We’re No. 1 in childhood immunizations
GULFPORT -- The state Health Department announced today that Mississippi is the national leader -- ranked No. 1 -- in immunizing 2- and 3-year-olds, according to data released by the National Immunization Survey.
The NIS also designated Mississippi “most improved,” because in the 2008-2009 fiscal year, Mississippi ranked 18th.
Mississippi has an average immunization rate of 81.1 percent for the major childhood vaccinations for children 19 to 35 months of age (including DTaP, Polio, MMR, and other recommended vaccinations).
That exceeds the national average rate of 71.5 percent.
It is the Mississippi Department of Health that gives about 40 percent of all childhood vaccinations. Private providers give about 60 percent.
“Our immunization nurses in health department clinics and health care providers -- especially pediatricians and family practitioners -- across the state have been essential in achieving this goal,” said Dr. Mary Currier, state health officer. “We focus on making sure each child has the best possible protection against vaccine-preventable diseases.”
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
WSJ: GOP Seeks to Block Funding for Health Law
House Republicans will use a stopgap spending bill coming to the floor next week as a vehicle to block money for the new health-care law, a top lawmaker said Tuesday.
The latest push to neutralize the legislation, confirmed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, (R., Va.), comes on the heels of an earlier effort to repeal the law. That passed the House but fell short in the Senate.
The spending bill, needed to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, is being drafted by the House Appropriations Committee, which is seeking deep spending cuts. The current stopgap bill expires March 4.
While the initial version isn't expected to include the health-law funding ban, Republicans plan to introduce it as an amendment to the bill, Mr. Cantor said. It is expected to block the use of money in the bill to carry out the law, for example by preventing the Department of Health and Human Services from hiring more workers to oversee the new benefits.
The House Republicans' strategy means President Barack Obama's health-care initiative will be a major hurdle to passing the government-wide spending bill. Democratic leaders in the Senate are unlikely to back any move to defund the new law.
With repeal of the health law dead for now, Republicans have also called for rolling back specific parts of the legislation, such as the requirement that most Americans carry health insurance or pay a fine.
Read More
The latest push to neutralize the legislation, confirmed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, (R., Va.), comes on the heels of an earlier effort to repeal the law. That passed the House but fell short in the Senate.
The spending bill, needed to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, is being drafted by the House Appropriations Committee, which is seeking deep spending cuts. The current stopgap bill expires March 4.
While the initial version isn't expected to include the health-law funding ban, Republicans plan to introduce it as an amendment to the bill, Mr. Cantor said. It is expected to block the use of money in the bill to carry out the law, for example by preventing the Department of Health and Human Services from hiring more workers to oversee the new benefits.
The House Republicans' strategy means President Barack Obama's health-care initiative will be a major hurdle to passing the government-wide spending bill. Democratic leaders in the Senate are unlikely to back any move to defund the new law.
With repeal of the health law dead for now, Republicans have also called for rolling back specific parts of the legislation, such as the requirement that most Americans carry health insurance or pay a fine.
Read More
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Baptist campus expanding
"As the market in Madison County has needs for more health care, we will build accordingly," Baptist Health System spokesman Robby Channell said.
Baptist has begun work on the ambulatory center on the ground floor of its building at 401 Baptist Drive. The hospital has held a certificate of need for the out-patient surgery center since planning the building that opened in 2007, Channell said.
Mike Stevens, Baptist vice president of development, told the Madison Board of Aldermen in January that the center will open probably around June or July.
"We don't have a definite date of when we will start treating patients," Channell said.
MCH
Mississippi House OKs plan for insurance exchange
The House, by an 83-33 margin Monday, passed a bill to enact a health insurance exchange in Mississippi.
Backers say the health insurance exchange is a critical part of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Aaron Sisk, senior staff attorney with the Mississippi Department of Insurance, says the exchanges are "a marketplace for health insurance ... a one-stop shop."
Presumably, people can get health insurance cheaper in the exchanges because the large volume of customers will drive down costs.
A similar bill is pending in the Mississippi Senate.
Under the federal law, states can either set up their own exchanges or leave it to the federal government to establish one.
Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, who has filed a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of the federal health care law, supports the exchanges and is requesting $1.5 million to put one in place in Mississippi.
Rep. Robert Johnson, D-Natchez, said no state money would be needed for the exchange this year. He said that before 2016, the federal government would pay at least 95 percent of the cost of the exchange and might pay it all.
He said Insurance Commission Mike Chaney already has received a $1 million federal grant to begin work on enacting the exchange.
After 2016, the exchanges are required to be self-supporting.
Read more: SH
Monday, January 31, 2011
Fla. judge strikes down health overhaul
PENSACOLA, Fla. -- A federal judge in Florida says the Obama administration's health overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with 26 states that had sued to block it.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson on Monday accepted without trial the states' argument that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.
Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed.
The case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement, but a federal judge in Virginia also ruled the insurance requirement unconstitutional.
Sun Herald
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson on Monday accepted without trial the states' argument that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.
Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed.
The case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement, but a federal judge in Virginia also ruled the insurance requirement unconstitutional.
Sun Herald
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Harper Floor Speech: 'Affordable Care Act' is Politics Above Economics (Video)
U.S. Representative Gregg Harper (R–Miss.), a Member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, made the following statement today on the House floor in support of legislation to repeal the “Affordable Care Act:”
“The so-called ‘Affordable Care Act’ is nothing short of politics above economics.
"This penalizing law is loaded with excessive constraints and oppressive federal mandates on states. As Medicaid rolls rise, state revenues continue to fall, and this law only increases the challenges that Governors face in their attempts to balance their budgets.
“Instead of granting state executives the authority to tailor their Medicaid programs to their states’ diverse populations, the ‘Affordable Care Act’ implements a one-size-fits-all Maintenance of Effort provision which restricts states from changing their Medicaid programs.
“Republicans want to provide states with the flexibility they need to manage their health programs. This is simply one example of why I am committed to repealing this carelessly crafted health care law and replacing it with reforms centered on decreasing costs and protecting our middle-class jobs.”
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Dems prove early that the 112th will be no different than the 111th: Games, Games, Games
“Despite the fact that they read the Constitution today, they should have read it yesterday, actually,” one senior Democratic aide said. “I guess swearing in their Members wasn’t part of their pledge.”
The aide was referring to the adjourning of a GOP hearing on a health care repeal resolution.
Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) abruptly adjourned a hearing on a GOP health care repeal resolution Thursday after he became aware that Rep. Pete Sessions was not sworn in as a Member of the 112th Congress, committee spokeswoman Jo Maney said.
The Texas Republican was not on the floor during Wednesday’s swearing-in ceremony. But he was the Member who offered the motion to constitute the Rules Committee.
The aide was referring to the adjourning of a GOP hearing on a health care repeal resolution.
Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) abruptly adjourned a hearing on a GOP health care repeal resolution Thursday after he became aware that Rep. Pete Sessions was not sworn in as a Member of the 112th Congress, committee spokeswoman Jo Maney said.
The Texas Republican was not on the floor during Wednesday’s swearing-in ceremony. But he was the Member who offered the motion to constitute the Rules Committee.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Chickens Are Coming Home To Roost: AARP Raises Insurance Costs for Employees
This would be funny if it weren't so damn sad for so many people who trusted these idiots!
WSJ
The AARP’s health insurance costs are going up next year due to rapidly rising medical costs that are partly fueled by the health overhaul, the AP is reporting.
Premiums for the group’s employees will rise by 8% to 13% next year, the story says. The association is changing co-pays and deductibles to avoid a 40% tax on high-cost health plans that goes into effect in 2018, according to the AP. About 4,500 people are covered by the group’s plans.
In an Oct. 25 email, Jennifer Hodges, the AARP’s director of compensation and benefits said, “Plan value changes were necessary not only from a cost management standpoint but also to ensure that AARP’s plans fall below the threshold for high-cost group plans under health care reform.”
The endorsement of the seniors’ lobby helped get the law passed back in March. According to the AP story, the association stands by that move and says the health law is a “small part” of why its employee health costs are going up.
“The impact on AARP employees is not a factor at all in our policy making, which is directed at the impact on our membership and on all older Americans,” the group’s legislative affairs director, David Certner, told the AP.
Other companies have cited the new law in making changes to their health offerings, including Boeing and 3M, which the WSJ wrote about here and here.
WSJ
How the GOP Can Stop the Spread of Obamacare
Progressive pundits and policy wonks boast that, despite Tuesday's Republican victory in the House, ObamaCare will be very difficult to eradicate. They correctly point out that, to get rid of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), both houses of Congress must pass repeal legislation and that a Democrat filibuster would more than likely forestall any such effort in the Senate. They further point out that President Obama would certainly veto any repeal bill that somehow found its way to his desk, and that there is virtually no chance that his veto would be overridden. All of this is absolutely true. Moreover, the PPACA infection has already been introduced into the health care system and has begun to spread. Nonetheless, when the Republicans officially take control of the House in January, they will still have the ability inoculate us against future outbreaks of this contagion.
The three-stage vaccine with which the GOP can stop the spread of PPACA has already been proven effective -- in Massachusetts of all places. It will come as a surprise to many that Romneycare was not the first "universal coverage" law to be inflicted on the long-suffering citizens of the Bay State. In 1988 that state's legislature passed a health care bill containing many of the provisions that later reappeared in the 2006 boondoggle signed by Romney. That "reform" program was signed into law by then-governor Michael Dukakis, who gave it a prominent place in his résumé during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency. Like polio, however, "DukakisCare" is all but forgotten. Why? Because a group of newly elected state legislators defunded the program, delayed its implementation and, for all intents and purposes, killed it after Republican William Weld was elected governor in 1990.
The many similarities between the DukakisCare and ObamaCare situations have not received any attention in the media, of course, but they have not been lost on everyone. Mike Stopa, who unsuccessfully sought the 2010 Republican congressional nomination for the MA-3 district, offered a PPACA repeal plan whose introduction declared, "[T]he experience of Massachusetts in the late 1980's… serves as a model in our current situation." Indeed it does. Not long after the Dukakis legislation passed, the GOP made significant gains in the state legislature and immediately set about dismantling the bill. There are also parallels in the executive branch. As Stopa put it, "Michael Dukakis passed universal healthcare in 1988 and his term as governor ended in 1990. Barack Obama passed PPACA in 2010 and his term ends in 2012." All of which suggests that the "MA vaccine" could work on ObamaCare.
For the newly empowered GOP, however, the most difficult stage of the vaccination process may be the first -- getting solidly behind the defunding project. Their vociferous denunciations of PPACA notwithstanding, many House Republicans have expressed reservations similar to those of Rep. Paul Ryan: "Well, yeah, technically speaking, we can put riders in appropriations bills that say, 'No such funds can go to HHS to do x, y, or z in implementing ObamaCare.' He's gotta sign those things. And he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would sign those things." Similar noises have been heard in the upper chamber. Retiring Senator Judd Gregg recently said, "I don't think starving or repealing is probably the best approach here …"
These and other Republicans are understandably chary of fighting a PR war with the White House. Their shellacking by Bill Clinton in 1995 is still green in their memories. But much has changed since then. Fifteen years ago, the Democrat-friendly "news" media could exert considerable control over the public perception of a battle between Congress and the President. Now, the blogosphere and conservative talk radio can -- and will -- provide an alternate narrative. And the voters who came out in such impressive numbers to repudiate the Democrats are not likely to be patient with a pusillanimous approach on this issue. Most would likely agree with the chairman of DeFundIt.org, who responded thus to Ryan's squeamishness: "[I]t is a policy battle we must fight…. Make no mistake, the conservative base will revolt against a Republican Party that backs down in a funding fight over ObamaCare."
Assuming the Republicans can absorb this reality and summon the courage to face down the President on funding, they can move to the second stage of the vaccination process. In addition to the power of the purse, the new House majority will also have subpoena power that can be used to delay implementation. They can hold numerous and protracted public hearings, while demanding all manner of documentation from the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). They can summon HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to answer questions about her 2009 gag order to insurance companies and her growing reputation as an enemy of the First Amendment. It would also be instructive to hear CMS administrator Donald Berwick to elaborate on statements like, "Any healthcare funding plan that is just ... must redistribute wealth."
The third and final stage of the vaccine must, of course, be administered in 2012. The event that enabled Massachusetts legislators to finish off the 1988 universal coverage bill was the replacement of Michael Dukakis with Republican William Weld. The decision, by the former, not to seek reelection in 1990 made that process easier than might otherwise have been the case. Needless to say, Barack Obama is very unlikely to follow the Duke's example. However, if the President stays true to form and refuses to face the reality that the American people do want to "re-litigate" the reform issue, it is at least possible that a good Republican opponent can beat him in the 2012 presidential contest. And Tuesday's big GOP gains in key state houses and legislatures, particularly in crucial battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Ohio, render an Obama defeat even more plausible.
Cynics will argue that, even if Obama can be given the bum's rush in 2012, that doesn't guarantee the success of this three-stage vaccine. And it is certainly true that it didn't permanently inoculate the Bay State from new and more virulent strains of health "reform." But that's hardly an argument for supinely allowing the PPACA to spread or waiting for the Supreme Court to provide a miracle cure. This contagion must be eradicated now. John Boehner was right when he said, "[W]e have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill…" And, if outright repeal isn't possible, then the MA vaccine is the next best alternative.
AS
The three-stage vaccine with which the GOP can stop the spread of PPACA has already been proven effective -- in Massachusetts of all places. It will come as a surprise to many that Romneycare was not the first "universal coverage" law to be inflicted on the long-suffering citizens of the Bay State. In 1988 that state's legislature passed a health care bill containing many of the provisions that later reappeared in the 2006 boondoggle signed by Romney. That "reform" program was signed into law by then-governor Michael Dukakis, who gave it a prominent place in his résumé during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency. Like polio, however, "DukakisCare" is all but forgotten. Why? Because a group of newly elected state legislators defunded the program, delayed its implementation and, for all intents and purposes, killed it after Republican William Weld was elected governor in 1990.
The many similarities between the DukakisCare and ObamaCare situations have not received any attention in the media, of course, but they have not been lost on everyone. Mike Stopa, who unsuccessfully sought the 2010 Republican congressional nomination for the MA-3 district, offered a PPACA repeal plan whose introduction declared, "[T]he experience of Massachusetts in the late 1980's… serves as a model in our current situation." Indeed it does. Not long after the Dukakis legislation passed, the GOP made significant gains in the state legislature and immediately set about dismantling the bill. There are also parallels in the executive branch. As Stopa put it, "Michael Dukakis passed universal healthcare in 1988 and his term as governor ended in 1990. Barack Obama passed PPACA in 2010 and his term ends in 2012." All of which suggests that the "MA vaccine" could work on ObamaCare.
For the newly empowered GOP, however, the most difficult stage of the vaccination process may be the first -- getting solidly behind the defunding project. Their vociferous denunciations of PPACA notwithstanding, many House Republicans have expressed reservations similar to those of Rep. Paul Ryan: "Well, yeah, technically speaking, we can put riders in appropriations bills that say, 'No such funds can go to HHS to do x, y, or z in implementing ObamaCare.' He's gotta sign those things. And he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would sign those things." Similar noises have been heard in the upper chamber. Retiring Senator Judd Gregg recently said, "I don't think starving or repealing is probably the best approach here …"
These and other Republicans are understandably chary of fighting a PR war with the White House. Their shellacking by Bill Clinton in 1995 is still green in their memories. But much has changed since then. Fifteen years ago, the Democrat-friendly "news" media could exert considerable control over the public perception of a battle between Congress and the President. Now, the blogosphere and conservative talk radio can -- and will -- provide an alternate narrative. And the voters who came out in such impressive numbers to repudiate the Democrats are not likely to be patient with a pusillanimous approach on this issue. Most would likely agree with the chairman of DeFundIt.org, who responded thus to Ryan's squeamishness: "[I]t is a policy battle we must fight…. Make no mistake, the conservative base will revolt against a Republican Party that backs down in a funding fight over ObamaCare."
Assuming the Republicans can absorb this reality and summon the courage to face down the President on funding, they can move to the second stage of the vaccination process. In addition to the power of the purse, the new House majority will also have subpoena power that can be used to delay implementation. They can hold numerous and protracted public hearings, while demanding all manner of documentation from the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). They can summon HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to answer questions about her 2009 gag order to insurance companies and her growing reputation as an enemy of the First Amendment. It would also be instructive to hear CMS administrator Donald Berwick to elaborate on statements like, "Any healthcare funding plan that is just ... must redistribute wealth."
The third and final stage of the vaccine must, of course, be administered in 2012. The event that enabled Massachusetts legislators to finish off the 1988 universal coverage bill was the replacement of Michael Dukakis with Republican William Weld. The decision, by the former, not to seek reelection in 1990 made that process easier than might otherwise have been the case. Needless to say, Barack Obama is very unlikely to follow the Duke's example. However, if the President stays true to form and refuses to face the reality that the American people do want to "re-litigate" the reform issue, it is at least possible that a good Republican opponent can beat him in the 2012 presidential contest. And Tuesday's big GOP gains in key state houses and legislatures, particularly in crucial battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Ohio, render an Obama defeat even more plausible.
Cynics will argue that, even if Obama can be given the bum's rush in 2012, that doesn't guarantee the success of this three-stage vaccine. And it is certainly true that it didn't permanently inoculate the Bay State from new and more virulent strains of health "reform." But that's hardly an argument for supinely allowing the PPACA to spread or waiting for the Supreme Court to provide a miracle cure. This contagion must be eradicated now. John Boehner was right when he said, "[W]e have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill…" And, if outright repeal isn't possible, then the MA vaccine is the next best alternative.
AS
Ole Miss Political Professor says he wants the truth about Obamacare, but . . .
Robert Albritton is a professor of American and comparitive politics at the University of Mississippi. He writes in The Hill's Congress Blog that in essence the Democrat's inability to explain the positive sides of PPACA, and their sheepishness on taking to task the GOP naysayers led to there demise. He is "puzzled how this much-needed program to assist Americans with the high costs of medical care could become so demonized by the opposition."
I'm puzzled by how anybody could have ever thought it was about health care at all.
Mr. Albriton writes:
In hindsight, of course, the Democrats failed to handle this challenge adequately. Instead of ducking the issue, they should have asked the appropriate questions of Republican opponents, and these questions are no less appropriate for the coming Congressional debates: “Just what parts of the healthcare legislation do you want to repeal?” Prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions? Prohibiting companies from terminating coverage of chronic conditions? Providing portability of medical insurance coverage when the insured change employment or location? Coverage for the millions of Americans who have no access to healthcare, including millions of children who are not covered under CHIP, because they live in the wrong state? Prohibiting termination of coverage for persons with catastrophic needs? Yes, there is a huge price, but the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that, in the long run, the legislation will save billions of dollars in healthcare costs.
Maybe Mr. Albritton prefers the confusing and costly bill that cuts into the already dangerously fragile Medicare system. But, THIS ONE by the GOP seems to not only makes sense, but the price tag is easier to deal with too.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Initiative to target health care law
Drive's goal would be to make overhaul unconstitutional in Miss.
Building on three successful petition drives to let voters decide key conservative issues, some Republican lawmakers now want to use the state's ballot initiative process to take on the federal health care overhaul.
The latest initiative would amend the Mississippi Constitution to state "a law or rule shall not compel participation in any health care system or plan, nor impose any penalty for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participating in any particular health care system or plan."
"We want to protect our citizens from un-Constitutional mandates from the federal government," said Rep. Alex Monsour, a Vicksburg Republican who is one of the petition sponsors.
House Public Health Committee Chairman Steve Holland, D-Plantersville, said he thinks those who support the health care initiative are "very misguided."
"I hope it falls flat on its face," he said.
Read More: CL
Building on three successful petition drives to let voters decide key conservative issues, some Republican lawmakers now want to use the state's ballot initiative process to take on the federal health care overhaul.
The latest initiative would amend the Mississippi Constitution to state "a law or rule shall not compel participation in any health care system or plan, nor impose any penalty for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participating in any particular health care system or plan."
"We want to protect our citizens from un-Constitutional mandates from the federal government," said Rep. Alex Monsour, a Vicksburg Republican who is one of the petition sponsors.
House Public Health Committee Chairman Steve Holland, D-Plantersville, said he thinks those who support the health care initiative are "very misguided."
"I hope it falls flat on its face," he said.
Read More: CL
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Obamacare already coming unraveled: McDonald’s exempted from health care reform mandate
Bloomberg Business News reports that almost one million workers won’t get a consumer protection in U.S. health law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.
Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald’s (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won’t be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees, Bloomberg said.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn’t lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop their health insurance altogether. Without the waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013, and unlimited coverage in 2014, according to Bloomberg.
The Associated Press reported Sept. 30 that the new health care law could make it difficult for companies like McDonald’s to continue offering limited insurance coverage to their low-wage workers.
MBJ
Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald’s (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won’t be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees, Bloomberg said.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn’t lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop their health insurance altogether. Without the waivers, companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013, and unlimited coverage in 2014, according to Bloomberg.
The Associated Press reported Sept. 30 that the new health care law could make it difficult for companies like McDonald’s to continue offering limited insurance coverage to their low-wage workers.
MBJ
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Another One Bites the Dust: 3M to Change Health-Plan Options for Workers
Now this.
3M Co. confirmed it would eventually stop offering its health-insurance plan to retirees, citing the federal health overhaul as a factor.
The changes won't start to phase in until 2013. But they show how companies are beginning to respond to the new law, which should make it easier for people in their 50s and early-60s to find affordable policies on their own. While thousands of employers are tapping new funds from the law to keep retiree plans, 3M illustrates that others may not opt to retain such plans over the next few years
The St. Paul, Minn., manufacturing conglomerate notified employees on Friday that it would change retiree benefits both for those who are too young to qualify for Medicare and for those who qualify for the Medicare program. Both groups will get an unspecified health reimbursement instead of having access to a company-sponsored health plan.
The maker of Post-it notes and Scotch tape said it made the announcement now to give retirees a chance to explore different options during this year's benefit-enrollment period, according to a 3M memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. A 3M spokeswoman, Jacqueline Berry, confirmed the contents of the memo.
"As you know, the recently enacted health care reform law has fundamentally changed the health care insurance market," the memo said. "Health care options in the marketplace have improved, and readily available individual insurance plans in the Medicare marketplace provide benefits more tailored to retirees' personal needs often at lower costs than what they pay for retiree medical coverage through 3M.
"In addition, health care reform has made it more difficult for employers like 3M to provide a plan that will remain competitive," the memo said. The White House says retiree-only plans are largely exempt from new health insurance regulations under the law.
The company didn't specify how many workers would be impacted. It currently has 23,000 U.S. retirees.
WSJ
Monday, October 4, 2010
Support for Repeal of Health Care Law Down to 50%
The number of voters who favor repeal of the health care law has fallen to its lowest level since the bill was passed by Congress in late March.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 50% still favor repeal of the bill, including 41% who Strongly Favor repeal.
Forty-four percent (44%) of voters say repeal of the law would be good for the economy, while 33% say it would be bad for the economy.
However, just 30% say repeal would lead to the creation of more jobs, showing little change since April. Thirty-seven percent (37%) disagree and says the law’s repeal would not lead to more job creation. Another 33% are not sure.
With midterm elections scarcely a month away, health care ranks as the second most important issue out of a list of 10 regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.
Rasmussen Reports
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 50% still favor repeal of the bill, including 41% who Strongly Favor repeal.
Forty-four percent (44%) of voters say repeal of the law would be good for the economy, while 33% say it would be bad for the economy.
However, just 30% say repeal would lead to the creation of more jobs, showing little change since April. Thirty-seven percent (37%) disagree and says the law’s repeal would not lead to more job creation. Another 33% are not sure.
With midterm elections scarcely a month away, health care ranks as the second most important issue out of a list of 10 regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.
Rasmussen Reports
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Another Obamacare Casualty: McDonald's May Drop Health Plan
McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.
McDonald's warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul. Janet Adamy discusses. Also, Neal Lipschutz discusses the exit plan that the U.S. has agreed on to exit the governments interest in AIG.
McDonald's May Drop Health Plan: The chain has told regulators it may ditch its plan unless a new health-care requirement is waived, Janet Adamy reports.
The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.
Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.
The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.
While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.
Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.
McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.
Read entire article: WSJ
McDonald's warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul. Janet Adamy discusses. Also, Neal Lipschutz discusses the exit plan that the U.S. has agreed on to exit the governments interest in AIG.
McDonald's May Drop Health Plan: The chain has told regulators it may ditch its plan unless a new health-care requirement is waived, Janet Adamy reports.
The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.
Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for "mini-med" plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.
The requirement concerns the percentage of premiums that must be spent on benefits.
While many restaurants don't offer health coverage, McDonald's provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.
Last week, a senior McDonald's official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain's insurer won't meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.
McDonald's and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.
Read entire article: WSJ
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The 1099 Insurrection
The White House fights an effort to ease a burden on small business
You might not have seen it reported, but the Senate will vote this morning on whether to repeal part of ObamaCare that it passed only months ago. The White House is opposed, but this fight is likely to be the first of many as Americans discover—as Nancy Pelosi once famously predicted—what's in the bill.
The Senate will vote on amendments to the White House small business bill that would rescind an ObamaCare mandate that companies track and submit to the IRS all business-to-business transactions over $600 annually. Democrats tucked the 1099 reporting footnote into the bill to raise an estimated $17.1 billion, part of the effort to claim that ObamaCare reduces the deficit by $100 billion or so.
But this "tax gap" of unreported business income is largely a Beltway myth, and no less than the Treasury Department's National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson says the costs will be "disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvements in tax compliance."
Meanwhile, small businesses are staring in horror toward 2013, when the 1099 mandate will hit more than 30 million of them. Currently businesses only have to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase from vendors and the like. Under the new rules, they'll have to report the value of goods and merchandise they purchase as well, adding vast accounting and paperwork costs.
Think about a midsized trucking company. The back office would have to collect hundreds of thousands of receipts from every gas station where its drivers filled up and figure out where it spent more than $600 that year. Then it would also need to match those payments to the stations' corporate parents.
Most Democrats now claim they were blindsided and didn't understand the implications of the 1099 provision—which is typical of the slapdash, destructive way the bill was written and passed. As the critics claimed, most Members had no idea what they were voting on. Some 239 House Democrats voted to dump the 1099 provision in August, and the repeal would have passed except Speaker Pelosi rigged the vote procedurally so it needed a two-thirds majority. She thus gave Democrats the cover of a repeal vote without actually repealing it.
In the Senate today, Nebraska Republican Mike Johanns will offer his amendment to scrap the new 1099 rules altogether. But the White House is opposing this because it fears it would set a precedent for repealing the larger health bill. Over the weekend the Treasury Department pronounced the Johanns amendment "not acceptable in its current form."
Yesterday the White House endorsed a competing proposal from Florida Democrat Bill Nelson that would increase the 1099 threshold to $5,000 and exempt businesses with fewer than 25 workers. Yet this is little more than a rearguard action in favor of the status quo; the Nelson amendment leaves the basic architecture unchanged while making the problem more complex.
Businesses would still have to track all purchases, not knowing in advance which contractors will exceed $5,000 at the end of the year. It also creates a marginal barrier to job creation—for a smaller firm, hiring a 26th employee would be extremely costly. The Nelson amendment also includes new taxes on domestic oil production, as every Democratic bill now seems to do.
As of yesterday, no one was sure if either amendment would get 60 votes, though Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas is cosponsoring the Johanns version. Enough Democrats may bend to White House wishes and produce a stalemate, but this issue won't go away. The President's opposition to a clean repeal shows the hollowness of his alleged support for small business, which he expresses at every campaign stop but is less a priority than preserving his health-care legacy.
The larger political story here is that ObamaCare is already under bipartisan siege—and in the same Congress that passed it. The 1099 provision is only one plank, but repealing the law plank by plank may be the right strategy. Sooner or later the whole thing becomes unworkable. Voters should watch this vote to see who's really on the side of small business.
WSJ
You might not have seen it reported, but the Senate will vote this morning on whether to repeal part of ObamaCare that it passed only months ago. The White House is opposed, but this fight is likely to be the first of many as Americans discover—as Nancy Pelosi once famously predicted—what's in the bill.
The Senate will vote on amendments to the White House small business bill that would rescind an ObamaCare mandate that companies track and submit to the IRS all business-to-business transactions over $600 annually. Democrats tucked the 1099 reporting footnote into the bill to raise an estimated $17.1 billion, part of the effort to claim that ObamaCare reduces the deficit by $100 billion or so.
But this "tax gap" of unreported business income is largely a Beltway myth, and no less than the Treasury Department's National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson says the costs will be "disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvements in tax compliance."
Meanwhile, small businesses are staring in horror toward 2013, when the 1099 mandate will hit more than 30 million of them. Currently businesses only have to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase from vendors and the like. Under the new rules, they'll have to report the value of goods and merchandise they purchase as well, adding vast accounting and paperwork costs.
Think about a midsized trucking company. The back office would have to collect hundreds of thousands of receipts from every gas station where its drivers filled up and figure out where it spent more than $600 that year. Then it would also need to match those payments to the stations' corporate parents.
Most Democrats now claim they were blindsided and didn't understand the implications of the 1099 provision—which is typical of the slapdash, destructive way the bill was written and passed. As the critics claimed, most Members had no idea what they were voting on. Some 239 House Democrats voted to dump the 1099 provision in August, and the repeal would have passed except Speaker Pelosi rigged the vote procedurally so it needed a two-thirds majority. She thus gave Democrats the cover of a repeal vote without actually repealing it.
In the Senate today, Nebraska Republican Mike Johanns will offer his amendment to scrap the new 1099 rules altogether. But the White House is opposing this because it fears it would set a precedent for repealing the larger health bill. Over the weekend the Treasury Department pronounced the Johanns amendment "not acceptable in its current form."
Yesterday the White House endorsed a competing proposal from Florida Democrat Bill Nelson that would increase the 1099 threshold to $5,000 and exempt businesses with fewer than 25 workers. Yet this is little more than a rearguard action in favor of the status quo; the Nelson amendment leaves the basic architecture unchanged while making the problem more complex.
Businesses would still have to track all purchases, not knowing in advance which contractors will exceed $5,000 at the end of the year. It also creates a marginal barrier to job creation—for a smaller firm, hiring a 26th employee would be extremely costly. The Nelson amendment also includes new taxes on domestic oil production, as every Democratic bill now seems to do.
As of yesterday, no one was sure if either amendment would get 60 votes, though Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas is cosponsoring the Johanns version. Enough Democrats may bend to White House wishes and produce a stalemate, but this issue won't go away. The President's opposition to a clean repeal shows the hollowness of his alleged support for small business, which he expresses at every campaign stop but is less a priority than preserving his health-care legacy.
The larger political story here is that ObamaCare is already under bipartisan siege—and in the same Congress that passed it. The 1099 provision is only one plank, but repealing the law plank by plank may be the right strategy. Sooner or later the whole thing becomes unworkable. Voters should watch this vote to see who's really on the side of small business.
WSJ
Monday, September 13, 2010
Judge to hear legal arguments of Obama health plan
The Obama administration is asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit by 20 states that claims the president's health care plan is unconstitutional.
Federal attorneys will tell a judge Tuesday that the lawsuit shouldn't go to trial because the states don't have standing to sue. They will argue in a Pensacola courtroom that the section of the overhaul requiring health insurance doesn't take affect until 2015 and it would be up to an individual taxpayer to challenge the law then.
The states argue they can sue because new law will require them to spend more money on Medicaid.
Federal attorneys will tell a judge Tuesday that the lawsuit shouldn't go to trial because the states don't have standing to sue. They will argue in a Pensacola courtroom that the section of the overhaul requiring health insurance doesn't take affect until 2015 and it would be up to an individual taxpayer to challenge the law then.
The states argue they can sue because new law will require them to spend more money on Medicaid.
Mississippi Medicaid Director: Federal Health Care Will Cost State Millions
 |
| Dr. Robert L. Robinson |
Basic requirements of federal health care reform could push as many as 400,000 new Mississippians onto Medicaid rolls in 2014 at an annual average cost of more than between $225 to $250 million to state taxpayers, Division of Medicaid officials stated today in a joint meeting of the state Senate and House public health committees. In 2020, if States pick up the full cost of the newly enrolled, the cost to Mississippi taxpayers will be $438 million per year.
The new law grants new categories of coverage to families and childless adults between 100 percent and 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Limit, Richard Roberson, Special Assistant to the Executive Director, told legislators. Compared to other states, Mississippi has one of the largest percentages of its population within these limits.
“We struggle to pay for the program that we have now, said Medicaid Executive Director Dr. Robert L. Robinson. “With federal health care reform we will soon need more than $1 billion from Mississippi taxpayers annually to pay for this program. In 2014, our Medicaid program will cover approximately one out of three Mississippians and consume 20 to 25 percent of our state budget.”
The law will also impact Mississippi hospitals by reducing the Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) program which provides supplemental payments to hospitals that serve a high volume of uninsured patients. Last year, Mississippi paid more than $200 million to Mississippi hospitals through its DSH program.
Related Posts: Judge to hear legal arguments of Obama health plan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)