having an abortion. Hey girl, no means baby.

Since Ryan received the nod from Romney, abortion rights supporters have brought up the little, teensy point that although Paul Ryan likes to make it out like Paul Ryan is all about budgets and dollars and deficits and stuff, he’s also all about the highly fiscally irresponsible practice of advocating against birth control and the legality of abortion (unplanned pregnancies cost US taxpayers about $11 billion a year). And remember that forced pre-abortion transvaginal ultrasound bill in Virginia that was received so poorly that it caused the state’s staunchly anti-abortion governor to back off? Paul Ryan supported the national version of that. Penalty dicks for everyone!

And while right wing pundits helpfully point out that Paul Ryan doesn’t want to make abortion illegal (which: hahahahahahah), he just wants to give states the right to make abortion illegal, Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum notes that Ryan’s Sanctity of Human Life Act states,

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

Which actually means that states would have the right to ban all abortions with no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Further, in those states, if a woman was raped and wanted to have an abortion in another state, her rapist could theoretically sue her to stop the abortion, and Drum suspects that he’d probably win.

Further, yesterday another Mother Jones columnist pointed out that if the Sanctity of Human Life Act had become law, it likely would have made many forms of IVF illegal, and since Mitt Romney’s two newest adorable grandbabies are the product of IVF and a surrogate mother, Ryan’s big idea would turn Romney’s kids into criminals. Most awkward political bromance ever.

[Mother Jones]

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

justinspoliticalcorner:

The Republican from Wisconsin has cast 59 anti-choice votes on abortion and reproductive rights issues during his seven terms in Congress. From supporting restrictive limitations on abortion services to restricting military women’s access to abortion care, Ryan’s record firmly establishes him as an anti-choice politician. Here are five of his extreme positions everyone should know about:

1.Ryan co-sponsored a “personhood” amendment that would give legal rights to a fetus starting at conception. Ryan joined 62 other Republicans in co-sponsoring the Sanctity of Human Life Act, an anti-abortion measure declaring that a fertilized egg “shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” This would outlaw abortion, some forms of contraception and in-vitro fertilization.

2.Ryan supports banning all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. In addition to his support of the personhood amendment, Ryan won his congressional seat in 1998 by emphasizing his opposition to all abortions without exceptions. But this puts him at odds with Mitt Romney, who has said he would allow exceptions in cases or rape and incest.

3.Ryan voted to ban abortion coverage from being included in the state health insurance exchanges. The Stupak amendment that Ryan backed would have prevented women from purchasing plans that cover abortion services through the exchanges set up under Obamacare — even when using their own funds.

4.Ryan compared Roe v. Wade to the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. “Twice in the past the U.S. Supreme Court—charged with being the guardian of rights—has failed so drastically in making this crucial determination that it ‘disqualified’ a whole category of human beings, with profoundly tragic results,” Ryan wrote in 2010. After the 1857 case, Dred Scott v. Sandford, “the second time the Court failed in a case regarding the definition of “human” was in Roe v. Wade in 1973,” he added.

5. Ryan has supported defunding Planned Parenthood. In 2011, he voted for an amendment that would block Planned Parenthood and the health care organization’s affiliates from receiving any funds in a 2011 continuing appropriations bill.

h/t: Amanda Peterson Beadle at Think Progress Health

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)