TEA PARTY PATRIOTS:
End the NSA dragnet (Op-ed)
http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/opinion/2015/06/01/end-nsa-dragnet/28276189/
HEALTHCARE:
Obamacare’s Double-Digit Rate Hikes For 2016 Disclosed
“After two years of relatively stable premiums across the country, rates will jump in 2016 by double-digit percentages for individual policy purchasers on public exchanges under the Affordable Care Act in practically every state, according to the first glimpse of proposed costs for next year released by the Obama administration. The rate increases aren’t a huge surprise as health insurers across the country in recent weeks have been disclosing price increases in drips and drabs as they submit them to state and federal regulators. Here’s a link to the rate increases insurers have requested in your state for just those plans asking for increases of 10 percent or more. It’s likely, though, that the “requested” rate increases will change as health plans negotiate with the Obama administration as well as insurance commissioners in states where the plans do business. Final rates for 2016 will be disclosed by Nov. 1 and include all plans and not just those at the higher end of price increases in this initial report. The rates increases disclosed today also don’t mean that all purchasers of health care on the public exchanges will face these exact percentages of 10 percent or more. Consumers can get lower premiums if they opt for higher deductibles or if they pick a different plan. Some insurers have said rivals priced their policies too low in 2014 and 2015 and are now making up the difference. “The rate review process kicks off an important set of steps designed to provide consumers and others the opportunity to weigh in on proposed rate increases of 10 percent or more,” said Andy Slavitt, Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said. ”These specific rates will be subject to vigorous rate review and revision and the final rates consumers will see this Fall will reflect the breadth of choice and competition in the Marketplace.”…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/06/01/obamacares-double-digit-rate-hikes-for-2016-disclosed/
Blue Cross seeks 26 percent rate increase for Affordable Care Act customers under 65
“Blue Cross and Blue Shield of N.C. is requesting a near doubling of the rate increase for individual customers under age 65 with coverage through the Affordable Care Act.
The state’s largest health insurer made public Monday its proposal to the N.C. Insurance Department for an average rate increase of 25.7 percent for 2016. The request also requires federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) approval. The rates were filed May 15.
By comparison, Blue Cross was granted a 13.5 percent increase for 2015. The ACA was projected to not only provide more individuals with coverage, but also over time lower health-care costs.
Blue Cross said one reason for its rate increase is consumers with an ACA plan “continue to use a great deal of expensive health care – and that drives rates higher.” The insurer cited that emergency department usage among ACA-linked customers increased in 2014 and has followed a similar pattern through March 31, Blue Cross’ chief actuary Patrick Getzen said. That level of care can be among the most expensive for consumers to use. Blue Cross said it is already clear the customer pool for 2015 will be sicker and cost more to serve than the initial 2014 pool participants. “Based on what we see from this year’s enrollment, we’re not optimistic that will change in 2016,” Getzen said. Based on statements by CMS on Monday, Blue Cross’ odds of being approved for the sharp hike may be slimmer than the insurer projects…”
http://www.journalnow.com/business/business_news/local/blue-cross-seeks-percent-rate-increase-for-affordable-care-act/article_077e2318-0896-11e5-a5e4-67e176cb7ab7.html
Insurers seek sizable rate increases on Affordable Care Act health plans
“Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina has asked state regulators for a 25.7 percent average rate increase on individual insurance plans purchased under the Affordable Care Act for 2016. The request, which still needs to be approved by the North Carolina Department of Insurance, doesn’t include employer-sponsored health plans or to any existing coverage grandfathered in under the federal health care law. Two other insurers, Coventry Health Care of the Carolinas and United Healthcare, also offer plans through the HealthCare.gov marketplace to North Carolina residents. Coventry, which is merging with Aetna, has asked for an average 18 percent increase, while United submitted a request for an average 12.5 percent increase. Blue Cross Vice President and Chief Actuary Patrick Getzen said more than 325,000 people statewide enrolled in the insurer’s plans offered on the HealthCare.gov marketplace for 2015. Although the demographics are similar to those who enrolled in 2014, he said, the current group of clients has more chronic health conditions, such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Those conditions drove more consumption of costly medical services, such as hospital admissions, MRIs, CT scans, ultrasounds and specialty prescriptions, Getzen said. Enrollees also are visiting hospital emergency rooms more than expected – the health care law was designed to provide coverage to more people so they wouldn’t resort to an ER visit for routine care. Higher premiums would help offset the growing cost of medical services, he said, noting the Blue Cross could revise its request in the next month or so and seek an even larger increase. The company based its current request on 2014 data and wants to collect more information on 2015 costs before deciding on amending its filings with state regulators…”
http://www.wral.com/insurers-seeking-sizable-rate-increases-on-affordable-care-act-health-plans/14682626/
Insurers eye ObamaCare hikes
“Health insurers across the country are eyeing slightly steeper cost increases in 2016, a year that will be an important test for how well ObamaCare is working. The costs of the lowest-tiered individual plans appear to be ticking up, according to multiple experts who have reviewed the proposed rates. The increases vary wildly among plans and among states, but experts say people are still unlikely to face the kind of doomsday scenario critics predicted would occur under the healthcare law. “The trend is a little bit higher this year than last year,” said Gary Claxton, director of the healthcare marketplace program for the Kaiser Family Foundation. And as in past years, some of those rate increases have been “enormous,” said Cheryl Fish-Parcham, who directs the private insurance program at the nonprofit Families USA. Under ObamaCare, all proposed rate hikes above 10 percent were required to be posted online by Monday. Now begins a six-month back-and-forth between insurance companies and regulators as the government tries to reduce rates before locking them in this November. “These specific rates will be subject to vigorous rate review and revision,” said Andy Slavitt, the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The proposed 2016 rates will offer the most accurate portrait so far about the health of the marketplaces. Claxton, who reviewed several states’ data, said many of the increases are around 15 to 20 percent, though there are large disparities across regions. Tennessee’s biggest insurer has proposed an increase of 36 percent for some plans, while one of New Mexico’s biggest carriers is looking at a 50 percent increase. The most popular carrier in Maryland has called for a 30 percent hike. But in his analyses of numerous other filings, Claxton said he didn’t see rate increases in the double digits…”
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/243654-insurers-eye-obamacare-price-hikes
Steep increases in some Obamacare premiums expected in Illinois in 2016
“Health insurance premiums could be going up by more than 30 percent next year for some people in Illinois who buy individual plans, a hefty increase that insurers say is driven by the costs of members’ medical bills. On Monday, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services posted a list of proposed rate increases above 10 percent on thehealthcare.gov website. The largest average rate increases in the state were proposed for certain types of plans offered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, Coventry Health Care and Assurant Health. Humana and downstate insurer Health Alliance also requested increases averaging above the 10 percent threshold for some plans. Last year, one of the most popular plans in Illinois increased by an average of just 2.6 percent. The plans are sold through the online marketplace established under the federal Affordable Care Act but are also available directly from the insurers. “Medical costs are going up and we are changing our rates to reflect this increase,” Coventry said in its rate filing. “Medical costs go up mainly for two reasons — providers raise their prices and members get more medical care.” The proposed rates still need to be reviewed by the Illinois Department of Insurance, which under the federal health law has authority to request changes and to bar health plans from being sold on the marketplace. Policyholders may file complaints over proposed rates with the department…”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-obamacare-insurance-rates-20150601-story.html
Will these big Obamacare rates get approved?
“There are some eye-popping proposed Obamacare rate increases for next year. But whether they turn out to be the norm or the exception won’t be known until October. The federal agency in charge of Obamacare revealed on Monday afternoon details of many of the Obamacare insurance plans requesting premium rate hikes of 10 percent or more for 2016. The data, which can be accessed at RateReview.HealthCare.gov. includes exactly how much more an insurer wants to charge next year, and the justification for that increase. But information about lesser price increases being proposed, or even proposed price decreases, were not released. That makes it impossible, for the moment, to determine just how much insurers want to raise their premiums overall in the United States for 2016. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released the proposed hikes of 10 percent or more in 37 states using the federal HealthCare.gov insurance platform, as well as several other states using their own Obamacare insurance exchanges. Two of the biggest states, California and New York, do not have proposed rates onRateReview.HealthCare.gov yet. Both plans sold on government-run Obamacare exchanges and ones sold off those exchange are included on RateReview.HealthCare.gov…”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102723185
Some Michigan insurers seeking hefty price hikes
None of the planned price changes would be in effect until January 2016, and that’s only after consumers have another opportunity to shop around and change plans starting Oct. 1.
“Several health insurers in Michigan are seeking double-digit rate hikes for plans they sell to individuals, as industry representatives cite pricey drugs and pent-up demand for health care among the newly insured. Insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is requesting permission for an average 11.3% jump in rates and 9.7 % jump in its Blue Care Network plans. Those plans cover 310,000 individuals in the state. Last year, the state approved a 9.7% hike, on average, for Blue Cross marketplace plans, according to the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services, which released a table comparing requested price changes earlier today. The requests are for plans sold on and off the state exchange, also known as the Michigan Health Insurance Marketplace, a centerpiece of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, or federal health reform called Obamacare by some. None of the planned price changes would be in effect until January 2016, and that’s only after consumers have another opportunity to shop around and change plans starting Nov. 1. Still unclear: the final price tag for consumers. The actual price of plans purchased on the exchange is based largely on government subsidies that shrink the cost for most consumers who make 400% of the federal poverty level or less. That means, for example, that a family of four with an income of up to $95,400 is now likely eligible for some financial assistance. The lower their income, the bigger the tax-funded subsidy. Additionally, some insurers this year alerted Michigan regulators that they want to drop prices, including Molina (a reduction of 8.5%) and Meridian (12.6%). The rate requests also do no address price rearranging within plans – how out-of-pocket costs such as copayments or deductibles will vary. And the percentages represent average changes across an insurer’s plans. Some insurers offer dozens of plans. This much is clear: Taxpayers in general would be impacted, too, as tax-funded premium subsidies swell to help cover rising rates for middle-income consumers. Last year, 88% of Of Michiganders who purchased a health insurance plan via the online exchange — heathcare.gov — qualified for subsidies to lower their premium cost, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services…”
http://www.freep.com/story/money/2015/06/01/michigan-health-insurer-rate-proposals/28146629/
The Obamacare Fiasco in Oregon
Cost overruns, software failures, missed deadlines, incompetence, cronyism — but those commercials sure were zany . . .
“There have been numerous disasters along the way as the federal government and the states have struggled to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare), but none come close to Oregon’s sorry effort for the millions of dollars lost, the raw political opportunism, and the melodramatic plot twists. Now from the Insult-to-Injury Department comes word that it all could have been avoided. Earlier this month, five years after President Barack Obama signed ACA, The Hill published a series of articles about how Obamacare is working around the country. It reported that many of the 13 states that established their own stand-alone health-care marketplace exchanges are looking for ways to mitigate the damage and get something up and running before federal funding dries up. Hawaii is on the verge of shutting its marketplace down, joining Nevada and Oregon, which have also closed their doors because of lack of funds. The story of Oregon’s health-care portal, however, is different. It is a story of waste, fraud, and potentially criminal abuse, and Congress has finally gotten around to writing its own chapter in the sordid tale. Almost before the ink was dry on Obamacare, Oregon set out to establish a model exchange. On June 17, 2011, Governor John A. Kitzhaber signed a law creating the Oregon Health Insurance Exchange Corporation, a public body performing government functions with government authority. A year later, it was renamed Cover Oregon. Cover Oregon received more than $300 million in federal grants to get started, including $226.4 million to establish a 50-operator call center and IT interfaces with the exchange website and to perform multimedia outreach. That outreach would include a broad range of marketing materials, using print, radio, and television, the grant said. “Communications materials will be translated into three or four languages, with a goal being to use more visual images and fewer words.”…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419120/obamacare-fiasco-oregon-neil-w-mccabe
Obamacare’s ‘Accountable Care’ Experiment Is All Hype, No Substance
“Good news about Obamacare keeps coming out of the White House. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that the law’s “Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations” have saved Medicare $385 million. HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell proudly proclaimed that this “innovative payment model”has produced “substantial savings,” so she’s now calling for its expansion. That would be a good idea — if Burwell weren’t selling snake oil. There’s nothing innovative about the “Accountable Care” model. It has, at best, generated negligible savings. And it has set the stage for outright rationing of senior medical care. An Accountable Care Organization — or “ACO” — is a network of doctors and hospitals that coordinates medical services for a specific patient population. Obamacare installed ACOs in Medicare in an attempt to slow down the program’s out-of-control spending. Under this arrangement, the government sets certain benchmarks for spending and quality that ACO administrators have to meet. If administrators are able to generate savings beyond what’s mandated, they get to keep the extra money. ACOs that don’t meet or beat the benchmarks have to give money back to the government — or pay a penalty. In theory, this provides ACOs with a direct financial incentive to reduce waste. The ACOs may well have generated some savings, but probably not $385 million. The researchers behind it — all of whom, by the way, were affiliated with the federal government and had clear biases toward proving the program’s success — made some highly unusual statistical assumptions. Indeed, a new study from two Harvard professors rejected the administration’s methodology and found that the ACOs saved Medicare, at most, $42 million a year. That’s a pittance given the multi-billion dollar Medicare budget. It’s certainly not nearly enough to save the program from looming insolvency. And it lines up with earlier government estimations, in which health officials reported net ACO cost reductions of $33 million in 2012 and $41 million in 2013. Even if the ACO model did in fact generate non-paltry savings in Medicare, it would be folly to try to scale it up. In the Obamacare case, the administration hand-picked the providers that could participate in the ACOs to maximize the chance of success. And even then, 13 of the original 32 organizations dropped out as a result of the program’s punishing complexity and costly regulations. Most providers refused to join in the first place. Organizations such as the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic — hospitals that President Obama has touted as excellent models of integrated care — declined to participate. What’s more, those same Harvard professors found that the biggest savings came from ACOs that started with the highest costs. In other words, they were the low-hanging fruit. There’s little reason to believe similarly sized savings can get squeezed out over the long term. Most important, ACOs set the stage for medical rationing — starting with seniors on Medicare. This model operates under centralized bureaucracy. Once the glaring inefficiencies have been rung out, the only cost-savings option left for ACO administrators will be tightly controlling access to needed medical services…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2015/06/01/obamacares-accountable-care-experiment-is-all-hype-no-substance/
The Affordable Care Act is a horror story for young Americans
“It’s becoming harder and harder for young people to access affordable health care. A recent op-ed authored by Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Jared Meyer of the Manhattan Institute tells the story of Tommy Groves, a young professional who is one of the five million Americans who lost health coverage because their plans did not meet the requirements set in the Affordable Care Act. Tommy, who was required to find new insurance, decided to visit his online ACA exchange to try to find coverage. Unfortunately for him, the website was malfunctioning so badly that it could not verify his identity, and after hours on the phone with the help center, he was told to send in a paper application. Eventually, after many more hours on the phone over the course of several weeks, Tommy was informed that the paper application he had sent in had been lost. He was directed to a place where he could sign up in person, only to find out that paper applications were no longer being accepted…”
http://watchdog.org/221811/affordable-care-act-horror-story-young-americans/
Phil Kerpen: Lawmakers Engaged in ‘Fraud’ to Skirt Obamacare
“Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment, tells Newsmax that members of Congress have “basically committed fraud” by claiming to be a small business in order to continue to provide healthcare for themselves with taxpayer dollars. “They filed false documents to get around the requirement in the Obamacare law that they lose their previous insurance coverage and go into the exchanges like everyone else,” Kerpen told John Bachman on “Newsmax Now” on Newsmax TV Monday. “That was something the American people had demanded.” “When it actually came time for it to happen, members of Congress of both parties didn’t want to do it. They didn’t want to lose taxpayer funding for their premiums for themselves and their staff,” he said…”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Phil-Kerpen-obamacare-small-business-lawmakers/2015/06/01/id/647995/
PPACA three R’s programs: Insurers cry out
“Health insurers have had trouble with getting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to help them prepare to participate in the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) risk-management programs. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has included a glimpse of insurers’ concerns about “three R’s” program implementation in a summary of results of interviews with representatives from 12 insurers. The GAO conducted the investigation at the request of Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn. Drafters of PPACA created the three R’s programs in an effort to protect health insurers from some of the effects of new PPACA underwriting rules on claim risk, and to give insurers the confidence to keep premiums as low as possible….”
http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2015/06/01/ppaca-three-rs-programs-insurers-cry-out
Week ahead: Panel takes on ObamaCare calorie count rules
“The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health will hold a hearing Thursday on legislation challenging new menu labeling requirements from the Food and Drug Administration. A controversial provision under ObamaCare requires restaurants and businesses that sell “restaurant-like food” — including grocery stores and movie theaters — to list the number of calories in foods they sell. To address what critics say is a costly and burdensome regulation, Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) introduced legislation in April to exempt most non-restaurant businesses from having to comply with the rule, which is set to take effect Dec. 1. Under the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015, the new labeling requirements would only apply to companies that make more than 50 percent of their revenue from selling prepared foods. The lawmakers say the bill aims to provide clarity and flexibility for small businesses. Elsewhere on Capitol Hill, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade will meet Tuesday to get an update on the Takata airbag ruptures and recalls. Also on the safety front, on Tuesday the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will hold a hearing to discuss the recent Amtrak accident in Philadelphia. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday to discuss alleged regulatory overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency and the impacts it might have on American competitiveness. Also on Wednesday, the Senate Committee on Environment and the Public Works will hold a hearing on the EPA’s ozone standards…”
http://thehill.com/regulation/243448-week-ahead-panel-to-take-on-obamacare-calorie-count-rules
House to take fresh aim at Obamacare’s medical device tax
“House lawmakers are gearing up to take fresh aim at the Affordable Care Act’s tax on medical devices. The House Ways and Means Committee will consider a bill Tuesday to repeal the 2.3% excise tax on sales of devices including pacemakers and stents. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Erik Paulsen, a Minnesota Republican. Read about Paulsen’s bill. A repeal of the tax has passed the House three times previously, according to Paulsen’s office: once as a stand-alone bill and twice as part of other bills. The Senate passed a nonbinding repeal of the tax in 2013. The tax raises money for President Barack Obama’s signature health-care law. Repeal would reduce revenues by $26.5 billion from next year through 2025, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Paulsen’s bill doesn’t include a way to make up the lost revenue. Analysts have said a repeal of the tax faces better odds with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress following last year’s midterm elections. They also note the legislation has bipartisan support, with Democrats including Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota backing it. Minnesota is home to the headquarters of device-maker St. Jude Medical Inc. STJ, +0.87% “This one has got a lot of support among Democrats,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center in Washington. He said the legislation has a “pretty good chance” of passing Congress. Yet it is uncertain if Obama would sign such a bill if it reaches his desk. The White House threatened to veto the House-passed repeal of the tax in 2012. But as the Associated Press writes, Obama late last year was opaque when asked about a potential veto. “Let me take a look comprehensively at the ideas that they present,” he said…”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/house-to-take-fresh-aim-at-obamacares-medical-device-tax-2015-06-01
GOP plots Obamacare repeal votes
“House Republicans are planning Obamacare repeal votes in the final few days before the Supreme Court announces a decision that could radically alter the law. The House will vote the third week of June to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s tax on medical devices, and its provision allowing for a board of appointees to cut Medicare doctor payments if the program’s spending grows too fast, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced in a memo to members. The medical device tax has long topped lists of Obamacare provisions that have bipartisan opposition. And while Medicare costs haven’t yet grown fast enough to even trigger the formation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, this controversial board remains a political sticking point for the GOP. “Beyond Obamacare’s added costs, reduced choice and access to Medicare Advantage plans for seniors, the law’s 15 person Independent Payment Advisory Board acts as a de facto rationing body through arbitrary cuts to providers that can effectively stop access to care in order to control costs,” McCarthy wrote….”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-plots-obamacare-repeal-votes/article/2565350?custom_click=rss
GOP hits another roadblock on Obamacare repeal
After winning both chambers of Congress, they thought they could get a repeal bill to the president’s desk. It’s turning out to be more complicated than that.
“The GOP’s months-long debate over when and how to send a repeal of Obamacare to the president’s desk now appears to have an answer. They can’t do it all at once. Repealing the law “root and branch” is probably out of the question, the chamber’s parliamentarian is hinting, because some parts of Obamacare don’t affect the federal budget. That’s a must in order to use the obscure procedure known in Senate parlance as reconciliation, which allows lawmakers to avoid the 60-vote filibuster hurdle and pass bills on a simple majority vote. That’s not the GOP’s only problem. Under those rules any Obamacare repeal has to reduce — not increase — the deficit. So Republicans will have to pick and choose which parts of the Affordable Care Act they most want to ditch. Obama will, of course, veto any bill that significantly damages his signature domestic policy achievement. But the entire process has the makings of a difficult political exercise that will reveal something about the GOP’s priorities when it comes to the reviled law, forcing the party to go beyond the pile-on repeal rhetoric and say specifically what it would do and how it would pay for it. Republicans could try to get rid of the mandates and taxes, but then they’d have to plug a trillion-dollar hole. Cut the Medicaid expansion to the states? Sounds simple enough, but then they could put themselves at odds with governors. They’ll also have to decide if they want to scrap federal Obamacare subsidies, currently on the hot seat across the street at the Supreme Court, which this month will rule whether they’re constitutional. Gutting them would yield almost a trillion dollars in savings, which could then be used to repeal other parts of the law. But moderates also may experience a political backlash for slashing health care tax credits for poor and middle-class families. Extending or replacing the subsidies, though, could further limit their repeal options and alienate conservatives at the same time…”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/republicans-obamacare-repeal-118472.html
Week ahead: Conservatives to unveil ObamaCare replacement
“Another Republican ObamaCare replacement plan is coming out as a Supreme Court decision looms. On Tuesday, the conservative Republican Study Committee will be announcing its ObamaCare replacement plan, the American Health Care Reform Act. A previous version of the bill was released by the RSC in 2013. It repealed ObamaCare and included tax breaks to help people afford insurance, as well as funding for state high-risk pools aimed at people with pre-existing conditions. The new version of the plan arrives ahead of a coming decision in King v. Burwell, which could invalidate ObamaCare subsidies that help 7.5 million people afford health insurance. Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), one of the leaders of the RSC, told The Hill last month he is worried House leaders need to include more members in their planning. “I haven’t punched the panic button yet, but time is short and this is not something that we can discuss in a one-hour caucus and get buy-in on it,” he said. “Boom, June will be on us.” RSC leaders say that they want their plan to help shape the Republican response to the court ruling. The House’s response is being crafted by three committee chairmen, Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and John Kline (R-Minn.). One central question is whether the ObamaCare subsidies will be maintained temporarily, an issue that has split Republicans. In a lower-profile ObamaCare issue, the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday will hold a hearing to consider a bill to reform menu-labeling rules under the health law. The bill has bipartisan support from Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.). It would exempt companies that make less than half their revenue from prepared foods from having to display calorie counts. Menu labeling could be online-only for pizza places and other businesses where people tend to order over the phone. The Energy and Commerce Committee will also look at improper payments under Medicaid. The oversight subcommittee points to the program’s 6.7 percent payment error rate, or about $17.5 billion in 2014. “Subcommittee members will discuss the integrity of the Medicaid program as part of the committee’s ongoing effort to ensure the program is able to deliver on its core promise of providing for the most vulnerable,” the committee said in a statement.”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/243485-week-ahead-conservatives-to-unveil-obamacare-replacement
Rep. McCarthy: No Obamacare Bill Until After Supreme Court Ruling
“House Republicans likely won’t introduce their response to a possible Supreme Court ruling striking down part of the Affordable Care Act until after the court’s decision, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) said Monday. Some Republicans had hoped to unveil a GOP plan ahead of the high court’s ruling, expected later this month, on whether people can continue to receive subsidized insurance coverage in as many as 37 states where residents use the federal HealthCare.gov website to obtain insurance because their states didn’t create exchanges. But Republicans have divided over whether to extend temporarily the health law’s tax credits if the court voids them in most of the country. Mr. McCarthy told reporters Monday that Republicans would be prepared regardless of what the court decides, but that they would not unveil a proposal before a ruling. “Don’t expect us to pre-determine the Supreme Court. We have to first see what their decision is and what we have to solve,” Mr. McCarthy said. Republicans still might release outlines of their response, but not a formal bill, an aide said. Waiting to unveil details of their plan could spare Republicans public scrutiny if the court sides with the Obama administration and upholds the current law. Even if the court does rule against the White House, postponing the release of the GOP response gives Republican leaders more time to try to build a consensus among their ranks. Many Senate Republicans support extending tax credit for up to 18 months, but some conservatives in the House have balked at any reauthorization of the credits for the law often called “Obamacare.” Still, some Republicans had wanted to demonstrate to the Supreme Court that they were ready to propose a legislative solution in order to make sure the justices don’t rule to uphold the subsidies out of fear over the consequences were they to be struck down…”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/01/rep-mccarthy-no-obamacare-bill-until-after-supreme-court-ruling/
House GOP to release full ObamaCare backup plan after court ruling
“House GOP leaders are offering a glimpse into how they plan to respond to this month’s highly anticipated decision on ObamaCare. The trio of House leaders plans to outline specific policy proposals sometime before the court’s ruling, but will hold off on releasing legislative language until afterwards, according to a spokesman for Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). “We’ll have a plan that will be public before the ruling, but given that we don’t know exactly what they’ll say, we’ll have to wait for the ruling to have text to align with the situation,” spokesperson Brendan Buck said Monday. Ryan is one of three GOP chairman charged by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy with creating a fallback plan if the high court strikes down ObamaCare subsidies in King v. Burwell. Ryan told reporters in March that he planned to have a bill ready — and priced by the Congressional Budget Office — by the decision. Now it looks like those details won’t be public until after the ruling. The group has already described some of their ideas in a Wall Street Journal op-ed just before the case’s oral arguments in March. Buck declined to say whether the bill would be fully scored by the time of the decision, but said work with the Congressional Budget Office “has been ongoing for months.” He also declined to say whether the budget office was scoring multiple potential plans…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/243666-full-text-of-houses-obamacare-backup-plan-to-come-after-court-ruling
WH Says New Healthcare Bill Unlikely If Obamacare Subsidies Fall
“White House press secretary Josh Earnest asserts that the Obama administration doesn’t believe any new healthcare legislation will pass Congress if the Supreme Court rules unfavorably on Obamacare in the King v. Burwell case. Earnest’s disclosure came in response to a question from Newsmax regarding Sen. Bill Cassidy’s recent unveiling of his Patient Freedom Act at the Washington, D.C.-based Hudson Institute. Billing his legislation as “something that achieves the aims of the Affordable Care Act without the cost and the mandates,” the Louisiana Republican, himself a physician, spelled out the high points of the bill: ending all mandates, ensuring portability (keeping one’s healthcare plan after moving or changing jobs), funding going directly to patients, and keeping such popular Obamacare features as permitting young people to remain on their parents’ plans until age 26…”
http://www.newsmax.com/John-Gizzi/obamacare-gizzi-subsidies-alternatives/2015/06/01/id/647913/
White House: ‘No easy fix’ for ObamaCare court ruling
“The Obama administration is casting doubt on Congress’s ability to pass an ObamaCare ‘fix’ if the Supreme Court decides later this month to gut the healthcare law’s subsidies. With less than a month before the ruling, White House spokesman Josh Earnest is warning that Republicans will not be able to prevent the “significant turmoil” that he said would result from a court ruling against the administration. “There’s no easy fix to doing that, particularly when you consider how difficult it has been for common-sense pieces of legislation to move through the Congress,” he said at a briefing Friday. “With something as controversial as health care, it’s hard to imagine any sort of legislative fix passing through that legislative body,” Earnest said. The court’s ruling on King v. Burwell could come as early as next week, though it is widely expected to be handed down in late June. The high stakes case, which was argued before the Supreme Court in March, threatens to eliminate billions of dollars of ObamaCare subsidies for people in at least 34 states. As many as 8 million people could lose their subsidies. The Obama administration has warned of a marketplace meltdown if the subsidies are struck down, but has repeatedly said that it is not preparing a fallback plan for that scenario. The response has angered Republicans in Congress, some of whom have accused the administration of secretly preparing a plan but refusing to discuss it, hoping to influence the court with the idea that there is no alternative to the present situation. Earnest’s comments also suggest that the White House has little confidence in the plan that Democrats in Congress are expected to pursue if the GOP-backed case prevails. Democrats will try to pass a one-page bill to tweak the law’s text to eliminate the ambiguities that brought the case to court initially. Meanwhile, House and Senate Republicans have each commissioned working groups to draft their own response plans. When asked if the Obama administration is in contact with any members of Congress who have proposed alternative plans, Earnest declined to answer…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/243586-white-house-no-easy-fix-for-obamacare-court-ruling
Juan Williams: Supreme Court risks healthcare chaos
“This Congress, your honor?” That snappy one-liner got a rare laugh from the packed crowd at the Supreme Court back in March. Justice Antonin Scalia had asked Solicitor General Donald Verilli if there was any chance Congress could put aside politics and fix four words of ambiguous language in ObamaCare before the court had to rule in King v. Burwell. The case is a challenge to federal subsidies in the healthcare law — and those four contested words are at its root. The case will be decided in the next few weeks. The laughter was telling. No one trusts the current Congress to make a simple correction. It is also true that few Americans trust the Supreme Court to make an impartial ruling. An AP-GFK poll conducted last month found 48 percent of Americans think the court’s ruling will not be based on an “objective interpretation of law.” Only ten percent of Americans told the pollsters they are highly confident that the justices will stick to a constitutional review instead of offering personal opinions. The biggest surprise was that 60 percent of opponents to the law said they had no confidence in the conservative majority on the court to reach a fair, objective decision. There is also the question of why the court agreed to hear a late, weak challenge to the law. The whole case rests on what the four key words — “established by the state” — mean. The plaintiffs, partisans with an open antagonism toward the law, say it means subsidies can only be offered in states that have set up their own ObamaCare exchanges, not in places where the state has declined to do so and the federal government has stepped in instead. The Obama administration and even Republicans involved in writing the law counter that the phrasing was a minor oversight in a bill of more than 900 pages. The real intent, backers of the law say, was for subsidies to be offered regardless of which entity was administering the exchanges. They assert that this interpretation is clearly evident in the “text, structure and history” of the law. The idea that the dispute is worthy of Supreme Court deliberation is puzzling. Doug Elmendorf, who ran the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, was intimately involved in reviewing the law as it was being formulated to gauge its cost. The idea of subsidies being confined to state exchanges “did not arise” he told the New York Times. Former Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who was in office when the law was being debated and voted upon, told the same newspaper that the distinction at the heart of the court challenge “was never part of our conversation at any point. Why would we have wanted to deny people subsidies?” Robert Pear, the Times reporter, wrote that interviews with “more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans,” found “none” who agreed that the law was intended to keep subsidies away from people in states that did not set up a health insurance exchange. A Republican lawyer who worked for the Senate GOP described the whole situation as a mere “drafting error.”…”
http://thehill.com/opinion/juan-williams/243555-juan-williams-supreme-court-risks-health-care-chaos
Obamacare Lawlessness Headed to High Court
“In Obama’s America, even when you play by the regime’s rules, you still lose, financially and legally. Just ask Kawa Orthodontics, which invested time and resources in complying with the Obamacare employer mandate, a central component of President Obama’s signature legislative “achievement.” The law declares that businesses with 50 or more employees are considered “large employers” who must provide “affordable, minimum essential” health insurance coverage to employees and their dependents. Large employers additionally have annual reporting obligations under the PPACA. In 2013, preparing for the employer mandate soon to go into effect, Florida business Kawa Orthodontics put up its own money to comply. However, because the administration decided to ignore the law and delay implementation of the mandate, Kawa, and who knows how many other businesses, lost some, if not all, of the value of the time and money that could have been used for other, productive purposes…”
http://www.newsmax.com/TomFitton/Obamacare-Judicial-Watch-Kawa/2015/06/01/id/648045/
5 Supreme Court Cases to Watch in June
The High Court prepares to rule on Obamacare, gay marriage, death penalty drugs, and more.
“The Supreme Court’s 2014-2015 term will soon reach its finale. By the end of June, when the justices depart for their summer break, the Court is expected to issue a series of blockbuster decisions, including rulings on gay marriage, death penalty drugs, and Obamacare. Here are five cases to watch as another momentous SCOTUS term reaches its peak… King v. Burwell – The question before the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell is whether the Obama administration illegally implemented the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) when the IRS allowed tax credits to issue to certain persons who bought health insurance on federally established health care exchanges. According to the text of the ACA, such tax credits should only issue in connection with purchases made via an “Exchange established by the State.” According to the Obama administration, however, the phrase “established by the State” is actually a “term of art” that encompasses exchanges established by both the states and by the federal government. The legal challengers, by contrast, maintain that the statutory text is clear and that the health care law means what it says. Depending on how the Court sees it, the long-term survival of Obamacare could be at risk.”
http://reason.com/archives/2015/05/31/5-supreme-court-cases-to-watch-in-june
Obamacare unravel could be lose-lose: Experts
“Conservatives will find themselves in a tough spot if a Supreme Court challenge to President Barack Obama’s signature health care law results in the loss of subsidies for millions of Americans, two doctors told CNBC on Monday. Any day now, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether language in the Affordable Health Care Act prevents the government from issuing subsidies to people who purchased health care on federal exchanges. The challenge being mounted in King v. Burwell threatens the subsidies issued in 34 states that did not establish state-run exchanges and are instead served by HealthCare.gov. GOP lawmakers have put forward a number of measures that would extend benefits that subsidize the cost of coverage for Americans who purchased plans on federally administered health care exchanges. Such an extension would create a solution through the 2016 presidential election, but a ruling against subsidies could create disruptions in important spots on the electoral map. “We’re going to have millions of people who would not get health coverage, especially in key states like Florida and Wisconsin where there are big battle ground races to be had,” Dr. Kavita Patel, a practicing physician at John Hopkins Medicine, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”…”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102722190
One procedure that cost Medicare $6.6 billion
“Joint replacement was the most common hospital procedure that Medicare paid for in 2013, accounting for nearly 450,000 inpatient admissions and $6.6 billion in payments. Among physicians, cancer specialists received the largest payments from Medicare, but much of their reimbursements went to cover the cost of the very expensive drugs to treat their patients. Those were among thousands of details in a vast trove of Medicare billing data for 2013 released Monday by the Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare turns 50 next month, and in the age of big data the more than $600 billion that taxpayers spend annually on the program is getting closer scrutiny than ever. Medicare covers 55 million people, a number that keeps growing as baby boomers reach age 65 and sign up. A recent trend of moderating medical spending has not dispelled concerns about the program’s long-term financial stability. Monday’s data marked the third year the government has released details on hospital spending, and the second year for physician reimbursements. Here are some of the pieces of a vast health care jigsaw puzzle:…”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/one-procedure-that-cost-medicare-6-6-billion/
IMMIGRATION:
Supreme Court denies Arizona’s bid to deny bail to undocumented immigrants
“The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an Arizona county’s attempt to reinstate a state law that denies bail to people in the country illegally who are charged with certain crimes. The justices left in place a lower-court ruling that struck down the law that Arizona voters approved in 2006. The law denied bail to immigrants who are in the country illegally and have been charged with a range of felonies that include shoplifting, aggravated identity theft, sexual assault and murder. As a result, immigrants spent months in jail and often simply pleaded guilty and were turned over to federal immigration authorities for deportation. Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the case. It takes the votes of four justices to hear an appeal. Thomas, in an opinion for himself and Scalia, said the court’s action could give lower courts “free rein to strike down state laws on the basis of dubious constitutional analysis.” He said it is “disheartening” that another justice wouldn’t also want to review the lower court ruling….”
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/06/01/supreme-court-denies-arizona-bid-to-deny-bail-to-undocumented-immigrants/
Justices block law denying bail to undocumented immigrants
“The Supreme Court sounded the final death knell Monday for an Arizona constitutional amendment that denied bail to all undocumented immigrants charged with serious felonies. The justices refused to reconsider a federal appeals court ruling that held the measure, passed in 2006, was unconstitutional because it did not provide for case-by-case determinations. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, the court’s three most conservative members, would have agreed to hear the case. “Our indifference to cases such as this one will only embolden the lower courts to reject state laws on questionable constitutional grounds,” Thomas wrote…”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/01/supreme-court-arizona-immigration/27792057/
Another Arizona immigration law dismantled by the courts
“The U.S. Supreme Court landed the final blow against an Arizona law that denied bail to immigrants who are in the country illegally and are charged with certain felonies, marking the latest in a series of state immigration policies that have since been thrown out by the courts. The nation’s highest court on Monday rejected a bid from metro Phoenix’s top prosecutor and sheriff to reinstate the 2006 law after a lower appeals court concluded late last year that it violated civil rights by imposing punishment before trial. While a small number of Arizona’s immigration laws have been upheld, the courts have slowly dismantled most of the other statutes that sought to draw local police into immigration enforcement. “At this point, we can say that was a failed experiment,” said Cecillia Wang, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who led the challenge of the law. “Like the rest of the country, Arizona should move on from that failed experiment.” Voters overwhelmingly approved the no-bail law as the state’s politicians were feeling pressure to take action on illegal immigration. It automatically denied bail to immigrants charged with a range of felonies that included shoplifting, aggravated identity theft, sexual assault and murder. The number of immigrants who were denied bond hearings as a result of the law was unknown, but that number is believed to be over 1,000. Immigrants started to get bail hearings late last year after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the law…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/1/justices-reject-bid-to-revive-arizona-no-bail-law/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
FBI closes EB-5 investigation; no criminal charges brought
“The FBI announced Monday it has closed its investigation into South Dakota’s investment-for-visa program and the state’s U.S. Attorney would not pursue any prosecution. The program to recruit investment dollars from wealthy immigrants in exchange for easier entry into the U.S. came under scrutiny after the death of a former state official and allegations of financial misconduct. The program and surrounding scandal were frequent talking points during South Dakota’s U.S. Senate race last year, with former Gov. and now U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds routinely criticized by his opponents for his management of the program as governor. Some questions and answers about what Monday’s news means: REMIND ME WHAT EB-5 IS AGAIN? It’s a state-run federal program that allows states to recruit wealthy immigrant investors for projects in exchange for green cards. Investors approved for the federal program can become legal permanent residents after two years and can later be eligible to become citizens. South Dakota was one of the states that led the way in EB-5 financing under Joop Bollen and former Governor’s Office of Economic Development secretary Richard Benda. But the program came under fire after Benda committed suicide in 2013 as state officials prepared felony theft charges against him…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/1/fbi-closes-eb-5-investigation-no-criminal-charges-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Newark Immigration 2015: Municipal IDs For Undocumented Immigrants Granted In New Jersey City
http://www.ibtimes.com/newark-immigration-2015-municipal-ids-undocumented-immigrants-granted-new-jersey-city-1946530
EXCLUSIVE: ANN COULTER CHALLENGES MARC ANDREESSEN TO IMMIGRATION DEBATE
“After her showdown with Jorge Ramos on his home turf, Ann Coulter is now challenging Facebook board member Marc Andreessen to an immigration debate. Coulter, the author of Adios, America! The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole, has consistently been unafraid to bring up inconvenient truths about illegal immigration that the politically-correct media willfully ignore or hide. Andreessen, the tech investor and advocate of open borders, recently implied that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)80% was “clinically insane” for standing up for American workers and daring to suggest that an immigration policy that favors plutocrats may not serve the national interest. Coulter told Breitbart News that “it’s hard to know what point of Andreessen’s argument I’m supposed to dispute inasmuch his argument is: ‘anyone who disagrees with me on importing cheap labor is clinically insane.’” “But if we’re all insane, it ought to be child’s play to debate us,” Coulter said in issuing her challenge. “So how about it, Marc? You pick the audience — I just want C-SPAN there.” Andreessen, an early investor in Facebook, picked a fight with Sessions last year after the Alabama Senator called out Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg on the Senate floor for spending millions to push amnesty legislation and massive increases in H-1b guest-worker permits at a time when there is a proven surplus–not a shortage–of American high-tech workers. Andreessen, as Breitbart News noted, even called the Alabama Senator an “odious hack” and implied that Sessions was “clinically insane” for suggesting that Facebook hire more American workers, like those recently laid off by technology giants such as Microsoft. Andreessen has not backed down an inch from his views, recently declaring that illegal immigration is the best thing that is happening to America, especially if the nation’s birth rates continue to drop. “It’s the best thing that can possibly be happening to us, and I find it ironic; nobody wants to talk about that,” Andreessen recently said of illegal immigration….”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/01/exclusive-ann-coulter-challenges-marc-andreessen-to-immigration-debate/
Watch: What Jeb Bush Just Said About Immigration May Sink His Ship Before It Sets Sail
“During his final broadcast as host of CBS’ Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer pressed likely Republican presidential contender Jeb Bush on his willingness to embrace positions to the left of many candidates already vying for the party’s nomination. Bush defended his views, suggesting the primary process would be more effective if all candidates expressed their true intentions instead of pandering to the GOP’s conservative base. “I think people are so disaffected and … so cynical about politicians and politics,” he said, “they don’t want to hear someone say, well ‘I’m for this’ and immediately shift back to another position for the general election.” Bush then brought up one issue for which he has already received serious flak from conservatives. “I have views that are different than some in our party,” he said, “and that’s what we’ll sort out if I’m a candidate. I’m not going to back down on views on immigration, for example.” Schieffer asked Bush if he still supports a pathway toward legal status for millions of illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S…”
<a href="http://www.weste