data_id
int64 1
1.12M
| id
stringlengths 32
138
| date
timestamp[s] | source
stringlengths 2
24
| title
stringlengths 12
203
| content
stringlengths 32
65.4k
⌀ | author
stringlengths 2
242
⌀ | url
stringlengths 27
244
| published
stringlengths 14
32
| published_utc
int64 1.55B
1.58B
| collection_utc
int64 1.57B
1.58B
| category_level_1
stringclasses 17
values | category_level_2
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
176,549 | eveningstandard--2019-06-03--Rio Ferdinand praises aposbeautifulapos fiancee Kate Wright on her birthday | 2019-06-03T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Rio Ferdinand praises 'beautiful' fiancée Kate Wright on her birthday | Rio Ferdinand paid tribute to his “beautiful” fiancée Kate Wright as she celebrated her 28th birthday. The BT Sport pundit and former footballer posted a series of sweet snaps as he marked the special occasion with his bride-to-be. “Wishing my [love] the happiest birthday,” he wrote. “Inside and out, the most beautiful person I could wish to spend the rest of my life with.” Ferdinand and Wright got engaged last November while on holiday in Abu Dhabi after almost two years together. The sports star dropped to one knee in front of his three children Lorenz, 12, Tate, 10 and seven-year-old Tia, who had all managed to keep the proposal a secret. Wright posted snaps of the tender moment, branding it the “perfect end to their holiday” with a series of heart emojis. Earlier this year, Ferdinand marked shared a touching message to Wright on Mother’s Day, thanking her for helping to keep the memory of his late wife alive. The ex-Manchester United ace’s wife Rebecca Ellison died in 2015 after battling breast cancer for the second time. Ferdinand wrote: “Thank you for all you do for the little munchkins. From keeping their mums memory alive, to constantly putting smiles on their faces. Love u.” The star previously told This Morning how his relationship with Wright had had a “positive” impact on his life and those of his children. Ferdinand said: “I’m happy again, and in a relationship and it’s going well. “The kids are also happy, they deserve to be after going through tragedy in the last few years of their life. There’s not been one stage of going into this relationship where they’ve not been involved.” | Natasha Sporn | https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/rio-ferdinand-praises-beautiful-fianc-e-kate-wright-on-her-birthday-a4158141.html | 2019-06-03 13:05:05+00:00 | 1,559,581,505 | 1,567,539,210 | human interest | people |
177,557 | eveningstandard--2019-06-21--Happy Birthday Prince William Kate and Willsapos best jokes and funniest moments to celebrate the | 2019-06-21T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Happy Birthday Prince William! Kate and Wills' best jokes and funniest moments to celebrate the Duke of Cambridge turning 37 | The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have come a long way since meeting in 2003 at the University of St. Andrews. There's been an engagement, a wedding, three children... and, for Kate, the minor life adjustments that come with marrying into one of the world's most famous families. They say a shared sense of humour is the key to a successful relationship - and in Kate and Will's case, their 15 years as a couple (eight of them married) - has involved plenty of inter-couple bantz about, among other things, Kate's bad cooking and Will's hair loss. In the filmed interview following their engagement announcement, interviewer Tom Bradby asked if it was true that Kate had once had a poster of Prince William on her bedroom wall. “It wasn’t just one, it was like ten, twenty [posters]" Will joked. "He wishes" Kate replied, adding “No, I had the Levi’s guy on my bedroom wall, not a picture of William. Sorry.” The Duke and Duchess were at the Global Ministerial Mental Health Summit in October when Colombian fine artist Dario Vargas asked if they wanted to contribute to the painting he was creating. Tentatively, Kate added some paint onto the canvas, asking "Where can I hide it?" Her husband said: "It’s pretty much ruined the picture." Launching the Nursing Now global campaign at St. Thomas' Hospital in February this year, the then-pregnant Kate joked with a parent of one of the patients who told her, "Congratulations, best of luck with the third one." The Duke and Duchess were at a Taste of Norfolk event in aid of East Anglia’s Children’s Hospice in 2016 when Kate told a group of chefs, "William has to put up with my cooking most of the time". Her husband replied: "It’s the reason I’m so skinny." Opening a recreation facility on a UK military base in Cyprus on December 5, Prince William warned the soldiers: "Keep the pizza off the sofas!" "Do you want me to move out of the photo," the Prince joked. "My wife's camouflaged against the tree!" Visiting a school to launch their Heads Together campaign in 2016, William spoke to the school children and their parents about his childhood. "Sometimes I still feel like I am 16, to be honest sometimes I still act like I am 16," he said. On a trip to Warsaw in 2017 Kate was presented with a cuddly toy used to soothe newborns. "We will just have to have more babies" she said, turning to her husband. Prince William was abseiling down a 12-metre wall in an outdoor centre in North Wales, as Kate stood at the top holding onto his rope "Are you holding me?" William asked. "I've got you," Kate responded, before adding, "I'm rather enjoying this actually - for once I'm in control." With the Prince then well into his descent, Kate shouted down at him: "William - how much do you love me?" The couple were at the Royal Easter Show at Sydney Olympic Park in Australia in 2014. Watching a shearing demonstration, at one point they were handed a tuft of alpaca wool, which Kate suggested he put it on his head. "You need it more than me" she said, pointing to his bald patch and laughing. The two were answering phone calls to raise money for the ICAP charity day in December 2015. William overheard Kate talking to a caller named Andrew, and he blurted out: "Catherine, I think you can stop flirting with them now" before turning to a broker, raising his eyebrow and muttering: "Sorry my wife is just embarrassing me" | Edwina Langley | https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/royalssociety/all-the-times-kate-middleton-and-prince-william-have-thrown-shade-at-each-other-a4011806.html | 2019-06-21 07:15:00+00:00 | 1,561,115,700 | 1,567,538,424 | human interest | people |
178,183 | eveningstandard--2019-06-27--Ariana Grande celebrates 26th birthday with 7 Rings cake and signature bunny ears | 2019-06-27T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Ariana Grande celebrates 26th birthday with 7 Rings cake and signature bunny ears | Ariana Grande celebrated her birthday with an exquisite cake, which featured a nod to her hit song 7 Rings. The American superstar turned 26 on Wednesday, marking her special day with a two-tiered birthday cake, adorned with seven golden rings on the top of it. Grande also joked about her signature “ears” as she dressed up for her lavish bash in a black halter-neck mini-dress and matching satin gloves – although she admitted she changed moments later. “Another year around the sun n she still wearing these f****** ears,” Grande wrote. “Grateful for the love and for the people I get to share this life with. And thank u for the birthday wishes. :) “P.s. I changed into an xxxl hoodie minutes after this was taken, don’t worry.” Grande also celebrated her birthday on stage in Toronto and was presented with a birthday cake – another reference to her 7 Rings hit – as the crowd sang to her. Around 20,000 fans at the Scotiabank Arena belted out Happy Birthday to the singer as she hugged her family. “I love you all so much,” Grande shouted after the chorus had ended and erupted into applause. The Canadian venue also decorated its main areas for a party, hanging Happy Birthday posters and bunting backstage in an “old school kids-themed party”. Grande’s next musical move is set to be revealed today, as her collaborative track for the upcoming Charlie’s Angels reboot gets its first airing on a new trailer. Teasing the song on social media, co-singer Miley Cyrus wrote: “WE ARE COMING! @CharliesAngels @ArianaGrande @LanaDelRey.” All three stars shared a clip teasing the new release on their Instagram pages ahead of today’s big reveal. | Natasha Sporn | https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/ariana-grande-celebrates-26th-birthday-with-7-rings-cake-and-her-signature-ears-a4177271.html | 2019-06-27 10:20:00+00:00 | 1,561,645,200 | 1,567,537,836 | human interest | people |
181,060 | eveningstandard--2019-07-31--Emma Watson shares JK Rowling throwback photo for Harry Potter authoraposs 54th birthday | 2019-07-31T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Emma Watson shares JK Rowling throwback photo for Harry Potter author's 54th birthday | Emma Watson has shared a "sexy" throwback photo of herself with J.K. Rowling for the Harry Potter author’s 54th birthday. The 28-year-old actress posted the snap on Twitter of herself dressed as Wonder Woman alongside her Harry Potter co-star Evanna Lynch, who played Luna Lovegood in the film series, and Rowling herself. Rowling wears a black halter neck dress and make-up that included a fake horn above her left eye. In the tweet, Watson writes: “Sexy and scary! You smashed this. All the love to you @jk_rowling. “Happy Birthday!!!! Extra points to @Evy_Lynch for being the most perfect cat [sic].” The sweet photo comes 20 years after Watson first met Rowling at her screen test for the role of Hermione Granger at the age of nine. After support from the author of the beloved books, Emma was cast as Harry's friend and Hogwarts classmate Hermione, with Daniel Radcliffe scoring the lead role and Rupert Grint completing the trio as Ron Weasely. The lead cast worked on eight Harry Potter movies together from 2001 to 2011. Rowling has gone on to write five more novels for adult readers and worked as a producer for the two part adaptation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. She has also scripted the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them films. Since then Watson, who is also a UN Women Goodwill ambassador, has combined her acting with studying and activism. The 29-year-old is set to star in Louisa May Alcott's Little Women next alongside Meryl Streep and Timothée Chalamet later this year. | Tobi Akingbade | https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/emma-watson-shares-jk-rowling-throwback-photo-for-harry-potter-authors-54th-birthday-a4202436.html | 2019-07-31 12:11:00+00:00 | 1,564,589,460 | 1,567,535,208 | human interest | people |
181,224 | eveningstandard--2019-08-01--Fabricaposs 20th birthday Bicep Ricardo Villalobos and more to play clubaposs anniversary cele | 2019-08-01T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Fabric's 20th birthday: Bicep, Ricardo Villalobos and more to play club's anniversary celebrations | Bicep, Ricardo Villalobos and Midland are among the artists set to play as part of Fabric’s 20th birthday celebrations. The Farringdon institution, which threw its first party on October 21 1999, usually marks the occasion with an all-weekend party towards the end of the month. This year, however, it will spread events across a number of weeks, with music from artists who've dropped landmark sets at the club during its history. Villalobos will be joined in the booth by resident Craig Richards on Sunday October 20 for one of their classic B2B sets, which will run over into Monday morning, Fabric’s official birthday. Bicep will be joined by Cromby on Sunday November 3, while Midland is part of a line-up which includes Richards, Terry Francis KiNK and others on Saturday October 5. Other highlights include a 15-hour party led by Call Super and Objekt, as well as two live shows, featuring the likes of British Murder Boys and UNKLE’s AI project. Tickets are on sale now and can be bought here. | Jochan Embley | https://www.standard.co.uk/go/london/clubbing/fabric-20th-birthday-line-up-events-tickets-a4203281.html | 2019-08-01 09:28:01+00:00 | 1,564,666,081 | 1,567,535,110 | human interest | people |
181,997 | eveningstandard--2019-08-09--Kylie Jenner does drunk makeup tutorial with sister Khloe Kardashian to celebrate new Birthday colle | 2019-08-09T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Kylie Jenner does drunk makeup tutorial with sister Khloe Kardashian to celebrate new Birthday collection | There’s no doubt that Kylie Jenner is a make-up whiz, but even her skills were tested after taking several shots of tequila. The CEO of Kylie Cosmetics teamed up with her sister Khloe Kardashian for a hilarious beauty tutorial on Kylie’s YouTube channel, throughout which they took a mammoth 18 shots between them. Kylie announced at the start of the video that the pair would be doing a drunken ‘Get Ready with Me’ - a popular beauty YouTube format where vloggers film themselves doing their make-up. Filmed at the Kylie Cosmetics office, she invited her sister Khloe to join her as they downed shots of Don Julio 1942 tequila and tested out Kylie’s brand new products from her upcoming Birthday Collection. It doesn’t take long before the video is completely derailed after Kylie and Khloe are seen doing shots of tequila and Red Bull in the company parking lot. Before the pair had even taken a seat in one of the millennial pink makeup chairs, Kylie had already taken five shots while her older sister had taken four. Khloe announced early on in the video, “I gotta keep up with you young h*es because listen, I used to do a Red Bull and alcohol too. But now that I’m 703 [years old], I don’t.” They committed to the birthday-theme throughout the video, with Kylie wearing a diamond '1997' ring (the year she was born) and the pair swigging from a bejewelled 'KYLIE' branded bottle of tequila. The bottle was a gift that Khloe gave Kylie on her 21st birthday, but was never opened. While Kylie is able to pull together a pretty impressive pink eyeshadow look without too much difficulty (barring one exceptionally thick lashing of cat eyeliner), Khloe struggles a little more as she has an epiphany and announces, “I don’t know how to draw.” As she stares in the mirror at herself, Khloe has an existential crisis and asks, “Who’s face am I painting?” Throughout the video, the pair called a number of their friends and siblings in an attempt to get them to join them. In fact, they FaceTimed their sister Kim Kardashian West who turned the camera around to reveal her children Saint West and North West. The pair said hello to their aunties and North West declared herself a massive stan of her Kylie’s YouTube channel, saying that she was “watching them on YouTube”. Kim’s husband, who generally refrains from joining the Kardashian’s reality TV shows or YouTube videos, makes a rare appearance - telling the sisters over FaceTime, “We miss you guys.” Shortly after Kanye spoke, Khloe hung up and told Kylie she ended the call because she “was bored”. Kylie also unveiled products from her upcoming Birthday collection for her make-up brand Kylie Cosmetics, which recently garnered her the title of youngest self-made billionaire by Forbes. One of the most striking pieces from the collection is the pink and green You’re So Money Baby eyeshadow palette, which features dollar sign symbols in the centre of the shadows. The billionaire was recently criticised for the money-focused Birthday Collection, which sees the brand’s iconic lip logo merged with dollar bills along with a recurring dollar sign motif across the packaging. Khloe at one point indicated she wanted a slice of her sister’s success, declaring, “Now that I’m in this office, standing here in your presence, may I be blessed with billions as well.” As the video progresses, Kylie and Khloe seem to give up on sharing their make-up tips and are eventually joined by friend Sofia Richie and Kris Jenner’s boyfriend Corey Gamble. By the end of the video, Kylie and Khloe are seen giddily dancing and running around the studio after taking seven and eleven shots respectively - with make-up smeared on Kylie’s shirt and a bemused Sofia Richie watching on in the background. Khloe declared at the end of the video, “This was the worst idea.” The video has since garnered 2.5 million views on YouTube. The Birthday Collection is set to launch online at KylieCosmetics.com at 9am on Saturday, August 10 - Kylie’s 22nd birthday. | Megan C. Hills | https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/alist/kylie-jenner-does-drunk-makeup-tutorial-with-sister-khloe-kardashian-to-celebrate-new-birthday-a4209821.html | 2019-08-09 13:23:20+00:00 | 1,565,371,400 | 1,567,534,504 | human interest | people |
183,493 | eveningstandard--2019-09-02--Romeo Beckham celebrates 17th birthday as dad David shares adorable tribute and throwback | 2019-09-02T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Romeo Beckham celebrates 17th birthday as dad David shares adorable tribute and throwback | David and Victoria Beckham shared sweet tributes for their son Romeo on his 17th birthday. The pair’s second-born became a year older on 1 September and the couple marked the occasion with social media messages. David shared a picture of Romeo as a toddler wearing a top hat and matching checked vest on Instagram. In the caption, he wrote: “ Happy birthday my big boy ... 17 today I can’t believe how fast it’s gone . I’m so proud of you , growing from this beautiful boy into a handsome young man and still you are not as tall as dad just yet .. Happy birthday RoRo we love you @romeobeckham @victoriabeckham@brooklynbeckham @cruzbeckham#HarperSeven ♥️ btw NICE OUTFIT [sic]”. Romeo, not one to be embarrassed by the snap, commented: “Love you dad I actually think it’s quite a snazzy outfit.” Likewise, Victoria posted on the social media site a snap of Romeo and his three siblings – 20-year-old Brooklyn, 14-year-old Cruz, and eight-year-old Harper, as she admitted she “couldn’t believe” that he was now 17. The former Spice Girls singer, wrote: “Happy birthday Romeo, I can’t believe you are 17 today!!!’ she said. “We are so proud of you and love you so so much xxxx.” Plenty of fans also sent Romeo birthday wishes in the comments of his parent’s posts. “Perks of being a parent... embarrassing your child with their clothing choices,” one said in reference to David’s jibe about Romeo’s clothes. “Happy birthday Romeo. You are a little grown-up young man now... Be happy and enjoy with your mom dad and Family,” one comment read, before another added: “They’re growing up so quickly.” Meanwhile, another fan said Romeo looked a lot like his famous father, writing: “Handsome. Like his daddy." Victoria also took to Instagram stories to share snaps taken at Romeo’s celebratory lunch, including which saw David’s arms wrapped around the 17-year-old before he was presented with a stack of doughnuts for a birthday cake. The social media activity comes after the Beckham family enjoyed a luxurious family holiday in Italy, with all the family members – minus Harper - sharing highlights of the trip on their Instagram feed. Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish also joined the Beckhams on their vacation, with Victoria and David joining the couple on a yacht. | Tobi Akingbade | https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/romeo-beckham-celebrates-17th-birthday-as-dad-david-shares-adorable-tribute-and-throwback-a4226841.html | 2019-09-02 10:01:07+00:00 | 1,567,432,867 | 1,569,331,627 | human interest | people |
184,298 | eveningstandard--2019-09-10--Kendall Jenner Cara Delevingne and Halsey celebrate DKNYaposs 30th birthday party at NYFW 2019 | 2019-09-10T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Kendall Jenner, Cara Delevingne and Halsey celebrate DKNY's 30th birthday party at NYFW 2019 | A whole slew of A-listers turned out in Brooklyn to celebrate the iconic brand DKNY's 30th anniversary on Monday night. Stars including Kendall Jenner, Cara Delevingne, Ashley Benson, Nina Agdal, Charlie Puth and Suki Waterhouse gathered at DUMBO's St. Ann's Warehouse, clad in their best DKNY looks for the red carpet and party. Because it's New York Fashion Week, there were plenty of top models to be found, including Victoria's Secret Angels Sara Sampaio Alessandra Ambrosio, who posed together with Instagram-worthy balloon fixtures. After a bass-heavy DJ set from The Martinez Brothers, Halsey played an intimate concert featuring some of her biggest hits. Delevingne announced the popstar, saying, "I’m very very grateful to be on the stage right now to introduce a friend of mine who’s going to give you the show of a lifetime.” Halsey opened with Bad at Love, wearing white boots, flare legged jeans with a double zip, white suspenders and a tank top. She played a punk rock-inspired set for the fashion crowd and at one point, her mic stand hit someone in the front row. At the end of her show, she apologized to the fan with a quick hug. “It’s good to be in Brooklyn, I’ll tell you that much," the artist said before launching into Now or Never. Halsey, born Ashley Frangipane, chose her stage name based on a Brooklyn subway stop. "It’s really cool to be here," she announced before saying, "All of you motherf****rs would’ve been way too cool to talk to me," about the high fashion crowd. She thanked DKNY and said, "It’s a company that I’m really f***ing proud to be representing right now." "My 25th birthday is in two weeks [but] it turns out DKNY is a lot older, today is their 30 anniversary," she told the rapt audience. She closed the show with Without Me, the emotional single she penned about ex-boyfriend G-Eazy. Her next single, Graveyard, comes out this week. Conor Kennedy, Just Drew designer Andrew Warren and YouTube star Jackson Krecioch were seen dancing the night away after the Halsey performance. Victoria's Secret Angel Winnie Harlow was also spotted dancing in the audience. The fashionable night out ended with a nostalgia-inducing vegan ice cream truck as well as party favors from Milk Bar, including their famous compost cookies. Guests picked up merchandise on their way out, showing off hats and t-shirts that are sure to remain mementos for the next 30 years. | Margaret Abrams | https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/alist/kendall-jenner-cara-delevingne-and-halsey-celebrated-dknys-30th-birthday-party-at-nyfw-2019-a4232711.html | 2019-09-10 04:35:00+00:00 | 1,568,104,500 | 1,569,330,539 | human interest | people |
186,307 | eveningstandard--2019-10-10--Bella Hadid's birthday party saw her sister Gigi and Dua Lipa do arts and crafts, wear tiny hat | 2019-10-10T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Bella Hadid's birthday party saw her sister Gigi and Dua Lipa do arts and crafts, wear tiny hats and lots of pizza | Model Bella Hadid celebrated her 23rd birthday in New York on Wednesday, surrounded by her sister Gigi Hadid, singer Dua Lipa, her mother and close friends for a pizza-filled day of arts and crafts. Although Bella leads a pretty high-flying lifestyle as an international model, her festivities were a refreshingly low key affair. In Instagram stories shared both by Bella and her friends, Hadid started off her day with tens of fancy floral bouquets delivered to her room. One of the most unusual gifts was a pizza-themed birthday cake from designer Alexander Wang (junk food was a recurring theme). Bella shared a picture calling him an “INSANE HUMAN BEING” and added that she was “freaking out” and that she needed to “frame this”. The model dressed for the day in an all-black outfit of chunky Doc Martens, sheer socks and large golden hoops. From there, she was swept off by her friends to a meal which included a large mimosa. Her friend Liv Perez shared a picture of how her friends had put extra effort in and decorated the restaurant for Bella, ahead of her arrival. In one Instagram story, a gigantic pizza balloon could be seen alongside party hats, junk food stickers and ‘happy birthday’ headbands. Bella’s mother, Yolanda Hadid, was also photographed on her way into the venue holding a number of rainbow balloons which made an appearance in the birthday set up. Dua Lipa, who is currently dating Bella and Gigi’s brother Anwar, also turned up for the meal wearing a wraparound top from Jacquemus and layered necklaces; smiling alongside Bella as they were shielded from the rain. Bella’s sister Gigi, who posted a sweet Instagram tribute to her sister which included throwback pictures of the pair, was also at the party in a sky blue tie dye co-ordinated tracksuit and white denim jacket. After that, they were then seen wearing tiny birthday hats and heading to Colour Me Mine, a pottery painting studio where they all painted random objects. Her sister Gigi somehow managed to rock a tiny Happy Birthday cake hat and make it look chic. Bella took a break from the pizza-inspired festivities and instead decided to paint a ceramic burger piggy bank, with featured disconcerting blue cheese slices. There were also cupcakes and a massive brown birthday cake that read 'Happy Birthday Princess Bella.' The day didn’t end there, as Bella later staged an outfit change for a more glamorous event. She was photographed stepping out for dinner in a red and yellow patterned velvet dress, complete with black knee high boots and a very 90s baguette bag. She was taken to a restaurant called Miss Lily’s, a Caribbean eatery specialising in modern takes on classic Jamaican fare. Bella also regrammed plenty of birthday messages from her celebrity friends, which included Virgil Abloh, Hailey Bieber, Halsey, Ricardo Tisci and Luka Sabbat. | Megan C. Hills | https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/alist/bella-hadids-birthday-party-saw-her-sister-gigi-and-dua-lipa-do-arts-and-crafts-don-tiny-hats-and-a4258766.html | Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:27:15 GMT | 1,570,735,635 | 1,570,752,755 | human interest | people |
188,755 | eveningstandard--2019-11-11--Kiernan Shipka and Jon Hamm celebrate her 20th birthday with Mad Men reunion photo | 2019-11-11T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Kiernan Shipka and Jon Hamm celebrate her 20th birthday with Mad Men reunion photo | Kiernan Shipka celebrated her 20th birthday in style surrounded by her celebrity pals. The Mad Men and Chilling Adventures of Sabrina star had an enviable birthday bash attended by The Office actor BJ Novak, YouTube star David Dobrik, actress Inanna, and Santa Clarita Diet star Liv Hewson. She also had her co-stars, both past and present, by her side. Her Sabrina boyfriends Ross Lynch and Gavin Leatherwood stopped by - and so did her IRL boyfriend, Christian Coppola. She was first spotted with Coppola, a 26-year-old director, over the summer in Rome (and yes, he's a distant relative of iconic director Francis Ford Coppola). But the best picture she posted to Instagram to commemorate the big day was the one with her former Mad Men co-star and TV dad Jon Hamm. She captioned the post, "Dad showed up!!!" Some fans in the comments section called for a Mad Men reunion while others asked for him to make an appearance on her current show, Sabrina. Unfortunately, her Mad Men mom, January Jones, wasn't able to make it but she paid tribute on her own Instagram with a glamorous photo of the pair in Rodarte. Jones, who played her mother Betty Draper, wrote, "I'm so proud of you @kiernanshipka I feel somewhat responsible for you little one. You have become such a success in life and in this silly world we call work. I couldn't have asked for a better on screen daughter/partner in crime. Known you since you were 6! Happy 20th!!! Love Mom." So it looks like while she might have had a contentious relationship with her Mad Men parents onscreen, offscreen they're still a tight-knit bunch. Perhaps that means it's time for a Mad Men reunion... | Margaret Abrams | https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/alist/kiernan-shipka-and-jon-hamm-mad-men-20th-birthday-don-draper-sally-a4284296.html | Mon, 11 Nov 2019 17:02:00 GMT | 1,573,509,720 | 1,573,518,951 | human interest | people |
190,705 | eveningstandard--2019-11-26--Tina Turner sends health update to fans on 80th birthday: 'I have a second chance at life' | 2019-11-26T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Tina Turner sends health update to fans on 80th birthday: 'I have a second chance at life' | Tina Turner is extremely grateful for “having a second chance at life” as she celebrates her 80th birthday. The star has been overcoming several illnesses recently but is “happy’” to be able to record a special message for her fans. She shared a joyful video on her Twitter page saying: “Yes, I am 80. “What did I think – How did I think I would be at 80? Not like this! How is this? “Well, I look great. I feel good. I have gone through some very serious sickness that I am overcoming. So it is like having a second chance at life. “I’m happy to be an 80-year-old woman.” Missy Elliott also wished Turner a happy birthday, writing on Twitter: “We Celebrate your 80th today! “It’s so IMPORTANT for us to KNOW OUR HISTORY in music because of artist like #TinaTurner who KICKED DOWN DOORS & left them open for artist like MYSELF & MOST of your FAVS.” Earlier this month, the music icon and Rock and Roll Hall of Fame stopped by the opening night of Tina: The Tina Turner Musical on Broadway in New York, surprising the audience with an emotional post-show speech. “This musical is my life but it’s like poison that turned to medicine,” Turner said. “I can never be as happy as I am now.” She also opened up about her health issues in her 2018 memoir, My Love Story. “I know that my medical adventure is far from over,” she wrote “But I’m still here — we’re still here, closer than we ever imagined.” The 80-year-old added: “I can look back and understand why my karma was the way it was. Good came out of bad. Joy came out of pain. And I have never been so completely happy as I am today.” Turner suffered a stroke in 2013 – three weeks after her wedding to music executive Erwin Bach – and had to learn how to walk again and three years later, in 2016, she was diagnosed with intestinal cancer. She turned to homoeopathic medicine to treat her high blood pressure but that resulted in kidney failure. The star considered an assisted suicide before her husband offered to donate his kidney for her transplant surgery in 2017. | Tobi Akingbade | https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/tina-turner-sends-health-update-to-fans-on-80th-birthday-i-have-a-second-chance-at-life-a4297016.html | Tue, 26 Nov 2019 19:25:00 GMT | 1,574,814,300 | 1,574,814,761 | human interest | people |
192,609 | eveningstandard--2019-12-12--Taylor Swift's greatest quotes to celebrate her birthday, from 'two-faced Kanye West' | 2019-12-12T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Taylor Swift's greatest quotes to celebrate her birthday, from 'two-faced Kanye West' to advice for young women | Happy birthday to Taylor Swift , who turns 30 today. The popstar has been in the spotlight for nearly half of her three decades, releasing her very first album back in 2006 at the age of 16. Since then, Swift has shifted from wholesome country singer to fully-fledged popstar, putting out seven studio albums and picking up countless awards along the way. She's also weathered some public fall-outs, including with musician Kanye West and Katy Perry, who she reconciled with in her music video for 'You Need To Calm Down.' In the 14 years following the start of her career, Swift has grown personally, sharing the wisdom she’s learned along the way - and quite a few memorable quotes. Advice for young female artists: “There are going to be people along the way who will try to undercut your success or take credit for your accomplishments or your fame. But if you just focus on the work and you don’t let those people sidetrack you, someday, when you get where you’re going, you will look around and you will know that it was you, and the people who love you, who put you there. And that will be the greatest feeling in the world." On learning to stand up for yourself: “Being sweet to everyone all the time can get you into a lot of trouble. While it may be born from having been raised to be a polite young lady, this can contribute to some of your life’s worst regrets if someone takes advantage of this trait in you. Grow a backbone, trust your gut, and know when to strike back.” On life’s ups and downs: “In some of the worst times of my career, and reputation, dare I say, I had some of the most beautiful times - in my quiet life that I chose to have. And I had some of the most incredible memories with the friends I now knew cared about me, even if everyone hated me. The bad stuff was really significant and damaging. But the good stuff will endure.” On double standards in music: “If a guy shares his experience in writing, he’s brave. If a woman shares her experience in writing, she’s oversharing and she’s overemotional or she might be crazy. Or ‘Watch out, she’ll write a song about you.’ That joke is so old and it’s coming from a place of such sexism.” Worth the fight: “A lot of the best things I ever did creatively were things that I had to really fight - and I mean aggressively fight - to have happen.” Regarding *that* phone call with Kanye West: "I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative, one that I never asked to be part of, since 2009." Why she held back on promoting Reputation: “As a songwriter, I enjoy communicating about what I made, but I also just feel like with my career, I want to do what feels right at the time. At that time, I coined this phrase, ‘There will be no explanation, there will just be Reputation,’ because I am dramatic.” On songwriting: “A lot of songwriting is things you learn, structure, and cultivating that skill, and knowing how to craft a song. But there are mystical, magical moments, inexplicable moments when an idea that is fully formed just pops into your head. And that’s the purest part of my job. It can get complicated on every other level, but the songwriting is still the same uncomplicated process it was when I was 12 years old writing songs in my room.” Problems with Katy Perry: "For years, I was never sure if we were friends or not. She did something so horrible, I was like, 'Oh, we're just straight-up enemies.' And it wasn't even about a guy! It had to do with business. She basically tried to sabotage an entire arena tour. She tried to hire a bunch of people out from under me." On the pressures of social media: “I learned to block some of the noise. Social media can be great, but it can also inundate your brain with images of what you aren’t, how you’re failing, or who is in a cooler locale than you at any given moment. One thing I do to lessen this weird insecurity laser beam is to turn off comments. Yes, I keep comments off on my posts. That way, I’m showing my friends and fans updates on my life, but I’m training my brain to not need the validation.” Why she doesn’t plan ahead: “When I zoom out too far, I freak out. Do I know where I’m going to be or even want to be in 20 years? Absolutely not. But I’m not taking a single day for granted.” On her feud with Kanye West: “I realized he is so two-faced. That he wants to be nice to me behind the scenes, but then he wants to look cool, get up in front of everyone and talk sh*t.” Ending her feud with Katy Perry in her ‘You Need To Calm Down' video: “All that needs to happen is one false move, one false word, one misunderstanding, and a match is lit and dropped. That’s what happened with us. It was: Who’s better? Katy or Taylor? Katy or Taylor? Katy or Taylor? Katy or Taylor? The tension is so high that it becomes impossible for you to not think that the other person has something against you." On the art of apologizing: “Apologizing when you have hurt someone who really matters to you takes nothing away from you. Even if it was unintentional, it’s so easy to just apologize and move on. Try not to say 'I’m sorry, but...' and make excuses for yourself. Learn how to make a sincere apology, and you can avoid breaking down the trust in your friendships and relationships.” Taking a very public stance against Scooter Braun: "New artists and producers and writers need work, and they need to be likable and get booked in sessions, and they can't make noise - but if I can, then I'm going to. I know that it seems like I'm very loud about this, but it's because someone has to be." On unexpected success: “The reason I was so driven was that I didn't expect that anything would just happen for me. But that doubt fueled me to work harder. I never expected anything to be given to me.” Regarding her fans, the Swifties: “It’s honestly the most amazing feeling knowing there’s this group of people that has my back, and that they always show up.” On learning not to take her job too seriously: “We’re just entertaining people, and it’s supposed to be fun.” | Marissa DeSantis | https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/alist/taylor-swift-quotes-kanye-west-women-a4311436.html | Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:54:00 GMT | 1,576,187,640 | 1,576,240,664 | human interest | people |
193,076 | eveningstandard--2019-12-16--Kim Kardashian, Beyonce, Jay-Z and Kanye West attend P Diddy's lavish 50th birthday party | 2019-12-16T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | Kim Kardashian, Beyonce, Jay-Z and Kanye West attend P Diddy's lavish 50th birthday party | P Diddy ensured his own brand vodka was flowing on Saturday night, as stars including Beyonce, Jay-Z , Kim Kardashian, Kanye West , Usher, Cardi B, Leonardo DiCaprio and more celebrated the rapper’s belated 50th birthday. According to Vanity Fair, guests were invited to the party with a voice message from Naomi Campbell which declared “there ain’t no party like a Diddy party” - and judging from the details, she was right on the money. Held at his mansion in Beverly Hills, the party included a black tie dress code , performances from the likes of Usher, Lil’ Kim and Mary J. Blige (who sang happy birthday) and free flow bottles of Ciroc and Jay-Z’s Armand de Brignac champagne. Stars came dressed to impress as photographer Carlos ‘Kaito’ Araujo was on hand to take portraits. Many stopped by to have their pictures snapped, including Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, who attended wearing a golden dress and black suit respectively. Diddy revealed he and Araujo have a long standing relationship as he shared a gallery of pictures taken by him and wrote, “Last night was one of those nights I’ll never forget. But something that sticks out to me is what my young creative @kaito put together with @vanityfair. All I can say is wow!! I’ve watched you grow from just a photographer to someone who captures beautiful art. Looking at these images makes me so proud. Thank you King." The portraits he posted included one of him and Jay-Z (where the '99 Problems' rapper popped his foot up to reveal a Louboutin under sole), Kim and Kanye, Mary J. Blige, Chadwick Boseman and Lizzo. Kim was joined by her family members Khloe Kardashian and Kylie Jenner, who came in contrasting sequined outfits. They posed for a picture with the birthday boy, who was dressed in a sleek silver tuxedo jacket. Their mother, Kris Jenner, was also in attendance with her boyfriend Corey Gamble. Kanye West was also seen laughing and chatting with fellow musicians Pharrell, Diddy and Mr Beyonce: Jay-Z. In fact, one of the biggest grins we’ve ever seen on Kanye’s face was captured when he and Jay-Z shook hands. Speaking of Jay-Z, Beyonce accompanied him to the party dressed in an elaborate sculptural black gown with elbow-length gloves and emerald accessories. Beyonce posted a number of pictures to her Instagram to show off her look and glossy make-up. Her husband was filmed snatching a phone off someone at the party, where he glared down a man on the dance floor for reportedly trying to sneak a picture of the 'Halo' singer. Cardi B and her boyfriend Offset were also there, both decked out in matching all black outfits. They were seen dancing together and holding hands, as well as posing for a quick picture with Mary J. Blige. Last week, she was criticised for giving Offset $500k in cash for his birthday. Snoop Dogg was nothing short of quintessential Snoop Dogg, dancing around in a large jacket and sunglasses as he puffed on a cigar. Janelle Monae arrived in a sequined dress and literally let her hair down, at one point undoing her updo to whip her hair around as she danced the night away. She attended with actress Regina King, who was the most colourful person on the night in a rainbow plaid outfit with body chains. She wrote on Instagram that the night was “trippy” and continued, “Love vibrations were high. Love you @diddy.” Actress Kate Beckinsale also proved that she is well and truly aging backwards, as she attended in a black mermaid tail lace gown. She revealed the dress was by Georges Chakra on Instagram and posted, “All ready for amazing @diddy’s amazing #diddy50 party." It was also a big family affair for Diddy, whose children were also in attendance to celebrate with him and even give a speech onstage. Diddy also had not one, but four birthday cakes which spelled out LOVE. Servers were also seen carrying around McDonalds apple pies and burgers on golden trays. A number of CBD products were also seen laid out on a tray, which appeared to include a roll on, glow drops, gummies and more. If that wasn’t extra enough, a gigantic silver statue of a woman’s body was also erected outside the house - making the mansion impossible to miss. Diddy obviously had a lot to celebrate that night, but he was seen at one joyously throwing his hands up in the air as the likes of Post Malone raised a glass to him. Other stars in attendance included Paris and Nicky Hilton, G-Eazy, Machine Gun Kelly, Kevin Hart, Kobe Bryant, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and more. | Megan C. Hills | https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/alist/p-diddy-birthday-party-guests-kanye-jay-z-beyonce-kim-kardashian-a4314696.html | Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:44:00 GMT | 1,576,521,840 | 1,576,542,960 | human interest | people |
360,551 | newsweek--2019-01-18--Michelle Obama 55th Birthday The Former First Lady in Pictures | 2019-01-18T00:00:00 | newsweek | Michelle Obama 55th Birthday: The Former First Lady in Pictures | Barack Obama celebrated his wife's 55th birthday by sharing a picture of them together in Kenya in 1991, the year they got engaged. Barack Obama has given the world another reason to miss the former first couple. For Michelle Obama’s 55th birthday on January 18, he tweeted an adorable throwback photo of the pair in the Kenyan city of Mombasa in the early 90s. He captioned the picture: “I knew it way back then and I’m absolutely convinced of it today — you’re one of a kind, @MichelleObama. Happy Birthday!” The post was retweeted by the former first lady: “Feeling so incredibly thankful for my South Side roots, my soul-affirming partner and daughters, and every unimaginable twist and turn over these 55 years,” she captioned the retweet. “Can’t wait to see what becomes of the next one!” In contrast to the guarded, stilted appearance of the current first couple, the Obamas continue to be extremely open about the difficulties, as well as the enduring affection, in their 27-year marriage. In her 2018 memoir, Becoming, Michelle wrote candidly about growing up in a small apartment in Chicago’s South Side, her journey to becoming a Princeton and Harvard-educated lawyer and then a campaigning First Lady. The book also details her struggle with infertility, and the subsequent difficulty of being a working mother to daughters Malia and Sasha, as well as a wife to a man with presidential ambitions. She credits couples counseling for allowing the pair to loosen the “knot” of resentment, and allowing Michelle to carve out a space for her own needs in the marriage. Since Barack’s presidency ended, Michelle has continued to come into her own. Becoming spent the longest time at No. 1 on Amazon’s best seller list for any book since 2012’s Fifty Shades of Grey. In December 2018, she was voted as America’s most admired woman in a Gallup poll, ending Hillary Clinton’s 17-year run at number one. Yet it looks unlikely that Michelle will use this cultural capital for political gain. "I've never had the passion for politics," she told a leadership conference in 2018 when asked if she would consider a presidential run in 2020. "I just happened to be married to somebody who has the passion for politics, and he drug me kicking and screaming into the arena." Read more: Michelle Obama Birthday: Quotes From the Former First Lady What she decides to do next is open for debate, but her previous form suggests it will be nothing short of excellent. To celebrate Michelle’s incredible life and career as she turns 55, Newsweek has chosen some of her best moments, from her youth to her life after the White House. | null | https://www.newsweek.com/michelle-obama-55th-birthday-age-january-18-1296964?utm_source=Public&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution | 2019-01-18 10:25:30+00:00 | 1,547,825,130 | 1,567,551,821 | human interest | people |
361,931 | newsweek--2019-02-05--Laura Linneys 55th Birthday Her Best 15 Movies Ranked | 2019-02-05T00:00:00 | newsweek | Laura Linney's 55th Birthday: Her Best 15 Movies, Ranked | Laura Linney, who turns 55 today, is one of America’s most respected actresses. A star of stage and screen, her career has ranged from Ibsen and Chekhov on Broadway to Tales of the City and The Big C on TV, to movies as diverse as The Truman Show, Love Actually and Mystic River—winning countless accolades along the way. Born February 5, 1964, in Manhattan, Linney’s success started early. Shortly after graduating from Juilliard School’s prestigious drama division, she was cast as Nina in Chekov’s The Seagull to rave reviews. “She is clearly a talent of enormous potential,” a New York Times theatre critic presciently declared. So it proved to be. Over the last three decades later, Linney's talent has won her four Emmy Awards and two Golden Globes, as well as four Tony nominations and three Oscar nominations (two for best actress). Not to mention an immortalizing role in one of the most beloved Christmas classics of the modern era, Love Actually. Later this year she revisits one of her earliest roles, as Mary Ann Singleton in a new Netflix revival of Tales of the City. She also stars alongside Jason Bateman in the Netflix series Ozark. Its reception had a familiar ring. “Linney is, as ever, magnificent,” Tim Dowling wrote in The Guardian. Linney is known for her kindness and generosity offscreen—“I’m so lucky” is a recurring refrain in her interviews—but it’s her big emotional roles on it that attract such praise. To celebrate her 55th birthday, Newsweek has analysed data from review aggregation websites Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and IMDb to rank her 15 best movies. 15. Love Actually (2003). Total score: 62.4%. IMDb users: 7.6. Metacritic: 55. Rotten Tomatoes: 6.3. Directed by: Richard Curtis. Starring: Hugh Grant, Martine McCutcheon, Liam Neeson, Bill Nighy, Colin Firth, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Martin Freeman, Joanna Page, Andrew Lincoln, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Keira Knightley, Laura Linney, Rodrigo Santoro, Billy Bob Thornton. Plot summary: Follows the lives of eight very different couples in dealing with their love lives in various loosely interrelated tales all set during a frantic month before Christmas in London, England. What the critics said: "The creators of Love Actually clearly believe that if a movie has enough charm, it doesn't need depth. In the case of Love Actually, they are absolutely right." Philip Wuntch, Dallas Morning News. 14. Jindabyne (2006). Total score: 64.6%. IMDb users: 6.3. Metacritic: 65. Rotten Tomatoes: 6.5. Directed by: Ray Lawrence. Starring: Laura Linney, Gabriel Byrne, John Howard. Plot summary: After four men on a fishing trip discover a dead body in the water, they choose to delay reporting it and continue fishing. What the critics said: "Jindabyne is wonderfully acted by Laura Linney and Gabriel Byrne, two first-rate performers working close to the bone and concerned foremost with making an audience understand their characters, as opposed to merely liking them." Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune. 13. Nocturnal Animals (2016). Total score: 67.8%. IMDb users: 6.5. Metacritic: 67. Rotten Tomatoes: 7. Directed by: Tom Ford. Starring: Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Isla Fisher, Laura Linney. Plot summary: A wealthy art gallery owner is haunted by her ex-husband's novel, a violent thriller she interprets as a symbolic revenge tale. What the critics said: "Laura Linney has a marvelous cameo in flashback as Susan’s socialite mother: 'Just wait,' she purrs. 'We all eventually turn into our mothers.'" Christopher Orr, The Atlantic. 12. Mr. Holmes (2015). Total score: 69.4%. IMDb users: 6.9. Metacritic: 67. Rotten Tomatoes: 7.2. Directed by: Bill Condon. Starring: Ian McKellen, Laura Linney, Milo Parker, Frances de la Tour, Hiroyuki Sanada. Plot summary: An aged, retired Sherlock Holmes deals with early dementia, as he tries to remember his final case, and a mysterious woman, whose memory haunts him. He also befriends a fan, the young son of his housekeeper, who wants him to work again. What the critics said: "After his recent string of what feels like too many comic-book blockbusters, social-media memes and chat-show appearances, it's nice to see McKellen in a role that actually demands—and rewards—his acting abilities." James Rocchi, TheWrap. 11. The Laramie Project (2002). Total score: 71.4%. IMDb users: 7.3. Metacritic: (n/a). Rotten Tomatoes: 7. Directed by: Moisés Kaufman. Starring: Christina Ricci, Steve Buscemi, Laura Linney, Peter Fonda, Terry Kinney, Mark Webber, Bem Foster. Plot summary: The true story of an American town in the wake of the murder of Matthew Shepard. What the critics said: "It's a compelling and horrifying story, and The Laramie Project is worthwhile for reminding us that this sort of thing does, in fact, still happen in America." Tim Merrill, Film Threat. 10. Breach (2007). Total score: 72%. IMDb users: 7. Metacritic: 74. Rotten Tomatoes: 7.1. Directed by: Billy Ray. Starring: Chris Cooper, Ryan Phillippe, Laura Linney, Dennis Haysbert. Plot summary: FBI upstart Eric O'Neill enters into a power game with his boss, Robert Hanssen, an agent who was put on trial for selling secrets to the Soviet Union. What the critics said: "The movie gives us counter-espionage without the Bourne or Bond embellishments, and superb acting from Cooper, Phillippe and Linney." Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel. 9. The House of Mirth (2000). Total score: 73%. IMDb users: 7.1. Metacritic: 78. Rotten Tomatoes: 6.9. Directed by: Terence Davies. Starring: Gillian Anderson, Dan Aykroyd, Eleanor Bron, Antony LaPaglia, Laura Linney, Elizabeth McGovern. Plot summary: A woman risks losing her chance of happiness with the only man she has ever loved. What the critics said: "Davies attains a narrative purity of shocking intimacy and emotional force." Pete Travers, Rolling Stone. 8. Sully (2016). Total score: 73.4%. IMDb users: 7.5. Metacritic: 74. Rotten Tomatoes: 7.2. Directed by: Clint Eastwood. Starring: Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, Laura Linney, Anna Gunn, Jamey Sheridan. Plot summary: The story of Chesley Sullenberger, an American pilot who became a hero after landing his damaged plane on the Hudson River in order to save the flight's passengers and crew. What the critics said: "Hanks does an admirable job of showing Sully's humiliating stress while his reputation was being challenged, with the first-rate support of a cast that includes Laura Linney as his wife, and Jamey Sheridan and Anna Gunn as his surly inquisitors." Rex Reed, Observer. 7. Kinsey (2004). Total score: 76.2%. IMDb users: 7.1. Metacritic: 79. Rotten Tomatoes: 7.6. Directed by: Bill Condon. Starring: Liam Neeson, Laura Linney, Chris O'Donnell, Peter Sarsgaard, Timothy Hutton, John Lithgow, Oliver Platt. Plot summary: A look at the life of Alfred Kinsey, a pioneer in the area of human sexuality research, whose 1948 publication "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" was one of the first recorded works that saw science address sexual behavior. What the critics said: "Although the strength of Kinsey is the subject matter, it would be criminal not to note the fine performances of Liam Neeson and Laura Linney, who imbue their characters with humanity and likeability." James Berardinelli, ReelViews. 6. The Savages (2007). Total score: 78.4%. IMDb users: 7.2. Metacritic: 85. Rotten Tomatoes: 7.5. Directed by: Tamara Jenkins. Starring: Laura Linney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Philip Bosco. Plot summary: A sister and brother face the realities of familial responsibility as they begin to care for their ailing father. What the critics said: "The Savages not only boasts Oscar-worthy performances from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney as a self-absorbed brother and sister, its attention to detail makes it sweetly funny and genuine." John Monaghan, Detroit Free Press. 5. The Squid and the Whale (2005). Total score: 79.2%. IMDb users: 7.4. Metacritic: 82. Rotten Tomatoes: 7.9. Directed by: Noah Baumbach. Starring: Owen Kline, Jeff Daniels, Laura Linney, Jesse Eisenberg, William Baldwin, Anna Paquin. Plot summary: Follows two young boys dealing with their parents' divorce in Brooklyn in the 1980s. What the critics said: "Daniels and Linney do a great job of being despicable without coming off as monstrous, which is what makes the characters credible." Jeff Strickler, Minneapolis Star Tribune. 4. Mystic River (2003). Total score: 80.8%. IMDb users: 8. Metacritic: 84. Rotten Tomatoes: 7.8. Directed by: Clint Eastwood. Starring: Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, Laurence Fishburne, Marcia Gay Harden, Laura Linney. Plot summary: The lives of three men who were childhood friends are shattered when one of them has a family tragedy. What the critics said: "River leads moviegoers on a suspense-filled, sometimes painful adventure marked by great performances." Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times. 3. You Can Count on Me (2000). Total score: 81.6%. IMDb users: 7.6. Metacritic: 85. Rotten Tomatoes: 8.1. Directed by: Kenneth Lonergan. Starring: Laura Linney, Matthew Broderick, Amy Ryan, Mark Ruffalo, Rory Culkin, Gaby Hoffman. Plot summary: A single mother's life is thrown into turmoil after her struggling, rarely seen younger brother returns to town. What the critics said: "The only problem with this special film is its stark reminder of all the mediocrity other movies count on us to accept." Elizabeth Weitzman, Film.com. 2. Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993). Total score: 83.4%. IMDb users: 7.5. Metacritic: 89. Rotten Tomatoes: 8.2. Directed by: Steven Zaillian. Starring: Joe Mantegna, Ben Kingsley, Max Pomeranc, Joan Allen, Laurence Fishburne, William H. Macy, Laura Linney. Plot summary: A prepubescent chess prodigy refuses to harden himself in order to become a champion like the famous but unlikable Bobby Fischer. What the critics said: "Searching for Bobby Fischer does for chess what The Karate Kid did for martial arts, albeit with considerably more complexity and class." Rita Kempley, Washington Post. 1. The Truman Show (1998). Total score: 86.2%. IMDb users: 8.1. Metacritic: 90. Rotten Tomatoes: 8.5. Directed by: Peter Weir. Starring: Jim Carrey, Ed Harris, Laura Linney, Natascha McElhone. Plot summary: An insurance salesman discovers his whole life is actually a reality TV show. What the critics said: "This is a film that can stay with one for a very long time after a viewing, and even slightly change the way one looks at life and the world." Tom Keogh, Seattle Times. | null | https://www.newsweek.com/laura-linney-55-birthday-best-movies-1316808?utm_source=Public&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution | 2019-02-05 10:28:09+00:00 | 1,549,380,489 | 1,567,549,522 | human interest | people |
361,986 | newsweek--2019-02-06--Bob Marley Birthday Quotes from the Late Reggae King | 2019-02-06T00:00:00 | newsweek | Bob Marley Birthday: Quotes from the Late Reggae King | In honor of a reggae legend's birthday, several online social media accounts have posted joyous homage to the late Bob Marley, who would have been 74 years old today. But Marley’s own words ring truer than ever now, as contentious times across the racial, demographic and income landscape heighten tensions in the United States and world. But first, a little bit of love from dedicated fans and a bit of Marley history. The official Bob Marley Twitter account from the #BobMarley estate, posted an iconic photo of Marley smoking a dubie: “ Happy birthday Bob! #CatchAFire #Marley74.” The MOBO Awards tweeted: “Sending praise to Bob Marley on what would’ve been his 74th birthday. His message travelled across the world and united people. One Love still stands.” Born Robert Nesta “Bob” Marley in 1945 in St. Ann Parish, Jamaica, he began his career with a band called the Wailers in 1963. In the late 1960s, Marley became a Rastafarian, which heavily influenced his music. By the 1970s, Marley formed his own band, Bob Marley and the Wailers. The group produced several successful albums that reached the masses and introduced the world to reggae music. Marley died of cancer in 1982 when he was only 36 years old. The Undefeated website posted in its “Today in Black History” homage that Marley has sold more than 75 million albums within the last two decades – long after his death. “Marley is still today considered as one of the most popular singers in the 1970s,” MyNation wrote. “The Jamaican singer-songwriter became a cultural icon with his remarkable songs of protests, social justice and peace, which not only won hearts then, but, till today, are very popular, especially among the youth.” In a joyous collection of Marley’s most iconic songs, MyNation posted videos of six of his most iconic, “evergreen” songs. They are Buffalo Soldier, I Shot the Sheriff, Don’t Worry/Be Happy, Wait in Vain, Is This Love and Concrete Jungle. In his music, lyrics and human encounters, Marley is well known for espousing themes of life, love and happiness. Here are some of his most famous quotes from the Keep Inspiring Me compilation: “Everything is political. I will never be a politician or even think political. Me just deal with life and nature. That is the greatest thing to me.” “Better to die fighting for freedom than be a prisoner all the days of your life.” “Don’t trust people whose feelings change with time. Trust people whose feelings remain the same, even when the time changes.” “If you’re white and you’re wrong, then you’re wrong; if you’re black and you’re wrong, you’re wrong. People are people. Black, blue, pink, green – God make no rules about color; only society make rules where my people suffer, and that why we must have redemption and redemption now.” “If you get down and quarrel every day, you’re saying prayers to the devil, I say.” “Road of life is rocky and you may stumble too, so while you talk about me, someone else is judging you.” “The people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking the day off. Why should I?” “They say: only the fittest of the fittest shall survive, stay alive!” - Could You Be Loved, from the album Uprising, 1979. “Truth is the light, so you never give up the fight.”- Final jamming of Live at the Roxy, recorded 1976. “You entertain people who are satisfied. Hungry people can’t be entertained – or people who are afraid. You can’t entertain a man who has no food.” “I know that I’m not perfect and that I don’t claim to be, so before you point your fingers make sure your hands are clean.” - Could You Be Loved, from the album Uprising, 1980. “One love, one heart, Let’s get together and feel alright.”- One Love (cowritten with Curtis Mayfield), from the album Exodus, originally recorded on The Wailing Wailers, 1965. | null | https://www.newsweek.com/bob-marley-birthday-quotes-late-reggae-king-1320927?utm_source=Public&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution | 2019-02-06 19:30:27+00:00 | 1,549,499,427 | 1,567,549,401 | human interest | people |
362,282 | newsweek--2019-02-09--Tom Hiddlestons Birthday Loki Actors Movies Ranked from Worst to Best | 2019-02-09T00:00:00 | newsweek | Tom Hiddleston’s Birthday: Loki Actor’s Movies Ranked from Worst to Best | Tom Hiddleston, who turns 38 today, first rose to fame as Loki in Thor (2011). Since then he has become a mainstay of the Marvel Universe, and has also starred in High-Rise, Kong: Skull Island and hit British television series The Night Manager. Born on February 9, 1981, Hiddleston’s life could easily have been so different. He was studying Classics at the University of Cambridge when he was spotted by a talent agent during a student production of A Streetcar Named Desire. Hiddleston completed his studies, graduated with a double-first—the highest honor—and then went to RADA, Britain’s eminent acting school. He never looked back, but even when his big break came, it didn’t quite go to plan. Hiddleston was initially asked to audition for the titular role in Thor, before the directors and producers—one of whom Hiddleston had worked with on stage—decided on Chris Hemsworth. Yet they gave Hiddleston six weeks to bulk up and, after a strict diet and exercise regime, he gained the role of Thor’s arch-nemesis and adopted brother, Loki. It made his name in Hollywood. “It was massive and it's completely changed the course of what is available to me to do,” he told The Daily Telegraph in 2012. In 2013, Empire magazine ranked Hiddleston’s portrayal of Loki as one of the 20 greatest movie characters of all time. This year will see him star in Avengers: Endgame and perform in London’s West End in a production of Harold Pinter’s play Betrayal. To celebrate his 38th birthday, Newsweek has analyzed data from review aggregation websites Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and IMDb to rank his 15 best movies. Plot summary: The story of the country-western singer Hank Williams, who in his brief life created one of the greatest bodies of work in American music. The film chronicles his rise to fame and its tragic effect on his health and personal life. What the critics said: "Hiddleston gives the role his considerable all, including singing Hank Williams hits in a voice that persuasively suggests the real thing. Hiddleston is not what's wrong with this movie. But damn near everything else is." Peter Travers, Rolling Stone. Plot summary: Life for the residents of a tower block begins to run out of control. What the critics said: "There are certain movies that you really want to like based on their ambition, or their weirdness, or their ambitious weirdness, and ultimately you just can't. Ben Wheatley's High-Rise is one of those movies." Chris Nashawaty, Entertainment Weekly. Plot summary: Set at the dawn of time, when prehistoric creatures and woolly mammoths roamed the earth, Early Man tells the story of Dug, along with sidekick Hognob as they unite his tribe against a mighty enemy Lord Nooth and his Bronze Age City to save their home. What the critics said: "I'm a little sorry that this utterly silly feature from Nick Park and Aardman Animations was not around when I was 7 or 8 years old, or when my children were wearing out the Wallace and Gromit video cassettes that someone had given them for Christmas." A.O. Scott, New York Times. Plot summary: In the aftermath of a family tragedy, an aspiring author is torn between love for her childhood friend and the temptation of a mysterious outsider. Trying to escape the ghosts of her past, she is swept away to a house that breathes, bleeds—and remembers. What the critics said: "Guillermo del Toro doesn't merely direct movies. He paints them, dreams them, shapes them into private fantasies. Too much? Of course. But that's part of the fun." Peter Travers, Rolling Stone. Plot summary: When Dr. Jane Foster gets cursed with a powerful entity known as the Aether, Thor is heralded of the cosmic event known as the Convergence and the genocidal Dark Elves. What the critics said: "Most of what worked in Thor works again: Hiddleston is campy and treacherous, Hemsworth is puppy-dog keen and there's a nice line in knowing jokery." Tom Huddleston, Time Out. Plot summary: A team of scientists explore an uncharted island in the Pacific, venturing into the domain of the mighty Kong, and must fight to escape a primal Eden. What the critics said: "It's wildly entertaining and it has a sense of humor about itself—and it doesn't hurt when a great big monster movie features an A-list cast including John Goodman, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, Tom Hiddleston and John C. Reilly." Richard Roeper, Chicago Sun-Times. Plot summary: The powerful, but arrogant god Thor, is cast out of Asgard to live amongst humans in Midgard (Earth), where he soon becomes one of their finest defenders. What the critics said: "A giant notch up is Hiddleston, who'd make a good Edmund in King Lear: You register the chip on his shoulder rather than the villainy." David Edelstein, New York Magazine/Vulture. Plot summary: The wife of a British judge is caught in a self-destructive love affair with a Royal Air Force pilot. What the critics said: "Hiddleston is good as the fickle playboy but Weisz, who smolders as Hester, is better." Linda Barnard, Toronto Star. Plot summary: Deep fractures within a family dynamic begin to surface during a getaway to the Isles of Scilly. What the critics said: "It's a difficult watch and a difficult sell, but this is quietly outstanding." Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian. Plot summary: Young Albert enlists to serve in World War I after his beloved horse is sold to the cavalry. Albert's hopeful journey takes him out of England and to the front lines as the war rages on. What the critics said: "Sweeping in its style and old-fashioned in its narrative structure, War Horse will likely take its place alongside beloved family films." Claudia Puig, USA Today. Plot summary: A depressed musician reunites with his lover. Though their romance, which has already endured several centuries, is disrupted by the arrival of her uncontrollable younger sister. What the critics said: "Swinton, her hair white and long and her eyes tired and kind, and Hiddleston, moody and resigned, are wonderful—delivering their lines with the dry sighs of a desert breeze." Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer. Plot summary: Thor is imprisoned on the planet Sakaar, and must race against time to return to Asgard and stop Ragnarök, the destruction of his world, at the hands of the powerful and ruthless villain Hela. What the critics said: "The whole movie is a grab-bag of insanity so off-the-chain hilarious that you stick with it even when the convoluted plot goes haywire." Peter Travers, Rolling Stone. Plot summary: While on a trip to Paris with his fiancée's family, a nostalgic screenwriter finds himself mysteriously going back to the 1920s everyday at midnight. What the critics said: "It makes us happily remember the movies we thought Allen wasn't able to make anymore, even while the filmmaker reaches into the past to add one more great one to the list." Moira MacDonald, Seattle Times. Plot summary: Earth's mightiest heroes must come together and learn to fight as a team if they are going to stop the mischievous Loki and his alien army from enslaving humanity. What the critics said: "The dialogue sparkles as brightly as the special effects; these people may be wearing ridiculous costumes but they're well fleshed-out underneath. And so in every regard, this movie truly fulfills its hype." Christy Lemire, Associated Press. Plot summary: The Avengers and their allies must be willing to sacrifice all in an attempt to defeat the powerful Thanos before his blitz of devastation and ruin puts an end to the universe. What the critics said: "It's the epitome of a summer blockbuster. The explosive action is practically nonstop, breaking only occasionally for jokes and a touch of romance—though without ever breaking its grim, apocalyptic tone." Britton Peele, Dallas Morning News. | null | https://www.newsweek.com/tom-hiddleston-birthday-loki-avengers-endgame-best-movies-1321658?utm_source=Public&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution | 2019-02-09 05:00:02+00:00 | 1,549,706,402 | 1,567,549,069 | human interest | people |
362,336 | newsweek--2019-02-11--Christina Riccis Birthday Her Best 15 Movies Ranked | 2019-02-11T00:00:00 | newsweek | Christina Ricci’s Birthday: Her Best 15 Movies Ranked | Christina Ricci, who turns 39 today, has an acting career that belies her years. She was only 11 when she rose to fame as the unnerving, pale-faced, pig-tailed daughter in the Addams Family. Since then, she has affirmed herself as one of Hollywood’s mavericks and—with credits ranging from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas to The Smurfs 2—much else besides. Born on February 12, 1980, Ricci’s talent was never in doubt. At the age of 7, she gained the leading role in her elementary school production of The Twelve Days of Christmas. Never short of determination, she says she had to play dirty to get it—provoking a rival kid, and then telling on him, so that he had to surrender the part. “I’ve always been a really ambitious person,” she told New York Magazine in 2008. “I guess that’s the first time it really reared its ugly head. That whole Chorus Line, f***ing-other-actors-over thing, I got that out of my system then. Apparently, my 7-year-old self was like, You. Need. This.” A local theater critic talent-spotted her and, after doing advertisements for a few years and appearing on Saturday Night Live skits, it was only onwards and upwards from there. It has been a long career for someone so young—and she has spoken about the difficulties of finding fame at such an early age. This year will see her star in television movie Escaping the Madhouse: The Nellie Bly Story. To celebrate Christina Ricci’s 39th birthday, Newsweek has analyzed data from review aggregation websites Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and IMDb to rank her 15 best movies. Plot summary: A paranormal expert and his daughter bunk in an abandoned house populated by three mischievous ghosts and one friendly one. What the critics said: "Without the talent of Ricci, Casper would have been a truly barren motion picture. As it is, it's still not very good." James Berardinelli, ReelViews. Plot summary: A modern romantic tale about a young aristocratic heiress born under a curse that can only be broken when she finds true love with "one who will accept her as one of their own." What the critics said: "If only Penelope knew what it truly wished to be and how to go about it." Gene Seymour, Newsday. Plot summary: Fictionalized account of actual events and people surrounding Lizzie Borden after her controversial acquittal of the double murder of her father and stepmother in 1892. What the critics said: "The series is no less absurd, but it's far more fun than the movie: We all know about the ax murders. It's more fascinating to watch Lizzie continue to weave her web of evil after her trial." Tirdad Derakhshani, Philadelphia Inquirer. Plot summary: An unconventional single mother relocates with her two daughters to a small Massachusetts town in 1963, where a number of events and relationships both challenge and strengthen their familial bonds. What the critics said: "Miss Ryder is so good, in fact, that Mermaids might have dared to be a tougher, more satisfying movie than the stylish sitcom it is." Vincent Canby, New York Times. Plot summary: Con artists plan to fleece an eccentric family using an accomplice who claims to be their long-lost uncle. What the critics said: "Despite inspired casting and nifty visual trappings, the eagerly awaited Addams Family figures as a major disappointment." Variety. Plot summary: A talented young photographer, who enjoys snapping photos of his satirical, perverted Baltimore neighborhood and his wacky family, gets dragged into a world of pretentious artists from New York City and finds newfound fame. What the critics said: "Some scenes are so flat we squint a little at the screen, trying to see why anyone thought they might be funny." Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times. Plot summary: A God-fearing bluesman takes to a wild young woman who, as a victim of childhood sexual abuse, looks everywhere for love, never quite finding it. What the critics said: "Humid and overwrought, with Ricci working at fever pitch and Jackson bringing fire, brimstone and some passable blues licks to the equation, Black Snake Moan is no polite little indie thing, and certainly no formulaic studio exercise." Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer. Plot summary: The Addams Family try to rescue their beloved uncle Fester from his gold-digging new love, a black widow named Debbie. What the critics said: "The comedy has moved into high gear and become one of the funniest, most mean-spirited satirical assaults on sunny American values since the salad days of W.C. Fields." Jonathan Rosenbaum, Chicago Reader. Plot summary: A 16-year-old girl visits her gay half-brother and ends up seducing his boyfriend, thus wreaking havoc on all of their lives. What the critics said: "Watching the movie is like sitting through a film in front of a row of wisecracking cult movie fans. It's also sometimes very funny." Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times. Plot summary: Ichabod Crane is sent to Sleepy Hollow to investigate the decapitations of three people, with the culprit being the legendary apparition, The Headless Horseman. What the critics said: "There's no chemistry evident between Ricci and Depp, so it becomes virtually impossible to accept either passion or tenderness in their interaction. Although Ricci is one of the most talented acting representatives of her generation, this does not stand out as one of her better performances." James Berardinelli, ReelViews. 5. Z: The Beginning of Everything (TV series, 2015-2017). Total score: 69.75%. IMDb users: 7.2. Metacritic: 61. Rotten Tomatoes: 6.4. Rotten Tomatoes users: 4.1. Plot summary: A biography series based on the life of Zelda Sayre Fitzgerald, the brilliant, beautiful and talented Southern Belle who becomes the original flapper and icon of the wild, flamboyant Jazz Age in the 20s. What the critics said: "This is in every way a tailored star vehicle, but the actress throws herself fully into every scene, playing up Zelda's the-world-bows-to-me! aggressiveness, while always hinting at the aching, delicate spirit underneath." Keith Uhlich, Hollywood Reporter. Plot summary: Based on the life of Aileen Wuornos, a Daytona Beach prostitute who became a serial killer. What the critics said: "Christina Ricci finds the correct note for Selby Wall—so correct some critics have mistaken it for bad acting, when in fact it is sublime acting in its portrayal of a bad actor." Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times. Plot summary: After being released from prison, Billy is set to visit his parents with his wife, whom he does not actually have. This provokes Billy to act out, as he kidnaps a girl and forces her to act as his wife for the visit. What the critics said: "[Gallo] gets an inspired performance out of Ricci, who conveys a richer, dreamier insolence in one glance here than she does in all of The Opposite of Sex." Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly. Plot summary: A mother and daughter find their lives adversely affected when a new man enters the picture. Will their family ever be what they expect? What the critics said: "The genetic seeds of John Huston's gift are manifest in his daughter's direction of Carolina. Despite its sorrowful subject, Bastard Out of Carolina offers the deep satisfaction of material that rings true." Nancy Jalasca Randle, Chicago Tribune. Plot summary: In suburban New Canaan, Connecticut, 1973, middle class families experimenting with casual sex and substance abuse find their lives beyond their control. What the critics said: "The Ice Storm is perceptive about people, relationships, and human nature, and there's not a single moment in the entire 112-minute running length that rings false ... Christina Ricci, one of the best actresses of her generation, finally getting a chance to show what she can do in a good motion picture. As expected, Ricci doesn't let us down—her interpretation of Wendy is knowing, intense, and nuanced." James Berardinelli, ReelViews. | null | https://www.newsweek.com/christina-ricci-birthday-best-movies-ranked-1326680?utm_source=Public&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution | 2019-02-11 22:00:02+00:00 | 1,549,940,402 | 1,567,548,872 | human interest | people |
362,357 | newsweek--2019-02-11--Jennifer Anistons 50th Birthday Her 15 Best Movies Ranked | 2019-02-11T00:00:00 | newsweek | Jennifer Aniston's 50th Birthday: Her 15 Best Movies Ranked | In 1994, Jennifer Aniston was a 25-year-old actress worried her career was going nowhere. All four of her previous TV shows had been canceled, and her only credited film role to date was as a bratty teen tormented by a diminutive Irish demon in 1993’s execrable horror flick Leprechaun. Then Friends came along. Although she originally auditioned for the part of Monica Gellar, she was cast as Rachel Green, the ditzy but well-intentioned golden girl of the group. The show was a phenomenal success, running for ten seasons and remaining as much of a cultural touchstone today as it was during the 90s (Netflix bought the rights for $500,000 an episode in 2015). Each of the six Friends characters became hugely famous, but Jennifer Aniston was undeniably the breakout star. She became an aspirational figure for 90s womanhood, from her layered ‘Rachel’ haircut to her brand of peppy optimism. By the time Friends was winding up in 2004, she was making $1 million an episode and had married Brad Pitt—it’s easy to see why women wanted to be her. She brought this star persona over into her movie career, choosing a number of Rachel-like roles in romantic comedies. These late 90s movies such as Picture Perfect, She’s The One and The Object of My Affection were light and forgettable, but proved Aniston could pull an audience to the big screen. The Good Girl, a 2002 indie dramedy, was a leftfield choice for Aniston and remains one of her most memorable roles. Her character, a depressed small-town cashier, subverted Rachel Green’s fantasy rise to success, and instead portrayed an angstier and less glamorous version of a woman’s quarter-life crisis. She returned to mainstream comedies with Bruce Almighty the following year, and went on to rake in box office dollars with Along Came Polly, The Break-Up and Marley & Me, becoming a figurehead of the era’s high-concept romcom boom. Recently, she’s mixed in this ultra-commercial fare with unexpected choices like 2014’s Cake, in which she underwent a makeunder to play a woman struggling with chronic pain. Unsurprisingly for a woman who made her career on TV work, she’s fully on board with the current streaming service boom. Last year, she produced and starred in Dumplin’, a Netflix musical comedy; she has two more Netflix original projects on the way. To celebrate her 50th birthday on February 11, Newsweek has collected data from critical aggregation websites Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and IMDb to find the 15 best-received movies of her career to date. =14. He's Just Not That Into You (2009). Total score: 57.5%. IMDb users: 6.4. Metacritic: 47. Rotten Tomatoes: 5.1. Rotten Tomatoes users: 3.4. Plot summary: This Baltimore-set movie of interconnecting story arcs deals with the challenges of reading or misreading human behavior. What the critics said: "Are women desperate or just desperately stupid? This is the misogynist question at the core of He's Just Not That Into You , a women-bashing tract disguised as a chick flick." Peter Travers, Rolling Stone. Plot summary: Seven years after the fact, a man comes to the realization that he was the sperm donor for his best friend's boy. What the critics said: "The truly dusty cliché it drags out again is the cute couple who don't, you know, think-of-each-other-like-that. Until, of course, they do." Stephen Whitty, Newark Star-Ledger. Plot summary: Lead singer of a tribute band becomes lead singer of the real band he idolizes. What the critics said: "A genial look at what happens when a wannabe becomes a headliner, Rock Star only stumbles when it decides it has to deliver a lesson about What's Really Important." Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times. Plot summary: Two young soldiers, Bartle (21) and Murph (18) navigate the terrors of the Iraq war under the command of the older, troubled Sergeant Sterling. All the while, Bartle is tortured by a promise he made to Murph's mother before their deployment. What the critics said: "Making a late appearance in the Iraq War movie cycle, the impressively acted The Yellow Birds manages to leave an affecting mark even as it constantly struggles to find a distinctive voice of its own." Michael Rechtshaffen, Los Angeles Times. Plot summary: Girl leads a lonely life until she meets the boy of her dreams. The boy, however, has a live-in girlfriend. What the critics said: "Aniston is the breeze in this movie." Jeffrey M. Anderson, Combustible Celluloid. Plot summary: Claire becomes fascinated by the suicide of a woman in her chronic pain support group while grappling with her own, very raw personal tragedy. What the critics said: "For all the pain, grief, sadness and suicide that layers Cake, it is a serious treat to see the actress stretch herself. Hopefully this film won't turn out to be a single slice." Betsy Sharkey, Los Angeles Times. Plot summary: A guy who complains about God too often is given almighty powers to teach him how difficult it is to run the world. What the critics said: "On at least three or four occasions, Carrey made me laugh so hard I had tears in my eyes—and that's a heck of a trick." Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper. Plot summary: Two common criminals get more than they bargained for after kidnapping the wife of a corrupt real-estate developer who shows no interest in paying the $1 million dollar ransom for her safe return. What the critics said: "Thanks to [Elmore] Leonard's source material and the outstanding cast, it works." Richard Roeper, Richard Roeper.com. Plot summary: A veteran pot dealer creates a fake family as part of his plan to move a huge shipment of weed into the U.S. from Mexico. What the critics said: "A laugh-out-loud comic trek that avoids being either too crude or too docile. If a summer of high-impact blockbusters has left you worn out, join the Millers for a laugh." Tom Long, Detroit News. Plot summary: After she quits her lucrative job, Olivia finds herself unsure about her future and her relationships with her successful and wealthy friends. What the critics said: "This delicious, seriocomic tale of four friends in affluent, liberal, west L.A. grappling with midlife crises, metrosexual spouses and household remodeling takes on an avoided subject: money, and how it affects our relationships." David Ansen, Newsweek. Plot summary: A family learns important life lessons from their adorable, but naughty and neurotic dog. What the critics said: "It should come as no surprise that when you team Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston with a Labrador retriever, you get a bundle of blond fluff." Joe Williams, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Plot summary: Three friends conspire to murder their awful bosses when they realize they are standing in the way of their happiness. What the critics said: "There are few comedy pleasures better suited to the medium of movies than that of watching supposedly normal people behaving terribly. And if those transgressing characters are played by popular movie stars, so much the better." Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly. Plot summary: A discount store clerk strikes up an affair with a stock boy who considers himself the incarnation of Holden Caulfield. What the critics said: "Aniston rises to the level of the material, creating a character of remarkable breadth and depth." Bill Muller, Arizona Republic. Plot summary: Willowdean ('Dumplin'), the plus-size teenage daughter of a former beauty queen, signs up for her mom's Miss Teen Bluebonnet pageant as a protest that escalates when other contestants follow her footsteps, revolutionizing the pageant and their small Texas town. What the critics said: "There's so much more to enjoy, from the nuanced work by Jennifer Aniston that ensures Rosie's never a caricature of a pageant mom; to the warm and natural best-buddy chemistry between Danielle MacDonald and Odeya Rush." Richard Roeper, Chicago Sun-Times. Plot summary: Three company workers who hate their jobs decide to rebel against their greedy boss. What the critics said: "Its plot may be a standard-issue office drone's revenge fantasy, but its characters and its nowheresville setting are uncannily realized." Andrew O'Hehir, Salon.com. | null | https://www.newsweek.com/jennifer-aniston-50th-birthday-best-movies-dumplin-netflix-1323848?utm_source=Public&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution | 2019-02-11 08:00:02+00:00 | 1,549,890,002 | 1,567,548,872 | human interest | people |
362,734 | newsweek--2019-02-16--Mahershala Alis 45th Birthday The Green Book and True Detective Stars Best Movies and TV Show | 2019-02-16T00:00:00 | newsweek | Mahershala Ali's 45th Birthday: The 'Green Book' and 'True Detective' Star's Best Movies and TV Shows | Born Mahershalalhashbaz Gilmore on February 16, 1974, Mahershala Ali was until recently mostly known as a talented TV actor in serious dramas such as House of Cards and Treme. Occasionally he would also pop up on the big screen in small parts (as in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Hunger Games franchise). Then, in 2016, he played the Cuban drug dealer Juan in Barry Jenkins’s haunting, dreamlike drama Moonlight. For his part in the film, Ali won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, making him the first Muslim to triumph in any acting category at the Oscars. Now the 44-year-old is back in the running for another Best Supporting Actor award for his role in Green Book, a Peter Farrelly-directed comedy-drama in which Ali plays a pianist on a tour of the 1960s Deep South. It looks like he should be rehearsing an acceptance speech—betting group Betfair has him on the shortest odds to win. It’s a busy season for the newly minted Hollywood star. He is currently starring in Season 3 of True Detective and he is in the newly-released movie Alita: Battle Angel, a cyberpunk action movie based on a manga series. While critics haven’t been as kind to the movie as they were to Moonlight and Green Book, they have praised his performance. IndieWire wrote that Ali “compels in a small role—as stylish here as he is at award shows, the actor brings his one-of-a-kind presence to the role of a sophisticated baddie.” Newsweek has gathered data from critical aggregation websites IMDb, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes to rank all of his major TV and movie work so far, from worst to best. Plot summary: A group of elite warriors parachute into an unfamiliar jungle and are hunted by members of a merciless alien race. What the critics said: "Predator fans, fearing another lapse into disappointment, can relax. Although it's arguably not saying much, this is the second-best movie of the series to have 'Predator' in the title." James Berardinelli, ReelViews. Plot summary: A disillusioned Confederate army deserter returns to Mississippi and leads a militia of fellow deserters and women in an uprising against the corrupt local Confederate government. What the critics said: "An earnest but inert and unwieldy historical drama that, in its commendable attempt to rescue a forgotten figure from obscurity, too often looks and feels like 12 Years a Woke Dude." Ann Hornaday, Washington Post. Plot summary: A deactivated female cyborg is revived, but cannot remember anything of her past life and goes on a quest to find out who she is. What the critics said: "The commingling of writer-producer James Cameron's monster-budget technowizardry and director Robert Rodriguez's B-movie sensibilities doesn't amount to a heck of a lot." John Semley, Globe and Mail. Plot summary: Katniss Everdeen is in District 13 after she shatters the games forever. Under the leadership of President Coin and the advice of her trusted friends, Katniss spreads her wings as she fights to save Peeta and a nation moved by her courage. What the critics said: "Might it have been better if they'd squeezed the whole book into one movie? Probably. Nonetheless, Mockingjay Part 1 is a fine entertainment, shot through with moments of surprising emotional impact." Christopher Orr, The Atlantic. Plot summary: Katniss and a team of rebels from District 13 prepare for the final battle that will decide the future of Panem. What the critics said: "Katniss has remained, in Jennifer Lawrence's portrayal, a vividly vulnerable creature of flesh and blood surrounded by sci-fi extravagance of variable quality." Joe Morgenstern, Wall Street Journal. Plot summary: At the age of 14, Lolita "Roxanne Shanté" Gooden was well on her way to becoming a hip-hop legend as she hustled to provide for her family while defending herself from the dangers of the streets of the Queensbridge Projects in NYC. What the critics said: "Don't worry: There will be rap battles and concert scenes and they do not disappoint. But they are the bass line beat. The drama of ordinary life is what makes this story stick in your head." Jason Zinoman, New York Times. Plot summary: Brandon is a 15-year-old whose dream is a pair of fresh Air Jordans. Soon after he gets his hands on them, they're stolen by a local hood, causing Brandon and his two friends to go on a dangerous mission through Oakland to retrieve them. What the critics said: "Getting the sneakers back takes them to many wild and unfamiliar places (namely, Oakland), where the boys meet up with Brandon's terrifying and yet wise ex-con Uncle Marlon (Mahershala Ali, in a brilliant Mariana-Trench-deep performance)." Sheila O'Malley, RogerEbert.com. 10. The Place Beyond the Pines (2012). Total score: 71.5%. IMDb users: 7.3. Metacritic: 68. Rotten Tomatoes: 7.3. Rotten Tomatoes users: 3.8. Plot summary: A motorcycle stunt rider turns to robbing banks as a way to provide for his lover and their newborn child, a decision that puts him on a collision course with an ambitious rookie cop navigating a department ruled by a corrupt detective. What the critics said: "Although The Place Beyond the Pines is not an unqualified success, when Cianfrance stumbles, it's because he's reaching for greatness—a quality infinitely preferable than the opposite, which is where far too many motion pictures become mired." James Berardinelli, ReelViews. Plot summary: Tells the story of Benjamin Button, a man who starts aging backward with bizarre consequences. What the critics said: "Director David Fincher has turned out an overlong, Forrest Gumpian exercise in mannered whimsy. It's sentimental; it's episodic; it dawdles. Brad Pitt spends a good length of screen time drinking tea with Tilda Swinton. But it's also bewitching." Amy Biancolli, Houston Chronicle. Plot summary: A working-class Italian-American bouncer becomes the driver of an African-American classical pianist on a tour of venues through the 1960s American South. What the critics said: "Thanks in large part to the winning chemistry between Ali and Mortensen, and a pretty darn inspirational true-life story as its foundation, this was one of the best times I've had at the movies this year." Richard Roeper, Chicago Sun-Times. Plot summary: Seasonal anthology series in which police investigations unearth the personal and professional secrets of those involved, both within and outside the law. What the critics said: "What elevates it are the brooding atmosphere and Ali's magnetic performance, from his dogged pursuit of the facts in his younger days to his convincing vulnerability in his elderly ones." Brian Lowry, CNN. Plot summary: As the reappearance of 4,400 missing persons on a single day confounds the global community, federal agents on the case slowly discover the ways in which the victims have been changed. What the critics said: "The 4400 succeeds where shows like Heroes, No Ordinary Family, and Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. have failed. It puts a human face to superpowers. Christian Cintron, Hollywood.com. Plot summary: The story of a team of female African-American mathematicians who served a vital role in NASA during the early years of the U.S. space program. What the critics said: "This untold story of African-American females who helped NASA conquer the cosmos features three incredible performances. Corny at times, sure, but you'll still want to stand up and cheer." Peter Travers, Rolling Stone. Plot summary: A Congressman works with his equally conniving wife to exact revenge on the people who betrayed him. What the critics said: "Screw you, Mr. President, for messing with my job. How so? Because he, Francis Underwood, and it, House of Cards, are so damn good they've changed the way we watch TV." Sam Wollaston, The Guardian. Plot summary: When a sabotaged experiment gives him super strength and unbreakable skin, Luke Cage becomes a fugitive attempting to rebuild his life in Harlem and must soon confront his past and fight a battle for the heart of his city. What the critics said: "The show is fiercely determined to make it clear that Luke's powers make him super, but it's the fact that he is black, proud and willing to stand up for what's right that makes him a hero. His race is a fundamental part of that heroism." Liz Shannon Miller, indieWire. Plot summary: Life after Hurricane Katrina as the residents of New Orleans try to rebuild their lives, their homes, and their unique culture in the aftermath of one of the worst natural disasters in the USA. What the critics said: "This is the kind of TV that viewers ask for but rarely get, driven by characters who are more than the sum of one or two qualities and who harbor depths that are revealed slowly, subtly, and authentically." Matthew Gilbert, Boston Globe. Plot summary: A chronicle of the childhood, adolescence and burgeoning adulthood of a young, African-American, gay man growing up in a rough neighborhood of Miami. What the critics said: "Moonlight is both a disarmingly, at times almost unbearably personal film and an urgent social document, a hard look at American reality and a poem written in light, music and vivid human faces." A.O. Scott, New York Times. "Barry Jenkins' game-changer about growing up black, gay and alienated in the Miami projects is both intimate and epic. It gets inside your head, makes you see the world with new eyes—and then it owns you." Pete Travers, Rolling Stone. | null | https://www.newsweek.com/mahershala-alis-45th-birthday-green-book-and-true-detective-stars-best-movies-1331440?utm_source=Public&utm_medium=Feed&utm_campaign=Distribution | 2019-02-16 05:10:01+00:00 | 1,550,311,801 | 1,567,548,289 | human interest | people |
370,634 | newyorkpost--2019-02-12--Jennifer Anistons 50th birthday party packed with exes | 2019-02-12T00:00:00 | newyorkpost | Jennifer Aniston’s 50th birthday party packed with exes | [Jennifer Aniston](https://pagesix.com/tag/jennifer-aniston/)’s starry 50th birthday bash on Saturday in LA was filled with exes. Guests included her ex-boyfriend John Mayer [and ex-husband Brad Pitt](https://pagesix.com/2019/02/10/brad-pitt-spotted-at-jennifer-anistons- 50th-birthday-party/), plus Pitt’s ex-fiancée Gwyneth Paltrow. Other former couples at the party included Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom. But one ex who wasn’t there: Aniston’s more recent hubby, Justin Theroux. He and Aniston [split up a year ago](https://pagesix.com/2018/02/15/jennifer- aniston-and-justin-theroux-are-done/), just after her 49th birthday. Instead, spies saw “The Leftovers” star having a “guys’ night out” at New York Fashion Week on Friday — with Liev Schreiber, Oscar Isaac, “Get Out” star Lakeith Stanfield, record producer Nigel Godrich and indie director Benny Safdie. The dudes were at an after-party at 1 Hotel Brooklyn Bridge for Rag & Bone’s show. A spy said, “Schreiber and Theroux never left each other’s sides” at the hotel’s 10th-floor Brooklyn Heights Social Club. On Sunday, Theroux was spotted at another NYC fashion bash, for Opening Ceremony. On Monday afternoon, he [posted a pic of Aniston on Instagram](https://pagesix.com/2019/02/11/justin-theroux-wishes-jennifer- anniston-a-happy-50th-birthday/) with the caption, “Happy Birthday to this fierce Woman. Fiercely loving. Fiercely kind . . . and fiercely funny.” | Ian Mohr | https://pagesix.com/2019/02/11/jennifer-anistons-50th-birthday-party-packed-with-exes/ | 2019-02-12 02:18:38+00:00 | 1,549,955,918 | 1,567,548,822 | human interest | people |
375,248 | newyorkpost--2019-04-30--Barbara Corcoran celebrated 70th birthday by hosting her own funeral | 2019-04-30T00:00:00 | newyorkpost | Barbara Corcoran celebrated 70th birthday by hosting her own ‘funeral’ | Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Barbara Corcoran celebrated her 70th birthday over the weekend — by hosting her own “funeral.” Guests arrived at a Fifth Avenue penthouse, we’re told, to find Corcoran lying in a coffin in a red gown with flowers on either side of her and a cardboard cutout of her as a nun. Then the “Shark Tank” star and real estate mogul leapt out of the box and began dancing around the room. Corcoran was later served a cake decorated with a plastic doll being eaten by a shark. We’re told the dress code was “tango,” and she hired a professional tango dancer for the evening. Her “Shark Tank” co-stars Daymond John and Mark Cuban attended, with Mavericks owner Cuban calling the whole affair “creepy” in an Instagram story. Cuban recently revealed on their hit ABC show that before he became a billionaire, he didn’t have enough dough to even open a bank account. “When I was broke and sleeping on the couch, I couldn’t open a bank account. You needed to have 200 bucks.” The Dallas Morning News reported that the mogul told a tech conference this month that he was living in a “dumpy” apartment with multiple roommates, two polyester suits and a single towel he’d stolen from a Holiday Inn. | Mara Siegler | https://pagesix.com/2019/04/29/barbara-corcoran-celebrated-70th-birthday-by-hosting-her-own-funeral/ | 2019-04-30 00:45:39+00:00 | 1,556,599,539 | 1,567,541,663 | human interest | people |
377,200 | newyorkpost--2019-06-20--Justin Bieber gifts Scooter Braun a shirtless photo for his birthday | 2019-06-20T00:00:00 | newyorkpost | Justin Bieber gifts Scooter Braun a shirtless photo for his birthday | Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Is it too late now to say sorry? For Scooter Braun‘s 38th birthday, Justin Bieber reportedly gifted his longtime manager a framed shirtless photo of himself with his hands down his pants. The Biebs presented the racy piece of art at Braun’s starry bash at San Vicente Bungalows in West Hollywood on Tuesday night, according to The Blast. In the pic, Bieber shows off his half-naked tattooed body as he stuffs one hand down his Calvin Klein undies and the other in his jean pocket. Luckily, the “Love Yourself” singer didn’t appear to be too chilly with a beanie atop his head. The masterpiece was captioned, “Happy Birthday Scooter. You’re welcome I’m awesome.” Bieber was clearly poking fun at Braun, who has been the singer’s longtime manager and on whether or not there was a deeper meaning behind the present, a source told The Blast it was “very personal between” the two. Also at the party was Braun’s wife Yael, Usher, Katy Perry and Ashton Kutcher. | Leah Bitsky | https://pagesix.com/2019/06/20/justin-bieber-gifts-scooter-braun-a-shirtless-photo-for-his-birthday/ | 2019-06-20 21:02:30+00:00 | 1,561,078,950 | 1,567,538,611 | human interest | people |
377,662 | newyorkpost--2019-06-27--Tristan Thompson pretends everythings fine with birthday tribute to Khloe Kardashian | 2019-06-27T00:00:00 | newyorkpost | Tristan Thompson pretends everything’s fine with birthday tribute to Khloé Kardashian | Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A post shared by Tristan Thompson (@realtristan13) on Jun 27, 2019 at 8:48am PDT Tristan Thompson seems desperate for some positive PR. The Cleveland Cavaliers player, 28, paid tribute to ex-girlfriend Khloé Kardashian with a gushing post in honor of her 35th birthday on Thursday. “Happy birthday @khloekardashian You are the most beautiful human I have ever met inside and out,” he captioned an old, blurry photo of Khloé holding their daughter True. “Thank you for being an amazing mommy to our princess True. She is blessed to have someone like you to look up to. I wish you nothing but more success and sending you positive blessing your way. Enjoy your day Koko ❤️.” Thompson famously cheated on the “most beautiful human” twice: once when she was nine months pregnant with True and again with Kylie Jenner’s best friend, Jordyn Woods, earlier this year. The couple split after the Woods scandal — and the drama has been chronicled on the current season of “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.” Followers on social media immediately joked in comments that either Kris Jenner or Khloé had made Thompson post the photo. “Khloe must still got the log in ?,” one wrote. “She had her people hacked his IG ??,” wrote another. “Kris made him do it!!” mused a third. Khloé hadn’t “liked” it as of posting time, though that obviously could change. | Francesca Bacardi | https://pagesix.com/2019/06/27/tristan-thompson-pretends-everythings-fine-with-birthday-tribute-to-khloe-kardashian/ | 2019-06-27 16:34:02+00:00 | 1,561,667,642 | 1,567,537,908 | human interest | people |
382,085 | newyorkpost--2019-12-13--Happy birthday, Taylor Swift! Her 30 most defining moments for her 30th birthday | 2019-12-13T00:00:00 | newyorkpost | Happy birthday, Taylor Swift! Her 30 most defining moments for her 30th birthday | Pop star Taylor Swift appears to have plunked down $18... | Chuck Arnold | https://nypost.com/2019/12/13/happy-birthday-taylor-swift-her-30-most-defining-moments-for-her-30th-birthday/ | Fri, 13 Dec 2019 05:59:24 -0500 | 1,576,234,764 | 1,576,239,343 | human interest | people |
411,719 | pinknewsuk--2019-12-20--Cara Delevingne shares her beautiful birthday message to girlfriend Ashley Benson | 2019-12-20T00:00:00 | pinknewsuk | Cara Delevingne shares her beautiful birthday message to girlfriend Ashley Benson | The couple rarely post on social media about their relationship. (caradelevingne/ Instagram) Cara Delevingne, who has mostly kept her relationship private, has shared her beautiful birthday message for her girlfriend Ashley Benson. The couple barely ever mention each other on social media, but for Benson’s birthday Delevingne made an exception. On December 19, the model wrote on Instagram: “Happy birthday Ashley Benson. There is so much I could say but something I love and cherish most about us is that I don’t need to because YOU KNOW and that’s all that matters. “It’s you and me which is my favourite. My safe place. You let me be silly, you let me be wild, you keep me free, secure and curious. “I feel like I’ve known you my entire life and I am so proud of watching you grow into the woman that you always dreamt of being. “I love you beyond words my sprinkles, choonchi, angel face, grumpy ass, sweet cheeks, never boring, buttmunch, Benson.” She shared pictures of Benson, as well as one of their entwined hands while riding in a hot air balloon, and another of them taking a bath together. Cara Delevingne confirmed her relationship with Ashley Benson during Pride month Benson is known for her role as Hanna Marin in Pretty Little Liars, and met Delevingne while they were both starring in 2018’s Her Smell. While the fact that they were together was no secret – the pair were famously photographed carrying a sex bench into their West Hollywood home back in May – they had not spoken publicly about their relationship. Delevingne finally confirmed that they were a couple during Pride month, otherwise known as June, this year but said that they had been dating for around a year. Speaking to Elle for the magazine’s October 2019 issue, Delevingne said that she had been hesitant to talk about her love life “because it’s sacred”. She said: “I get why people care so much, and I don’t want to be so secretive that people think I’m ashamed of anything. “But I’ve never been in a relationship where things are so public, or where I posted pictures of someone else. This seemed different. “We had gotten to the point where we had kept it a secret, or at least not wanted attention, and now I feel like I’m not going to not be proud.” | Lily Wakefield | https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/12/20/cara-delevingne-girlfriend-ashley-benson-birthday-relationship-sex-bench/ | Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:21:31 +0000 | 1,576,858,891 | 1,576,844,699 | human interest | people |
519,973 | sputnik--2019-01-03--Meghan Markle to Give Touching Birthday Gift to Kate Middleton - Reports | 2019-01-03T00:00:00 | sputnik | Meghan Markle to Give 'Touching' Birthday Gift to Kate Middleton - Reports | Last year, Meghan Markle, who was at the time dating Prince Harry, reportedly gave a sweet "dream diary" to Kate. "Meg had bought Kate a small birthday present — a very smart leather-bound 'dream diary' for her thoughts and ideas which Kate loved," said a source familiar with the matter. This year's still-unknown present might be of special interest to royal family fans. The Duchess of Cambridge is set to mark her 37th birthday on 9 January, and the royals will come together for the occasion at a time when they are said to be driven apart by a family feud. It it rumoured that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are moving out of Kensington Palace, where they have been living alongside Prince William's family ever since they got engaged in 2017, to Frogmore Cottage in the Windsor Estate. The Sun also reported in early December that Meghan and Harry turned down an invitation to spend Christmas at Kate and Will's; instead, they stayed at the Queen's Norfolk estate in Sandringham, but reunited with Prince William and his wife for a Christmas Day service. | null | https://sputniknews.com/europe/201901031071189996-meghan-markle-kate-middleton-birthday-gift/ | 2019-01-03 11:53:00+00:00 | 1,546,534,380 | 1,567,554,157 | human interest | people |
537,284 | sputnik--2019-07-02--Lindsay Lohan Wows Instagram With Naked Birthday Snap | 2019-07-02T00:00:00 | sputnik | Lindsay Lohan Wows Instagram With Naked Birthday Snap | Actress Lindsay Lohan has celebrated her 33d birthday in her very own fashion, inflaming her millions-strong following on Instagram with a naked selfie in nothing but diamond-like earrings, sparkly ring and three golden bracelets. The star photographed herself sitting on the floor in a white-walled and hardly furnished room with legs crossed and shielding her private parts from curious peeks and Instagram ban for too much nudity. Her birthday suit in every sense has prompted a mixed reaction in the comments section. Many applauded the move, sent her best wishes and praised the beauty, proclaiming her a “queen of birthday suits”. “She is really beautiful...” one commenter posted, while another could only exclaim “Gostosaaaaa” and “Yaaaaaaaaaaass”. There were those who were left in doubt over the furnishings in the room. “I’m so confused. Why is the tv [sic] on the floor??????????” one user noted. Others felt inspired and asked themselves whether they should follow her example: “What if I posted something like this on my feed”. Lindsay Lohan, who has travelled a long road from a promising teenage star to a scandal-ridden celebrity, recently spent some time on the Greek island and European party mecca of Mykonos, where she starred in a reality show in which she runs a club. However, it is not clear if she is still there because it has been reported that her club was closed and the second season of her show has been cancelled amid poor reviews and declining ratings. The star has refuted these speculations. | null | https://sputniknews.com/viral/201907021076121691-lindsay-lohan-instagram-naked-birthday/ | 2019-07-02 07:36:24+00:00 | 1,562,067,384 | 1,567,537,266 | human interest | people |
568,909 | tass--2019-08-10--Jennifer Lopez to perform in St Petersburg on occasion of fiftieth birthday | 2019-08-10T00:00:00 | tass | Jennifer Lopez to perform in St. Petersburg on occasion of fiftieth birthday | ST. PETERSBURG, August 11. /TASS/. US singer Jennifer Lopez will give a concert in St. Petersburg on Sunday as part of the It’s My Party tour on the occasion of her fiftieth birthday. Lopez will visit St. Petersburg for the first time in seven years, says press service of the show organizer - Matreshka Concerts. The singer celebrated her birthday on July 24. "The audience will be able to see the It’s My Party show on August 11, 2019," the press service says. "The diva gave her first and so far the only recital in St. Petersburg in 2012. The singer returns after seven long years with the It’s My Party show to celebrate her jubilee together with you," the show organizer says. Lopez prepared "numerous surprises: the entire night of hits of Jenny from the Block times, incredible choreography, magnificent attire and decorations" for the concert, the organizers noted. Jennifer Lopez is an actress, singer, dancer, fashion designer, and producer. She entered the musical industry with the debut studio album On the 6 in 1999. | null | https://tass.com/culture/1072913 | 2019-08-10 22:26:23+00:00 | 1,565,490,383 | 1,567,534,450 | human interest | people |
596,936 | thedailycaller--2019-01-05--Celebrate Bradley Coopers Birthday With A Look Back At These Great Movies | 2019-01-05T00:00:00 | thedailycaller | Celebrate Bradley Cooper’s Birthday With A Look Back At These Great Movies | In honor of the 44-year-old actors’ day, we took a look back at his career over the last two decades and picked out some of our favorite movies he’s done. Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the “Limitless” star got his first break in the entertainment business in 1998 when he got a part on the popular HBO drama “Sex in the City” alongside Sarah Jessica Parker. (RELATED: ‘American Sniper’ CRUSHES Box Office Records) The exposure got him in the door and soon he would score a part in 2002 in “Changing Lanes” alongside such greats as Samuel L. Jackson and Ben Affleck. But he is probably best known for his role in the insane buddy-comedy movie “The Hangover” in 2009 about a bunch of guys who get slipped drugs on their buddy’s bachelor party night and they have to rebuild the pieces of what happened to find the groom before the wedding. (RELATED: Irina Shayk Flashes A Whole New Kind Of Cleavage — The Underboob) Not to mention his role in 2014 as American hero U.S. Navy S.E.A.L. sniper Chris Kyle, in one of the greatest military movies of all time, “American Sniper.” If you haven’t seen it yet, you should immediately. And, of course, we would be remiss not to mention that the man is not only one of the greatest actors of our time, but he is also linked to the gorgeous supermodel Irina Shayk, who always looks amazing. | Katie Jerkovich | https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/04/bradley-cooper-greatest-films-birthday/ | 2019-01-05 02:38:00+00:00 | 1,546,673,880 | 1,567,553,867 | human interest | people |
75,239 | breitbart--2019-11-06--Pollak: Matt Bevin's Loss Shows Risk of Weak Health Care Policy in 2020 | 2019-11-06T00:00:00 | breitbart | Pollak: Matt Bevin's Loss Shows Risk of Weak Health Care Policy in 2020 | Gov. Matt Bevin’s apparent narrow loss in his bid for re-election in Kentucky on Tuesday can be attributed to a variety of factors. Every election is a single data point with a multitude of explanations, each susceptible to bias. But one of the salient reasons Bevin struggled — despite late support from President Donald Trump that nearly put him over the top — is that he tried to enforce federal work requirements for those receiving Medicaid benefits. Medicaid has been a thorny issue for Republicans ever since President Barack Obama and the Democrats expanded it under the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Under the new law, states could expand Medicaid eligibility to those living “at or below 138% of the federal poverty level.” The federal government would cover nearly the entire cost for the first years of the expansion. It was an offer many states found impossible to refuse: a “free” entitlement! Many Republicans rejected the Medicaid expansion — at least initially — because they saw immediately that it put them at odds with broader efforts to cut federal deficit spending, which the Tea Party had temporarily put into focus. But several Republican governors — including New Jersey’s Chris Christie, Florida’s Rick Scott, and Virginia’s Bob McDonnell — flip-flopped on the issue, as Democrats attacked them for denying health insurance to the “poor.” Bevin, a Tea Party conservative who lost a tough primary challenge to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2014, tried to crack down on freeloading. But as Bruce Japsen of Forbes documented, Bevin’s efforts were an easy target for Democrat Andy Besmear. They allowed the opposition to paint him as hard-hearted, alienating him from the working-class voters that have supported Trump and the Republicans in several key swing states in recent years. Beshear repeated the formula that helped Democrat Doug Jones defeat Republican Roy Moore in a special election for U.S. Senate in Alabama in 2017. Moore had plenty of other problems, but Jones avoided the tabloid issues and focused on the issue of health insurance for children. Health care remains a winning issue for Democrats, who are more trusted by the public to provide public goods, and protect entitlements, than the bean-counting Republicans. The 2020 Democratic presidential field is fumbling away that advantage with ridiculous plans like Medicare for All, which would ban the private health insurance that half of the country currently enjoys, and impose crippling taxes on the economy. But Trump and the Republicans cannot coast on the unpopularity of Democrats’ big socialist plans. The GOP needs its own health care alternative — one that preserves benefits that Americans now take for granted. Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak. | Joel B. Pollak | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/la8gAOuqjh4/ | Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:52:35 +0000 | 1,573,073,555 | 1,573,081,669 | health | healthcare policy |
78,974 | businessinsider--2019-11-22--The 26 best books to read if you want to shape healthcare policy, according to top DC power players | 2019-11-22T00:00:00 | businessinsider | The 26 best books to read if you want to shape healthcare policy, according to top DC power players in the $3.5 trillion industry | • For the first time, Business Insider has put together a list of DC healthcare power players who are shaping healthcare policy and legislation in Washington. • With healthcare policy taking center stage in the political arena, Business Insider asked the nominees for book recommendations for people looking to make a difference in healthcare policy. • We asked: What is your best book recommendation for people who want to change health policy? And why? • Here are the top book picks. • Click here for more BI Prime stories. Healthcare policy is taking center stage in the political arena. With debates over Medicare for All, drug pricing, better patient care, and ending surprise billing it can be difficult to know where to begin when wanting to understand and address healthcare policy. We asked the honorees on Business Insider's first-ever list of DC healthcare power players to provide book recommendations. In particular: What is your best book recommendation for people who want to change health policy? And why? Read more: Meet the 34 DC healthcare power players who shape the rules for a $3.5 trillion industry that touches every American The books they suggested range from memoirs to textbooks to deeply reported investigations. Here are their top picks. | Clarrie Feinstein | https://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-policy-book-recommendations-washington-power-players-2019-11 | Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:08:00 -0500 | 1,574,435,280 | 1,574,467,679 | health | healthcare policy |
80,585 | buzzfeed--2019-11-06--A Judge Struck Down A Trump Policy That Would Have Let Health Workers Refuse Abortion And Sex Reassi | 2019-11-06T00:00:00 | buzzfeed | A Judge Struck Down A Trump Policy That Would Have Let Health Workers Refuse Abortion And Sex Reassignment Services | WASHINGTON — A federal judge struck down a Trump administration rule that would have allowed health workers to refuse to perform or assist with medical procedures like abortion, assisted suicide, or sex reassignment services on Wednesday, saying it violated the Constitution and that President Donald Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made “flatly untrue” claims to justify the rule’s existence. The rule, called a “Conscience Provision,” would have allowed health care providers and workers receiving federal funds to opt out of those procedures if they violated their “conscience” or religion. If a health care organization was found to repeatedly “discriminate” against its workers for their religious or moral opposition to certain procedures, the rule stated, they could lose their federal funding. District Judge Paul Engelmayer for the Southern District Court of New York wrote in his 147-page opinion Wednesday that while the Conscience Provision seeks to “recognize and protect undeniably important rights,” the rule in its current form is “contrary to law,” was implemented “arbitrarily and capriciously” by HHS, was based on claims that were “factually untrue,” conflicts with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is unconstitutional. The Conscience Provision was scheduled to go into effect on Nov. 22, after being postponed repeatedly due to several lawsuits. All of these lawsuits challenging the rule — which span “19 States, the District of Columbia, several units of local government, and include a number of associations of health care providers,” the opinion said — were combined to go before Engelmayer in SDNY. Abortion and LGBTQ rights proponents argued that the rule was designed to enable discrimination against transgender patients and people seeking abortions. They said the rule would make it even more difficult for people in vulnerable positions to get the care they need. The Trump administration and other proponents of the rule argued that it prevented workplace discrimination against health workers for their religious or moral beliefs, and enabled them to keep their jobs without facing moral conflict. When it was first introduced in January 2018, the rule repealed an Obama-era discrimination protection rule that Trump’s HHS said “proved inadequate.” Trump’s replacement rule sought to specifically protect “providers, individuals, and other health care entities from having to provide, participate in, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for, services such as abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide.” The Conscience Provision does not refer to transgender people explicitly, but it relies on the 1973 Church Amendment, which, in addition to addressing abortions, also protects federal funding for recipients who object to sterilizations. HHS’s rule argued the Church Amendment allows a provider to deny any service that results in sterilization, meaning it could allow workers to refuse to provide hormone therapy, hysterectomies, orchiectomies, and other transition-related services for transgender people, Gillian Branstetter, a spokesperson for the National Center for Transgender Equality, told BuzzFeed News when the rule was finalized in May. Many doctors performing abortions or care related to sex reassignment services are specialists who chose to focus on these areas and would therefore be unlikely to object. However, the rule explicitly applies to those who “assist in the performance” of these services as well. This means nurses, pharmacists, phlebotomists, or anesthesiologists, among others, could refuse to help with a health service, making the procedure dangerous or even impossible, opponents of the rule argue. One notable part of Engelmayer’s lengthy opinion is his analysis of the evidence presented by the lawyers opposing the rule. The lawyers argued that HHS’s entire basis for the rule’s existence — that there is a major problem in the US of health workers being discriminated against at work for refusing to perform certain procedures — was a lie. The Conscience Protection rule was first proposed in conjunction with the launch of HHS’s Conscience and Religious Freedom Division. This division was created by the Trump administration to monitor and respond to the very complaints from health workers that the rule pertains to: discrimination due to religion and conscience. After Trump’s team launched the division, the head of the HHS Office of Civil Rights Roger Severino, said the number of complaints increased significantly from the number of complaints made during former president Barack Obama’s administration, bouncing from only a few such complaints a month to more than 350 in a month. "It shows it’s a real problem out there,” Severino on a call with press about the rule in May, adding that the increase was due to workers feeling like their complaints would finally be heard. “Some doctors said they felt threatened from becoming an OBGYN, felt they would be forced to perform abortions,” he said. During the case, the lawyers challenging the rule went through all these complaints and analyzed them to check if the increase being claimed by HHS was correct. Of the 336 unique complaints (22 were exact duplicates, the opinion said), 79% pertained to vaccinations and had nothing to do with the issues addressed in the Conscience Protections. Of that, another 49 complaints were about other unrelated issues, leaving only about 20 complaints that could be construed as “potentially related to the Conscience Provisions,” Engelmayer wrote. “This conceded fact is fatal to HHS’s stated justification for the Rule.” “HHS’s central factual claim of a ‘significant increase’ of complaints of Conscience Provision violations is flatly untrue,” Engelmayer continued. “This alone makes the agency’s decision to promulgate the Rule arbitrary and capricious.” All the other violations The lack of justification for the rule, as well as the lack of clear communication with which the rule was rolled out, Engelmayer wrote, violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Under the APA, HHS does not have the authority to create a rule with the effects the Conscience Provision has, he said. It also conflicts with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in that abiding by the rule would pose an “undue hardship” for the health care organization. The Civil Rights Act states that an employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious or moral beliefs if they can prove it places an undue hardship on their ability to conduct their business. The fact that the rule would enable the government to defund hospitals and health care facilities that they determine are repeatedly forcing workers to perform services that violate their beliefs, violates two portions of the Constitution, Engelmayer wrote, the Separation of Powers and the Spending Clause. The court found the rule violates both clauses, both of which pertain to Congress’s powers over the use of federal funds. Congress has the power to fund or defund federal organizations, not the executive branch, and giving the Trump administration the ability to use Congress’s powers to punish organizations who violate their rule is unconstitutional, the judge found. But Engelmayer did not agree with one of the plaintiff’s main arguments — that the rule violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment of the Constitution that prevents government from legally favoring one religion over another. “As the Supreme Court has long taught, religious accommodations are often appropriate and sometimes necessary, including to protect the free exercise of religion,” Engelmayer wrote. The rule does not favor one religion over another, or religion over no religion at all, because it includes an accommodation for those who oppose services for “moral” reasons, which Engelmayer said is a secular concept. Engelmayer’s long and thorough opinion is tough on HHS and declares firmly that the rule cannot exist as is. However, the judge explicitly left room in his opinion to allow the Trump administration to try again. “The Court’s decision today leaves HHS at liberty to consider and promulgate rules governing these provisions,” Engelmayer wrote in his conclusion. “In the future, however, the agency must do so within the confines of the APA and the Constitution.” The Trump administration can still appeal the rule to a higher court, and even the Supreme Court. HHS did not immediately respond to BuzzFeed News’ inquiry about whether they plan to appeal. | Ema O'Connor | https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emaoconnor/a-judge-struck-down-a-trump-policy-that-would-have-let | Wed, 06 Nov 2019 22:49:12 -0500 | 1,573,098,552 | 1,573,081,688 | health | healthcare policy |
121,970 | crooksandliars--2019-01-22--Food Is Medicine How US Policy Is Shifting Toward Nutrition For Better Health | 2019-01-22T00:00:00 | crooksandliars | Food Is Medicine: How US Policy Is Shifting Toward Nutrition For Better Health | In this new year, millions of Americans will make resolutions about healthier eating. In 2019, could U.S. government leaders further resolve to improve healthier eating as well, joining public health experts in seeing that food is medicine? In 2018, Congress initiated a series of actions that represent a shift away from placing the full responsibility – and blame – on individual people to make their own healthier choices. These actions also show a growing recognition that many stakeholders – including the government – are accountable for a healthier, more equitable food system. This shift in thinking reflects an understanding that government can and should play a role in improving the diet of Americans. As faculty members at Tufts University, our expertise spans clinical medicine, nutrition science, public health, policy analyses, Congress, federal agencies and government programs. It’s clear to us that the time is right for meaningful policy action to leverage food as medicine. Poor diet is among the greatest health and societal challenges of our time, causing death and disability, soaring health care spending, budget challenges for governments and private business, diminished military readiness and population disparities. Medicare and Medicaid, the government programs that pay for medical care for people over age 65, low-income families, and the disabled, now consume US$1 in $4 in the federal budget. In addition, nearly $1 in $5 in the entire U.S. economy is spent on health care, creating massive threats to the health of the national economy. Diet-related diseases are major contributors to these expenses. For example, the annual medical and economic costs of heart disease and stroke are estimated at $316 billion; of diabetes, $327 billion; and of all obesity-related conditions, $1.42 trillion. These costs create enormous economic challenges for federal and state governments as well as for private American businesses, families, and individuals through rising health care premiums, out-pocket-costs, missed work and lower productivity. Diet-related health burdens and costs also influence military readiness. Two-thirds of active duty military forces are overweight or obese, while 71 percent of young Americans are unable to join the military for one or more reasons, with obesity as the leading medical disqualifier. The overall U.S. food system – including farming and imports, supermarkets and retail, restaurants and cafeterias, and food manufacturers – also reflects and contributes to profound disparities, especially among children. Minorities and the poor often have the worst diets, causing a vicious cycle of poor health, lower school performance, lost productivity, increased health costs and poverty. As policymakers increasingly recognize the depth and breadth of these effects, they are beginning to act. In January 2018, House lawmakers created a bipartisan “Food is Medicine” working group, dedicated to innovations in nutrition policy to improve health and reduce diet-related health costs. Simply the existence of a group in Congress focused on “Food is Medicine,” which hosted multiple briefings for congressional staff on key legislation to integrate nutrition into federal policy, is an advance. On June 7, 2018, Congress instructed the U.S. Government Accountability Office to perform a comprehensive assessment and accounting of all federal policies related to food, chronic diseases and health care costs. The GAO is the government “watchdog,” providing independent audits of agencies and policies. The GAO has been asked to investigate six specific questions across diverse federal agencies and programs, including the evidence linking diet to chronic diseases, the corresponding national and federal health care costs, and the current strategies and missed opportunities to reduce these risks and costs. A series of GAO reports on food policy will likely come out in 2019 and 2020. The launch of this investigation represents a federal milestone for its scope and recognition of the opportunities in food policy. The 2018 Farm Bill, signed into law on Dec. 20, 2018, included several important provisions for healthier eating, especially in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which supports about one in seven Americans. This included expansion of the fruit and vegetable subsidy program to $250 million, a new $25 million Produce Prescription Program and strengthening of SNAP-Education, a $400 million/year nutrition education program. Several of these advances were recommended by the 2018 Bipartisan Policy Center report on healthier SNAP, chaired by former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D., and USDA Secretaries Ann Veneman and Dan Glickman. While there were advances in the Farm Bill, a proposed amendment to include pilot testing for medically tailored meals was rejected. Medically tailored meals are ready-to-eat, personalized meals provided at home to low-income patients with complex medical illnesses like cancer, HIV, diabetes or heart failure. Several recent studies show that providing medically tailored meals to patients is associated with reduced hospitalizations, emergency room visits and overall health care spending. While this is a missed opportunity in the Farm Bill, the state of California is currently testing the effects of medically tailored meals on health outcomes and costs in a $6 million Medicaid intervention across six counties, which will provide new evidence for possible future national expansion. Among the Farm Bill changes, we believe that the new Produce Prescription Program holds special promise. Already offered by some nonprofit and private insurance programs, this new federal program will allow doctors to prescribe not just medications but also subsidized purchases of fruits and vegetables. While the $25 million represents a small relative investment, this direct federal commitment to evaluate produce prescriptions in health care has the potential to provide evidence to support future expansion throughout Medicaid and Medicare. Together, these congressional activities in 2018 represent an evolution toward incorporating and addressing nutrition, diet-related diseases and their health care costs in federal policy. These actions build upon mounting public awareness of the central role of food in well-being; the accelerating consumer demand for, and corresponding industry shifts toward, healthier foods; and the growing recognition that individual consumers cannot be solely responsible for the current challenges in the food system. The recent congressional actions toward viewing food as medicine coincide with new scientific evidence on how specific government policies can improve nutrition and well-being, reduce health care costs and reduce disparities. We believe that meaningful progress on these national challenges will require far more substantive policy changes that can make healthier eating the easy, accessible, less expensive option. Based on recent reviews of the science as well as our new research, particularly promising federal government strategies for consideration include: Policy change is often not linear. Based on the significant impacts of nutrition on disease, health care, the economy, military readiness, disparities and the environment, federal actions in 2018 laid the foundation for nonpartisan federal leadership to create meaningful and lasting solutions. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. | The Conversation | https://crooksandliars.com/2019/01/food-medicine-how-us-policy-shifting | 2019-01-22 05:00:01+00:00 | 1,548,151,201 | 1,567,551,308 | health | healthcare policy |
122,749 | crooksandliars--2019-04-09--Democrat Slams William Barr Over Obamacare Lawsuit Youre Not A Health Care Policy Expert | 2019-04-09T00:00:00 | crooksandliars | Democrat Slams William Barr Over Obamacare Lawsuit: ‘You’re Not A Health Care Policy Expert’ | Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday suggested that the Trump Department of Justice may lose a court battle that aims to overturn President Barack Obama’s health care reform law. During a House Appropriations Committee hearing, Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-PA) asked Barr if he had a plan for the millions of people who will be without insurance if Obamacare is struck down. “Your decision to pursue this course of action in the federal courts puts at risk not only critical consumer protections such as those protecting individuals suffering from pre-existing conditions but also other important provisions of that law such as the Medicaid independent coverage for young adults to age 26, coverage for preventative services and the regulatory pathway for FDA approval of biosimilar drugs,” Cartwright explained. The lawmaker continued: “Attorney General Barr, you’re not a health care policy expert, but your department is taking the lead on attempting a massive overhaul of our American health care system, so I want to make sure we agree on a few of the top line facts. Let’s go through a couple quick yes or no questions at the outset. Number one, have you conducted or viewed an analysis to evaluate the effects of DOJ’s litigation position to overturn the ACA? The effects on consumer costs and coverage? Have you done that analysis or reviewed one?” “Well, when we’re faced with a legal question, we try to base our answer on the law,” Barr said. “So the answer is no,” Cartwright pointed out. “And here’s the thing. I can’t imagine that you would take that kind of a dramatic, drastic action without even trying to evaluate the consequences for the American consumers, the people using the health care, the people for whom these premiums are paid.” The legislator went on to ask Barr if his effort would end in “12 million people nationally” who lose insurance. “Do you think it’s likely we’re going to prevail?” Barr asked Cartwright instead of answering the question. “If you prevail — well, you’re devoting scarce resources of your department toward that effort, are you not, attorney general?” the Pennsylvania Democrat pressed. “If you succeed, that many people will lose their coverage nationally from Medicaid and 750,000 from Pennsylvania alone.” “If you’re saying it, if you think it’s such an outrageous position, you have nothing to worry about. Let the courts do their job,” Barr quipped. Watch the video above from CNN. | David | https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/william-barr-over | 2019-04-09 16:39:47+00:00 | 1,554,842,387 | 1,567,543,410 | health | healthcare policy |
202,075 | fortune--2019-02-14--Brainstorm Health Health Policy Valentines NantHealth and Baxter Cancer Deaths | 2019-02-14T00:00:00 | fortune | Brainstorm Health: Health Policy Valentine’s, NantHealth and Baxter, Cancer Deaths | A happy Valentine’s Day to those of you who celebrate! I know, I know… Valentine’s can be a sore subject for some, whether for the inevitable singles-shaming, the overt money-grab nature of the whole affair, etc. But there’s a bright spot in all this for the health care nerds out there – and it’s called #HealthPolicyValentines. This is one of my favorite little social media events. Basically, a bunch of Very Online dorks get together and share lame (but brilliant!) puns that relate to health policy. I invite you to look upon some of the entries this year (they range from the simplistic, to the profound, to the, well, super corny). They’re all under the #HealthPolicyValentines hashtag on Twitter. Heck, even CMS Administrator Seema Verma got in on the game this year. Read on for the day’s news, and enjoy (or don’t) your Valentine’s Day. | Sy Mukherjee | http://fortune.com/2019/02/14/brainstorm-health-daily-02-14-19/ | 2019-02-14 23:58:49+00:00 | 1,550,206,729 | 1,567,548,538 | health | healthcare policy |
397,424 | observer--2019-05-24--The Trump Administration Has Rolled Back a Policy Protecting Transgender Patients Health Care | 2019-05-24T00:00:00 | observer | The Trump Administration Has Rolled Back a Policy Protecting Transgender Patients’ Health Care | The Department of Health and Human Services rewrote an Obama-era policy preventing health care providers from discriminating against transgender patients on Friday. Under the new rule, the HHS plans to make the definition of sex protections “more consistent” with other agencies. “When Congress prohibited sex discrimination, it did so according to the plain meaning of the term, and we are making our regulations conform,” HHS director Roger Severino told reporters on a call, adding that the Obama administration redefined nondiscrimination protections to include an individual’s identification as “male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female.” The HHS is the latest agency to roll back the federal protections of transgender patients authorized during the Obama years. On Wednesday, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a new policy allowing federally funded shelters to turn away transgender people for religious reasons. In March, the Defense Department imposed new restrictions on transgender troops’ ability to serve in the military, barring them from transitioning while in service. | Davis Richardson | https://observer.com/2019/05/the-trump-administration-has-rolled-back-a-policy-protecting-transgender-patients-health-care/ | 2019-05-24 15:13:07+00:00 | 1,558,725,187 | 1,567,540,189 | health | healthcare policy |
473,390 | rollcall--2019-10-30--Senate Republicans kill Democratic move on Trump health policy | 2019-10-30T00:00:00 | rollcall | Senate Republicans kill Democratic move on Trump health policy | Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., sees the vote on the health insurance guidance as a referendum on support for people with pre-existing conditions. (Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call) The Senate rejected a Democratic resolution to nullify a Trump administration health care policy that supporters billed as a referendum on support for pre-existing condition protections. The 43-52 vote on Wednesday blocked a disapproval resolution that would have reversed a 2018 guidance expanding changes states could make to their insurance markets through waivers. Democrats forced the vote via the Congressional Review Act even though no states have sought to make the types of changes the administration is encouraging. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was the sole Republican to vote for the resolution. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., called the guidance a “horrible rule that threatens the care of millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions” and labeled the debate “one of the most significant policy votes of the year." The party is expected to try to leverage the vote against Republicans on the campaign trail. Waivers were included in the Democrats’ 2010 health care law as a way for states to put their own marks on their individual insurance markets. To be granted approval, states had to show their proposals would not decrease the number of people with insurance coverage and that their coverage would be as comprehensive and as affordable. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued the revised guidance, which said states would have to show an equivalent number of residents would have access to some form of coverage under the waiver, including plans that don’t meet the health law’s requirements. The agency also released a list of policy ideas for states to consider, such as allowing people to use federal subsidies to buy short-term plans that do not have to guarantee coverage for people with pre-existing conditions or cover essential benefits required under the law. The White House issued a veto threat Monday against the resolution. Democrats previously forced a vote on the administration’s rule expanding the duration of short-term plans. Collins also was the only Republican to disapprove of the rule at that time. The Government Accountability Office said earlier this year the guidance could be considered a rule, allowing Democrats to hold Wednesday’s vote. Democrats say it is important to vote to rescind the policy although no state has pursued these changes. “If Trump is successful in continuing to push forward these rules, he’s going to also start to put pressure on Republican governors to join him,” Connecticut Democratic Sen. Christopher S. Murphy said. “It’s just a matter of time before he starts tweeting at Republican governors to move forward with their own plans to undermine the Affordable Care Act.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday on the Senate floor that the Trump administration has said a waiver could not undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions. “Apparently our Democratic colleagues are not terribly fond of letting states shake off the unhelpful structures of Obamacare,” McConnell said. “Perhaps it makes their signature law look bad that governors of both parties are eager to escape from it.” McConnell noted that a dozen states have used the waivers to set up reinsurance programs to receive government funds to cover the highest-cost patients. Those waivers were not affected by the Trump administration's changes in the guidance memo. Both Republican and Democratic governors have set up such programs, which have led to lower premiums in those states. On Wednesday, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., objected to two unanimous consent requests from Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., to bring up a bill that would reverse the administration’s short-term plan rule and another to authorize additional funding for the navigator program to help people enroll in insurance coverage. | Mary Ellen McIntire | https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/senate-democrats-force-vote-health-law-waivers | Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:03:49 EST | 1,572,444,229 | 1,572,565,183 | health | healthcare policy |
789,509 | theirishtimes--2019-10-03--Governments oral health policy fundalmentally flawed says dental body | 2019-10-03T00:00:00 | theirishtimes | Government’s oral health policy fundalmentally flawed, says dental body | The Government’s new oral health policy is “fundamentally flawed” and cannot work in the absence of changes to the way dentists are trained, the State’s main postgraduate dental training body has warned. The policy, published last April, needs to be reviewed and legislative changes made to ensure dentists are sufficiently educated, according to the RSCI faculty of dentistry. The oral health policy proposes moving children’s dental care from public clinics in the community to private dentists. It has been speculated the funding of free dental care to all children under six may be announced in the next week’s Budget, but the RCSI faculty maintains the system is not ready for this change. It says the policy fails to make provision for the ongoing post-graduate education and training of dentists, and that the proposed network of advanced oral healthcare centres require skilled dental specialists who currently are not available. RCSI faculty dean Dr John Marley wrote to Minister for Health Simon Harris reiterating their concerns about the policy. Dr Marley said it should be changed to provide for a mandatory system of continuing professional development for dentists, as well as the introduction of further specialist lists beyond the existing ones in orthodontics and oral surgery. “The Department’s new policy does not address the fundamental flaws in how we further educate and train dentists in Ireland. We do not provide our newly qualified dentists with the support and training they require in their first year in practice, while established dentists are not given enough opportunities to keep their skills up to date. “There are currently just two recognised specialties whereas in the UK thirteen specialities are recognised, which a response to the increasing complexity of dental treatments.” Dr Marley said the Department could not “simply race ahead” with the policy without putting in place the foundations needed to make it a success. “Enacting the legislative changes now to ensure that our dentists are sufficiently trained and educated must be the immediate priority for the Department. Unfortunately we see no evidence of this promised legislative change being actioned”. | null | https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/government-s-oral-health-policy-fundalmentally-flawed-says-dental-body-1.4038935 | 2019-10-03 11:50:05+00:00 | 1,570,117,805 | 1,570,221,725 | health | healthcare policy |
1,091,517 | vox--2019-08-27--4 Senate Dems shaping the future of health policy explain what theyre thinking | 2019-08-27T00:00:00 | vox | 4 Senate Dems shaping the future of health policy explain what they’re thinking | In 2010, it was the Senate’s Christmas morning vote that paved the Affordable Care Act’s passage into law. In 2017, it was John McCain’s dramatic thumbs-down that ended the Obamacare repeal. In 2020, even if Democrats take back the White House and the Senate, their majority will be slim — a couple of votes at most. Health reform will, once again, live or die in the US Senate. But for all the attention health care has received in the Democrats’ presidential primary, there’s been relatively little focus on Senate Democrats’ thinking or plans. History suggests that’s a mistake. So in recent weeks, I’ve been interviewing key Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee — which controls Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and the tax system, and thus will be the committee where the bulk of health reform is written. I asked them what they and their colleagues learned from the Affordable Care Act and where they see health reform going if they get another chance in 2021. What I found was a more jaded group than in 2009. The grinding legislative gauntlet that produced Obamacare, combined with the decade-long Republican campaign of obstruction, sabotage, and legal challenge, has produced a grim realism. Senate Democrats recognize that failure is possible and the path to passage is slim. But they are cohering around a rough consensus on where the next bid at health reform should begin. It starts with abandoning the political idealism behind the Affordable Care Act. Max Baucus, the powerful chair of the Senate Finance Committee, believed he could secure Republican votes with a hybrid public-private expansion based on Mitt Romney’s reforms in Massachusetts and slow, bipartisan negotiations. President Barack Obama, who still sought to make good on his promise to lead a more collegial political system, backed his plan. Everything about the ACA, from the policy to the messaging, reflected the belief that Republican support was possible. Universally, Democrats look back on this as a mistake. “Some of us didn’t think there would be Republican votes in 2009,” says Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). “They didn’t want to write a bill. They didn’t want to come together on a bill. And they didn’t want it to succeed after it passed. That’s what’s morally outrageous about their behavior. So next time, we go in with our eyes wide open.” Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee’s health care subcommittee, agrees. “It would be wonderful to have Republican votes,” she says. “But we don’t start with that as a working assumption. We have to write something Democrats agree with.” The failure of Obamacare’s pluralistic approach has also soured key Democrats on the role industry should play. In 2009, Democrats cut deals with health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and other key groups in a bid to build support — including, they hoped, among congressional Republicans — for the legislation. Looking back, Sen. Ron Wyden, the Oregonian who will chair the Finance Committee if Democrats retake the majority, thinks that was a mistake. Getting industry on board meant watering down the policy — and for what? “If you’re trying to tee up a proposal to drive down costs, you’ll have a lot of people mad at you,” he says. “I think the idea that we need to put everybody at the table, I don’t see that being the starting point in 2021. It certainly wouldn’t be for me as the senior Democrat on the Finance Committee.” Wyden is arguably the Senate’s most committed health wonk. He once told me he read David Broder and Haynes Johnson’s giant history of the 1994 health reform, The System, four times, cover to cover, to understand why past efforts had failed. In the 2000s, he was the lead author of the bipartisan Wyden-Bennet Healthy Americans Act, an ambitious bill that sought to achieve universal coverage almost entirely through private insurance expansion. In 2011, he joined with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on a plan to reform Medicare. If Democrats retake the Senate in 2020, Wyden’s position on Finance will make him the most powerful Democrat in the Senate, save Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, on health care. This unnerves some Democrats, as Wyden’s policy ideas, interest in compromise, and independent streak has sometimes put him crosswise with the party. But today, Wyden holds out little hope of Republican support and emphasizes Medicare expansion. His evolution tracks the changing Democratic consensus more broadly: After Republicans proved they will attack a private insurance system just as fiercely as they would a public insurance system, the political case for pursuing private insurance collapsed. “There is no question, in terms of the big picture, that 2009 was focused on a private approach to health care,” Wyden says. “Now Democrats are united around the proposition that Americans need and want Medicare-type choices.” Which isn’t to say Senate Democrats are prepared to abolish private health insurance. As in Wyden’s comment, the word “choices” came up a lot in my conversations. “As a practical matter, the way we move forward on health care has to be recognizing people’s current insurance system and allowing people to make choices,” says Stabenow. “If everyone chose the Medicare public option, then it would be very clear what the public wanted.” “I understand the aspirational notions around Medicare-for-all, but if there’s one thing that I think we still have to wrestle with, it’s that Americans want to see more of their fellow citizens covered but they are very nervous about losing what they have,” says Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA). “There’s a huge risk aversion.” Brown, who has long supported single-payer, agreed. “I think you want people to have choice still,” he says. “You don’t want to take people’s insurance away. A lot of people don’t want government insurance. I understand that.” A striking feature of these conversations was how much Senate Democrats see themselves as completing the work of Obamacare. “I’m proud of what we did,” says Stabenow. “Not only did we expand access to health care, we forever changed people’s expectations about the ability to get affordable health care. I think that’s why it’s been so hard for Republicans to repeal it. Once people get access to health care without being discriminated against for preexisting conditions, it’s very hard to take that back.” Indeed, the three most oft-mentioned policies were the three ideas that Democrats tried to include in Obamacare, only to sacrifice them at the altar of 60 votes. First is lowering Medicare’s eligibility age to 50. Brown negotiated a similar proposal — lowering the age to 55 — for Obamacare, but it died when Sen. Joe Lieberman swore to torpedo the entire bill if it dropped the Medicare eligibility age. The bitterness of that betrayal lingers. “Lieberman killed it, saying it was a matter of conscience when it was clearly a matter of insurance industry interests in Hartford,” says Brown. “And I’m speaking on the record.” Now, Stabenow has a bill lowering the Medicare age to 50, with 20 co-sponsors. Second is the public option, which was excised from Obamacare. “We passed a public option in the Finance Committee in 2009,” says Wyden, sighing. “We lost it on the floor.” But the intervening years have only strengthened the case for a public insurance option, as some state insurance marketplaces are dominated by just one or two private insurers. “As we’ve watched the costs of using the private insurance model, it’s clear, in my mind, that at minimum there needs to be a public option,” says Stabenow. “I believe it makes sense to expand Medicare and give people choices.” The popularity of the idea is evident in the sheer number of Senate Democrats proposing some version of it. There’s Sen. Brian Schatz’s “State Public Option Act” (22 cosponsors), Sens. Jeff Merkley and Chris Murphy’s “Choose Medicare Act” (14 co-sponsors), Michael Bennet and Tim Kaine’s “Medicare X Act” (11 co-sponsors), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s “CHOICE Act” (eight co-sponsors), and Sen. Ben Cardin’s “Keeping Health Insurance Affordable Act” (no co-sponsors, so lonely). These bills differ in their details and ambition, but they reflect the consensus around a public option — which will most likely be branded as a Medicare expansion. Third, Senate Democrats lament that Obamacare didn’t do more to cut costs for the already insured. “I think if you look back on what happened, it’s clear Congress should have gone much further when it had the chance and had a laser-like focus on holding health care costs down — period, full stop,” says Wyden. There are as many ideas for controlling health costs as there are members of the Senate, but the one Democrats seem most united on is letting Medicare bargain down prescription drug prices — an area where Democrats smell blood in the water after President Trump expressed support but never rallied his own party around the issue. “There is real interest now in drug pricing,” says Warner. “Even the administration has acknowledged it’s not fair for Americans to pay the R&D costs for drugs for the whole world.” All in all, it adds up to a simpler agenda and message, which Democrats feel they lacked in 2009. “I thought about this a lot, and if I had run for president,” says Brown, “my message would’ve been: You don’t throw out Obamacare and start over. You build on it by opening Medicare to everyone over age 50 or 55 and letting it negotiate drug prices. That should be the Democratic message. We’re the party that wants to give you the choice to join Medicare early and negotiate drug prices.” Lurking behind this discussion is the role of the filibuster, which forced Democrats to trim their reforms in 2009. With no hope of finding 60 votes in 2021, Democrats are left with two choices. One option is they can use the budget reconciliation process, which is protected from the filibuster. The downside of the budget reconciliation process is it’s governed by an arcane set of rules that penalize ambitious reforms that rely heavily on regulatory changes. But if Democrats confine themselves to lowering the Medicare age, adding a public option, and negotiating drug prices, there’s reason to believe it might pass parliamentary muster. A more radical option — albeit one that would give Democrats the maximum legislative room in 2021 — would be eliminating the filibuster altogether. “If a Democratic president wants to tackle the most important issues facing our country, then he or she must have the ability to do so — and that means curtailing Republicans’ ability to stifle the will of the American people,” wrote former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “It’s time to allow a simple majority vote instead of the 60-vote threshold now required for legislation.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) agrees. “When Democrats have the White House again, if Mitch McConnell tries to do what he did to President Obama, and puts small-minded partisanship ahead of solving the massive problems facing this country, then we should get rid of the filibuster,” she said. But so far, she’s the only member of the Senate running for president in 2020 to endorse outright abolition of the filibuster. So which direction will Senate Democrats go? This was the one question no one I spoke to would offer an answer on. “It’s too early to say that this is the parliamentary route you’re gonna have Democrats come down to,” says Wyden. “Call Schumer and ask him,” says Brown. What Democrats do recognize is that they can’t do what they did in 2009 and let the process drag on, mired in controversy and complex policy arguments that leave the public feeling confused and overwhelmed, and give Republicans time to marshal counterattacks. “You’ll not see us get lost in the technical morass of yearlong-plus debate about all the nuances of various things,” says Wyden. “On the third day of his first term, President Obama had me to the Oval Office to talk health care. Just me and him. And I told him, ‘You should be able to describe it in a sentence.’ We have to be able to lay out in a sentence what we’re interested in.” Correction: Sen. Brian Schatz is the lead sponsor of the “State Public Option Act,” not the “Choose Medicare Act,” which he is co-sponsoring. Sen. Chris Murphy is a lead sponsor of the “Choose Medicare Act.” | Ezra Klein | https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/27/20827210/senate-democrats-health-reform-medicare-obamacare-2020-filibuster | 2019-08-27 13:00:00+00:00 | 1,566,925,200 | 1,567,543,685 | health | healthcare policy |
1,110,897 | wsjwashingtonwire--2019-05-17--House Republicans Complain Democrats Would Rather Cut TV Ads Than Pass Health Policy | 2019-05-17T00:00:00 | wsjwashingtonwire | House Republicans Complain Democrats Would Rather ‘Cut TV Ads’ Than Pass Health Policy | The passage of a bundle of health-care bills in the House Thursday left Republicans accusing Democrats of playing politics with prescription drug prices. House Democrats wrapped seven health-care bills into one for a vote on Thursday, passing the legislation largely along party lines. Four of the component bills would preserve or enhance elements of the […] | Andrew Duehren | https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2019/05/17/house-republicans-complain-democrats-would-rather-cut-tv-ads-than-pass-health-policy/?mod=_relatedInsights | 2019-05-17 13:18:20+00:00 | 1,558,113,500 | 1,567,540,517 | health | healthcare policy |
7,431 | ageofautism--2019-11-13--Children’s Health Advocates Will Gather to Demand Truth and Justice for the Vaccine-Injured | 2019-11-13T00:00:00 | ageofautism | Children’s Health Advocates Will Gather to Demand Truth and Justice for the Vaccine-Injured | Government’s gift to Pharma of liability-free vaccines puts children’s health at risk states Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Washington, DC – Thousands of advocates for children’s health will gather Thursday at the Vaccine Injury Epidemic (VIE) Event on the National Mall to mark the 33rd anniversary of National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). The rally on Nov. 14th will spotlight the devastating impact NCVIA has had upon the state of children’s health. While children continue to be injured by vaccines daily, vaccine makers cannot be held accountable, thereby eliminating incentive for vaccine safety. In his remarks, RFK, Jr. will address the ramifications of NCVIA and honor those whose lives have been impacted by vaccine injury and death. “It’s time to call out Congress, the CDC, and drug companies for allowing industry profits to trump children’s health,” said Kennedy. “There is no crisis more urgent than the epidemics of chronic health conditions among our nation’s children.” Following NCVIA’s passage creating the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), the childhood vaccine market sparked a gold rush for Pharma as more vaccines for routine childhood illnesses were developed. Coterminous with the burgeoning vaccine schedule, chronic health conditions in children rose from 12% to 54%. As vaccine industry profits grew to $50 billion annually, so did diagnoses of asthma, autism, ADHD, allergies, anxiety, depression, diabetes, obsessive-compulsive disorder and auto-immune diseases. Here are the facts: • An HHS-funded study found only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported. • Despite NVICP’s high burden of proof and two out of three claims dismissed, over $4.2 billion has been paid for claims of vaccine injury or death. • The vaccine-injured find NVICP to be a years-long, litigious program with no jury, discovery and precedent. While medical bills mount, the injured are up against DOJ lawyers and HHS “Special Masters” that act as judges. • The Department of Justice and the NVICP are accused of fraud and obstruction of justice in the Autism Omnibus Proceeding. • The Institute of Medicine reports that the vaccine schedule as recommended has never been studied for long-term health effects despite independent research suggesting that unvaccinated children are healthier. • Modern medicine acknowledges that not everyone responds the same to vaccination and the “one size fits all” vaccine policy is not science based. Children’s Health Defense’s created these six steps to vaccine safety. RFK, Jr. interviews are available upon request. | Age of Autism | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ageofautism/~3/LW3_CsFmCrU/childrens-health-advocates-will-gather-to-demand-truth-and-justice-for-the-vaccine-injured.html | 2019-11-13T06:02:00-05:00 | 1,573,642,920 | 1,573,646,630 | health | healthcare policy |
71,427 | breitbart--2019-06-29--Free Health Care for Illegal Aliens Could Cost American Taxpayers up to 660B a Decade | 2019-06-29T00:00:00 | breitbart | Free Health Care for Illegal Aliens Could Cost American Taxpayers up to $660B a Decade | This week, half of the 24 Democrats running for their party’s presidential nomination confirmed that their healthcare plans would provide free health care to all illegal aliens at the expense of American taxpayers — including former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research Steven Camarotta told Breitbart News that only rough estimates are available for what health care for illegal aliens will cost American taxpayers, and though a comprehensive study has yet to be conducted on this specific issue, taxpayers can expect to pay a “significant” amount. “If we offered Medicaid for illegal immigrants, it is possible the costs could be over tens of billions of dollars,” Camarotta said. “However, it would depend on eligibility criteria as well as how many illegal immigrants actually sign up for program once it was offered. So while the actual costs are uncertain, the size would be significant for taxpayers.” A reasonable estimate of health care for each illegal alien, Camarotta said, is about $3,000 — about half the average $6,600 that it currently costs annually for each Medicaid recipient. This assumes that a number of illegal aliens already have health insurance through employers and are afforded free health care today when they arrive to emergency rooms. Based on this estimate, should the full 22 million illegal aliens be living in the U.S. that Yale University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers have estimated there to be, providing health care for the total illegal population could cost American taxpayers about $66 billion a year. Over a decade, based on the Yale estimate of the illegal population and assuming all sign up for free health care, this would cost American taxpayers about $660 billion. Even if there are only 11 million illegal aliens living in the U.S., as the Pew Research Center and other analysts routinely estimate, American taxpayers would still have to pay a yearly bill of $33 billion a year to provide them all with free, subsidized health care. Should only half of the illegal population get health care, it would cost American taxpayers about $16.5 billion a year — almost the price of what it currently costs taxpayers to provide subsidized health care to illegal aliens. Today, Americans are forced to subsidize about $18.5 billion worth of yearly medical costs for illegal aliens living in the U.S., according to estimates by Chris Conover, formerly of the Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research at Duke University. Nearly every Democrat running for their party’s presidential nomination has endorsed having American taxpayers pay for free health care for illegal aliens. Those who have endorsed the plan include Biden, Sanders, Gillibrand, Buttigieg, and Harris, along with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), author Marianne Williamson, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), entrepreneur Andrew Yang, and Gov. John Hickenlooper (D-CO). John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. | John Binder | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/bgX5bSjG4hQ/ | 2019-06-29 01:35:02+00:00 | 1,561,786,502 | 1,567,537,551 | health | healthcare policy |
72,498 | breitbart--2019-08-31--Dr Scott Barbour Trump Is Our Last Chance to Save Health Care | 2019-08-31T00:00:00 | breitbart | Dr. Scott Barbour: Trump Is Our Last Chance to Save Health Care | Health care is “probably the worst issue for Republicans heading into 2020,” estimated Marlow, inviting Barbour’s and Ortiz’s comments on the status of American health care. Ortiz replied. “Because of Obamacare, about a third of small businesses had to drop their healthcare coverage for their employees because it just got too expensive. They just couldn’t afford it anymore.” He said, “about 52 percent of doctors are now in employee positions” as a result of increasing centralization of health care. Employee doctors are generally beholden to “big medicine,” he added, and are “effectively … not allowed to tell the truth” about the politics of the medical industry. Barbour addressed the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, otherwise known as “Obamacare.” “When we had the implementation of [Obamacare], we fundamentally altered the doctor-patient relationship, and bureaucrats and red tape were purposely inserted between patients and the access and ownership of their health care and has made it impossible for people to access the healthcare system when they need it,” Barbour explained. “Fundamentally, this is part of the rationing technique.” Barbour described the health care industry’s leftward momentum over the past decades towards increasing government control over healthcare resource distribution. “I got into this business twenty years ago,” recalled Barbour. “I remember doctors talking to me when I was coming up, saying, ‘Boy, medicine has changed so much for the worse,’ and then with the implementation of the current system, it really just took a nosedive. Just in the course of my career, I’ve seen how the relationship between doctors and patients has shifted so that doctors’ fidelity is primarily to the hospital system that employs them and away from patients.” Performance metrics for doctors are largely government-run bureaucratic evaluations, lamented Barbour, noting how centrally planned assessments lack the flexibility to adapt to unique medical circumstances while pressuring doctors to adjust their prescribed treatments to fit bureaucratic demands. “Doctors now are evaluated by their so-called performance, and I say ‘performance’ because it’s not a real measure. It’s the measure of a bureaucrat,” said Barbour. “If a doctor readmits a patient within 30 days after discharge from a hospital, that’s going to be a knock against that doctor and it’s going to affect their reimbursement. If a doctor has a bad outcome — say, an infection — that’s going to be a knock against that doctor. So what it does is create these perverse incentives where doctors will either keep patients in a hospital too long for fear of releasing them, and they’ll be back in 30 days. Or, if they do release them, they do everything in their power to prevent that patient from coming back to the hospital, whether it’s necessary or not.” Barbour added, “The other thing is when doctors come across patients who are sick — maybe they’re a smoker or have diabetes — they may decide different treatment because they’re worried if they do something more aggressive, they’re going to get a negative outcome.” “We just really need to put the ownership of medicine back in the hands of patients and give them the freedom to choose their doctors and their health care when they need it,” determined Barbour. “We want patients to … spend money on only the things that they consume, only the hospital or healthcare resources they consume. … These largely free market solutions are going to bring down the cost of health care and give patients the most choice, affordability, and the quality of health care is going to be maintained.” “Another thing we’ve seen over the last 20 years is that the quality of health care has just deteriorated so much,” assessed Barbour. Political discussion regarding Obamacare “never” examined the policy’s effects on the quality of health care, remarked Marlow. “Did health care get better [with Obamacare]? … Why did no one ask this?” Barbour replied, “It got much worse. … The direction we’re going rations our healthcare system.” Medical students are “learning how to do electronic medical records so that we can do effective coding and billing and collect metadata for bureaucrats,” he added. “This has got to stop. We have got to get back to nurture the doctor-patient relationship and putting the decision-making between doctors and patients.” Ortiz observed, “Democrats are looking at trying to do single-payer [health care], with the Biden plan, and that’s what we need to be very, very afraid of because … it’s going to get worse and worse, and this glorified socialized medicine that they talk about is just going to continue to get worse and worse in our country.” Barbour said, “I feel very fortunate. I got into this game at the last minute and was able, through my own personal experiences, to build a practice. I am somewhat free of the big medicine — not totally — but I have a level of independence that a lot of [other doctors] don’t have. I could never be me today because of so many regulations at the state level and federal level designed to choke out the supply of doctors so that this big medicine can control the supply, and they do this for profits.” Politicians and bureaucrats advocating for centrally-planned health care want Americans “begging” them “for rationed health care,” Barbour arraigned. “If we have one more cycle where we fail to reform our health care in a proper direction, you’re going to see the extinction of the doctor-patient relationship,” warned Barbour. Breitbart News Daily broadcasts live on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern. | Robert Kraychik | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/ExZ_Z7ZINXU/ | 2019-08-31 01:44:40+00:00 | 1,567,230,280 | 1,569,416,824 | health | healthcare policy |
74,352 | breitbart--2019-10-11--Study: Health Care for Illegal Aliens Would Cost America $23 Billion a Year | 2019-10-11T00:00:00 | breitbart | Study: Health Care for Illegal Aliens Would Cost America $23 Billion a Year | A plan from 2020 Democrats to provide free, American taxpayer-funded health care to all illegal aliens living in the United States would cost up to $23 billion a year, a new study finds. In June, the majority of 2020 Democrats running for president — including Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) — endorsed a plan that would force American taxpayers to provide free health care to all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens in the U.S. and anyone else who crosses the southern border. The latest study by Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) researchers reveals that providing health care to all illegal aliens would cost American taxpayers up to $23 billion a year should every illegal alien enroll. This total includes at least 2.5 million low-income illegal aliens and their children who would cost almost $13 billion a year, alone, to be given health care. Even if only about five million illegal aliens enroll in federal subsidies for health care, American taxpayers would be forced to foot a $10.4 billion bill every year, CIS researchers conclude. Overall, providing taxpayer-funded health care to each illegal alien costs Americans about $4,600 a year. With a scenario in which higher-income illegal aliens are enrolled in Obamacare and poorer illegal aliens take Medicaid, that plan would still cost Americans nearly $20 billion a year assuming every illegal alien enrolls. Based on current enrollment trends, a lower enrollment rate among illegal aliens would nonetheless cost Americans $10.7 billion a year. Previously, Breitbart News estimated, based on CIS analysis, that providing illegal aliens with taxpayer-funded health care would cost Americans about $66 billion every year and $660 billion every decade. This assumed that every illegal alien enrolled and each cost $3,000 to insure. While 2020 Democrats have made giving health care to illegal aliens — paid for by U.S. taxpayers — a priority, experts have said that such a policy would drive “strong incentives for people with serious health problems to enter the country or remain longer than their visas allow in order to get government-funded care.” The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds that the 2020 Democrats’ health care for illegal aliens plan is the most unpopular policy position thus far in the race for president with opposition from 62 percent of all likely voters. Today, Americans are forced to subsidize about $18.5 billion of yearly medical costs for illegal aliens living in the U.S., according to estimates by Chris Conover, formerly of the Center for Health Policy and Inequalities Research at Duke University. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. | John Binder | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/JqpJ5gvYxT0/ | Fri, 11 Oct 2019 00:41:36 +0000 | 1,570,768,896 | 1,570,796,565 | health | healthcare policy |
75,128 | breitbart--2019-11-04--Video Emerges of Nancy Pelosi Backing Single-Payer Health Care in 1993 | 2019-11-04T00:00:00 | breitbart | Video Emerges of Nancy Pelosi Backing Single-Payer Health Care in 1993 | Video from 1993 has re-emerged showing Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) backing single-payer, government-run health care — though the current Speaker of the House claims to oppose that policy today. Pelosi told a news conference: “I remain a staunch and ardent supporter of the McDermott-Conyers bill.” She was referring to H.R. 1200 of the 103rd Congress, the “American Health Security Act of 1993,” which proposed a “single-payer,” government-run health insurance system. The bill was introduced in the House by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Jim McDermott (D-WA), and in the Senate by the late liberal stalwart Paul Wellstone (D-MN). One version of the 1993 C-SPAN clip appears to have been generated in 2017, but resurfaced this weekend, after Pelosi criticized the “Medicare for All” plan proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), which would cost $52 trillion. “I think the closer [President Bill Clinton] moves toward the single-payer [model], the better,” Pelosi said at the time. The legislation was also backed by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who is now, coincidentally, playing a key role in the “impeachment inquiry” against President Donald Trump. The proposal would have provided universal health care to every American who was legally resident in the country: notably, it did not automatically cover illegal aliens, though it left that issue up to the states’ discretion. The program was to have been administered by the states, with federal assistance. The bill declared: There is hereby established in the United States a State-Based American Health Security Program to be administered by the individual States in accordance with Federal standards specified in, or established under, this Act. Every individual who is a resident of the United States and is a citizen or national of the United States or lawful resident alien (as defined in subsection (d) is entitled to benefits for health care services under this Act under the appropriate State health security program. In this section, the term “appropriate State health security program” means, with respect to an individual, the State health security program for the State in which the individual maintains a primary residence. The new universal health care system was to be paid for by increases in income taxes, especially on the wealthy, who faced a “surtax” if they earned over $1 million. Today, critics note, Pelosi has pronounced herself skeptical of plans such as “Medicare for All.” Fox News noted on Sunday that Pelosi still wanted to achieve universal health care coverage, but preferred to do so by expanding Obamacare — which theoretically relies on private insurance — and not Medicare, a public insurance program that applies to seniors. Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak. | Joel B. Pollak | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/1BcNAarfYEI/ | Mon, 04 Nov 2019 13:55:14 +0000 | 1,572,893,714 | 1,572,881,378 | health | healthcare policy |
77,849 | breitbart--2019-12-21--Pinkerton: Beyond Impeachment, Health Care Remains the GOP’s 2020 Weak Spot | 2019-12-21T00:00:00 | breitbart | Pinkerton: Beyond Impeachment, Health Care Remains the GOP’s 2020 Weak Spot | While everyone is focused on impeachment, there’s another issue—an older issue, which hasn’t gone away—that’s nagging the voters. And it could be a sleeper-win for the Democrats next year. Yes, we’re talking about health care. Health care isn’t in the national news today, but it was big in the 2019 election campaigns, and that wasn’t good for the GOP. What do the 2019 elections tell us about Donald Trump in 2020? The off-year elections were not good for Republicans. They lost both chambers of the Virginia state legislature and were shellacked in suburban Philadelphia. Most saliently, of the three gubernatorial races—Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi—they lost two. And one of those, Kentucky, was a Democrat pick-up. So what do these elections portend for 2020? For Donald Trump reelection prospects? Short answer: We don’t know. For the longer answer, we might recall a little history, looking at these same off-year elections in years past. And if we do, we see that the pattern is that states oftentimes—but not always—zig one way in the off-year election and zag the other way in the presidential election. For instance, in the 1983 gubernatorial elections, when the same three states—Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi—chose their chief executive, the Democrats swept all three, including a pick-up in the Pelican State. And yet the following year, 1984, President Ronald Reagan was not only reelected, but carried all three of those states. Skipping ahead three election cycles, we can look at the 1995 gubernatorial elections. In that year, Republicans won two of three, including a Pelican State pick-up. Yet in the year after, 1996, Bill Clinton, running for reelection, carried two of those states. So what should we conclude? That the voters are fickle? Maybe, but it’s more accurate to say that state issues are oftentimes distinct from national issues. State issues, such as schools and roads, are usually less ideologically fraught than national issues, and so successful gubernatorial candidates tend to be more pragmatic—crusaders are not wanted. So that’s why one shouldn’t draw any great conclusions about 2020 from the ’19 elections—each ’19 outcome was, in its way, a one-off. (And yes, there was some good news for Republicans; the GOP made minor gains in New Jersey, and Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas notched a win for his anti-tax referendum.) Of course, in this era when everything seems to polarize, pro or con, around Trump, it’s sorely tempting to attach a future narrative to the ’19 elections, such as, The results prove that Trump is doomed, or Trump will be triumphant. And it is true that since Trump’s approval rating is stuck in the low-to-mid 40s—as of this writing, it’s 43.9—there was an undertow pulling down Republican candidates this year. In fact, we can reasonably surmise that Trump will have difficulty breaking 50 percent of the popular vote next year. Yet it’s worth remembering that he was elected three years ago with 46.1 percent of the popular vote, and so it’s possible that he could garner a similar percentage next year and win a second time. In fact, by a wide margin, the crowd-sourced betting site PredictIt finds that Trump is the 2020 candidate most likely to win. Of course, gamblers don’t know the ultimate victor, either—they’re gambling! Yes, there’s such a thing as the wisdom of crowds, but the course of future events is just as unknown to the crowd as to the individual. How will the impeachment process play out? How will the economy do? Will there be some military conflict somewhere? How ’bout a strong third-party or independent candidate? And to take a trans-Atlantic jaunt, what should we glean from the December 12 victory of Boris Johnson in United Kingdom? Starting with his shock of yellow hair, BoJo is more than a little Trumpian. Yet there is one is one particularly scary issue barreling down on the GOP, and it’s a known known. Of course, the realization that one can’t know the ultimate answer about a future outcome is no excuse for being ignorant of factors that will help shape that future outcome. And so that’s why it’s important to study clues, because even if we can’t know the future, we can know the past—and learn from it. So here’s a clue: Republicans are deeply vulnerable on the health care issue. This is not a new discovery: Back in August 2017, this author compared Republican attempts to repeal Obamacare to World War One trench warfare; that is, a lot of slogging, and a lot of bleeding, for not much of anything. Most of Obamacare survived that year, and yet the voters didn’t like what Republicans were trying to do, and sent a loud signal of protest; Democrats won big victories in the 2017 off-year elections, including a gubernatorial pick-up in New Jersey. And oh yes, in a special election late that year, the Dems gained a U.S. Senate seat in, of all places, Alabama. Then came the 2018 midterm elections, and more disappointment for the GOP. And what was the top issue, according to the exit polls? Health care. Yes, the political dynamic has changed in the decade since Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010. For a while there, Republicans were on the offensive; they ripped into Obamacare and won big in the ’10 and ’14 midterms, as well as in the ’16 presidential. Yet since then, the healthcare wheel has turned. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s monthly tracking poll, Obamacare’s popularity was mostly underwater until 2017, and yet since May of that year, it’s been all positive. Indeed, the latest data, from November 2019, show us that 52 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the program, while 41 percent have a negative view. A wise-guy might put these numbers another way, Obamacare is more popular than Trump. So it was strange that Kentucky’s soon-to-be-former governor, Republican Matt Bevin. chose to devote much of the last four years fighting Obamacare, including one of its key components, expanded Medicaid. This in a state notable for its poverty, suffering greatly from the opioid epidemic—and most recently, an HIV outbreak tied to intravenous drug use. In fact, back here in the U.S., we should pause to note that Medicaid expansion benefits the working class; that is, the non-working poor already have Medicaid. So we can see: These days, ideological opponents of Medicaid are seeking to deprive potential Republican voters of their health care. Sad! And also, not smart, politically. Yet Bevin, a businessman by background, has always been a Tea Party ideologue. Indeed, he first came to political prominence in 2014, when he challenged incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell in the Republican primary. We might pause and ask: Was anyone really supposed to believe that McConnell was some sort of liberal? Bevin lost that challenge, of course, although the following year, he managed to get himself elected governor. And yet even in the Frankfort statehouse, where practicality should have been his guide, Bevin was still the crusading “true believer.” Bad fit. For insight into how Bevin approached the job of chief executive of a state, we might recall that in August, he asked an audience, “Do you stand with Donald Trump as the president of America or do you stand with The Squad or whatever they call themselves these days? That is the question.” Such a rhetorical question might have been effective if Bevin’s Democrat challenger, Andy Beshear, had, in fact, been a member of the The Squad. But he wasn’t, and so Bevin’s charge went flying off into New York City, or somewhere equally far from the Bluegrass State. So we can see: Bevin attempted to run a national campaign from the Kentucky statehouse. As such, he flunked the basic test of pragmatism that governors must pass if they are to succeed. Thus Bevin lost in state that Trump had carried by 30 points. Meanwhile, prior to the election, before any of this pardon scandalousness, challenger Beshear had stuck to his signature issue; he made full access to health care his signature issue. And after he won, the new governor-elect was quick to rescind Bevin’s anti-Obamacare directives. The bottom line seems clear enough: Republican runs on anti-healthcare agenda and loses Republican state. Democrat runs on pro-healthcare agenda and wins Republican state. In the meantime, Louisiana proved to be another healthcare election, underscoring, in an opposite way, the importance of gubernatorial leadership. Democrat John Bel Edwards, just reelected in a state that Trump carried by 20 points, was full-throated about one big thing: He wanted everyone in the Pelican State to have health insurance. In the words of the Baton Rouge Advocate, Edwards “expanded the Medicaid rolls, which Republicans have refused to do elsewhere for years, to cover about half a million working poor adults.” Admittedly, Edwards is a remarkable Democrat; his vision of health care extends to the unborn. Last May, he signed a pro-life “heartbeat bill,” much to the consternation of Planned Parenthood. Indeed Edwards is even capable of a Trumpian flourish; part of his campaign platform was “putting Louisiana first.” Yet for Edwards, those were more than just words; he obviously cared about the health of each and every Louisianan. And that’s how a blue man wins in a red state. In the summarizing words of Breitbart News’s Rebecca Mansour, “Louisiana was another health care election. The GOP will continue to lose these elections until they can say these simple words: ‘Access to affordable health care is a right.’” Of course, even now, not every Republican will agree with Mansour’s sharp formulation. Yet it does seem that Republican thinking is at least starting to catch up to the changed political reality—that the GOP is now the party of the working and middle class. That is, the poor have always been Democrats, and now the rich, too, are Democrats, and so Republicans need to focus on the votes they can get—the folks in the middle. So that’s why forward-looking Republicans, such as Sens. Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio, are now shrewdly articulating a new “common good” agenda aimed at the middle class; indeed, they are saying what Republicans should have been saying all along: The market should serve people, and not the other way around. And for Middle America, government protection against the whims of insurance companies is vital; it’s no wonder that a majority of Republicans wish to see guaranteed coverage for those with pre-existing conditions. For the Republican Party, as it thinks about health care, the basic problem is this: Either you believe everyone should be covered, or you don’t. And if you do believe in universal coverage, then your healthcare plan starts to look a lot like Obamacare; that is, there must be some sort of mechanism for actually delivering insurance coverage. Of course it is possible to envision a Republican health plan that’s superior to Obamacare. The GOP version could exclude, for instance, abortion and sex-change operations—and could be written to include only citizens. Yet still, to be popular, it would have to concede the bottom line of universal coverage. And it’s this question of universal coverage that’s been flummoxing Republicans for the past decade, because libertarian ideology has gotten in the way of political practicality. As we have seen, it’s because of ideology that Republican Matt Bevin lost. And it’s because of practicality that Democrat John Bel Edwards won. So amidst all of the unknowns about 2020, the Republican defeats in Kentucky and Louisiana tell us something about some of the underlying contours of next year’s election—there are some landmines ahead! Yes, the big national news today is impeachment, and that effort seems to be boomeranging on the Democrats. And yet it’s a long way from now to November 3. Which is to say, the political environment could tumble like a load of laundry in a dryer—over, and over again. That is, nine or so months after the final sputtering of Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment crusade, some different issue(s) could be dominating the national agenda. In the meantime, Republicans running for all offices next year are well-advised to pay attention to the recent election results, with an eye toward fortifying their position on health care. Most immediately, Republicans need to wise up—and stop trying to pull down people’s health insurance in the courts, especially when there’s nothing to replace it. That’s been the risk of the ongoing lawsuit against Obamacare filed by a zealous group of Republican state attorneys general. The GOP AGs are seeking to invalidate the law on legal grounds, and they could potentially win. If so, such a win would be what’s called a “catastrophic success”; that is, a legal victory, but a political defeat. Why? Because as of now, the GOP has no agreed-upon replacement for Obamacare, and so there’s the possibility that in the wake of an anti-Obamacare court ruling, ordinary people would left with no insurance. Most poignantly, those with pre-existing medical conditions—that’s somewhere between 50 and 129 million people—could lose their health insurance. What Republican pol wants to own that problem? Fortunately for Republicans on the ballot next year, it appears that such a cataclysm can be avoided; a December 18 ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans—kicking the case back down to a lower court—seems to suggest that there’s no chance that the anti-Obamacare case will be decided by the Supreme Court in the coming year. Yes, this is an instance where the wheels of justice turn ver-r-r-y slow, and for Republican politicos, that’s a good thing. Of course, further down the road, the GOP will have to come up with a plausible healthcare policy, ideally one that is compassionate, fiscally responsible, and socially conservative, all at the same time. After all, if the GOP is to be the party of the working and middle class, it should defend those classes and all their interests—including the obvious interest of health care. A Republican Party that takes care of workers, soldiers, first responders, and their families—that shouldn’t be such a hard concept to grasp. Why Aren’t the Democrats Running This Man? Interestingly, on November 25, the two Democrats we’ve been discussing, Beshear and Edwards, co-authored an op-ed in the Washington Post, headlined, punchily, “How Democrats can win, everywhere.” The two election-winners recalled some of the details of their winning, such as visiting places in their states that were regarded as hostile territory. And among other centrist ideas that they embraced, they both recalled their campaign’s focus on health care: “Families in both Kentucky and Louisiana worried that their health-care coverage and our states’ Medicaid expansions were going to be ripped away by a Republican governor.” There it is. Swing voters care about health care. A message all Republicans should take to heart, because the Democrats sure have, indeed, as Politico noted on December 13, whenever Democrats get in trouble because of some left-wing bender—in this case, impeachment—they default back to health care. Thus in the face of polls showing the impeachers hitting a brick wall, embattled Democrats across the country are running spots highlighting their position on … you guessed it, health care. So long as the GOP’s healthcare agenda is in the grip of Tea Party libertarians, at least optically, the healthcare issue will be the Dems’ happy place. Or to put the matter another way, if Republicans really want to make permanent gains with the working- and middle class, they, too, will get on board with a socially conservative healthcare plan, state by state. Oh, and a final thought: It should, indeed, be a relief to Republicans that Edwards is unique among Democrats. That is, Beshear ran as a moderate, even if we can all reach a judgment on his recent decision to let felons vote), but Edwards seems to count as a moderate conservative. In fact, Edwards has grasped that the winning political model is slightly to the left on economics and government and slightly to the right on cultural issues. (Once again, as we absorb the possible implications that the recent U.K. elections might have for the U.S., we can observe that this is the same sort of agenda taken up by Boris Johnson–and he won in a landslide.) Yes, this traditional nationalist-populist view—so in keeping with how ordinary folks see the world—is a winner on both sides of the Atlantic. And yes, not surprisingly, here in the U.S., such a Main Street view is exactly the opposite of elite bicoastal opinion, which tends to be libertarian on both economics (even rich Democrats don’t seem to be any more eager to pay taxes than rich Republicans) and culture. In other words, were Edwards on the national ticket next year, he really could be competitive in other red states, as he just proved in Louisiana. Thus Edwards stands out at a time when most Democrats, even in the South, are siding with the national party (and its donors) on life, guns, and cultural issues. And so Edwards—pro-life, pro-gun is by himself; he’s a lonely winner. But still, of course, a winner. So if Democrats really wanted to win next year, they’d look to Edwards. Why isn’t he a national figure for the Democrats? The answer, of course, is that the Democrats don’t want to win that badly. In fact, at the Democrat presidential debate in Atlanta on November 20, moderator Rachel Maddow asked the assembled candidates about Edwards specifically: “Is there room in the Democratic Party for someone like him, someone who can win in a deep red state but who does not support abortion rights?” And while none of the candidates said directly, No, there’s no place, neither did any of them say, Yes, there is a place. Instead, those who answered just reiterated their 100-percent support for abortion. The message seems clear enough. All this is a bit strange because it would, indeed, spell big trouble for the GOP if there were more center-hugging Edwardses on more ballots—including on the national ballot. That is, pro-health, but also, pro-life. But that just isn’t going to happen, not in the national party–the party of Hillary, and Bernie, and AOC. That’s one prediction about 2020 that we can make with confidence. | James P. Pinkerton | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/breitbart/~3/XK-ycPnDrFI/ | Sat, 21 Dec 2019 22:00:01 +0000 | 1,576,983,601 | 1,577,016,429 | health | healthcare policy |
78,552 | businessinsider--2019-06-14--California just became the first state to expand health coverage to undocumented residents | 2019-06-14T00:00:00 | businessinsider | California just became the first state to expand health coverage to undocumented residents | California just passed a budget deal that expands health coverage to some undocumented young-adult residents, making it the first state to do so. The plan will provide Medicaid coverage to approximately 90,000 undocumented residents between ages 19 and 25, at a cost of about $98 million, according to a budget report. It also helps some US citizens with higher incomes afford health coverage. The deal was passed overwhelmingly by the State Assembly and Senate. Democrats dominate both chambers. Governor Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat, released the budget proposal on June 6 after months of negotiation with the legislature. Newsom hasn't yet signed the budget. Undocument immigrants who are children are already covered under Medi-Cal, California's insurance plan for people with low incomes. To help pay for the plan, the budget includes a fine for people who don't buy health insurance — a policy known as the "individual mandate". The requirement that people buy health insurance or pay a fine was included in the federal Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010. It was removed from the health law by the Republican tax-overhaul bill passed at the end of 2017. Newsom has said the penalty will partially fund the coverage expansions and will help keep insurance prices down. Republicans argued it is unfair to penalize those who do not wish to buy insurance, while rewarding those who are in the country illegally. Another important provision of the budget expands the availability of subsidies that help people who buy health insurance on their own. The premium assistance is linked to income and how many people are in a household. Around 850,000 additional Californians will receive subsidies to help them buy health insurance starting next year, according to Kaiser Health News. People earning up to six times the federal poverty line — that's roughly $150,000 for a family of four — will be eligible. That's an increase from the existing assistance provided under the ACA, which goes to people who earn up to four times the poverty level. The budget deal should provide a modest boost for companies that offer health insurance coverage on California's insurance marketplace and in the state's Medicaid program. Companies that stand to benefit include Centene, Anthem, and Molina Healthcare, according to Scott Fidel, an analyst at Stephens. | Clarrie Feinstein | https://www.businessinsider.com/california-budget-health-insurance-for-undocumented-residents-2019-6 | 2019-06-14 13:15:00+00:00 | 1,560,532,500 | 1,567,539,095 | health | healthcare policy |
79,116 | buzzfeed--2019-01-08--Planned Parenthoods New President Wants To Focus On Nonabortion Health Care | 2019-01-08T00:00:00 | buzzfeed | Planned Parenthood’s New President Wants To Focus On Nonabortion Health Care | The organization is still committed to providing abortions and reproductive care but Wen, the first female physician to run Planned Parenthood, is embarking on a cross-country listening tour to learn how best add or expand nonabortion services. WASHINGTON — Leana Wen sat in her new office behind a bare desk, surrounded by stark white walls. The rest of Planned Parenthood’s headquarters were decorated in bright pink protest signs, toys, hats, printed-out memes, pictures of Beyoncé and Sen. Kamala Harris, and pictures of Christine Blasey Ford testifying before Congress. But Wen’s office remained a blank slate. “Look at these gorgeous posters,” Wen said, unrolling a pink poster. “I haven’t had a moment yet to put them up, or anything else really.” The poster pictured a young woman looking steadily at the camera with the words “This Is Health Care” printed over her head. Wen, 35, is only about two months into her tenure as the new head of Planned Parenthood, but she hit the ground running with this new campaign that sent the clear message: Planned Parenthood is first and foremost a health care organization, not a political symbol. This message is not a new one, but the doubling down and commitment to it at the highest level is new and significant. “This Is Health Care” is a very different tone than former Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards adopted with campaigns like “#Fight4BirthControl” or “I Stand With PP.” “People aren’t coming to Planned Parenthood to make a political statement,” Wen told BuzzFeed News sitting in her office in late December. “They’re coming because they need their vaccinations. They need their well woman exams. They’re getting HIV tests.” Wen is the first physician to be appointed Planned Parenthood president in nearly 50 years, and on Jan. 9, she is kicking off a five-month listening tour of 20 Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country. The aim of the trip is to learn how best to add or expand nonabortion services that are not normally associated with Planned Parenthood, like treatment for opioid addiction, diabetes management, and mental health counseling. “The last thing I would want is people to get the impression that we are backing off of our core services,” Wen said. “What we will always be here to do is provide abortion access as part of the full spectrum of reproductive health care, it’s who we are. But we also recognize that for so many of our patients we are their only source of health care.” Planned Parenthood announced Wen’s appointment in September, nine months after BuzzFeed News broke the news of Richards’ plans to step down after more than a decade in her role as president. Richards officially left in late April, and Wen assumed her role on Nov. 12, becoming the first immigrant and first woman physician in the role. Wen, who immigrated to the US from China with her family when she was 7 and grew up relying on Medicaid and Planned Parenthood services herself, was an emergency room doctor before becoming the Baltimore health commissioner in January 2015. Planned Parenthood is spotlighting her medical credentials even more by applying for her to be legally able to perform blood tests and screenings for Planned Parenthood patients herself, a service that is far outside of her job description as president, but a great photo opportunity. Wen will also continue to work at an urgent care clinic in Baltimore and wants to be able to practice at Planned Parenthood clinics as well. Wen is not a wholly apolitical choice, however. All Planned Parenthood press releases about her appointment made sure to emphasize that she successfully sued the Trump administration for cutting funds from the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, and that she has fought changes the Trump administration attempted to make to federal family planning funding. In the limited interviews she has given thus far, including with BuzzFeed News, she has made it clear she is ready to continue down that warpath. Wen has also spoken up frequently and passionately against Trump’s immigration policy. She told BuzzFeed News that she and her family could likely not have survived or prospered in the way they did under the policies Trump is proposing, and that she wants to make sure everyone in the US can access Planned Parenthood care. Still, strategists and advocates on both sides of the aisle see her presidency as a pointed and purposeful departure from Richards, and one that sends a clear message. “Smart move by Dr. Wen,” Adam Probolsky, a prominent political pollster and head of Probolsky Research told BuzzFeed News over email. “The hyper-political nature of Planned Parenthood in recent years has turned off many Americans who would ordinarily be more sympathetic to an organization that does so much to advance women’s health.” Vice president of the anti-abortion group March for Life, Tom McClusky, agreed, saying “It’s brilliant hiring her, I was preparing for another elected shill kind of person,” he told BuzzFeed News. “To hire someone with a Dr. in front of her name — I think they think, with the most pro-abortion Congress we’ve ever had, the time is right” to hammer home the view that abortion is health care. But some Democratic strategists are concerned that Wen’s shift to focusing on health care over politics is a sign Planned Parenthood is backing away from the fight. “It’s a symbol of fatigue, the battle has been a tough one and they’re tired,” Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic campaign consultant who worked with former president Bill Clinton and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, told BuzzFeed News. “If you publicly project that you’re no longer an advocate but a provider of medical services, the presumption is the bad guys will no longer beat you up because you’re no longer poking a stick in their eyes all the time.” Sheinkopf and another prominent Democratic strategist (who asked not to be named so as not to jeopardize his relationship with Planned Parenthood), said they saw this shift in messaging as a preemptive defense to attacks from the right, but that they didn’t think it would actually work and that the attacks would keep coming. All this would do, Sheinkopf speculated, is make advocates fighting on the ground feel abandoned. Wen insisted, however, that the organization isn’t backing away from politics. In fact, she said she plans to expand Planned Parenthood’s political work to collaborate with the Democratic, pro–abortion rights candidates who won 2018 midterm elections on the state legislature and gubernatorial levels around the country. The organization will be heavily involved in the 2020 presidential elections, she said, and will continue to challenge the Trump administration’s abortion and reproductive health care policies. But Wen comes to Planned Parenthood at a more peaceful time than it has seen in years, and the organization is in a very different position than it was when Richards was in charge. As of Jan. 3, Democrats hold the majority in the House. Among these new Democrats are several influential new members — like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Ayanna Pressley, who supported Planned Parenthood and abortion rights as part of their campaigns — many of whom have already met with Wen, she told BuzzFeed News. In this new Congress, all legislative efforts to defund Planned Parenthood are likely dead on arrival. Since Republicans took Congress in 2015, Planned Parenthood has repeatedly been a hair (or thumb)’s breadth from losing its more than $500 million in government funding. This reached its pinnacle in the summer of 2015, when the anti–abortion rights activist David Daleiden released a series of videos accusing Planned Parenthood of profiting from the sale of “baby parts,” a term still used frequently by the organization’s opponents. The videos triggered more than a dozen Republican-governed states to investigate and temporarily defund Planned Parenthood, as well as a series of lengthy, Republican-led congressional investigations into the videos’ allegations, none of which were found to show evidence of wrongdoing. With Congress off its back, Planned Parenthood can finally move out of its defensive crouch and focus on new projects, like Wen’s idea to turn more Planned Parenthood affiliates into one-stop shops where you can come in for birth control, STI tests, or an abortion, and meet clinic workers prepared to diagnose and treat a range of other problems unrelated to reproduction, from diet to depression to addiction. There are no concrete plans for this expansion just yet, Wen told BuzzFeed News, but it could involve in-house mental health counselors, which a few clinics already have, and will likely include increased training for Planned Parenthood staff on how to provide “trauma-informed care.” Wen also says she is looking into increasing Planned Parenthood patients’ access to opioid addiction treatment and naloxone, a drug that reverses overdoses from heroin and other opioid drugs. Naloxone is already available at a few Planned Parenthood clinics around the country, including at a Northern California clinic that is on the itinerary for Wen’s tour, but Wen wants to expand its availability nationwide. Many of the low-income areas where residents rely heavily on Planned Parenthood for care are also areas ravaged by the opioid epidemic. As Baltimore’s health commissioner, Wen did significant work in the reproductive health sphere, including overseeing a maternal and child health program credited with reducing infant mortality in Baltimore by 40%. But some of her most revolutionary accomplishments were in the realm of opioid addiction treatment. In 2015, Wen issued a blanket prescription for naloxone to the entire city. Three years later, those free doses prevented more than 3,000 people from dying. Wen’s philosophy since early in her career has been to “treat the whole patient,” she said. This means focusing on mental, physical, and reproductive health, but also focusing on the societal causes and not just the symptoms. As an emergency room doctor, Wen would regularly see patients coming into the ER with life-threatening conditions because they were “cutting their medications into halves or quarters” out of an inability to pay for the correct dosage, saddling themselves with sky-high hospital fees instead. It was her job to treat the symptoms, she said, but she began wondering if she was being the best doctor she could be if she wasn’t trying to treat the cause. “It was my duty to ensure that my next patients didn't have to come in with a heart attack or stroke because they couldn’t afford their diabetes or high blood pressure medications,” Wen said she realized. And she will have to keep fighting for low-income patients in her new role as well. Planned Parenthood is in a better position than last year, but the attacks from the Trump administration are not behind them. “One of the biggest and most important fights we will see this year are the Title X restrictions,” Wen told BuzzFeed News over the phone Friday, referring to the federal family planning funding program. Planned Parenthood serves about 41% of all the patients in need of Title X coverage. A new rule proposed by the Trump administration could greatly affect those patients and limit or prevent many of Wen’s plans for the future from being implemented. The rule prevents Title X funding from going to organizations that offer nonabortion services, like contraception or gynecological exams, in the same facilities where they perform abortions. In other words, it would partially defund Planned Parenthood. The rule was introduced by Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services in May but is expected to officially go into effect this month (although Planned Parenthood and other advocacy organizations are likely to sue, potentially blocking it from taking effect until the litigation is through). And the battle spurred by Daleiden’s videos over Planned Parenthood’s partnership with biomedical firms that use fetal tissue for scientific research has quietly and slowly continued under the Trump administration, with the Department of Justice taking up the cause last year. Wen is facing internal challenges as well. A little more than a month after Wen started in her role, the New York Times published an article that quoted several current and former Planned Parenthood workers who claimed that they faced discrimination at work because they were pregnant. And many Planned Parenthood clinics around the country offer no paid parental leave, a seemingly hypocritical policy for an organization that itself fights for increased paid parental leave policies. Wen told BuzzFeed News on Friday that when she accepted the job she did not know that some of the organization’s affiliates had this policy. Planned Parenthood is federated, so each state affiliate has its own board and individual policies. Under Wen’s direction, Planned Parenthood is investigating and launching an initiative to review the policies at all of its affiliates. It plans to publicly announce the results and specific plans to change those policies by fall of 2019. On Wednesday, Wen will make the first stop on her five-month tour, starting at an affiliate in Ohio. This is the kind of pilgrimage former Planned Parenthood president Richards took often, but for her, Wen said, it will be different. “Clinic visits through my eyes are different than the visits through her eyes,” Wen told BuzzFeed News, getting up to leave her new office. While Richards visited clinic workers as a political organizer and abortion rights champion, Wen said she’ll be talking to them medical worker to medical worker. “For me, I’m a frontlines health care fighter, I’m going back to my people. For her, she’s a frontlines organizer, going back to her people, but in a different way.” | Ema O'Connor | https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emaoconnor/planned-parenthood-leana-wen-health-care-abortion-politics | 2019-01-08 21:25:42+00:00 | 1,547,000,742 | 1,567,553,525 | health | healthcare policy |
79,508 | buzzfeed--2019-03-16--Beto ORourke Says Hes No Longer Sure Single-Payer Is The Best Way To Get To Universal Health Car | 2019-03-16T00:00:00 | buzzfeed | Beto O'Rourke Says He's "No Longer Sure" Single-Payer Is The Best Way To Get To Universal Health Care | WASHINGTON, Iowa — Beto O'Rourke, on his first trip to Iowa as a presidential candidate, broke with prominent 2020 Democrats and some of his past statements in saying that his goal for health care is not necessarily a single-payer system. Asked directly Friday if his goal is to get to a single-payer system, he said, “No, my goal is to get to guaranteed, high-quality universal health care for all, and I think there are many ways to get there." In response to a separate question, that he's "no longer sure" that Medicare for All or a single-payer system would be "the fastest way for us to get there." Like with other policy issues early in his campaign, O'Rourke said he is "very open to listening to others" as he decides on what the best way to get to universal coverage would be, particularly calling out a "Medicare for America" plan in the House that would allow people who choose to keep employer-based care and open up Medicare for people without employer-based insurance. O'Rourke has been hard to pin down on health care. Early in his Senate campaign, in June 2017, O'Rourke said on Facebook that a "single-payer Medicare-for-all program is the best way to ensure all Americans get the healthcare they need." But he did not sign onto a Medicare for All bill in the House, telling the Texas Observer later that year that he disagreed with some of the plan's specifics. During his campaign last summer, he talked primarily about “universal, guaranteed, high-quality health care for all," not specifically mentioning single-payer or Medicare for All. The Medicare for All plan, which would radically alter the current health care system in favor of a government-run single-payer system, is a pivotal policy for several 2020 Democrats. Sen. Bernie Sanders made it a hallmark of his 2016 campaign, and is doing so again now. His Senate Medicare for All bill is cosponsored by several of the other presidential candidates — Sens. Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand. O'Rourke said Friday he has issues with people not having a choice under a single-payer system. "Over time, I hope Medicare has the investment and buy-in necessary that people choose to leave employer-based insurance instead of being forced to," he said. | Molly Hensley-Clancy | https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/beto-orourke-says-his-goal-for-health-care-is-not | 2019-03-16 03:42:41+00:00 | 1,552,722,161 | 1,567,546,047 | health | healthcare policy |
79,833 | buzzfeed--2019-05-27--Trump Is Gutting Health Care Protections For Transgender People And Those Who Have Had Abortions | 2019-05-27T00:00:00 | buzzfeed | Trump Is Gutting Health Care Protections For Transgender People And Those Who Have Had Abortions | The Trump administration on Friday unveiled its long-expected proposal to reverse health care protections for transgender people and those who’ve had abortions, issuing a draft rule that seeks to rescind nondiscrimination policies established under the Affordable Care Act. It’s the Trump administration’s third regulatory strike against transgender people this week. One rule, finalized Tuesday, would let health care workers recuse themselves from treating transgender patients on religious grounds, and a draft rule issued Wednesday would let homeless shelters turn away transgender people. The 204-page proposal released Friday by the Department of Health and Human Services would change the way discrimination “on the basis of sex” is defined. Instead of stating that this includes transgender patients or abortion-related care, the term “sex” would be open to interpretation — thus removing those explicit protections. HHS says this change is necessary as a response to lawsuits from conservatives who argued that the word was being interpreted too broadly. “This proposed rule,” the draft says, “seeks to amend regulations that identify sexual orientation or gender identity as prohibited bases for discrimination for certain Department funded or administered programs.” The new regulation would add, “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require or prohibit any person, or public or private entity, to provide or pay for any benefit or service, including the use of facilities, related to an abortion.” The move is part of a broader effort under President Donald Trump's administration to undo LGBT and reproductive rights, many of which were created by his predecessor, former president Barack Obama, by asserting that civil rights laws banning “sex” discrimination should be interpreted narrowly. "This rule dangerously encourages illegal discrimination, putting the lives of transgender people in jeopardy," Kris Hayashi, executive director at Transgender Law Center, said in a statement calling the draft rule "yet another outright attack from the Trump administration on the health, well-being, and survival of transgender people." The HHS policy would reverse part of a 2016 regulation that says discrimination in medical care or insurance coverage due to gender identity or “termination of pregnancy” is illegal. A federal judge had blocked the Obama-era regulation the same year, and shortly after Trump took office, the administration announced plans to rewrite it. As part of its latest moves, the HHS said Friday that it plans to amend 10 other regulations, issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, concerning discrimination on the basis of sex in order to make them consistent with the new draft rule. Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said the proposal "will abandon 2 million Americans" who were protected under the previous rule. When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, lawmakers included Section 1557 to establish nondiscrimination protections in health care services and insurance by referring to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and other civil rights laws — but it left the specifics up to future rule-making. The HHS under then-president Obama fleshed out those details in a 2016 regulation asserting that Title IX’s ban on sex discrimination included discrimination on the basis of gender identity and termination of pregnancy. The rule essentially prevented medical workers, insurers, or organizations from discriminating against transgender patients for any services — including transition-related care — and women who have had or are seeking abortions in some circumstances. Pertaining to abortion care, the effects of the rule were slightly more complicated. Because of regulations in place preventing government funding of abortions, the nondiscrimination clause applied only when a health insurer or organization provided the same types of procedures for both abortions and nonabortion services. For example, a procedure called “dilation and evacuation” is used both in miscarriage care and abortion care. If a Catholic hospital provided this service for miscarriages, under the Obama administration’s rule, it would also have to provide it for abortions. The rule affected the vast majority of health care workers because it applied to any hospitals, doctors, or clinics that accept federal reimbursement or remunerations, like Medicare or Medicaid payments. It also affected insurance companies that participate in the health insurance market. But the rule was blocked after a group of states, joined by several organizations, sued the Obama administration in a remote Texas district with only one presiding judge, a George W. Bush appointee known for blocking the administration's liberal policies. After Trump took office, HHS indicated that it would reverse the regulation in order to make the lawsuit moot. The dispute is at the heart of a much larger national debate over what “sex” means: sex as identified by birth, gender identity, or other factors. Many conservatives have insisted that if lawmakers intended for sex discrimination laws to address transgender people, they would have written such language explicitly into the bills, as they did in the Violence Against Women Act. “When Congress prohibited sex discrimination, it did so according to the plain meaning of the term, and we are making our regulations conform,” Roger Severino, director of HHS's Office for Civil Rights, said in a statement Friday. HHS says in a fact sheet that the latest rule is “returning to the government’s longstanding interpretation of ‘sex’ under the ordinary meaning of the word Congress used.” Yet courts have found the term “sex,” while arguably ordinary or plain, is actually ambiguous. Laws concerning “sex” don’t necessarily need to name transgender people in order to protect them. Many courts have found that a law’s text, not its intent, must be the deciding factor. Several judges have concluded that transgender people are covered by the plain meaning of “sex” in laws against discrimination because they wouldn’t face discrimination “but for” their sex. For instance, they endured bias because their gender identities differed from their sex at birth, or they didn’t conform to gender stereotypes for someone of their birth sex. Given that no federal law specifically bans anti-LGBT discrimination, advocates have pushed in courts and through regulations to argue that sex discrimination bans cover sexual orientation and gender identity. The Supreme Court has never ruled definitively on the issue. The Trump administration, however, narrowed its definition of “biological sex” in March when the Department of Defense released a policy banning most transgender people from the military. The policy defined “biological sex” as a “person's biological status as male or based on chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals.” The administration had previously reversed certain policies from the Obama administration that said transgender people are covered by sex discrimination laws, such as in guidance for students and workers, but it had never formally asserted that sex — as a generic term — can be defined only by biological characteristics or sex at birth. The proposal also fits in with a wider undertaking by Trump’s HHS to increase religious protections for health care workers. In early 2018, the Trump administration opened an office within HHS’s Office for Civil Rights (the same office that implemented Section 1557) to protect health workers who had moral or religious objections to performing certain procedures, including things like abortions or sex reassignment surgery. Although the new regulation reflects the administration's opinion about the scope of antidiscrimination law, specifically Title IX, it does not prevent a victim from suing in court — indeed, transgender plaintiffs have prevailed in numerous recent sex discrimination lawsuits involving education and workplaces. Abortion and LGBT rights advocates have told BuzzFeed News that they will almost certainly take legal action to block the proposed rule, depending on what the final version looks like after the comment period has ended. Gretchen Borchelt, vice president for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center, told BuzzFeed News that the Obama-era regulation was “the first time we had this broad of a civil rights law for health care. Whatever the final rule looks like, we would consider taking legal action if there’s any sort of rollback of patients’ rights put into place.” | Dominic Holden | https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/dominicholden/trump-rule-transgender-abortion-healthcare-discrimination | 2019-05-27 05:25:37+00:00 | 1,558,949,137 | 1,567,540,145 | health | healthcare policy |
99,018 | cnbc--2019-04-29--More Americans likely to oppose Trump in 2020 because of his handling of health care poll | 2019-04-29T00:00:00 | cnbc | More Americans likely to oppose Trump in 2020 because of his handling of health care: poll | US President Donald Trump arrives to board Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on April 26, 2019. More Americans say they are likely to oppose rather than support President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential elections because of his handling of health care, according to a new ABC/Washington Post poll. While 23% of those polled said Trump's stance on health care would compel them to vote for his reelection, 40% said they likely will not support him next year because of it. Of the remaining voters, 33% said health care is not a factor in who they'll vote for, while 5% said they had no opinion on Trump's handling of health care. It's not surprising that health care has become a top priority for voters because the last few years have been "tumultuous" for the health-care system, said Rachel Nuzum, vice president for the Federal and State Health Policy initiative at The Commonwealth Fund. "Americans need certainty when it comes to their health care," Nuzum said. And Trump's call to upend the health-care system "creates a lot of uncertainty," she added. Trump and congressional Republicans have vowed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, pledging to deliver on one of Trump's main campaign promises. Despite Trump's assertion that Republicans will become "The Party of Healthcare," Republicans don't have another health-care plan in place and are waiting until the GOP regains control of the House of Representatives to unveil a replacement proposal. Republicans currently hold control of the Senate, but need 21 more seats in the House to win the majority. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle widely believe the Republican-led Senate's failure to repeal Obamacare in 2017 led to Democrats regaining a majority in the House in last year's midterm elections. Trump's cries to repeal Obamacare without a better proposal in place is a "very risky political proposition," according to John Hudak, a senior fellow and deputy director at the Brookings Institution's Center for Effective Public Management. Hudak said Obamacare's individual provisions, like Medicaid expansion, protecting preexisting conditions and allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance plans until they are 26 years old, are "wildly popular" with citizens. "These are all issues that are not just more popular than the president, they're more popular than a lot of other issues in America," Hudak said. Obamacare is back in jeopardy once again after the Trump administration supported a lawsuit questioning the health-care law's constitutionality. In December, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor of Texas said that without a rule that requires Americans to have health insurance or face a tax penalty, Obamacare cannot stand. The Trump administration reduced the tax penalty — called the individual mandate — to $0 in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Now O'Connor's ruling, which is backed by the Justice Department, awaits deliberation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, though experts and even some top Republicans have said it's unlikely the law will be overturned. Though some believe Obamacare is safe from a negative ruling from the Supreme Court, Hudak said Trump's attacks on Obamacare, which has become popular with many citizens despite failing to reduce health-care costs, can hurt his relationship with swing voters. "Threatening to take away tens of millions of people's health care is not a great recipe from growing his political coalition," Hudak said. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, half of Americans support Obamacare, while 38% oppose it. Looking forward to 2020, Nuzum said it'll be important for every presidential candidate to look through the voters' lens on health care. Nozum said voters seek certainty in the health-care system and want lower health-care costs and insurance plans that will allow them to make the best medical decisions. "Thinking through from that lens is going to be really critical," Nozum said. Though Republicans have yet to unveil a health-care plan, some Democrats have entered the presidential race with their own ideas to replace Obamacare. Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has proposed a "Medicare for All" bill, which seeks to create a government-run health-care plan that would cover every American. The proposal has support from fellow Democratic presidential candidates like Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., though Republicans and centrist Democrats have spoken against Sanders' legislation. White House did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment. | null | https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/29/more-americans-likely-to-oppose-trump-in-2020-citing-health-care-poll-says.html | 2019-04-29 18:03:00+00:00 | 1,556,575,380 | 1,567,541,771 | health | healthcare policy |
100,943 | cnbc--2019-12-19--Mike Bloomberg calls for public option in his 2020 health-care proposal | 2019-12-19T00:00:00 | cnbc | Mike Bloomberg calls for public option in his 2020 health-care proposal | Presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg on Thursday unveiled his health-care plan, which includes a public option and is similar to former Vice President Joe Biden's proposal. The former New York City mayor's plan would allow voters to "buy a Medicare-like health insurance policy, administered by the federal government but paid for by customer premiums," his campaign explained. In a statement, Bloomberg, who has a net worth of just over $54 billion, pledged to provide universal health care and reinvigorate President Barack Obama's signature health-care law, the Affordable Care Act, if he were to become president. "President Trump has spent three years sabotaging the Affordable Care Act and offering nothing in return but empty promises," Bloomberg said. "We will reverse the president's attacks on the Affordable Care Act, reach universal coverage, reduce costs for all Americans, increase support for rural communities, and fix our broken healthcare system once and for all." The plan stops short of the "Medicare for All" concept that's being pushed by more progressive candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Here are the plan's top priorities, according to the website: • Extend tax credits for individuals and families with high insurance premiums • Allow families to buy health plans in the individual market with federal subsidies • Conduct aggressive efforts to sign people up for insurance Biden, Sanders and Warren are ahead of Bloomberg in all of the national polls. Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg have both said they back health-care plans that give an option to voters to buy into a Medicare-like public option, while stopping short of Medicare for All. Bloomberg offered four pillars for affordable health care, starting with "extending tax credits for individuals and families" whose premiums are more than 8.5% of their income. Another one of his ideas is "creating a permanent federal reinsurance program for the individual market which would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent." Bloomberg's campaign for president released his plan as he spoke at a rally in Tennessee on Thursday. He plans to open a campaign office in Nashville. | null | https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/19/mike-bloomberg-calls-for-public-option-in-2020-health-care-proposal.html | Thu, 19 Dec 2019 20:00:21 GMT | 1,576,803,621 | 1,576,814,870 | health | healthcare policy |
100,988 | cnbc--2019-12-26--A decade of Obamacare: How health care went from wrecking to boosting Democrats | 2019-12-26T00:00:00 | cnbc | A decade of Obamacare: How health care went from wrecking to boosting Democrats | House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lost her gavel and regained it in this decade. Obamacare played a major role each time. In 2010, a voter rebellion against the health-care law helped Republicans wallop Democrats and gain House control. Eight years later, Democrats made GOP efforts to scrap Obamacare the centerpiece of their campaigns and then won back the chamber. "I'll just tell you that the lesson from all of this is that health-care policy is treacherous politics," said Carlos Curbelo, a former Republican congressman. He won Florida's swing 26th District in 2014 after a campaign in which he promised to repeal Obamacare, then lost his seat to Democratic Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell in 2018 following a vote to scrap the law. In the nearly 10 years since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became law in March 2010, it has gone from political anchor to tailwind for Democrats. President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement became one of the defining issues of the decade and shaped recent elections more than just about any other policy issue. "Backlash to the ruling party's actions on health care were a significant part of both the 2010 and 2018 waves," said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of election forecasting site Sabato's Crystal Ball. He added that resistance to the law also probably helped the GOP in the 2014 midterms, especially after a messy rollout of the insurance exchange website in 2013. Obamacare sentiment reflects broader trends in American political opinion, Kondik said. Voters often buck the party in power, so the Affordable Care Act was less popular under Obama but gained traction once President Donald Trump took office. Both Democrats and independents started to feel better about Obamacare after Trump entered the White House, driving the increase in popularity, according to monthly Kaiser Family Foundation tracking polls. Democratic calls to maintain the law — particularly its provisions protecting Americans with preexisting medical conditions — appeared to resonate with voters when Republicans got a real chance to replace the health system. "Health care was on the ballot, and health care won," Pelosi told reporters in November 2018 after Democrats flipped House control. The landmark law better known as Obamacare offered new subsidies for buying plans, barred insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, allowed states to expand the joint federal and state Medicaid program for low-income Americans and let children stay on their parents' plans until age 26, among other provisions. Last year, 8.5% of the U.S. population was uninsured, down from 13.3% in 2013, before Obamacare fully took effect. Before the shift, the Affordable Care Act appeared to hurt Democrats politically at the outset as Republicans billed it as a government takeover of health care. While a plurality of voters approved of the law a month after its passage, sentiment changed before the 2010 midterm elections, according to Kaiser surveys. In October 2010, 44% had an unfavorable view of the law, while 42% saw it favorably. In the 2010 elections, Democrats lost 63 House seats. Republicans flipped the chamber and kept control until this year. The GOP also gained six Senate seats. The incumbent president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections. Even so, Obamacare appeared to propel the Democratic drubbing. Nearly half – or 45% – of voters said their 2010 vote was a message of opposition to Obamacare, according to exit polling cited by NBC News in 2014. Only 28% responded that their vote was a message of support for the law. After Republicans took over the House in 2011, then the Senate in 2015, they tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act dozens of times. The party made opposition to the law a central part of its political messaging for years — though Obamacare remained safe as long as its namesake president sat in the Oval Office. The GOP gained another 13 House and nine Senate seats in the 2014 midterms. Following the election, then-House Speaker John Boehner said resistance to the health-care law drove the results. "The American people have made it clear: They're not for Obamacare. Ask all those Democrats who lost their elections Tuesday night. A lot of them voted for Obamacare," he said in November 2014. Exit surveys cited by NBC News suggest the health-care law had a smaller effect in 2014 than it did in 2010. Only 28% of voters said they wanted to express opposition to Obamacare, while 12 percent said they aimed to show support for the law. When Trump won the White House and the GOP held control of Congress in 2016, Republicans finally got their chance to dismantle Obamacare. While the House passed a repeal bill in 2017, the Senate never could. The GOP fell one vote short in a dramatic late-night vote on a bill to roll back major parts of the ACA. The Trump administration has managed to dismantle pieces of Obamacare, both through administrative and legislative action. The GOP tax law passed in 2017 to end the individual mandate, a divisive provision that required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty. Public opinion around the law started to shift after Republicans gained control of the White House and Congress and started to propose their own alternatives to Obamacare. For nearly all of the stretch from February 2013 to February 2017, monthly Kaiser polls found a larger share of adults had a favorable view of the law than unfavorable. But in every month since May 2017, Kaiser has found more adults like the ACA than dislike it. In November, 52% of adults surveyed by Kaiser had a favorable view of Obamacare, versus 41% who had an unfavorable opinion. Curbelo said opposition to Trump, and his most prominent policy push in trying to unravel Obamacare, helped to drive a rough 2018 election for the GOP. "A large part of the debacle that was that election, certainly in the House, can be attributed to health care," he said. The former congressman said he does not regret his vote to pass the American Health Care Act, the House Republican ACA overhaul, even now knowing he lost his seat. Curbelo said the vote "was about keeping [his] word" to repeal and replace Obamacare, which he had promised to do since he first ran for Congress. How Obamacare is shaping the 2020 race Health care will likely play a huge role in the 2020 elections, as well. Democrats have targeted the Trump administration over its decision not to defend Obamacare in a lawsuit seeking to toss out the law. Earlier in December, a federal appeals court ruled that the law's individual mandate was unconstitutional, but left the law largely intact as it punted to a lower court the question of whether the rest of the law should be thrown out. That decision could take another year or so. At the same time, the top Democrats running for the party's presidential nomination all support Obamacare. They only disagree on how best to improve the system. Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., want a "Medicare for All" system to move quickly to insure every American. Former Vice President Joe Biden and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg want Americans to have the option to buy into public insurance while keeping the private system. "There is a significant segment on the left who appears to believe the ACA was insufficient, and even the candidates who are more moderate on health care, like Biden and Buttigieg, who want to do more on health care than the ACA did," Kondik said. "So at the very least, there seems to be some broad consensus that a future Democratic president/congressional majority should build on the ACA." As the popularity of Obamacare — and the former president himself— have grown, Democrats have become more comfortable tying themselves to the ACA and Obama. In a presidential debate in September, Biden pointed to the fact that Warren said she was with Sanders on health care. "Well I'm for Barack. I think Obamacare worked," he said. In releasing his health plan in July, Biden also defended the law passed when he was vice president. "I understand the appeal of Medicare for All," he said. "But folks supporting it should be clear that it means getting rid of Obamacare, and I'm not for that." | null | https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/26/how-obamacare-affected-democrats-in-presidential-elections.html | Thu, 26 Dec 2019 19:19:12 GMT | 1,577,405,952 | 1,577,491,728 | health | healthcare policy |
101,678 | cnn--2019-01-19--5 ways Trump is changing health care | 2019-01-19T00:00:00 | cnn | 5 ways Trump is changing health care | (CNN) President Donald Trump hasn't fulfilled his campaign promise to repeal Obamacare outright, but he's fundamentally reshaped the debate over health care in America in myriad ways during his two years in office. Along with chipping away at the landmark Affordable Care Act, the Trump administration has made a historic and controversial change to Medicaid, allowing states to require many participants who gained coverage through Obamacare to work or lose their benefits. Another major focus of the President: the cost of drugs. Like Democrats, Trump has repeatedly decried the rising price of drugs, and his administration has unveiled multiple proposals to try to contain costs. When it comes to Medicare, the administration has continued to make private Medicare plans more attractive. And in keeping with conservative positions, officials have rolled back access to contraceptives as well as abortion. But after the Republican-controlled Congress failed to repeal Obamacare, Trump unleashed a series of executive changes to further undermine the law. And Trump signed into law the GOP tax cut bill that effectively eliminated the individual mandate by reducing the penalty to $0 -- the basis for a federal court ruling invalidating the entire Affordable Care Act. That ruling is currently being appealed. Trump also eliminated federal payments that help reduce deductibles and out-of-pocket costs for low-income participants, prompting insurers to raise premiums to cover the loss of these cost-sharing subsidies. More recently, the Trump administration told states that they could apply for waivers to make more substantial changes to their Obamacare marketplaces, including altering the rules for who is eligible for federal help paying monthly premiums. These premium subsidies are essential to keeping Obamacare functioning, experts say. Trump officials say their moves are aimed at providing greater access to more affordable health insurance options. They are particularly concerned about younger Americans and those who earn too much to qualify for federal subsidies. But Obamacare supporters say these actions will fray the strong protections for older consumers and those with pre-existing conditions. The Trump administration plans to make even more changes to the Affordable Care Act for the coming year. It recently released a proposal that would increase the maximum amount enrollees have to pay out of pocket -- a change that would affect those in large-employer plans too. At the same time, it would make the federal premium subsidies a bit less generous, which it estimates would decrease enrollment by 100,000 people. But even more consequentially, it is formally exploring eliminating that annual automatic renewal of Obamacare plans. This would have a devastating impact since 1.8 million people in the 39 states using the federal exchange were rolled over this year. Officials are also seeking input on "silver loading," in which carriers increased their rates for silver plans to offset the loss of the cost-sharing subsidy payments. They did this to minimize rate increases on enrollees because federal premium subsidies are based on the second lowest-cost silver plan. So far, only Arkansas has actually implemented the new rules, which require beneficiaries to work, go to school, volunteer or search for jobs for at least 80 hours a month. The impact has been pronounced: More than 18,000 residents have lost coverage. On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly promised to reduce the cost of drugs. While he has issued many tweets lambasting the industry for raising prices and his administration has unveiled many proposals, he hasn't moved the needle too much. One of the boldest and most controversial efforts involves setting Medicare's reimbursement level for certain pricey drugs administered in doctors' offices and hospital outpatient centers based on their cost in other countries, which is typically far lower. This idea prompted howls of "price fixing" from the industry and conservative lawmakers. Patient advocacy groups are concerned about another administration effort that would give Medicare Advantage plans the ability to restrict what medications they'll cover. The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, backed by nearly 60 organizations, just launched a print and digital ad campaign to oppose the policy changes. Pharmaceutical companies aren't heeding the President's call. Sixty drug makers kicked off 2019 by raising list prices on nearly 300 medications, according to an analysis by Rx Savings Solutions. And more drug manufacturers are expected to quietly follow suit in coming weeks. Companies do appear to be tempering their hikes in 2019, however. The average increase was 6.3%, down from nearly 9% a year ago, taking into account different dosages of the same drug. An official with the Department of Health & Human Services pointed to the lower rate of increases this January. One thing that the Trump administration has accomplished is approving a record number of generic drugs, which typically have lower prices. The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates this has saved consumers $26 billion over the first 18 months of Trump's administration. Trump officials are also trying to rein in costs. For instance, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is overhauling how it compensates doctors for office visits, reducing the tiers of payments from five to three, starting in 2021. But it also expanding reimbursements for telehealth services. Another target: The Medicare Accountable Care Organization program, which has more than 10.4 million participants. Established by the Affordable Care Act, these organizations are groups of doctors, hospitals and other providers who voluntarily work together to better coordinate patients' care and reduce health care costs by avoiding duplication of services and medical errors. Known as ACOs, they share in the savings they achieve for Medicare, but only a few are on the hook for any losses they generate. Currently, ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program have up to six years before they must take on costs if their spending per patient exceeds their targets. Officials want to reduce that to as little as one year. "His administration has not proposed directly reducing Medicare benefits or increasing beneficiary payments," said Mark McClellan, a former administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under former President George W. Bush and director of the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy. "Instead, their proposals seek to continue to grow the Medicare Advantage program and continue to push for more payments based on value, not volume." The administration is rolling back regulations that conflict with some Americans' religious beliefs. It issued two rules last year that would free more employers from Obamacare's contraceptive mandate. The first one would allow non-profit and for-profit employers, including publicly traded companies, to receive an exemption based on their religious beliefs. The second would let all but public companies obtain an exemption based on moral objections. Government employers cannot request exemptions. The administration also proposed regulations that would no longer permit federally funded family planning services at the same place where abortions are provided. And it has also proposed requiring Obamacare insurers to bill separately for abortion coverage and to offer plans that do not cover abortions in states that don't mandate it. | Tami Luhby | http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/T7b7wzoknR8/index.html | 2019-01-19 13:14:52+00:00 | 1,547,921,692 | 1,567,551,771 | health | healthcare policy |
103,498 | cnn--2019-03-28--White House has no fresh health care proposal but plans to send one to Congress this year | 2019-03-28T00:00:00 | cnn | White House has no 'fresh' health care proposal, but plans to send one to Congress this year | However, the administration plans to submit a health care replacement to Congress this year, the chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room." "The President will be putting forward plans this year that we hope to introduce into Congress," Marc Short told Blitzer. "But, the reality is the court decision is likely not until the summer of 2020, by the time it would reach the Supreme Court." "We don't know how they would rule," Short said. "The President has said repeatedly he would not sign any law unless it would protect pre-existing conditions." On Monday, the Trump administration said the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down, in a dramatic reversal . The Justice Department said in a filing with a federal appeals court that it agreed with the ruling of a federal judge in Texas that invalidated the Obama-era health care law. The decision came after an internal debate about how to proceed in the wake of a December court ruling that invalidated the entire Affordable Care Act. Trump's Justice Department moved to back the court's decision. But that decision -- while important in terms of keeping a campaign promise to the President's base -- has highlighted the administration's lack of health care policy going forward. Asked whether the White House has a proposal for replacing Obamacare in the event the law is struck down in court, a senior White House official told CNN not as of yet. The official pointed to the proposal from Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the previous Obamacare repeal bill which was ultimately unsuccessful. "But nothing fresh from the White House yet," the official conceded. When, and if, a proposal does come together, it's all but certain to fail in the Democrat-controlled House. | Jim Acosta | http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/Rt8FGQIEDuw/index.html | 2019-03-28 01:24:25+00:00 | 1,553,750,665 | 1,567,544,851 | health | healthcare policy |
103,514 | cnn--2019-03-29--Heres what the GOP plans for health care look like | 2019-03-29T00:00:00 | cnn | Here's what the GOP plans for health care look like | President Donald Trump is calling on Republicans to be the party of health care . But that's not going to be so easy to do since it requires them to have a plan. "The President, I don't think, really has any idea what he's really saying there. It's more of a promotional and marketing impulse on his part," said James Capretta, a health care expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank. "It leaves Republicans open to a little bit more attacks and ridicule by the Democrats that they don't have a plan." While the party hasn't coalesced behind a health care plan, there are policies that Republicans have long supported. Yet some Republican think tanks, particularly the influential Heritage Foundation, are looking to drum up interest on Capitol Hill in their ideas to overhaul the health care system. Some are still pushing a version of a 2017 bill from Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana to replace the Affordable Care Act. The senators unveiled the legislation just before the GOP repeal effort collapsed for good in 2017. It would turn the federal funding for Medicaid expansion and Obamacare's subsidies for premiums and out-of-pocket costs into a block grant program. States would receive a lump sum of money and would have a lot of leeway over how to spend it. The bill would also let states alter several key Obamacare protections for those with pre-existing conditions. While it would still require insurers to provide coverage to everyone, states could adjust other rules, including the mandate that insurers offer comprehensive policies. Also, states could change the pricing rules so that younger, healthier people could see their premiums go down, but those who need care and older Americans in their 50s and 60s could find themselves unable to afford policies. States could also revamp many of Obamacare's financial protections, including limiting how much people must pay out of pocket each year and how much of the tab insurers must pick up. While Trump is enamored of the plan and incorporated it into his budget, it's not likely to get far in the Senate. Asked whether Congress could come together on a replacement plan, Graham told CNN's Kate Bolduan Wednesday that he doubts it. Revamping the nation's health care system isn't exactly the GOP's strong suit. The party failed spectacularly to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act in 2017 when it dominated Washington. The task will be only harder now that Democrats control the House and are pushing plans to strengthen Obamacare and protections for those with pre-existing conditions, likely a sharp contrast to whatever proposals or talking points Republicans roll out. Key GOP senators also haven't expressed much appetite for going into full-scale battle again over the Affordable Care Act. Asked about health care, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa on Wednesday pointed to his finance committee's work on lowering prescription drug prices. He is collaborating on that effort with Ranking Member Ron Wyden of Oregon. "Most of it's going to be very, very bipartisan," Grassley said of his committee's plans on health care. Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri said he will let the Trump administration take the lead. "All I'm going to say about that for a while is that I'm eager to see what the administration proposes," he said Wednesday. The Trump administration, however, is not waiting for Congress to change the health care system, particularly Obamacare. Its strategy centers on letting states overhaul their health programs. For instance, it has allowed states to implement work requirements in its Medicaid program and is now considering requests to let states expand coverage only to those below the poverty line. Meanwhile, a coalition of conservative groups and several GOP state representatives last year rolled out the Health Care Choices Proposal, which includes giving states more control and sending them a fixed amount of money, relaxing federal mandates and strengthening the private insurance market. It also calls for bolstering Health Savings Accounts, which allow people to set aside funds for future health care needs. Republicans have long pushed HSAs, but critics say only higher-income Americans can afford to use them. "The Republican answer needs to address the things Americans are telling us that we want," said Marie Fishpaw, director of domestic policy studies at Heritage, which is part of the coalition. "They want to make sure that they and the people they love don't lose access to coverage or care if they get sick. They want lower costs and they want better choices." | Tami Luhby | http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/nFJsRF4XLrE/index.html | 2019-03-29 07:48:52+00:00 | 1,553,860,132 | 1,567,544,800 | health | healthcare policy |
103,618 | cnn--2019-04-02--Analysis Sanders sharpens the choice Democrats face on health care | 2019-04-02T00:00:00 | cnn | Analysis: Sanders sharpens the choice Democrats face on health care | (CNN) Congressional Democrats are locking arms to protect the Affordable Care Act -- the party's signature achievement during Barack Obama's presidency -- as President Donald Trump renews his efforts to repeal it. In media interviews last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders -- among the front-runners for the party's 2020 presidential nomination -- pointedly refused to endorse legislation that House Democrats had introduced to expand the ACA and to block Trump administration initiatives designed to weaken some of its core consumer protections. Instead, Sanders underscored his support for replacing the ACA with "Medicare for All" legislation, in which government would become the "single payer" for virtually all health care services. "The incremental reform that I support," Sanders told The New York Times , "is phasing in 'Medicare for All.' " Even when Sanders later wrote on Twitter that Democrats "must defend the ACA from Trump's assault," he did not specifically endorse the House bill and sharply added that "protecting the ACA will not fully solve the health care crisis." Sanders' cool posture toward the House legislation crystallizes the critical choice Democrats face on health care. On Tuesday, Trump tweeted that Republicans would seek to replace the ACA after the 2020 election, thus increasing the chances voters view the race as a referendum on whether to rescind the law. With Trump again emphasizing his determination to undo the ACA -- both by backing litigation that would invalidate the entire law and by proposing to replace it with block grants for states in his latest budget -- Democrats must decide how to respond. The choice is whether to center the party's 2020 health care message on defending and reinforcing the ACA or to offer their own fundamental change by proposing to replace the law with a single-payer plan that would eliminate virtually all private health insurance. That choice, in turn, illuminates the broader crossroads awaiting Democrats in the 2020 election. More than any of his rivals, Sanders is betting that voters are open to fundamental changes that would vastly expand government's role in the economy. Although the party's center of gravity has undeniably moved left since the Vermont independent's unexpectedly strong showing against Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, almost all of the other contenders -- with the arguable exception of Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts -- are offering more incremental changes that accept greater limits on government, both in cost and degree of control over the private-sector economy. The congressional Democratic leadership is tilting clearly toward the latter camp, for instance by stressing the legislation to repair the ACA rather than the single-payer proposal that excites the left. Almost all leading Democrats are now receptive to a greater role for government than in the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton famously declared, "The era of big government is over." Even compared with Obama, most of the 2020 field is offering proposals, on everything from increasing teacher pay (Sen. Kamala Harris of California) to imposing a wealth tax (Warren), that envision a more expansive -- and expensive -- role for Washington in driving economic and social change. What do the voters want? But the question of how much change -- and how great a role for government -- the electorate will accept looms as a key dividing line in the 2020 Democratic race. That will be especially true if former Vice President Joe Biden enters the race as expected. With his long roots in more centrist Democratic politics, Biden would likely question whether vanguard liberal goals such as a government takeover of health care, the near-term elimination of fossil fuels, or tuition-free public higher education are electorally feasible, or even desirable from a policy perspective. An extensive new poll of likely Democratic primary voters released Friday by Third Way, a centrist Democratic group, offers some hints on how this debate may unfold. The survey, conducted March 7 to 10 by Democratic pollster David Binder, generally found most Democratic voters leaning toward incremental change rather than a radical restructuring of government and the economy. That instinct surfaced across an array of questions: Still, detailed results found a greater constituency for fundamental change among likely Democratic voters younger than 35. Nearly two-fifths of them in the survey, far more than older generations, preferred a candidate who called themselves a Democratic socialist rather than one who wanted to mend capitalism. And the share of younger Democrats who preferred a nominee who moved left to generate enthusiasm, while still a minority, was also higher than for older generations. Those findings help explain why Sanders ran so well among younger voters in 2016, and why polls again show him attracting much more support among younger than older Democrats. Health care remains the issue where these broader choices are likely to reach the sharpest point for Democrats through the 2020 election. Single payer legislation in which government would eliminate private health insurance and directly fund a guaranteed package of benefits through tax dollars remains the rallying cry for the left. Four other 2020 presidential contenders -- Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Harris and Warren -- have endorsed Sanders' single payer bill in the Senate. In the House, 105 voting Democrats have endorsed the companion bill from Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state. Fixing it vs. starting over That bill, which would overturn Trump administration actions loosening protections for patients under the ACA and increase subsidies for people to buy insurance through the law, embodies the bread-and-butter focus that most Democrats emphasized on health care in the 2018 midterm elections -- and that many party strategists see as the most appealing course for 2020. The bill represents a first step toward one future health care path for Democrats: building on existing programs, including the ACA and Medicare. For many Democrats, the next step might be legislation that allows all adults (or those over 50, depending on the proposal) to buy into Medicare while permitting those who want to maintain private health insurance to keep it. Presidential contender Beto O'Rourke aligned with that option in his kickoff campaign speech Saturday in El Paso, Texas, when he declared: "We can give every American, every business in this country the choice to enroll in Medicare without eliminating plans that many Americans like for their families because those plans work for their families." Sanders' position confused many Democratic health care experts and angered party centrists. (Asked for further detail on his view, his Senate office pointed to his tweet last week.) "This is tone deaf among all but a small slice of Democratic primary voters," said Jim Kessler, Third Way's executive vice president for policy. "With so many people afraid about pre-existing conditions and losing their health care under Trump, there is a moral urgency to be pragmatic while we also try to get to universal coverage. This is precisely why Bernie Sanders has a ceiling (of support) and he just bumped up against it." Still, the outcome of this debate among Democratic primary voters is far from certain. Democrats under 50 preferred focusing on single-payer by a double-digit margin, while those over 50 narrowly broke toward strengthening the ACA, according to detailed results provided by Kaiser. Whatever policy Democrats ultimately endorse, Trump has guaranteed a stark contrast in 2020 by renewing his efforts to repeal the ACA. The question is whether Democrats will counter that with proposals to build on the law or offer their own blueprint for uprooting and replacing it, as Sanders is urging. | Ronald Brownstein | http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/IBK3UcXq9uY/index.html | 2019-04-02 13:08:14+00:00 | 1,554,224,894 | 1,567,544,377 | health | healthcare policy |
103,642 | cnn--2019-04-02--McConnell Republicans call Trump after health care flip-flop | 2019-04-02T00:00:00 | cnn | McConnell, Republicans call Trump after health care flip-flop | (CNN) President Donald Trump's surprising new position last week on taking another legislative run at repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act left Republican lawmakers scrambling in his wake. But several, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, took a proven path to try and talk Trump down from what they saw as an untenable position on the divisive issue: talk to him directly. Over the course of several days, Republican lawmakers attempted to dissuade Trump from his stated idea that Republicans should craft a new replacement plan, according to multiple sources. The focus, some argued, should be on prescription drug costs. But definitely staying away from a fractious intraparty debate that House Republicans like Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy firmly believe cost the GOP the House in the 2018 midterms. Or in what several sources called the most persuasive argument: framing the election around Democratic calls for Medicare-for-all. That was a specific message from McConnell in a weekend phone call, the sources said. The point was that with Democratic presidential candidates -- not to mention the energy of the progressive base -- are lining up behind the proposal, it provided a ripe target for the party. Add to that any Senate Republican effort this Congress would be completely rebuffed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and that defending Obamacare was a unifying issue for Democrats. It makes political sense, rather, for Republicans to be patient rather than throw out their own -- potentially unpopular -- plans. "(Trump) has some big ideas and to his credit wants to solve problems. That's what leaders do," said Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota. "But you run into that wall of reality at some point, and, I think, trying to convey what the obstacles are to getting done what he wants done, done in the next two years, is something a number of our members conveyed to him." Republican campaign arms and outside groups had already launched initial salvos attacking the Medicare-for-all proposal, (or in McConnell's parlance: "Medicare-for-none") and are working on shifting the focus at this stage could create new openings for frontline Democratic candidates and risks for Trump himself. McConnell and other Republican lawmakers have also already spent time attacking Democrats on the proposal in floor speeches and press conferences themselves. "I look forward to seeing what the President is proposing and what he can work out with the speaker," McConnell told Politico in a brief interview last week. "I am focusing on stopping the 'Democrats' Medicare for none' scheme." The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump's calls with McConnell. The calls, especially McConnell's, had an impact on the President, who, according to one of the sources, secured the commitment that Trump would instead focus his energy on attacking Medicare-for-all and wait to see what the election led to before moving forward on any legislative efforts. It was a framing reflected by the President himself in a tweet thread Monday night, that amounted to a full flip from his claims last week, and once again displays his haphazard approach to policymaking. "Everybody agrees that ObamaCare doesn't work," Trump tweeted. "Premiums & deductibles are far too high - Really bad HealthCare! Even the Dems want to replace it, but with Medicare for all, which would cause 180 million Americans to lose their beloved private health insurance." "The Republicans are developing a really great HealthCare Plan with far lower premiums (cost) & deductibles than ObamaCare. In other words it will be far less expensive & much more usable than ObamaCare," Trump said. "Vote will be taken right after the Election when Republicans hold the Senate & win back the House." But one White House official said Trump's tweets "shouldn't be misunderstood to mean we won't be pushing our own version of health care -- basically health care policy principles." The official said Trump is acknowledging the reality that there is not much hope for "Trumpcare" -- whatever that plan might be -- to make it through a Democratic-controlled House. "He's just being realistic that there's no room for bipartisanship on this prior to 2020," the official said. A separate senior White House official said Trump is simply stating more explicitly what White House aides have always known: that there will be no bill to replace Obamacare that can get through this Congress. However, the official said "there is every intention of having a proposal" that Republicans can put on the table. And yet, multiple White House officials Tuesday morning declined to commit that the President would actually release a plan before the 2020 election. When asked by CNN if the President will commit to releasing a plan before the election, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said she would not answer the question, saying only the President wants to talk about "principles." | Phil Mattingly | http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/ct5Bl4E86ig/index.html | 2019-04-02 16:58:59+00:00 | 1,554,238,739 | 1,567,544,378 | health | healthcare policy |
104,994 | cnn--2019-05-30--Trump takes aim at insurers and hospitals over health care costs | 2019-05-30T00:00:00 | cnn | Trump takes aim at insurers and hospitals over health care costs | Now he's setting his sights on insurers, hospitals and other providers as a way to achieve one of his top promises -- lowering costs for consumers. The administration is considering requiring these players to disclose the rates they privately negotiate, an idea that has sparked a backlash from the influential industry. The Department of Health & Human Services touched on the concept in a proposed rule released in March, noting that making such information public could drive health care prices down. Now, the administration is preparing an executive order that could require greater disclosure of negotiated health prices, a move first reported by the Wall Street Journal Trump teased the effort earlier this month, saying that his administration plans to announce a new transparency effort in coming weeks. While the President and administration officials often say they want to reduce government regulation on businesses to unleash more economic power, they acknowledge it doesn't mean hands off completely. "We don't have a competitive market because we are not requiring price transparency," Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, told CNN. "That's where the government has a role to play -- in ensuring that we have a competitive free market and to make sure there's a level playing field so providers can compete for patients on the basis of price and quality. That's what we are trying to drive towards." Just how transparent health care prices should be, however, remains a point of contention. The executive order has been delayed by internal disputes over how aggressively to mandate disclosure, according to the Journal. Asked what type of disclosure she is focused on, Verma said: "Those are some of the things we are grappling with internally. At the end of the day, we want patients to understand what they are going to pay in advance." Officials have already taken some initial steps to require drug makers and medical providers to release more cost information, though it has generally focused on the industry's list prices rather than the negotiated rates or what consumers are actually billed. Some experts question how much this will actually achieve, especially, they say, since most Americans don't shop when it comes to health care. "Requiring the inclusion of drugs' list prices in TV ads is the single most significant step any administration has taken toward a simple commitment: American patients deserve to know the prices of the healthcare they receive," Azar said. And starting this year, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is requiring hospitals to post their standard charges for their services on their websites in a format that can be imported into a computer system. It plans to do more in this arena to allow patients to more easily compare prices, as well as quality, said Verma, who believes consumers are interested in prices -- especially when they are still subject to deductibles -- and do have to power to influence what providers charge. So far, however, the administration's efforts will likely do little to help consumers or to rein in health care spending, some experts said. Most people don't pay the list price for drugs or the full cost for hospital services so this information will not tell them much about what they are on the hook for and could even dissuade them from pursuing care. The majority of Americans have health insurance, so what they pay is typically based on the deals the carriers work out with the health care providers and on their particular policies. What consumers are more interested in is their out-of-pocket costs for a medication or medical service. That's why policy experts were more encouraged by a new rule that would require insurers in the Medicare Part D drug program to provide doctors with real-time information on patients' prescription benefits, including what a particular medication would cost them. Still, even when consumers have tools to give them pricing information, they don't really shop around for health care, said Lynn Quincy, director of Altarum Healthcare Value Hub, a non-profit research firm. And they don't have the muscle to get doctors and hospitals to lower their charges. "The people with the power to put pressure on providers is not the patient -- that's just really a ridiculous notion," Quincy said. "But the health plan who is at the point of contracting with providers for the next year, they're the ones who can say whether or not a given rate is out of line with the market." Releasing details about the negotiated rates between specific insurers and hospitals, however, could reveal which providers are charging high prices. That could prompt insurers -- and large employers -- to try to get a better deal. For instance, California Public Employees' Retirement System, which manages health benefits for more than 1.5 million members and their families, saw its spending drop after it set a maximum reimbursement level of $30,000 for hip and knee replacements in 2011, Quincy said. Patients, who had to foot the bill for any amount above this reference price, flocked to lower-priced hospitals, prompting some costlier institutions to lower their charges. But some worry that more information could actually lead to higher prices. If the secret negotiations in the drug supply chain became public, for example, it might prompt those who charge less to demand more, said Ian Spatz, a senior adviser at Manatt Health, a consulting firm. "It's great politics, but bad public health policy and bad economics," Spatz said. Health care industry associations are already lining up to quash the idea of disclosing contracted rates, which they argue could cause more harm than good. The insurers' trade group pointed to a 2015 Federal Trade Commission blog post that said too much transparency can interfere with competition in the medical market. "If every contract and every negotiated rate were public, no doctor or hospital would want to be paid the lowest rate -- they would all be motivated to demand higher payments," said Matt Eyles, CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans. The main hospital lobbying organization also opposes this type of disclosure, saying that patients are more interested in their out-of-pocket costs. "Disclosing negotiated rates between insurers and hospitals could undermine the choices available in the private market," Tom Nickels, executive vice president at the American Hospital Association said in March when the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services first broached the idea. "While we support transparency, this approach misses the mark." | Tami Luhby | http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/f8RBBo3-MtM/index.html | 2019-05-30 19:03:42+00:00 | 1,559,257,422 | 1,567,539,737 | health | healthcare policy |
105,560 | cnn--2019-06-28--The Bernie Effect Sanders sets the bar in Democratic health care debate | 2019-06-28T00:00:00 | cnn | The Bernie Effect: Sanders sets the bar in Democratic health care debate | For a second straight night in Miami, the political prospects of "Medicare for All" dominated stretches of the debate as candidates sparred over its cost, the radical overhaul that would be required to make it a reality, and whether support for a single-payer system would scare off moderate voters the party is banking on to boost its fate in 2020. But for all the sharp and sometimes shout-y exchanges, there was one thing that no one on the stage disputed: the end goal. Universal coverage in the United States is now the default position of the Democratic Party's top presidential hopefuls -- even for those whose actual plans may not achieve it. The questions going forward are about ambition and, most pointedly, process. Some candidates prefer a path that preserves a place for private insurance. Others, like Sanders, would do away with them as soon as possible. Others prefer a path that preserves a place for insurers, primarily by adding a public option to the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Even the harshest critics of Medicare for All -- former Maryland Rep. John Delaney and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper -- argue that their plans would cover anyone and everyone who wants it, even though the public option proposals would have a more limited impact than Sanders' ambitious plan. The shift among Democrats began before Sanders became a household name during his 2016 primary run. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, when they faced off in 2008, debated the details of a policy that ended up becoming the Affordable Care Act. Generations of Democrats of have toyed with ideas for expanding or guaranteeing coverage. But it is Sanders' relentless push for Medicare for All -- a proposal with 14 Senate co-sponsors in its latest iteration -- that has set a measuring stick among Democrats in this primary. "The fact of the matter is that the quickest, fastest way to do it is build on Obamacare, to build on what we did (during the Obama administration)," Biden said. "And, secondly, to make sure that everyone does have an option. Everyone, whether they have private insurance or employer insurance and no insurance, they, in fact, can buy in, in the exchange to a Medicare-like plan." The questions candidates face over the policy have also matured. And the bar, for those who want to project their support, has risen -- or become more clearly defined. On both debate nights, moderators asked for a show of hands from those who wanted to eliminate private insurance as part of their road to achieving universal coverage. For activists, this is where the rubber meets the road -- the answer, for those who say yes, that will invite the harshest blowback. On Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren -- who then said "I'm with Bernie on Medicare for all" -- and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio raised their hands. Sanders, who has made clear that any lesser step would fail to realize his goal, and Sen. Kamala Harris did the same a night later. (Harris has since said she misheard the question; she would be willing to give up her own private insurance but would not get rid of the industry.) Hickenlooper has been one of Sanders' most vocal critics. He warned, again, on Thursday night that the Vermont senator's agenda and embrace of democratic socialism risked opening up the entire field to unwarranted Republican attacks. But when he began to speak about health care, even Hickenlooper opened with a line that Sanders so often uses himself. "I believe that health care is a right and not a privilege," he said, before launching his rebuttal, arguing that "you can't expect to eliminate private insurance for 180 million people, many of whom don't want to give it up. In Colorado, we brought businesses and nonprofits together, and we got near universal health care coverage." Like his fellow Centennial State Democrat, Sen. Michael Bennet does not support Medicare for all. But when he was invited to criticize Sanders on the issue, Bennet moved swiftly along to his own plans. "I have proposed getting to universal health care, which we need to do. It is a right. Health care is a right," Bennet said. "We need to get to universal health care. I believe the way to do that is by finishing the work we started with Obamacare and creating a public option." The choice, he added, "would be like having Medicare for All." New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand jumped in when Bennet escalated his argument against Medicare for All, noting that she helped write a piece of the legislation -- its four-year phase-in plan -- and argued that it "merges what the (Sanders and Bennet) said." Despite keeping her hand down when the candidates were asked about abolishing private insurance, Gillibrand has -- after Sanders -- the longest track record of supporting a single-payer program. "In 2005, when I ran for Congress in a 2-to-1 Republican district, I actually ran on Medicare for all, and I won that 2-to-1 Republican district twice," Gillibrand said. "And the way I formulated it was simple: anyone who doesn't have access to insurance they like, they could buy it at a percentage of income they could afford." The argument over the best -- and least politically dangerous -- process for achieving universal coverage has, for many of the candidates, now overtaken whether or not it is desirable or even feasible. And it has led some of the rivals to overstate how closely their proposals hew to Sanders' grand plan. "Everybody who says Medicare for All, every person in politics who allows that phrase to escape their lips has a responsibility to explain how you're actually supposed to get from here to there," South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg said, before explaining his preferred path forward. "It's very similar, I would call it 'Medicare for all who want it,' " he said. And it would begin, Buttigieg explained, with some "flavor" of Medicare being offered as an option to every American. The result, he said, would be "a very natural glide path to the single-payer environment." | Gregory Krieg | http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/FzEOxPmR2gE/index.html | 2019-06-28 12:33:46+00:00 | 1,561,739,626 | 1,567,537,746 | health | healthcare policy |
106,080 | cnn--2019-07-30--Sanders says Kamala Harris health care plan is not Medicare for All | 2019-07-30T00:00:00 | cnn | Sanders says Kamala Harris' health care plan is 'not Medicare for All' | Washington (CNN) Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday stressed the differences between his single-payer health care plan and a new proposal from Sen. Kamala Harris, labeling her approach "not ' Medicare for All.' " Harris' plan, which was released Monday, would put the US on the path toward a government-backed health insurance system over the course of 10 years but stops short of completely eliminating private insurance. The future of health care in America has marked a rare point of difference in the crowded 2020 Democratic field. "Well, first of all, I like Kamala. She's a friend of mine, but her plan is not Medicare for All," Sanders told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead," hosted from Detroit on Monday. "What Medicare for All understands is that health care is a human right and the function of a sane health care system is not to make sure that insurance companies and drug companies make tens of billions of dollars in profit." "The function of Medicare for All is to guarantee health care to all people as soon as possible," Sanders continued. Speaking to Harris' goal to achieve Medicare for All in 10 years, Sanders said, "We think that four years is as long as it should be, not 10 years." "And that's one of the reasons I disagree with Sen. Harris," he added. Members of the Sanders campaign flooded the airwaves in defense of Medicare for All and against Harris' plan on Monday. "Unfortunately, I think we've seen two major changes," Faiz Shakir, the campaign manager told CNN's Poppy Harlow on "Newsroom." "One is she's decided she would like to privatize Medicare. She would like to introduce more insurance companies into Medicare. That introduces more corporate greed and profit seeking into Medicare. The second thing she wants to do is phase it in over 10 years, not in one term of a presidency, not in two, but that you would have to wait 10 years for people who have been struggling." Shakir pointed out that Harris has not signed on to the pledge put forth by the Sanders campaign to reject donations from pharmaceutical executives as another sign that her campaign does not have its priorities right on health care. "I don't believe Kamala Harris said she would take that pledge," Shakir said. "What that means is are you willing to fight these health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies when you're in the Oval Office. And I don't think we know that. I don't think we have confidence. And obviously the plan here is suggesting that there's some concern over taking them on." Josh Orton, the Sanders campaign's policy director, told CNN, "It's bad policy, bad politics, and compared to Medicare for All it vastly expands the ability for private insurance corporations to profit from overbilling and denying care to vulnerable patients who need it the most." On the role private insurance companies play in Harris' plan, the Sanders campaign's chief of staff Ari Rabin-Havt, told CNN, "It would give a lot of money and a lot of power to private insurance companies over people's health care, and that's not what we believe in." Harris wrote in a post outlining her plan that Medicare would "set the rules of the road." "We will allow private insurers to offer Medicare plans as part of this system that adhere to strict Medicare requirements on costs and benefits," she said. "Medicare will set the rules of the road for these plans, including price and quality, and private insurance companies will play by those rules, not the other way around." Warren told CNN Monday that while she hadn't "seen the details" of Harris' plan, she emphasized her support for Medicare for All. "I'm not here to attack other Democrats. I'm here to talk about what I believe in," she said. "And as I've tried to make clear, I believe that health care is a basic human right. And I will fight for basic human rights. That means Medicare for all as the best possible way to give us maximum coverage at the lowest possible cost." "Medicare for All critics tell us that Americans just love their private health insurance companies," Sanders said earlier this month. "You know what? I have never met one person who loves their insurance company." | Annie Grayer | http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/UnvUg9omlUg/index.html | 2019-07-30 00:59:27+00:00 | 1,564,462,767 | 1,567,535,366 | health | healthcare policy |
109,679 | cnsnews--2019-01-30--Math Problem Could Sink Democratic Socialists Plans for Americas Health Care Economy | 2019-01-30T00:00:00 | cnsnews | Math Problem Could Sink Democratic Socialists’ Plans for America’s Health Care, Economy | The greatest constraint on the objectives of democratic socialists in Congress, such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Senator Bernie Sanders, may not be Republicans or even centrist Democrats—but rather, two government institutions, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). JCT and CBO have developed sophisticated models of the U.S. economy and federal budget, and they use those models to help Congress understand the impact of its legislative proposals. Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders have championed several policies that would greatly expand federal spending, such as implementing a single-payer health care system and radically expanding the scope of environmental regulations. According to an Urban Institute analysis, the healthcare plan alone would raise federal expenditures by $32 trillion over ten years. Though the CBO and JCT have not yet analyzed such policies—they usually wait until the plans are more developed—when they do, their analyses will find that the only way to finance such large increases in federal spending is through much higher taxes, a politically unpalatable result that will surely make headlines and produce difficulties for any nascent legislation. I worked for several years at a research group called the Tax Foundation that advised members of Congress and President Trump’s economic team during the 2017 tax reform process. These policymakers had to be mindful of the JCT scores. I therefore began to learn how sensitive its model is to policy ideas—what it “likes” and “dislikes,” if you will. My experience taught me that Democrats will have a treacherous path ahead as they try to push legislation such as single-payer healthcare. There are four reasons why, which I outline below. The JCT’s and CBO’s macroeconomic models despise deficits. Both operate on the same assumption about deficits, which is that federal budget deficits reduce economic growth. The theory goes like this: when the government borrows, lenders choose to lend to the government instead of to private-sector businesses. This is sometimes called a “crowd-out” effect, in that government borrowing will “crowd out” funds that would otherwise have been lent to the businesses. With less money available to businesses, they invest less, and the workers are less productive. This is a problem for those on the left, like Ocasio-Cortez, who seeks to fund her environmental program, known as the “Green New Deal,” with debt. The standard line on the left is that a government deficit will put more money in the hands of consumers, who will spend it on goods and services. Employers will then hire more workers to satisfy that demand. But the CBO and JCT operate on the crowd-out assumption, and it is very strong in their models. In recent publications, the CBO has shown that a policy of $500 billion in debt-financed public investment reduces GDP in the long run. In other words, the positive effects of the public investment are ultimately outweighed by the negative effects of the deficit. 2. The Model Knows Where the Money Is The distribution of U.S. income is less skewed towards the extremely wealthy than democratic socialists imagine, and the mechanisms they propose to fund their policies will be woefully insufficient. For example, Ocasio-Cortez, in an interview on 60 Minutes, proposed a 70 percent marginal tax rate applied only to income above $10 million a year to finance her Green New Deal. At first, this may sound like a substantial revenue-raising tax: people earning above that threshold have a lot of money, and the U.S. produces a fair number of them—over 16,000 as of 2016, according to IRS data. But this group of earners has only $245 billion of taxable income above the $10 million threshold. That comes to just over 1 percent of GDP. Most of the money in the U.S. lies elsewhere. Starting with a tax base this small limits the revenue one could possibly raise; for example, even the high rates set by Ocasio-Cortez would raise only between $164 billion and $382 billion over ten years, according to an estimate from the independent Penn Wharton Budget Model. This is not enough for the Green New Deal, which is intended to be a multi-trillion-dollar investment. Furthermore, any tax increases intended for the Green New Deal will be unavailable for health care reform, and vice versa. Obviously, democratic socialist proposals will need a bigger tax base to work. Sanders, for his part, seeks to capture a larger tax base: the vast income earned by middle and upper-middle class Americans. In his 2016 presidential campaign, Sanders proposed broad-based tax increases on virtually all Americans. His 2016 platform included many taxes, including a payroll tax that would affect all workers. Taxpayers in the middle quintile (40th to 60th percentile) for income, for example, would see a tax hike of 8 percent. Overall tax revenues would increase by $15.3 trillion over ten years, but even this would be insufficient to pay for his spending proposals. According to the Urban Institute, Sanders’ tax proposals would pay for only $15.3 trillion of the $33.3 trillion of spending he had proposed. It is certainly theoretically possible to raise taxes to cover ambitious programs. But these tax increases must be distributed broadly across the U.S. population—and they must be truly enormous, so big that nobody, not even Bernie Sanders, has had the courage to propose them. 3. The Model Distributes Taxes on Institutions to Individuals Democratic socialists might propose raising taxes on businesses or institutions instead of individuals to make their policies more politically palatable. For example, consider the Cadillac Tax from the Affordable Care Act. It was intended to be a 40 percent levy on expensive health care plans, those with premiums exceeding $10,800 for individuals or $29,500 for families. The tax would be applied only to the amount by which those thresholds were exceeded, and paid by insurance companies. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who advised Democrats on the policy later explained that the strategy for the tax was “mislabeling it,” by “calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know it's a tax on people who hold those insurance plans." What Gruber described is the difference between legal incidence and economic incidence. While insurance companies would write the check for the Cadillac Tax, incurring the legal incidence, they would also likely raise the cost of plans eligible for the tax, passing on the tax to the insured. In effect, the insured would still end up paying the tax, just indirectly, with the insurance company acting as a middleman. Since the insured still loses money because of the tax, he incurs the economic incidence of the tax. The economic incidence is certainly less immediately visible than legal incidence. But the JCT’s distributional analysis does not play these political games. It passes on the tax increase on an institution to the individuals who ultimately feel the burden. For example, if Ocasio-Cortez proposes raising taxes on oil companies as part of an environmental package, she would effectively be advocating for a tax on the middle class; the JCT model will show that oil companies will pass the cost along to oil consumers. As a footnote, the Cadillac Tax has still not gone into effect. Its implementation has now been delayed until 2022 in a series of bipartisan votes because of political pressure from anti-tax groups and unions. The constituency against middle- and upper-middle-class tax increases is strong, even if the incidence is only economic. The JCT model suggests that people respond to tax increases in ways that will be unhelpful to Democrats. First, the model accounts for the fact that people work less and take more leisure hours when their wages are taxed more. This is known as the substitution elasticity of labor to taxation. The effect is small—typically, for every 10% increase in marginal tax rates, there’s a 2% decrease in labor supply. Lower labor supply reduces economic growth, a result that critics of the Democrats will surely note. An even more difficult problem may be with capital gains taxes. Specifically, Democrats might propose hiking taxes on capital gains to pay for their projects. But empirical experience and JCT models both hold that as capital gains taxes rise, people sell stock less often, so as to defer paying the tax. Recent JCT research into the subject suggests that for every 10% increase in capital gains taxes, capital gains from stock sales fall about 8% in the long run because of fewer sales. In many cases, especially in the short run, the increase in tax rate is swamped entirely by this effect, meaning tax hikes on capital gains could lose revenue. Those are just four of the problems democratic socialists must face in turning their policies into viable legislation. Many establishment Democrats respect JCT and CBO, and will require acceptable numbers from the analyses of these two governmental groups. The only way democratic socialist policies will pass muster with the CBO and JCT is if they’re dramatically reformed. But that will require a willingness to compromise that Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders have thus far not demonstrated. Alan was an Economist with the Center for Federal Tax Policy at the Tax Foundation from 2013 to 2017 and is a contributor to Economics21. : This piece was originally published by Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute. | Alan Cole | https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/alan-cole/math-problem-could-sink-democratic-socialists-plans-americas-health-care | 2019-01-30 21:18:53+00:00 | 1,548,901,133 | 1,567,550,213 | health | healthcare policy |
112,258 | cnsnews--2019-04-30--New California Bill Would Turn College Health Centers Into Abortion Clinics | 2019-04-30T00:00:00 | cnsnews | New California Bill Would Turn College Health Centers Into Abortion Clinics | The California state Senate Education Committee recently approved Senate Bill 24, known as the College Student Right to Access Act. The bill would add a new chapter to state education code to require student health care clinics at all 34 California public colleges and universities to “offer abortion by medication techniques”—aka “the abortion pill”—starting on Jan. 1, 2023. A similar bill, SB 320, was put forward last year by the same state senator, Connie Leyva, D-Chino. Thankfully, it was vetoed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a fellow Democrat, who saw the mandate as “unnecessary” since “the services required by this bill are widely available off-campus.” In his veto statement, Brown said that “according to a study sponsored by supporters of this legislation, the average distance to abortion providers in campus communities varies from five to seven miles, not an unreasonable distance.” The study he was referring to was commissioned by the University of California at San Francisco, which supports the campus abortion mandate. That only shows how college campuses are targeted by the abortion industry. SB 24 and last year’s SB 320 are similar, but SB 24 includes new grant amounts and deadlines for implementation, as well as language that would allow “contracted external agency” personnel to administer chemical abortions in student health centers. In other words, the public university system in California could begin contracting with Planned Parenthood to send its abortionists into student health centers to administer chemical abortions. That means Leyva and the other sponsors of the bill made no effort to address serious flaws with this type of mandate, raised by both sides of the debate. Even the universities themselves are apprehensive. Putting the abortion business on campus does not meet a need, but places considerable liabilities on the colleges. To bring this bill up a second time without addressing its many serious flaws shows a reckless disregard for the 400,000 young women on those 34 public campuses. You can imagine what potential risks and liabilities would come with forcing colleges to dispense the abortion pill. Foremost among the many concerns about SB 24 is its vague funding language. Like its failed predecessor, SB 24 would allow the $10.2 million in private funds to cover costs associated with the purchase of new equipment, facility upgrades, staff training, and other costs associated with making student health clinics ready to administer chemical abortions. Also, as with SB 320, SB 24’s funding mechanism is vague and leaves open the possibility of taxpayer-funded abortion after 2023. It provides no safeguards to prohibit state funds or student fees from paying for the ongoing support of the program. Public funding of abortion is something we know that a majority of Americans strongly oppose, yet SB 24 takes no precautions to prevent that. Not saying “no” is effectively saying “yes.” Furthermore, the legislation offers no maternal assistance for women who choose not to abort. It supports abortions only. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research found that more than one-quarter of all undergraduate students are raising dependent children—yet no assistance is offered for them. Parenthood and education are compatible, and there are plenty of women who can prove that. A bill that purposely goes out of its way to take away women’s children, rather than help them raise their babies and continue their education, is a slap in the face to “women’s empowerment.” “Abortion by medication techniques,” as the legislation calls it, involves early-stage chemical abortions via the abortion pill, but it can still be quite traumatic. What makes chemical abortions different from surgical abortions is that the mother has to see and dispose of the remains of the aborted child herself. One can imagine the mental trauma that would occur to a young woman whose abortion takes place in her college dorm room or in a student health center bathroom. Is that really a good thing for a young college woman? But legislation like SB 24 couldn’t care less about women. It only cares about expanding the business of abortion. Abortion proponents, however, view such a mandate as model legislation for other states to follow, and California is vying to be the first state to implement it. The California state Senate Health Committee first passed the bill on a 7-3 vote, and it has now passed out of the Senate Education Committee. The next stop is the Committee on Appropriations, which is set to meet next week. Brown’s successor, Gov. Gavin Newsom, has already insinuated his support for the bill, and that has only encouraged supporters of SB 24. However, it’s still not known how much support will actually come from the public universities themselves, which remain apprehensive of the considerable liability that they would have to assume. Patrina Mosley is the director of life, culture, and women’s advocacy at the Family Research Council. : This piece was originally published by The Daily Signal. | Patrina Mosley | https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/patrina-mosley/new-california-bill-would-turn-college-health-centers-abortion-clinics | 2019-04-30 20:29:52+00:00 | 1,556,670,592 | 1,567,541,600 | health | healthcare policy |
114,019 | cnsnews--2019-07-31--Delaney Challenges Sanders and Warren on Health Insurance We Dont Have toBe the Party of Subtr | 2019-07-31T00:00:00 | cnsnews | Delaney Challenges Sanders and Warren on Health Insurance: 'We Don't Have to...Be the Party of Subtraction' | (CNSNews.com) - Health care was the first issue raised at the CNN-hosted Democrat debate, where moderators cut off many candidates before they could finish their answers. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a candidate who wants to do away with private insurance in favor of "Medicare for All," told the audience: "We are not about trying to take away health care from anyone. That's what the Republicans are trying to do." Warren was reacting to former Rep. John Delaney (Md.), who said: We can create a universal health care system to give everyone basic health care for free, and I have a proposal to do it. But we don't have to go around and be the party of subtraction, and telling half the country who has private health insurance that their health insurance is illegal. My dad, the union electrician, loved the health care he got from the IBEW. He would never want someone to take that away. Half of Medicare beneficiaries now have Medicare Advantage, which is private insurance, or supplemental plans. It's also bad policy. It'll underfund the industry, many hospitals will close. "Five minutes away from me, John, is a country, it's called Canada. They guarantee health care to every man, woman and child as a human right. They spend half of what we spend. And by the way, when you end up in a hospital in Canada, you come out with no bill at all. Health care is a human right, not a privilege. I believe that, I will fight for that," Sanders told Delaney. "The fact of the matter is, tens of millions of people lose their health insurance every single year when they change jobs or their employer changes that insurance. If you want stability in the health care system, if you want a system which gives you freedom of choice with regard to a doctor or a hospital, which is a system which will not bankrupt you, the answer is to get rid of the profiteering of the drug companies and the insurance companies, move to Medicare for all," Sanders said. Delaney said his plan is "really simple." "We should deal with the tragedy of the uninsured and give everyone health care as a right. But why do we got to be the party of taking something away from people? That's what they're running on -- telling half the country that your health insurance is illegal, Delaney said of Sanders and Warren. "We don't have to do that. We can give everyone health care and allow people to have choice. That's the American way," Delaney said, as moderator Jake Tapper cut him off. It was now Sen. Warren's turn, and she launched into a story about someone she knows with ALS, a terminal and expensive condition. Tapper steered Warren back to "Medicare for All," asking if her plan will raise taxes on middle-class Americans, as Bernie Sander's plan does: "So giant corporations and billionaires are going to pay more. Middle-class families are going to pay less out of pocket for their health care. And I'd like to finish talking about Ady, the guy who has ALS," Warren said. At the end of her spiel, Tapper gave Warren an extra 15 seconds to answer the question she dodged: "Would you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for Medicare for All, offset, obviously, by the elimination of insurance premiums -- yes or no?" "Costs will go up for billionaires and go up for corporations," Warren replied. "For middle-class families, costs -- total costs -- will go down." In other words, it appears that Warren, like Sanders, would have the middle class pay higher taxes in exchange for universal coverage and the elimination of insurance premiums. Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper steered a less radical course on health insurance, disagreeing with Sanders and Warren: "You know, it comes down to that question of Americans being used to being able to make choices, to have the right to make a decision. And I think proposing a public option that allows some form of Medicare that maybe is a combination of Medicare Advantage and Medicare, but people choose it, and if enough people choose it, it expands, the quality improves, the cost comes down, more people choose it, eventually, in 15 years, you could get there, but it would be an evolution, not a revolution," Hickenlooper said. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), said the Sanders-Warren plan "will tell those union members who gave away wages in order to get good healthcare that they're going to lose their healthcare because Washington's going to come in and tell them they got a better plan." Ryan suggested moving the eligibility age for Medicare to 50." "I'm trying to explain that these union members are losing their jobs, their wages have been stagnant, the world is crumbling around them -- the only thing they have is possibly really good healthcare," Ryan said. "And the Democratic message is going to be, we're going to go in and the only thing you have left we're going to take it and we're going to do better. I do not think that's a recipe for success for us, it's bad policy and it's certainly bad politics." Candidate Marianne Williamson told the audience she's usually "way over there" with Bernie and Elizabeth, but not when it comes to eliminating private insurance: "And I do have concern about what the Republicans would say. And that's not just a Republican talking point. I do have concern that it will be difficult. I have concern that it will make it harder to win, and I have a concern that it'll make it harder to govern." To which South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg said, "It is time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say." Montana Gov. Steve Bullock does not support Medicare for All: "At the end of the day,” he said, “I'm not going to support any plan that rips away quality health care from individuals," Bullock said. "This is an example of wish list economics. It used to be just Republicans who wanted to repeal and replace. Now many Democrats do, as well,. We can get there with a public option, negotiating drug prices, ending...” (He was cut off.) | Susan Jones | https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/delaney-challenges-sanders-and-warren-health-insurance-we-dont-have-tobe | 2019-07-31 09:29:15+00:00 | 1,564,579,755 | 1,567,535,204 | health | healthcare policy |
117,545 | conservativehome--2019-02-26--Alan Mak To be fit for the future the health service must axe the fax and the pager | 2019-02-26T00:00:00 | conservativehome | Alan Mak: To be fit for the future, the health service must “axe the fax” – and the pager | Alan Mak is the MP for Havant and is the Chairman of the APPG on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. His NHS Fax Machines and Pagers Bill is presented in Parliament today. Conservatives have a long and proud record of supporting and investing in our NHS. As Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, said when launching the new NHS Long Term Plan last month, the Health Service is “one of our proudest achievements” as a nation, and for over 40 of the NHS’ 70 years it has been under the care of Conservative Ministers. Our Party has nurtured the NHS to serve generations of patients and the £20.5 billion a year delivered by the Long Term Plan is the biggest ever cash injection in its history. This means more investment in our hospitals, more doctors and nurses, and more resources to tackle major diseases. But extra funding alone won’t secure the NHS’s future. To boost productivity and improve patient care and safety, Conservatives must ensure that the NHS seizes the opportunities presented by new technologies too. We have a duty to prepare the NHS for radical technological change, and in so doing, an electoral opportunity to strengthen our Party’s standing on the NHS by being the patients’ champion – harnessing technology to drive up clinical standards and improve patient care. That was the argument I made in my NHS technology report published last year by the Centre for Policy Studies and launched by the then Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. By adopting the new technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) in the Health Service we can put patients at the heart of a reformed digital-first NHS. Rightly, the Long Term Plan shares this ambition and sets out the Government’s vision for a modern NHS that uses digital tools to improve patient care and safety. This means pushing forward with an unabashed desire to change the culture of a large public service organisation that has not always been the quickest to adapt to innovation. Decades of underinvestment in our digital health infrastructure has left the NHS at risk of being unable to take full advantage of the new waves of technological breakthroughs that are already revolutionising healthcare – and indeed other aspects of our society and economy. Fuelled by artificial intelligence, Big Data, wearable devices and personalised medicines, these 4IR innovations are set to turbocharge our fight against cancer, heart disease, dementia and other diseases and illnesses. The Long Term Plan includes a welcome commitment for the NHS to become fully digital and paperless within the next decade. This digital-first NHS would see seamless interactions between GPs, hospitals, and community care; patients not having to wait for appointment confirmations in the post; and an end to health records being lost through human error. Embedding 4IR technologies into the NHS would also drive improvements in detection rates, pioneer new treatments and ultimately deliver better patient outcomes. Meanwhile, precision medicines, personalised for each patient and taking into account an individual’s genetic profile, can be at the forefront of treating disease in the years ahead, becoming a staple in the doctors’ toolbox. Put simply, the future of healthcare is exciting – and has the potential to catch-up with the smartphone era and patients’ digital expectations if we give the NHS the right tools. But holding back the NHS from achieving these outcomes is a stubborn reliance, in some areas, on ageing technology such as pagers and fax machines. While the Long Term Plan clearly sets out a desire to “axe the fax”, there remain 8,000 of them in use across the NHS making the Health Service the largest consumer of fax machines worldwide. These archaic machines cause patients to miss appointments, hospitals to lose records, and cost NHS Trusts millions of pounds in paper storage each year, as well as being slow, unwieldy, and hard to maintain. Meanwhile, the pager, which reached the height of its popularity in the mid-1990s, provides doctors and nurses with a limited amount of information, sometimes no more than a bleep, as they tackle a multitude of complex situations on hospital wards. This has led to 97 per cent of doctors admitting in a British Medical Journal survey that they use instant messaging services such as WhatsApp as an alternative, despite these being banned due to concerns over patient confidentiality. Of the one million pagers believed to be left in use worldwide, around ten per cent of them are used in our Health Service. Yet there are cheap and easy-to-use alternatives available to NHS Trusts. As the Health Secretary has rightly pointed out, e-mail could be used as a way of communicating without the need for paper. And instead of relying on pagers, there are several specialist WhatsApp-style messaging systems available to the NHS. These include Medic Bleep, an app which when trialled at West Suffolk Hospital was found to save £4.5 million worth of staff time largely because doctors and nurses don’t have to wait by a landline phone to respond to pager bleeps. I visited the Hospital to see Medic Bleep in action first hand (see film above) and witnessed its obvious versatility when compared to old-fashioned pagers. If replicated across the 227 NHS Trusts in England new digital messenger systems that replace pagers could potentially save the Health Service more than £1 billion every year which can be redirected to frontline services. The availability of modern replacements, and the need to rapidly upgrade the Health Service’s technology base, are the reasons I’m introducing new legislation in Parliament today that would ban fax machines and pagers in our NHS by 2021. My National Health Service (Prohibition of Fax Machines and Pagers) Bill can be a firm foundation on which to build a digital-first NHS that fully harnesses the benefits of the Fourth Industrial Revolution that is taking place in healthcare, consigning fax machines and pagers to the scrapheap of history. Equally importantly, I hope the Bill also sends a clear message that we Conservatives are serious about renewing our NHS for the future, coupling serious financial investment with determined renewal of the tools that our doctors and nurses use and the care patients receive. By investing in the best technology – and phasing out the worst – we can ensure our NHS continues to serve us well for the next 70 years and beyond. | Alan Mak MP | https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/02/alan-mak-to-be-fit-for-the-future-the-health-service-must-axe-the-fax-and-the-pager.html | 2019-02-26 11:30:51+00:00 | 1,551,198,651 | 1,567,547,254 | health | healthcare policy |
122,742 | crooksandliars--2019-04-08--More News About That Non-Existent GOP Healthcare Plan | 2019-04-08T00:00:00 | crooksandliars | More News About That Non-Existent GOP Healthcare Plan | Hey guys, remember that time after Prznint Stupid received TOTAL EXONERATION from Low Barr, and immediately decided to spend his (non-existent) political capital by announcing that his DOJ would not defend the ACA in court, thus taking healthcare away from everyone? And then he announced a stellar panel of nincompoops, flim-flam artists, and grifters to draft a great replacement plan! Better than anything, frankly, Dim-o-Crats could even conceive of, bigly! “Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) says any new plan has to come from the White House — and that he had no warning Trump planned to make him part of the health policy group. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) won’t say more than he and colleagues are “working on health care thoughts.” John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), when asked about the Republican plan, turned the question back on the opposition, saying, “Democrats want to go to the complete government takeover of health care.” “And Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the fourth member of Trump’s team, hasn’t committed to anything more than “conversations with colleagues”about health care affordability.” So, you know, about as you expected! I think we are about 10 years in and the Republicans still have not come up with a replacement plan, and I’m cynically thinking that they don’t have one. Wait, what’s that you say? But with no sponsors, that kinda tells me that the GOP bottom line is on ensuring that Corporate America’s Bottom Line remains healthy, and the rest of us can go to hell. I swear to blog, Republicans would get into fights over who gets to take the crutch away from Tiny Tim. | Tengrain | https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/more-news-about-non-existent-gop | 2019-04-08 16:48:10+00:00 | 1,554,756,490 | 1,567,543,537 | health | healthcare policy |
124,975 | dailybeast--2019-10-07--Mayor Pete Buttigieg Targeting Big Pharma in Bid to Set Health-Care Plan Apart | 2019-10-07T00:00:00 | dailybeast | Mayor Pete Buttigieg Targeting Big Pharma in Bid to Set Health-Care Plan Apart | The debate over the future of health care has dominated the first segment of every Democratic presidential debate this cycle, and next week’s 12-person pileup in Ohio is likely to be no exception. Ahead of the largest primary debate in history, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, has added specifics—and teeth—to his proposed expansion of access to health care, in a white paper on pharmaceutical pricing that could help distinguish his wordily named “Medicare For All Who Want It” plan from similar proposals put forward by his Democratic rivals. The plan, released on Monday morning, focuses on cutting prescription drug costs, which are higher in the United States than any other country in the world. Through a combination of new legislation, the creation of a public option, a tax hike on pharmaceutical companies, and aggressive enforcement of the government’s ability to declare “eminent domain” over intellectual property, Buttigieg’s plan markets itself as the first proposed that would cap monthly out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs. “This plan is aggressive on capping out-of-pocket costs for consumers and aims to shift the power from corporate health care to American consumers that rely on lifesaving drug prescriptions,” Marisol Samayoa, the Buttigieg campaign’s deputy national press secretary, told The Daily Beast. “Pete is the only candidate to cap monthly out-of-pocket costs for those on public plans.” Sen. Kamala Harris’ “Medicare For All” proposal also promises “strong caps on out-of-pocket costs” at $200 per year, and Sen. Bernie Sanders’ bill to that effect also caps those costs. The Buttigieg campaign points out that its plan is the first to cap expenses per month, which would prevent the sudden onset of an expensive illness from wiping out savings. The proposal could help set Buttigieg’s stance on health care apart from other upper-level candidates. Former Vice President Joe Biden, who has aggressively defended the Affordable Care Act passed under President Barack Obama, has called for pegging prescription drug price increases to inflation, as well as limiting prescription prices for Medicare and potential public-option consumers to an average of international prices. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has advocated for the Department of Health and Human Services to manufacture generic medication. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), like Warren, has called for the creation of a trillion-dollar “Medicare For All” system that would provide health insurance coverage to all Americans. Buttigieg’s plan to cap monthly out-of-pocket costs is still a relative novelty in the crowded battle arena of Democratic health care proposals (although not the singular one promised by the campaign). Under the proposed plan, out-of-pocket costs for seniors using Medicare would be capped at $200 per month, and at $250 per month for those on the “Medicare For All Who Want It” public option. For seniors, those on Medicaid assistance, and public-option consumers, copays for generic medication would be eliminated. Although most Americans don’t spend that much in a year on out-of-pocket expenses, the caps would provide major relief for the elderly and those with serious and chronic illnesses. Twenty-nine percent of Americans report not taking medications as prescribed due to cost in the past year, including one in five who have not filled a prescription because of high prices and one in 10 who have skipped doses or cut pills in half to stretch their medication. Buttigieg’s plan, like those of his chief rivals, would also empower the government—the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals in the world—to negotiate drug prices for consumers on government health plans, what the campaign calls “Walmart logic,” allowing for lower drug prices across the board. For pharmaceutical companies that refuse to comply, Buttigieg puts forward a host of potential punishments, including taxes on companies that refuse to negotiate pricing or raise drug prices by more than inflation. For so-called “worst offenders,” Buttigieg proposes that the government exercise the right of eminent domain to acquire intellectual property rights from pharmaceutical companies found to be harming consumers through “irresponsible pricing.” This sharp-elbowed approach to pharmaceutical companies, which are the most profitable companies in the entire health-care sector, also has the potential upside of dulling attacks that the mayor’s popularity with health-care industry donors might steer policy—in addition to setting Buttigieg’s plan apart from his rivals. But the plan still has potential weak spots. Buttigieg’s plan would not be able to automatically guarantee universal coverage for all who live in the United States, unlike Warren and Sanders’ proposals, although there are provisions in the plan that would help fill the gaps of individuals who can’t afford employer-based coverage or who live in states that have refused to expand Medicaid. Those who can’t afford insurance through employers would receive income-based subsidies for the public insurance option, and those in states that have not expanded Medicaid will be automatically enrolled. Despite its crackdown on the pharmaceutical industry’s pricing practices, the plan would also still allow for private insurance, which progressives have called to eliminate, although Buttigieg has proposed subsidizing coverage for those who are uninsured for financial reasons. Buttigieg has also contended that the existence of a superior public option, under the government’s imprimatur, would eventually lead to more Americans ditching inferior private plans. “We don’t have to stand up here speculating about whether the public option will be better or Medicare-for-all will be better than corporate options. We’ll put it to the test,” Buttigieg said at the Democratic presidential debate in September. “If people like me are right, then the public alternative is going to be not only more comprehensive but more affordable than corporate options around there. We’ll see Americans walk away from the corporate options into that Medicare option and it will become Medicare-for-all.” Biden, Warren and Sanders have all joined the call for the government to be able to negotiate drug prices for Medicare with pharmaceutical companies in the same way that insurance companies do. But the South Bend mayor has said that his proposal would allow for consumers to choose health care that best fits their needs, while still reforming a health-care system where Americans pay roughly $600 more per year for prescription drugs citizens of other developed countries. “The problem, Senator Sanders, with that damn bill that you wrote, and that Senator Warren backs is that it doesn’t trust the American people,” Buttigieg said at last month’s presidential debate. “I trust you to choose what makes the most sense for you—not my way or the highway.” | Scott Bixby | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thedailybeast/articles/~3/bdblXsYJxxk/mayor-pete-buttigieg-targeting-big-pharma-in-bid-to-set-health-care-plan-apart | Mon, 07 Oct 2019 10:00:00 GMT | 1,570,456,800 | 1,570,465,311 | health | healthcare policy |
178,366 | eveningstandard--2019-06-27--US Democrat presidential debate Candidates battle on gun control healthcare in high stakes TV deba | 2019-06-27T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | US Democrat presidential debate: Candidates battle on gun control, healthcare in high stakes TV debate | Donald Trump has branded the US Democratic presidential debate “boring” and slammed the host networks after a technical glitch derailed its second half. Ten Democratic candidates faced off in the first round of back-to-back TV debates in the crowded race to oust Mr Trump from the White House next year. Several contenders clashed over healthcare coverage and border policy as some of the lesser-known candidates vied for attention. The US Republican President fired off a one word tweet in the first hour of the debate: “BORING!”. He also took aim at NBC News and MSNBC when a technical glitch delayed the debate's second hour. He has consistently accused the networks of not treating him fairly. "@NBCNews and @MSNBC should be ashamed of themselves for having such a horrible technical breakdown in the middle of the debate. Truly unprofessional and only worthy of a FAKE NEWS Organization, which they are!" he tweeted. Millions of voters tuned in to watch the candidates debate topics such as gun control, climate change, private health insurance and immigration. Headliner Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts senator, was looking to cement her surge in opinion polls after unveiling a string of policy proposals such as free universal healthcare, higher taxes on the rich and breaking up tech giants. "Who is this economy really working for?" she said in response to the first question. "It's doing great for a thinner and thinner slice at the top." Ms Warren drew a big cheer as one of only two contenders on stage, alongside New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, to say she supports government-run healthcare. She backs a government-sponsored Medicare-for-All approach and criticised those who say it is not politically feasible. She said: "There are a lot of politicians who say, 'oh, it's just not possible'… what they're really telling you is, they just won't fight for it. "Well, healthcare is a basic human right and I will fight for basic human rights." On gun violence, Mr de Blasio said: "There's something that sets me apart from all my colleagues running in this race and that is for the last 21 years I've been raising a black son in America." He said his son, Dante, has to use "special caution because there have been too many tragedies between our young men and our police". When asked how he’d win over voters worried about possible government overreach in climate-related restrictions, former Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke pledged to help communities including the debate host city Miami, an area "on the front lines of climate change today." He also took aim at immigration policies while showing off his fluency in Spanish, saying that a stable American democracy should “listen to all voices. Taking a question in Spanish he answered it saying, "We are going to treat everyone with respect." But he came under attack from former Obama housing secretary Julian Castro over the separation of families and detention of migrants at the southern border. Mr Castro said he would decriminalise border crossings by migrants, which he said had led to the separation of families. He challenged the others to support him. Mr O'Rourke said that as a congressman he helped introduce a bill that would ensure that those who are seeking asylum and refuge in the United States would not be criminalised. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker was also on stage and was the only the only candidate who did not raise his hand when asked whether he would sign back on to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal as it was originally negotiated under the Obama administration. The Democrats also agreed with each other frequently, particularly when it came to Mr Trump. They criticised his economic policies, saying they had benefited the wealthy at the expense of working Americans, and calling his border policies heartless. Also on stage were Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar; the only Latino in the race; Representatives Tulsi Gabbard and Tim Ryan; Washington state Governor Jay Inslee; and former congressman John Delaney. All 10 participants in the first encounter had an opportunity to step out of the shadow cast by front-runners Joe Biden and US Senator Bernie Sanders, who are scheduled to take the stage on Thursday night with eight other contenders. | Bonnie Christian | https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/us-democrats-battle-on-gun-control-healthcare-in-high-stakes-debate-a4176841.html | 2019-06-27 02:41:02+00:00 | 1,561,617,662 | 1,567,537,833 | health | healthcare policy |
188,914 | eveningstandard--2019-11-12--General election 2019: Labour vows to out spend Tories on health with £26bn 'rescue plan' | 2019-11-12T00:00:00 | eveningstandard | General election 2019: Labour vows to out spend Tories on health with £26bn 'rescue plan' for NHS | Labour will today vow to outspend the Tories on health funding as they unveil a £26 billion “rescue plan” for the NHS ahead of the general election. The party said its proposal will provide safe, quality care, recruit thousands of staff, rebuild crumbling facilities and provide modern state-of-the-art equipment. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth will on Wednesday announce the “rescue” plan to "end the Tory NHS crisis" with a £26 billion real-terms - £40 billion in cash terms - healthcare funding boost. The commitment amounts to £6bn more than the funding pledged last year by the Conservative government. In a speech at the Royal Society of Medicine, they are expected to announce an annual average 4.3 per cent funding increase for health spending over the next four years, funded from Labour's proposals to reverse corporation tax cuts and tax the wealthiest people in society. The plan includes NHS capital expenditure rising to the international average, £1 billion-a-year training and education budgets, and £1 billion more to fund an expansion of public health services. There will be a focused drive on prevention measures to stop people getting sick, as part of Labour's mission to tackle health inequalities and prioritise children's health and well-being. Mr McDonnell is expected to say: "The world-class health service we all need and depend on needs proper funding. "Labour's policies to tax the richest in society and invest for the future through our Social Transformation Fund mean we will be able to improve millions of lives. "And ending privatisation means that money can be spent on healthcare rather than dividends for Boris Johnson's friends in the private healthcare industry." Mr Ashworth is expected to say: "With experts warning this winter is set to be one of the worst, the truth is our NHS is crying out for a financial rescue plan to deliver real change for patients. "We are announcing today the levels of investment our NHS needs to not only again provide the quality care our sick and elderly deserve but secures the NHS for the future as well. "We'll invest more to prevent people becoming ill in the first place and we'll give mental health and well-being a greater priority than ever before. "This General Election is about millions on waiting lists and hundreds of thousands who've waited on trolleys under the Tories - only Labour has a plan to rescue our NHS." The pledge comes amid a row over both Labour and Tory election spending, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies warning that some plans are “not deliverable”. Director Paul Johnson said it was not sensible to double investment spending within three or four years. He also warned the Conservatives and Labour about the promises they were making, saying they need to be “very careful”. Liberal Democrat spokesperson for health, Luciana Berger, said Labour's latest announcement "misses the point". Ms Berger said: "Labour's health announcement today completely misses the point. They are ignoring the fact that Brexit is the biggest threat to the NHS - if Labour allow Brexit to happen, they cannot rescue our NHS. "Brexit has already cost the economy as much as £66 billion. If Corbyn had not tacitly supported Brexit, Labour could have funded their NHS plan more than two times over. "Only the Liberal Democrats can offer voters a brighter future through stopping Brexit and transforming our NHS and social care services for the future." However Nuffield Trust chief executive Nigel Edwards said this funding would mean the NHS could "breathe a sigh of relief", adding: "A 4 per cent increase a year will make a big difference compared to the 1.4 per cent average the NHS has grown used to in recent years. "It is enough to get most waiting times back on track over time, but tough decisions will still have to be made. "Although 'ending privatisation' will appeal to many, stopping the NHS from funding private procedures will not actually save much money as private companies and NHS trusts get paid the same price per operation." Mr Edwards said money is not the be-all and end-all, pointing out that extreme staff shortages are the greatest problem facing the NHS. Richard Murray, chief executive of The King's Fund, said: "The success of any NHS funding policy will rest on the ability to recruit and retain enough workers to staff NHS services. "Labour's pledge to reinstate a training bursary for nurses is welcome, although it will be critical to focus on retaining existing NHS staff over the next few years, at a time when many are leaving the service due to the intensity of their workload." Mr Murray said that for many UK voters, the distinction between the NHS and social care is unclear, and many are surprised to find that social care is not free at the point of use. "The current social care system is not fit for purpose and is failing the people who rely on it. A key test for party manifestos will be whether they include plans for fundamental reform of social care funding," he said. Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said: "This rescue plan can't come soon enough and will give hope to health service employees and patients across the UK. It takes the NHS back to the time before heartless Tory cuts." Dame Donna Kinnair, chief executive and general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said all parties need to commit to investing in nursing, adding: "No matter how people voted in the EU referendum, nobody wants the NHS left open to a carve-up as a result of a post-Brexit trade deal. "Brexit chaos and rows about deals cannot become a distraction from solving the mounting nurse shortage at home." Niall Dickson, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, which represents organisations across the healthcare system, said further detail is needed from parties about their plans to tackle the crisis in social care, an issue he said politicians of all parties have "ducked for too long". Mark Littlewood, director general at the Institute of Economic Affairs, said: "The endless billions of pounds that are being pledged to the National Health Service in this election cycle are not costed, not responsible, and crucially are not going to cure the health system's long-term ails. "The NHS remains an international laggard in terms of health outcomes and has some of the highest rates of avoidable deaths in western Europe. The structure of the NHS is fundamentally outdated and no amount of money is going to get the health system to function and operate at the level patients deserve." | Sean Morrison | https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-vow-to-out-spend-tories-on-health-as-party-set-to-pledge-26bn-rescue-plan-for-nhs-a4285676.html | Tue, 12 Nov 2019 23:56:00 GMT | 1,573,620,960 | 1,573,605,078 | health | healthcare policy |
194,982 | fivethirtyeight--2019-05-13--Democrats Have No Safe Options On Health Care | 2019-05-13T00:00:00 | fivethirtyeight | Democrats Have No Safe Options On Health Care | Even though most of the candidates have committed to some form of universal health care, the Democratic primary is turning into a debate about the future of the country’s health care system. Presidential hopefuls have proposed policies ranging from an ambitious four-year plan to transform Medicare into a universal single-payer system, in which the government pays for everyone’s health care and private insurance plans are effectively eliminated, to a more modest scheme that would leave the existing health care system intact but create a government-administered public insurance plan people could choose to purchase. But some of the candidates have been light on policy specifics, so it’s likely that health care will be a big topic at the debates and beyond. In the abstract, focusing on health care makes a lot of political sense for Democrats. It was a top issue among Democratic voters in the 2018 midterms, and the Trump administration recently renewed its efforts to strike down the Affordable Care Act in the courts, which means the law could be hanging in the balance throughout the primaries and into the general election. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll also found that Americans, by a 17-point margin, say that President Trump’s handling of health care makes them more likely to oppose him than to support him in 2020. By a similar margin, an Associated Press/NORC poll found that Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans on health care. All of this means that Democrats are heading into the 2020 election cycle with a serious edge on an issue that has the potential to mobilize their base. But if the candidates pitch big, sweeping changes to the health care system without addressing voters’ concerns about cost and access, that advantage won’t necessarily hold up. And trying to sell Americans on a completely new system carries risks, even in the primaries. First, it’s important to understand how health care has morphed over the past decade from just another issue to one of the issues voters care most about. In the 2018 exit polls, 41 percent of voters said health care was the most important issue facing the country, up from 25 percent in 2014 and 18 percent in 2012. (It wasn’t asked about in 2016.) And although Democrats are more likely to prioritize health care than Republicans, a Pew Research Center poll from January found that a majority of Republicans say health care costs should be a top priority for Congress and the president. The reason? Health care is becoming more of a financial burden, according to Mollyann Brodie, executive director for public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation. Specifically, Americans’ out-of-pocket health care costs have risen significantly over the past decade, even for workers who get insurance through their jobs. In an economy that by many measures is doing well, health care — rather than something like taxes — is becoming one of voters’ most important pocketbook issues, she said. “If you’re worried about whether you or your loved ones can afford your next health care bill, that’s really a matter of life or death, so you can understand why this issue is moving to center stage politically.” And Americans are increasingly likely to say that the government has an important role to play in ensuring access to health care. In November, Gallup found that 57 percent of Americans said they think it’s the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that everyone has health care coverage, up from a low of 42 percent in 2013. Support for the Affordable Care Act rose over the same period, too. But, notably, support for government intervention in the health care system was even higher before President Obama was elected and the ACA passed — in 2006, 69 percent of Americans thought the government should guarantee health care coverage. While support for government involvement in health care is rebounding, it’s not clear how much change voters are really asking for. “The average American is first and foremost concerned about the financial problems facing their family,” said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard. “They’re less worried about system-level concerns like health care spending and inequality. They want their existing coverage to be better and more affordable.” Americans aren’t opposed to the idea of government-run health care, but there’s not a lot of consensus on what that would mean. For example, a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that a majority (56 percent) of Americans favor a national “Medicare for All” plan. But according to a March Morning Consult poll, Americans are more likely to favor a plan that offers some kind of public option — a government-sponsored health insurance plan available in addition to existing private plans — over a system where everyone is enrolled in the same plan. But this apparent contradiction makes sense, according to Brodie, because Americans are risk-averse when it comes to health care, and the switch to single-payer would affect far more people than the ACA did. Tens of millions of previously uninsured people received coverage under the ACA, but that number would be dwarfed by the 156 million people who get their insurance through their employers and could see their coverage change if the country switched to a single-payer plan. “Even if the current system isn’t working, transitions are scary,” Brodie said. “And people aren’t necessarily aware of what a national plan really means. When you start telling people that there might not be any more private insurance companies, that’s actually not a popular position.” For example, a January Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that support for a national Medicare for All plan dropped significantly when respondents were told it would mean eliminating private insurance companies. And when asked what health care policies they want Congress to prioritize, Americans don’t list Medicare for All first. Instead, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, they want Congress to pass targeted measures that would lower prescription drug costs, continue the ACA’s protections for preexisting conditions and protect people from surprise medical bills. Only 31 percent of Americans say that implementing Medicare for All should be a top priority for Congress, compared to 68 percent who want lowering drug prices to be a top priority. Moreover, prioritizing Medicare for All is politically polarizing: Only 14 percent of Republicans support putting that kind of plan at the top of the to-do list, compared to 47 percent of Democrats. However, smaller policy steps like lowering prescription drug costs and protecting people from surprise medical bills get more bipartisan support. Overall, Americans seem to be more concerned with fixing the current health care system than creating a sweeping new replacement — even if that replacement could address the issues they most want fixed in the current system. The complexity of Americans’ views on health care doesn’t change the fact that Democrats have a big advantage over Republicans on this issue, but it does mean that the individual candidates are in a tough spot because there’s no obvious unifying message they can adopt for the primary. And embracing a single-payer plan now could hand the GOP a weapon for the general election, allowing Republicans to frame the health care discussion around the Democrats’ controversial plan while glossing over Trump’s efforts to dismantle the ACA. “The safest bet for a Democrat in the general election is to emphasize Trump’s track record on health care and say you’re going to make the ACA work,” Blendon said. The problem is that while that kind of argument might appeal to moderates, it’s likely to fall flat among a significant sector of the Democratic base that supports prioritizing a national Medicare for All plan over improving and protecting the ACA. Democrats arguably still have an opening to make a case for a more ambitious health care overhaul, since voters still have relatively little information about what something like Medicare for All means. “It’s fine to support single-payer if you think that’s where the country needs to go, but you can’t just lean on principles like fairness or equality when you’re selling it,” said David Cutler, an economist at Harvard who advised Obama’s campaign on health care strategy. “You also have to tell voters, very specifically, what you are going to do to lower their costs and improve their coverage next year — not in 10 years.” Even though Americans mostly prefer Democrats’ health care positions to the GOP’s, Democrats still risk alienating voters if they emphasize bumper-sticker slogans over concrete strategies for reducing the financial burden of health care. This is particularly important because their base of support for a single-payer system may be shallower than it appears, even within the party — especially when it comes to getting rid of private insurance. Big changes to the status quo are always politically challenging, but they may be especially risky when many Americans are concerned about losing the protections they already have. | Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux | https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-have-no-safe-options-on-health-care/ | 2019-05-13 09:59:29+00:00 | 1,557,755,969 | 1,567,540,783 | health | healthcare policy |
196,405 | foreignpolicy--2019-05-24--Good Health Supports Good Governance | 2019-05-24T00:00:00 | foreignpolicy | Good Health Supports Good Governance | International aid is once again becoming a political flash point. Boosters say that aid can support development. Detractors argue that it instead promotes dependency and undermines good governance. The renewed battle could spell trouble for global efforts to tackle some of the biggest health problems of our time, including AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. It is also unnecessary: The evidence suggests we do not have to trade health for governance. For a time, it seemed that the debate over aid was over. Focus had shifted away from whether aid was bad or good to prioritizing the types of aid that seem to be working, including key global health programs. But in December 2018, U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton unveiled the Trump administration’s new Africa strategy. He decried a “longstanding pattern of aid without effect, assistance without accountability” and announced a shift to a “new path” for aid that would focus on securing stable and transparent governance on the continent. Taking things a step further, in March, President Donald Trump’s budget proposal for 2020 slashed foreign aid, including for some of the world’s most effective global health programs. The multilateral Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria and a range of bilateral efforts including the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), global health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and family planning at the U.S. Agency for International Development all came in for steep cuts. The administration said its budget would support “reducing the long-term need for foreign assistance” and support countries “to solve their own development challenges.” Democrats and Republicans in Congress are prepared to come together to reject the cuts. Rep. Nita Lowey, a Democrat, said that the budget changes would “diminish America’s global standing.” Senate Republican leaders have also opposed them, with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman James Risch criticizing cuts to programs that he believes “support the growth of healthier, more stable societies with whom we can trade.” The Trump administration is not the only aid skeptic. In the United Kingdom, Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary the beginning of this month, hit similar notes when she laid out the Conservatives’ vision for aid in April. To help countries “stand on their own feet and build sustainable health and education systems,” she said, the country’s Department for International Development would refocus on tackling “man-made crises” like corruption. Another faction of Conservatives, led by her replacement as development secretary, has argued that her vision misses the point of aid. The idea that providing aid to tackle health problems such as AIDS or malaria might undermine good governance makes some intuitive sense. “We do want to be able to hold our governments accountable but we can’t do that if, actually, Oxfam is going to solve the health care problem,” Dambisa Moyo, the economist and aid pessimist, recently opined. The argument is that funding for public goods should come from citizens via taxes. When citizens have a stake in financing public goods, they’ll work to ensure that governments perform well. There is plenty of research showing that countries that succeed in building effective health systems rely on strong governance institutions—those that distribute power, ensure transparency, check corruption, and provide strong legal systems. These same institutions are critical for economic growth and development. It would seem, then, that there is good reason to focus on building strong institutions first in order to ensure better health in the future. But we don’t have to choose. Well-designed global health aid can have beneficial effects on governance as well. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria is a clear example. The fund, widely lauded for saving millions of lives, was created in 2002 at the height of the AIDS pandemic as a health financing agency to pool contributions from wealthy nations, foundations, and the private sector. From the start, the Global Fund worked hard to ensure that its programs would promote transparency and good governance. Before receiving money, a recipient nation must create a Country Coordinating Mechanism to oversee the funds. The mechanism is required to include representatives from government, nongovernmental organizations, community groups, and the private sector. The fund also contracts an independent professional agent in each country to conduct audits of financial and programmatic progress. At the global level, meanwhile, each application is reviewed by an independent panel of experts, which makes recommendations to the fund’s board. And the inspector general has repeatedly identified and exposed misallocation of aid and worked through local courts and legal systems to recover it. The fund has also invested millions of dollars in programming intended to strengthen the rule of law and management of national health systems. In a recent study, Georgetown University’s Lixue Chen and I used data from 112 countries to test whether aid from the Global Fund had any effect on governance. We found that increased aid from the fund was associated with better control of corruption, government accountability, political freedom, regulatory quality, and rule of law (the relationship with effective policy implementation was not statistically significant). This relationship held true even when we controlled for other factors that might explain the difference like a country’s wealth, relative political stability, and level of corruption at the start of funding. We can see this kind of governance in action, for example, in Malawi, where the fund has invested over $1.3 billion. With among the highest HIV rates in the world, Malawi has made some of the fastest progress against the disease—cutting AIDS deaths and new HIV infections in half through highly effective use of donor money. At a broader level, financing from the fund has supported the growth of new NGOs that have monitored government budgets, promoted human rights, and campaigned against corruption. Recently, for example, when the government tried to transfer money budgeted for health to an organization run by the first lady to beautify Malawi, advocates found out through the transparency of the Global Fund, exposed the move to the media, and held protests in the capital leading to defunding of the AIDS commission. Good governance doesn’t mean there is never fraud or abuse. Indeed the U.S. government recovered $2.6 billion in fiscal 2017 from health care fraud. Good governance means that there are institutions in place to respond to bad actors, effective rule of law to adjudicate disputes, and ways for people to hold their government accountable. These factors are critical not just for protecting health budgets but also for building strong economies. In Malawi, rather than undermining the ability of citizens to hold government accountable, money from the Global Fund also helped improve transparency and provided the tools to fight corruption. Not all aid is created equal. Last year, through the Bipartisan Policy Center, two former Senate majority leaders and I collaborated on a study that showed that the PEPFAR program was associated with similar positive trends in governance. Other studies have linked more general foreign aid to poorer governance. This suggests that there may be something particularly beneficial about aid for global health. First off, health aid is targeted to need. Although the political interests of aid-sending nations play a role, health aid flows primarily to low- and middle-income countries to address specific needs. Second, the structures and processes associated with good global health work are related to improving governance, including the strong participation of activists, NGOs, and doctors. Finally, health aid is often pegged to specific program targets like getting a certain number of people access to HIV treatment or distributing a particular number of bed nets to fight malaria. These are tangible goals, visible to the population, and the focus on results can help set citizen expectations that promised public goods will, in fact, be delivered. In this context, the Trump administration’s moves to cut aid for global health as a way to improve governance are indefensible. The Global Fund is preparing for a major donor conference to be hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron this fall. But the Trump budget proposes to cut the three-year U.S. pledge by over $1 billion—a disaster since U.S. funding is matched two-to-one by other countries. The PEPFAR program, UNICEF, and a variety of other aid programs come in for similar cuts. Of course, it is the U.S. Congress that really has the power to set U.S. funding levels, and members of Congress have voiced their intentions of ignoring Trump’s budget proposal. Nonetheless, it is worrying that the old debate over whether aid is good or bad has been reopened. Improving health is not possible in a vacuum. We do need strong institutions. And just as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals link improved health with improved governance, our research on the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria shows that aid, when it flows through well-designed mechanisms, can be a key part of doing both. | Matthew M. Kavanagh | https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/24/good-health-supports-good-governance/ | 2019-05-24 14:25:32+00:00 | 1,558,722,332 | 1,567,540,199 | health | healthcare policy |
205,107 | fortune--2019-07-31--Legislating Social Media Addiction Brainstorm Health | 2019-07-31T00:00:00 | fortune | Legislating Social Media Addiction: Brainstorm Health | There's a presidential primary debate on tonight (and I imagine at least a few readers will be checking in on it, given an expected focus on health care). But let's check in on a more low-key, and likely quixotic, policy quest aligned with the digital health space. A freshman U.S. Senator (Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican), has proposed legislation that would ban "addictive" features on social media platforms. The Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act (or, well, the SMART Act) would prevent some of the big tech names like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter from using algorithmic means to feed on their very human users' propensity for spending hours upon hours on said platforms (behavior that hasn't exactly been linked with great mental health outcomes). This might include the use of auto-play videos, or "infinite scrolling" (wherein your digital wormhole literally has no end), or programmable behavior encouraging users to constantly engage. Whether such a piece of legislation has a snowball's chance in passing - and even if it does, whether it would pass constitutional muster - well, that's a whole different story. But perhaps one that will appear in the endless social media loop. Read on for the day's news. A meditation app with a twist. My colleague Ellen McGirt has a typically insightful-yet-fun piece up today about a meditation app that’s specifically geared towards people of color in an era of violence and divisiveness centered on minorities. The Liberate Meditation app includes “talks and meditations [that] are all offered by Buddhist people of color, and you don’t have to be a practitioner to enjoy the emotional safety the teachings provide,” Ellen writes. (Fortune) Merck continues to crush on strength of Keytruda. I’ve written before (and recently) about the failings of big, legacy pharmaceutical companies. One standout appears to be Merck, which absolutely obliterated Wall Street expectations on the strength of its star cancer immunotherapy Keytruda. Keytruda brought in about $2.6 billion in sales in just a single quarter, placing it far ahead of competitors like Bristol-Myers Squibb’s rival Opdivo. That figure is a stunning 58% increase in sales for the quarter. Keytruda has succeeded where many of its competitors have failed, particularly in the massive lung cancer space. Expect health care fireworks at tonight’s Democratic debate. Debate night is underway (part one of two, anyways). This evening, look out for some fireworks between Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, two candidates generally considered to be on the left side of the spectrum who may be compelled to lay out exactly what their differences are on “Medicare for All” and universal health coverage policies. Recruiting Scams Are ‘Prolific,’ Experts Say, by Alyssa Newcomb | Sy Mukherjee | https://fortune.com/2019/07/30/legislating-social-media-addiction/ | 2019-07-31 00:10:56+00:00 | 1,564,546,256 | 1,567,535,235 | health | healthcare policy |
206,487 | fortune--2019-10-03--What Trumps Executive Order Means for Healthcare | 2019-10-03T00:00:00 | fortune | What Trump’s Executive Order Means for Healthcare | President Donald Trump signed an executive order this afternoon in Florida, pushing for further privatization of Medicare. The ‘Executive Order on Protecting and Improving Medicare for Our Nation’s Seniors’ focuses on expanding Medicare Advantage. It will expand the role of private insurers to offer benefits rather than the government. “The Executive Order will improve upon privately-run Medicare Advantage plans, and provide seniors with more benefit choices,” says Lindsay Bealor Greenleaf, director of policy at the global healthcare consulting firm ADVI Health. In a speech to supporters, Trump also called for a drug importation plan. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries including Canada,” the president said. The Administration has signaled a growing interest in a drug importation plan in recent months. In June, Trump directed Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to work with Florida on a state level bill that authorizes importation of prescription drugs from other countries. Colorado and Vermont recently passed similar laws. In the speech, Trump took the opportunity to attack Democratic healthcare plans. “Medicare is under threat like never before. Almost every major Democrat has backed a massive government take over that would totally obliterate Medicare,” he said. However, Democrats have pointed out for months that President Trump’s 2020 budget calls for a $845 billion cut to Medicare. Progressives like Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) single-payer proposal would essentially create a universal Medicare program that would cover all through a government-run healthcare plan, rather than a privatized alternative. Recent polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 51% of Americans would prefer a single-payer system, suggesting that voters are more in favor of the Democrats’ plan. | Jaclyn Gallucci | https://fortune.com/2019/10/03/what-trumps-executive-order-means-for-healthcare/ | 2019-10-03 20:40:27+00:00 | 1,570,149,627 | 1,570,221,720 | health | healthcare policy |
210,533 | foxnews--2019-04-17--Medicare chief says Medicare-for-all is biggest threat to American health care system | 2019-04-17T00:00:00 | foxnews | Medicare chief says 'Medicare-for-all' is ‘biggest threat to American health care system’ | The nation’s top Medicare official said on ‘Fox & Friends’ Wednesday that Democrats' “Medicare-for-all” proposal amounts to “the biggest threat to the American health care system,” claiming the policy would lead to worse care and longer wait times. “I’ve been saying that Medicare-for-all is the biggest threat to the American health care system,” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma said. “What we’re talking about is stripping people of their private health insurance, forcing them into a government-run program.” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., unveiled his latest Medicare-for-all plan last week -- legislation that was endorsed by other 2020 Democratic hopefuls Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, N.Y., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. A similar bill has been introduced in the House. Such plans would abolish almost all private coverage. Proponents have said such plans would give access to health care to all, recognizing it as a human right. Some estimates put the 10-year cost of the plan at more than $32 trillion. Sanders said at a Fox News town hall on Monday that it would mean many Americans would "pay more in taxes." But he also argued the plan's costs would replace premiums and deductibles already being paid by American families, claiming many would pay less in the end. "I am concerned about the debt. That's a legitimate concern," Sanders said. "But we pay for what we are proposing. In terms of Medicare for All, we are paying for that by eliminating as I said before, deductibles and premiums. We are going to save the average American family money." An informal poll of the audience on Monday showed most in attendance indicating they could support such a plan. But Verma noted that socialized health care systems in other countries have problems of their own -- including long wait times and poor care -- leading citizens to travel to the U.S. for drugs and care they can't access at home. “So this is a bureaucracy that’s going to be making decisions about everybody’s healthcare, what kind of benefits they can have, what kind of medications that they can have access to,” she said. “And if we look at other socialized countries that have tried this approach, what do we see there? Long wait times, poor quality health care and that’s why those people are flying to the United States to get their health care.” “The reality is we’re having problems today paying for the Medicare program and the trustees have warned about solvency, so adding more people to the program is only going to exacerbate it,” she said. CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP The plan has also seen skepticism from Democrats in Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in February that "Medicare-for-all” may not be “as good a benefit as the Affordable Care Act.” “It doesn’t have catastrophic [coverage] -- you have to go buy it. It doesn’t have dental. It’s not as good as the plans that you can buy under the Affordable Care Act,” she told Rolling Stone in an interview. “So I say to them, come in with your ideas, but understand that we’re either gonna have to improve Medicare — for all, including seniors — or else people are not gonna get what they think they’re gonna get. ... And by the way, how’s it gonna be paid for?” | Adam Shaw | http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/x7amJnt6SSw/medicare-chief-medicare-for-all-threat | 2019-04-17 14:52:08+00:00 | 1,555,527,128 | 1,567,542,735 | health | healthcare policy |
211,819 | foxnews--2019-06-30--DNC Chair Perez defends free healthcare for illegal immigrants This is not a handout | 2019-06-30T00:00:00 | foxnews | DNC Chair Perez defends free healthcare for illegal immigrants: ‘This is not a handout’ | A key issue that has come up during the Democratic primary season is whether those who enter the United States illegally should be eligible for free healthcare, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez is fully endorsing it. During Thursday’s Democratic debate, when asked who would support this, all ten of the participating candidates raised their hand. Perez joined them, defending the policy by claiming that illegal immigrants would be paying for their health benefits with tax dollars. TOP MOMENTS AND KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM FIRST DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES “This is not a handout,” Perez told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. “Immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, pay billions of dollars in taxes,” he claimed. “Democrats believe that you should be able to buy into a health insurance system ... this is allowing people to buy into an insurance program, people who pay billions of dollars in taxes." LINDSEY GRAHAM IMPRESSED WITH KAMALA HARRIS AFTER PUTTING PRESSURE ON BIDEN: 'SHE'S GOT GAME' Earlier in the conversation, Wallace grilled Perez on former vice president Joe Biden’s performance during Thursday’s debate, where California Senator Kamala Harris put him on the defensive when it comes to his record on school integration. Biden had opposed federally mandated busing as a way to integrate schools, while Harris said she herself benefited from busing. When asked how Biden’s chances in the primary race will be affected by this, Perez simply said, “That’ll be up for the voters to decide.” | Ronn Blitzer | http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/AJqUG9gRdZ4/dnc-chair-perez-defends-free-healthcare-for-illegal-immigrants-this-is-not-a-handout | 2019-06-30 14:22:57+00:00 | 1,561,918,977 | 1,567,537,515 | health | healthcare policy |
213,405 | foxnews--2019-11-27--Federal judge blocks Trump health insurance rule for immigrants | 2019-11-27T00:00:00 | foxnews | Federal judge blocks Trump health insurance rule for immigrants | A federal judge in Portland, Ore., has granted a nationwide preliminary injunction disallowing a Trump administration rule requiring immigrants prove they will have health insurance or can pay for medical care before they can get visas. U.S. District Judge Michael Simon, as The Oregonian reported, halted the directive requiring applicants have plans to be covered by health insurance within 30 days of entering the nation, or have enough financial resources to cover the cost. President Trump had issued a proclamation in early October requiring immigrants, seeking visas from abroad — not those in the U.S. already, applying for U.S. visas to prove they can afford health care. It didn’t affect lawful permanent residents. It didn’t apply to asylum-seekers, refugees or children. Hospitals have spent more than $35 billion, or an average of $7 million per hospital, on “unreimbursed services” over the last 10 years, according to the White House. Under the proposed rule, the required insurance can be purchased individually or provided by an employer, and it can be short-term coverage or catastrophic. Medicaid doesn't count. And an immigrant will not be able to obtain a visa if using ObamaCare subsidies when buying insurance. “This decision is an important check on the Trump administration’s effort to rewrite our nation’s immigration and health care laws in violation of the boundaries set out in the Constitution,” said Esther Sung, an attorney with the Justice Action Center. Seven U.S. citizens and a nonprofit organization sued to prevent the rule from taking effect, saying it would block nearly two-thirds of all prospective legal immigrants. The lawsuit also said the rule would greatly reduce or eliminate the number of immigrants who enter the U.S. with family-sponsored visas. According to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan immigration think tank, 57 percent of U.S. immigrants had private health insurance in 2017, compared with 69 percent of U.S.-born, and 30 percent had public health insurance coverage, compared with 36 percent of native-born. The uninsured rate for immigrants dropped from 32 percent to 20 percent from 2013 to 2017, since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, according to Migration Policy. There are about 1.1 million people who obtain green cards each year. The new restrictions came as immigration and health care are at the forefront of the 2020 presidential race. Democratic candidates repeatedly have decried Trump’s strict immigration policies, and most have touted "Medicare-for-All" or at the very least a public option for health care. Most have even taken it a step further and supported providing health care for undocumented immigrants. | Frank Miles | http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/mzWMCy9ikFA/federal-judge-blocks-trump-health-insurance-rule-for-immigrants | Wed, 27 Nov 2019 01:23:31 GMT | 1,574,835,811 | 1,574,856,713 | health | healthcare policy |
220,612 | freedombunker--2019-04-09--The Medicare for All Push Is an Admission of Governments Failed Health Care Experiment | 2019-04-09T00:00:00 | freedombunker | The Medicare for All Push Is an Admission of Government’s Failed Health Care Experiment | According to President Trump, the GOP will soon be “the party of health care.” Yet the “repeal and replace” approach to Obamacare is no longer on the table, so we’re not sure what’s coming next. The Democrats, on the other hand, have a plan: Medicare for All. Popularized by 2016 presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, this proposal has since won the support of many on the left. Democratic Rep. Pramila Japaypal’s new House bill to establish Medicare for All boasts over 100 cosponsors, making the party’s transformation clear. Yet the consequences of this proposed policy are somber. Medicare for All effectively tells citizens that health care quality can’t get better, that the system is broken beyond repair, and that they should just take one for the team—even if it results in a tragic ending. Medicare for All would freeze the healthcare system as we know it, preventing further innovation and development. For years, health care’s progression has sped along at a steady clip. Artificial intelligence and wearable technology, for instance, can now provide information that can be used for diagnostics and customized treatments which improve health care outcomes. Some doctors have moved to provide direct primary care, a Netflix-like subscription model with unlimited access to basic services against a monthly fee. Hospitals are building a reputation by voluntarily posting prices in an effort to increase transparency. Meanwhile, major companies are teaming up with telemedicine providers to make health services conveniently accessible to employees around the clock. But little change or innovation is happening in areas under government control. This is seen nowhere more clearly than in drug development. FDA drug approval times average 12 years. Hospitals also exemplify this inefficiency because physicians spend over 50 percent of their time on administrative tasks due to burdensomePatients have already paid more than their fair share, and they will continue to overpay through huge tax increases if the Democratic policy is implemented. ACA regulations. Turning the government into the only provider of health care would prevent innovative products and business structures from improving the quality of care because the profit incentives to outdo competitors would disappear. In the long run, the health of future generations would suffer. Medicare for All is merely the government’s admission that it has failed to build a system that works. Federal policies have wreaked breathtaking damage—high prices, burned-out doctors, and a whopping 250,000 deaths due to medical errors every year—yet now, some feel that the government ought to take full ownership over the problem it created. In truth, no one knows exactly how health care became the regulatory monster that it is today, let alone how to craft policies that will allow it to run smoothly for generations to come. Of course, politicians can’t admit to that, but they can always propose pie-in-the-sky solutions like Medicare for All and ignore the fact that patients will have to pay for their mistakes. Needless to say, patients have already paid more than their fair share, and they will continue to overpay through huge tax increases if the Democratic policy is implemented. Medicare for All leaves the door open for the government to assume a decisive role in people’s lives—and deaths. While patients would no longer transfer money to insurance and providers, health care bills would continue to be due, and the government would have to pick them up. With this financial power, the state would act as the ultimate decision-maker in granting access to treatment—with potentially tragic consequences. We saw a devastating example of this in the case of a British couple whose baby, Alfie Evans, was refused hospital admittance by the UK government due to high treatment costs and a high probability of failure. Sure—economically, the decision makes sense. But many parents would rather lose a home than a child, and that tradeoff can’t reasonably be expected from a bureaucratic government entity that works under budget constraints. So Alfie Evans died. This isn’t the kind of controversy we should want to bring stateside, but it could potentially happen here if we hand the reins over to big government. Medicare for All promises that the burden of cost will be lifted—but it doesn’t guarantee that health care quality and access will be maintained. After all, Medicare for All presents parallels with Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign ad “The Life of Julia.” Julia, a cartoon character meant to represent all of us, was introduced via an online slideshow that followed her from birth to death, her life punctuated by the government’s actions under the candidate’s would-be policies—free college tuition, subsidized health care, and social security through retirement. People across the political spectrum denounced the portrait as unrealistic, decrying the meaninglessness of Julia’s existence, the woman’s reliance on the state, and the manifest ways in which the promises couldn’t hold. "The Life of Julia” promised the average American that she would be happy, healthy, and well off until death thanks to the support afforded to her by the government. At the end of Obama’s presidency, this rosy picture didn’t describe the situation of many Americans who had been fed false promises. Today, Medicare for All promises that the burden of paying for healthcare will be lifted from patients—but it doesn’t guarantee that health care quality and access will be maintained. In fact, the opposite will happen. It’s high time for concerned citizens to realize the consequences of the proposal that too many already see as the future of healthcare. | Sean McBride | http://freedombunker.com/2019/04/09/the-medicare-for-all-push-is-an-admission-of-governments-failed-health-care-experiment/ | 2019-04-09 18:00:33+00:00 | 1,554,847,233 | 1,567,543,402 | health | healthcare policy |
221,680 | freedombunker--2019-06-26--Marylands Health Care Price Controls Arent Solving ProblemsTheyre Creating Them | 2019-06-26T00:00:00 | freedombunker | Maryland’s Health Care Price Controls Aren’t Solving Problems—They’re Creating Them | The 2020 Democratic field, as with much of the Democratic party, is currently fighting about whether to expand Obamacare, allow more people into Medicare, or pursue the more radical option of full-fledged single-payer. But should a Democrat win the White House next year, it's likely that left-leaning wonks will make a push for a somewhat different, lesser-known idea: "all-payer rate setting"—or, as it is more colloquially known, price controls. The basic idea behind all-payer is that the government sets prices for hospital services in a given region, offering transparency and eliminating the sort of maddening price differentials that frustrate patients, outrage politicians, and make headlines when they are revealed. In theory, all-payer should hold down health care costs by making it impossible to mysteriously jack up prices for health care services. In practice, however, all-payer ends up captured by the hospitals it is supposed to constrain, adds new layers of confusion to the already complex process of health care pricing, and, although it helps control spending on certain particular metrics, doesn't serve as a meaningful overall check on health care costs. Those are the main takeaways from Manhattan Institute scholar Chris Pope's new study of rate regulation in Maryland, which has maintained an all-payer system for about four decades. State-based price setting was common in the 1970s and 1980s, but largely disappeared by the 1990s; Maryland is the only state which continued the policy. And it continues, Pope concludes, because the state's hospitals like it, since it effectively guarantees them a large additional income stream from the federal government. Maryland's all-payer system historically operated under a unique waiver from the federal government that ends up granting the state's hospitals about $2.3 billion a year more than they would get otherwise. The reason this extra pot of money exists is that in Maryland, Medicare rates are much higher than in other states. Typically, the rates Medicare pays hospitals are far lower than the rates paid by private insurers; nationally, private rates are about 67 percent higher than Medicare, a differential that has increased considerably in recent years. In 1997, they were just 13 percent higher. But that's not the case in Maryland, because the state's all-payer system means that every price is the same, regardless of whether the payer is public or private. This results in somewhat lower private payments—about 13 percent lower than the national average, according to Pope. But it also means that Medicare rates are much higher than is typical—on the order of 40 percent higher for inpatient services and 60 percent for outpatient. When all rates are the same, in other words, the rates paid by the federal government go way up, resulting in much higher than usual total payments. Maryland's rate-setting system is designed to extract a windfall from the federal government. And just because the rates are regulated doesn't mean hospitals don't find other ways to exploit the reimbursement system. For much of the system's life, the state's hospitals posted lower than average growth per admission but had significantly higher than average volume, which allowed them to extract additional money since total reimbursements weren't capped. That changed somewhat over the last decade with the adoption of so-called "global budgets," a complex system designed to contain total payments to a hospital and prevent volume-based gaming. Early reviews of the state's global budgeting system found that savings didn't always materialize. There are other concerns, too: By capping spending, global budgets have the potential to punish hospitals that attract more patients by offering higher-quality care. And even in a capped system, there are other ways around the state's rate regulations: As Pope notes, the state is home to more ambulatory surgery centers—which are not bound by all-payer prices—than any other state. There is some reason to suspect that privately insured patients who might pay higher rates are being pushed into those venues. In addition, the rules themselves become a kind of labyrinth of formulas and adjustment mechanisms. As Pope writes, "decades of reform have seen layers of regulations piled up to deal with the unintended consequences of previous regulation—in turn, generating still additional challenges that must be addressed with still further regulation." Adjustments to the rates are governed by obscure formulas that few really understand. All of this tracks with previous studies of rate-setting programs. A 1997 Health Affairs piece on the history of state-based rate setting found that "the statutes and regulations needed to sustain their rate-setting systems were complex and often incomprehensible." Even in their heyday, it was clear that rate-setting systems had limited usefulness. In 1985, a study in the Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, for example, found that states implementing rate setting saw lower per-admission costs but found "no direct evidence that total health care costs" were contained. Although these systems perform well on some targeted metrics, the hoped-for savings have always been something of a mirage. In part that's because confusion about these systems tends to benefit large incumbents who are better equipped to manage their quirks than lower-cost upstarts. So it is no surprise that Pope describes Maryland's rate-setting process as being "dominated by hospitals," and offers some historical evidence to suggest that the original rules were crafted in part by the state's hospitals themselves. This is how health care payment schemes almost always are: inscrutable, convoluted, yet somehow designed almost perfectly to funnel as much money as possible to health care providers. As Charles Silver and David Hyman argued in their recent book, Overcharged: Why Americans Pay Too Much for Health Care, much of the U.S. health care system only makes sense if you imagine it as a tool for funneling as much money as possible to health care providers. The limitations of Maryland's program offer a lesson not only for would-be technocrats touting the virtues of price controls on their own but also for those backing single-payer, which, in transferring control of virtually all of the nation's health care financing to the government, would require federal bureaucrats to set rates and budgets. There would be formulas and systems. They would necessarily be complex, because the delivery of health care is inherently complex. And eventually, if not immediately, they would probably be captured by the organizations—especially hospitals—that stand to benefit. | Ed Krayewski | http://freedombunker.com/2019/06/26/marylands-health-care-price-controls-arent-solving-problems-theyre-creating-them/ | 2019-06-26 14:50:19+00:00 | 1,561,575,019 | 1,567,537,964 | health | healthcare policy |
234,025 | hitandrun--2019-04-02--Trump Says Republicans Are Working on a New Health Care Plan Somehow Mitt Romney Is Involved | 2019-04-02T00:00:00 | hitandrun | Trump Says Republicans Are Working on a New Health Care Plan. Somehow, Mitt Romney Is Involved. | Although Republicans failed to repeal and replace the health care law in a months-long push in 2017, and have signaled in recent months that they were ready to move on—especially since Democrats ran successfully on maintaining Obamacare's pre-existing conditions rules in last year's midterm—President Donald Trump has put repeal back at the center of the GOP's domestic policy agenda. In a tweetstorm last night, Trump announced that Republicans "are developing a really great HealthCare Plan," that will be voted on after the next election, once Republicans "win back the House." Trump's tweets follow last week's decision by the administration not to defend any part of the health care law in court, and reports that the White House is working with several conservative think tanks to develop a new health care plan, and that Mitt Romney is also involved in "preliminary discussions." You may now be thinking to yourself: Mitt Romney? That Mitt Romney? To which I can only answer: Yes, that Mitt Romney. We all remember how Romney, who, as governor of Massachusetts, passed RomneyCare, a state-based health care system built around an individual mandate, a health insurance exchange, and subsidies for regulated health insurance. At the time, Romney said the plan should be a national model for health care reform. Then Democrats under the Obama administration used the Massachusetts system as a model for their own health care legislation, Mitt Romney ran for president and denied that he actually wanted it used as a model—and, well, here we are, about a decade later, with a national system of subsidies that can be used to purchase regulated insurance on an exchange, known as Obamacare, which Trump is pushing to repeal, with, apparently, Mitt Romney's help. If this were a serialized television show, people would complain that the plot is too complex, and the lore contradicts itself, the characters aren't consistent, and that despite tons of activity, the story never really goes anywhere...and they would be right. Trump says Republicans are developing a plan to vote on right after the 2020 election. But, as with any of Trump's promises, some skepticism is in order. The first problem is that Trump's plan doesn't exist. Not only has the White House never put forward a health care plan of their own, Trump has never offered anything other than the barest, briefest explanation of what he would like to see a health care plan do. In his tweets last night, Trump simply says that it will lower premiums and "support Pre-Existing Conditions," which, like "HealthCare" itself, have apparently risen to capital letter status in Trump's mind. In many cases, it's reasonable for the White House to hang back from the legislative process, letting Congress take charge. But one of the reasons that the repeal effort failed in 2017 was that Trump was utterly clueless about the various plans and processes; without presidential leadership to guide them, Republicans couldn't rally around an idea or even begin to attempt to sell it to the public. But Trump couldn't be bothered to learn the most basic details about the health care legislation the GOP was attempting to pass, so, again, here we are. That dynamic, and the perception amongst congressional Republicans (including and perhaps especially leadership) that the biggest factor contributing to the party's midterm losses was Democrats campaigning on pre-existing conditions, is one reason why there now appears to be a huge split between Republicans on Capitol Hill, who are wary of putting health care back into play in 2020, and the White House, which is gung-ho about doing so. On the election merits, Hill Republicans are probably right: A 2020 election about whatever replacement plan the Trump White House dreams up will probably ensure that Republicans remain a minority in the House, rendering this whole exercise moot. Which bring us to the second problem: The plan the Trump administration settles on, assuming it does, will most likely be a bad plan that pleases almost no one. According to Mitt Romney (yes, still, that one), the new idea that is currently being cooked up is not a new idea at all, but a modification of an old one: Romney told Buzzfeed the forthcoming GOP plan will likely be based on Graham-Cassidy, a last-ditch plan introduced in 2017 that was, itself, only sort of a plan. The short version is that it would eliminate Obamacare's mandatory coverage requirements and take the money that is currently being spent on subsidies and Medicaid under the law and split them up between the states. States could then use that money to fund something like Obamacare (most blue states, presumably) or something else that they come up with later (most red states, presumably). Almost everyone will hate this plan, including, probably, some people who say they are fine with this plan. Liberals and defenders of Obamacare will hate it because it dismantles some of the regulatory infrastructure of Obamacare. In particular, it eliminates the health law's essential health benefits—which include things like maternity care—and therefore undermines the law's pre-existing conditions regulations. Republicans running for reelection in 2020 will hate it, though many will admit this only in secret, in anonymous quotes attributed to "leading Republicans" and terse refusals to discuss the plan at length on the record, because it puts pre-existing conditions back on the table (see above), and Republicans in tight races don't want to run re-election campaigns built around pre-existing conditions. Republicans from states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare will hate it because it will almost certainly penalize states that did so by taking that money and splitting it (more or less) equally among states, meaning states that chose not to expand Medicaid would get more, and states that did expand would get less. These Republicans may be coy about the precise reasons, but they will be there, looming in the background of the debate. Or perhaps the foreground. Among the Republicans who represent an expansion state are Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. In 2017, the last time a Graham-Cassidy style block grant was proposed, Paul said he opposed the plan because "It just means you're keeping all the money we've been spending through Obamacare, most of it, re-shuffling it, taking the money from Democrat states and giving it to Republican states. I think what it sets up is a perpetual food fight over the formula." He's not wrong. Which is why critics of Obamacare are also likely to grumble about this idea as well. A Graham-Cassidy style block grant would merely take the money that's already being spent and redistribute it a different way, to politically powerful states who would lobby not only for more money for themselves, but more money overall. It's not a plan to improve the quality of health care in America so much as a politically contrived policy dodge, allowing Republicans in Washington, who don't agree on much of anything about health care, to say they took down Obamacare while leaving current spending in place—and redirecting a bunch of it toward Republican states. For all of these reasons, it's hard to imagine that something like this passes, even if Republicans do retake control of the House in 2020, and hold control of the Senate and the White House. In other words, there's no reason to think the underlying dynamic that kept a repeal bill from passing in 2017, when the GOP held all of Congress and the White House, would be different. This is quite likely to go nowhere, anyway. As Trump ramped up the health care chatter last week, The Washington Post reported that administration insiders knew it was just for show: "White House aides acknowledge that there is no specific plan and that when Trump has said the Republicans need to be the party of health care, it is more of a branding exercise." A branding exercise! Why, it's almost like Trump is someone specializes in sticking his name on hacky, low-quality products he doesn't actually create himself. But to recap: Trump promises a great new health care plan is on the way, but there's no plan yet, and when there is a plan, it will probably be a bad plan that can't pass. And somehow Mitt Romney is involved. | Peter Suderman | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/XjALPJXg52I/trump-republicans-health-care-romney | 2019-04-02 14:58:00+00:00 | 1,554,231,480 | 1,567,544,319 | health | healthcare policy |
234,462 | hitandrun--2019-04-30--House Democrats Back Bill That Would Result in 500000 People Losing Health Insurance | 2019-04-30T00:00:00 | hitandrun | House Democrats Back Bill That Would Result in 500,000 People Losing Health Insurance | Democrats have spent years complaining that Republican health care legislation would result in fewer people with health insurance, often while pointing to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates showing just how many would go without coverage. But now Democrats in the House are backing legislation that would result in 500,000 people losing coverage, according to a new report from the CBO. The bill would prohibit the sale of renewable short-term health plans allowed by a Trump administration rule that went into effect last year. These plans, which can be extended for up to three years, tend to offer more limited coverage than the plans sold under Obamacare's rules, and they also tend to be significantly less expensive. If the bill were to go into effect, about 1.5 million fewer people would end up purchasing short term plans, CBO estimates. About half a million of those people would end up purchasing coverage through Obamacare's exchanges instead. Others would obtain coverage through their employers. And about 500,000 "would become uninsured." That is, half a million people who had coverage would lose it—and replace it with nothing. The bill would also have a modest effect on the deficit, resulting in a decrease of about $8.9 billion over the next decade. For context, CBO projects the deficit will total about $900 billion in 2019. Although the bill is unlikely to become law while Republicans hold the Senate and the White House, House Democrats in both the Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor committees have already voted to support it. The bill's effects are smaller than those of the GOP repeal legislation introduced during 2017, and total coverage may not be the only or best metric by which to judge such legislative proposals. Nevertheless, the bill exposes one of the fundamental rifts in today's health policy debates—the division between those who believe health insurance plans should be required, by law, to offer a comprehensive suite of benefits, and those who believe in allowing for more customized and personally tailored options. Essentially, it is an argument about whether politicians and bureaucrats should design coverage, or whether it should be left to individuals to choose for themselves. That divide was reflected in the structure of Obamacare, which required health insurance plans to offer a suite of "essential health benefits," from maternity care to mental health, and outlawed an array of existing plans that offered more limited coverage. The benefits of such comprehensive plans are plain: They offer a broad spectrum of benefits. But so are the drawbacks: They tend to be substantially more expensive, which is one reason why the price of unsubsidized plans sold through Obamacare's exchanges has soared. In a report on short-term plans last year, for example, The Washington Post noted the case of one Iowa man who purchased a short term plan for $90 a month; the Obamacare-approved alternative would have cost about $450. Individuals and families have struggled to afford the more heavily regulated plans offered under the law, and some have simply been priced out of the market. Rather than allow those people to purchase less expensive plans, even as a fallback option, the Obama administration restricted their sale, with backers of the health law deriding them as "junk insurance." In this view, a second-best option is not worth allowing at all. Yet as Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute's health policy director, has pointed out, those plans can fill gaps in Obamacare's coverage scheme. With some exceptions, the health law's exchanges only make new coverage available during a few weeks or months at the end of each year known as an open enrollment period. Someone who purchased a three-month plan under the Obama-era rules in, say, January, would not be able to extend it and could find themselves unexpectedly sick and unable to renew the coverage for months. Allowing short-term plans to last for a year, as the Trump rule does, offers them a better option. But these sorts of options are apparently not what Democrats have in mind when they say they want to expand coverage. Instead, they appear willing to potentially allow hundreds of thousands of people to go without coverage entirely in order to prevent anyone from having coverage they deem insufficient. | Peter Suderman ([email protected]) | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/OVXAtHv23WE/ | 2019-04-30 17:09:46+00:00 | 1,556,658,586 | 1,567,541,619 | health | healthcare policy |
234,999 | hitandrun--2019-06-17--San Francisco Wants To Force CEOs To Pay for a Citywide Free Mental Health Care Program | 2019-06-17T00:00:00 | hitandrun | San Francisco Wants To Force CEOs To Pay for a Citywide Free Mental Health Care Program | San Francisco politicians want to offer tax-funded mental health care to all city residents, and they're expecting companies with well-paid CEOs to foot the bill. On June 11, six of the 11 members of the Board of Supervisors introduced a motion to put a new tax on "disproportionate executive pay" before San Francisco voters in November. Companies that pay their chief executives 100 times the median compensation of their employees would pay an additional .1 percent tax on gross receipts, in addition to the .3 to 1.3 percent gross receipts taxes they currently pay. The tax will increase incrementally to an additional .2 percent for firms that pay their chief executives 200 times their company's median employee compensation. The new tax would cap out at .6 percent for companies with chief executives who earn 600 times the company's median employee compensation. This tax would fund another program slated to appear on the ballot in November, called Mental Health SF, which "will create a 24 hour, 7-day-a week" mental health services system "that will offer immediate care to any San Franciscan who needs it," said Supervisor Hillary Ronen when she first floated the policy in late May. "We have a crisis of people who are severely addicted to drugs and that have severe mental health illnesses that are wandering the street and that desperately need help," Ronen said in an interview with KQED. To be placed on the ballot, both proposals need support from at least six of the board's 11 supervisors. Both measures have that support, and the Board of Supervisors is expected to vote to place them on the November 2019 ballot by the end of July. The CEO tax question would require two-thirds support from San Francisco voters to pass because it is for designated spending. The Mental Health SF question requires only a simple majority of voter approval to pass. If the mental health initiative passes and the tax fails, the city would likely need to find another way to fund the program. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, Ronen and fellow Supervisor Matt Haney said they would try to get more money from the state if the CEO tax does not pay for the mental health funding. They might need to do that anyway, as the revenue from the CEO tax would likely not cover the total cost of Mental Health SF. The city's Public Health Department estimates that the Mental Health SF proposal will cost between $244 million and $1.1 billion annually, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. Those estimates, the Chronicle notes, don't include the $278 million required to build or establish a new mental health drop-in center that the program would require. Meanwhile, the CEO tax is estimated to only bring in $140 million, according to the city controller's office. San Francisco currently spends $370 million per year on mental health services, according to USA Today. In addition to the funding problems, there's also the question of who would be eligible for publicly funded care. "Among the many questions that seemed to trip [Ronen and Haney] up during a Monday meeting with our editorial board: Who, exactly, would qualify for the free care? What would be the residency requirement?" the Chronicle editorial noted. Lastly, the new CEO tax being put forward to fund this proposal could well see highly nimble corporations choose to leave the city or reduce their presence there, warns Jared Walczak of the Tax Foundation. Corporations "might well reduce their footprint in the city of the tax burden grows too onerous," Walczak. "Many businesses clearly want to be in San Francisco but as the diffusion of tech clusters demonstrates, there are limits." In the last couple of years, San Francisco has seen companies leave to open up headquarters in places like Salt Lake City and Austin—places that have much friendlier business taxes and lower costs of living. What's more, San Francisco voters passed the largest tax increase in city history just last November. Raising taxes again could drive away businesses and shrink the tax base, thereby reducing revenue and making it difficult to pay for existing programs, much less new ones. | Ben McDonald | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/D8few6y4EsQ/ | 2019-06-17 20:00:07+00:00 | 1,560,816,007 | 1,567,539,009 | health | healthcare policy |
235,918 | hitandrun--2019-08-28--Democrats Are Retreating on Single Payer Health Care | 2019-08-28T00:00:00 | hitandrun | Democrats Are Retreating on Single Payer Health Care | A decade ago, single payer health care—the government-run health care system that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) refers to as Medicare for All—was a fringe idea in the Democratic Party. President Obama positioned his health care law as an alternative to the notion of a fully government-run system, and the few Democrats in Congress who supported single payer tended to do so softly, believing that most Americans would reject the idea. When former Sen. Max Baucus (D–Mont.) led negotiations over the legislation that would become the Affordable Care Act, he had one rule: All options would be up for discussion—except for single payer. As Baucus tells Robert Draper of The New York Times in a sharply reported feature on the rise of single payer as a force in Democratic politics, the senator was sympathetic to the idea, but didn't believe America was ready. Given how difficult it was to pass the comparatively less radical plan that became Obamacare, I'd say he was right. Over the last decade, however, single payer has become a widely held policy preference on the left—what Draper describes as a "litmus test for progressives," with more than a hundred backers in the House, and multiple top-tier supporters in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Medicare for All, Draper writes, has gone mainstream. Yet in recent weeks, there are also signs that the momentum has slowed, and that some Democrats are retreating—or at least proceeding with caution. Most prominently, there is Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), one of the original co-sponsors of Sanders' Medicare for All bill in 2017. After months of backtracking and flip-flopping on whether she supports eliminating most private health insurance, as the Sanders plan calls for, she appears to have fully reversed course, expressing discomfort with the Sanders plan and releasing her own (confused) competing plan. The party's old guard meanwhile, continues to think Medicare for All is a bad idea, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) repeatedly questioning it, and former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–Nev.) saying last week that it would be a problem for Democrats to back it in the 2020 election because it couldn't pass. Former Vice President Joe Biden, who represents this wing of the Democratic Party and is the primary field's most prominent critic of Medicare for All, remains at the top of the polls. Sanders himself, meanwhile, recently modified his plan in response to concerns from unions, suggesting that even Sanders is not completely unmoved by criticism of his plan, at least if it comes from the left. Meanwhile, it appears that there's little enthusiasm for single payer legislation where it matters—among the Senate Democrats positioned to exert the most influence over any future legislation. Ezra Klein of Vox recently spoke to a quartet of upper chamber Democrats about their health policy plans. He found that they had ambitious expansions of Obamacare in mind, and no plans to seek Republican votes, assuming that their opponents would oppose any plan Democrats put forward. So these Democrats are feeling ambitious and expansive about health policy and unburdened by the need to compromise with Republicans. Yet even now they remain wary of the sort of full-fledged single payer system called for in Sanders' plan, largely because it would abolish most private coverage: Which isn't to say Senate Democrats are prepared to abolish private health insurance. As in Wyden's comment, the word "choices" came up a lot in my conversations. "As a practical matter, the way we move forward on health care has to be recognizing people's current insurance system and allowing people to make choices," says Stabenow. "If everyone chose the Medicare public option, then it would be very clear what the public wanted." "I understand the aspirational notions around Medicare-for-all, but if there's one thing that I think we still have to wrestle with, it's that Americans want to see more of their fellow citizens covered but they are very nervous about losing what they have," says Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA). "There's a huge risk aversion." Brown, who has long supported single-payer, agreed. "I think you want people to have choice still," he says. "You don't want to take people's insurance away. A lot of people don't want government insurance. I understand that." Single payer supporters like to argue that the energy is on their side, that the public broadly supports their plans, and that incrementalism has proven disastrous as both politics and policy. And they can point to polls like the one released this morning reporting that about two-thirds of Democratic primary voters are more likely to back a candidate who supports Medicare for All versus one who wants to expand Obamacare. But while there's certainly truth to the notion that Medicare for All has risen in prominence and popularity, especially among the left, it also seems clear that there are limits to its rise. A separate poll from Monmouth released this week finds that less than one-quarter of Democratic voters want a system that replaces private insurance with a government-run plan—which is exactly what Medicare for All as envisioned by Bernie Sanders would do. And remember: This poll result is limited to self-described Democrats, who are almost certainly more favorable to wiping out private insurance than others. Even if Democrats somehow managed to win control of the White House and both chambers of Congress—which looks unlikely at this point—it would be a real struggle to pass the sort of radically disruptive plan that Sanders has called for. And it's not just obstructionist Republicans who won't stand for it; it's Democrats themselves. A decade after Obamacare, it seems that Baucus' intuition that most Americans aren't ready for single payer remains correct. So yes, Medicare for All has gone mainstream, and yes, it will likely remain a prominent part of the Democratic Party's policy vernacular going forward, and worthy of discussion and criticism as a result. But for the foreseeable future, at least, it will probably remain out of reach. | Peter Suderman ([email protected]) | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/ZQvBjWWk9hM/ | 2019-08-28 14:49:47+00:00 | 1,567,018,187 | 1,567,543,620 | health | healthcare policy |
236,014 | hitandrun--2019-09-05--A Government-Run Health Insurance Plan Would Be Less Radical Than Medicare For All But It Still Wou | 2019-09-05T00:00:00 | hitandrun | A Government-Run Health Insurance Plan Would Be Less Radical Than Medicare For All. But It Still Wouldn't Work. | The health care debate in the Democratic primary so far has, for the most part, revolved around a single question: Medicare for All—or something else? Given the persistent political and policy challenges to passing and implementing a single-payer system along the lines envisioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and other Medicare-for-All boosters, the answer is probably going to be "something else." So it's worth asking what that something might be. The most likely answer is a "public plan" or "public option"—that is, a government-run health insurance plan that would exist alongside today's insurance options, supplementing employer coverage, Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid without fully displacing them. Indeed, should Democrats win both Congress and the White House, the proposal of a public option is, at this point, far more likely than a big push for Sanders-style Medicare for All. The public option was a feature of several early drafts of Obamacare, but was dropped from the final bill, primarily due to opposition from then-Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. So it's no surprise that the presidential race's most prominent public option backer is former vice president and current Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden, whose health care proposal has been billed as both an update to Obamacare and a moderate alternative to Sanders' single-payer plan. A public option would probably be less radical, less disruptive, and, on paper, less expensive for the government than Sanders' Medicare for All proposal. Yet it would still pose real challenges in terms of cost and political viability. Although the final text of Obamacare didn't include a full-fledged public plan, it did include a substitute in the form of funding for nonprofit insurance co-ops. As the health care law was being drafted, members of the Obama administration, including President Barack Obama himself, made clear that they saw little difference between the two systems: "You could theoretically design a co-op plan that had the same attributes as a public plan," then–Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told Bloomberg. "I think in theory you can imagine a co-operative meeting that definition," Obama told Time, referring to a public option. Public plan proponents often pitch the idea as a way to increase insurance market competition. It wouldn't outlaw private insurers like a Sanders-style Medicare for All plan. Instead, they argue, it would force them to compete with government-run insurer that wouldn't need to make a profit and could therefore be more efficient. And, they add, if a public option pays rates comparable to Medicare's—which tend to be much lower than the rates—then cost estimates indicate the plan could actually save the federal government money, reducing the federal budget deficit by more than $100 billion over a decade. This was the basic argument for Obamacare's co-ops as well. Yet by and large, they were failures. The health law called for $6 billion in federal funding to help start these nonprofits, a figure that was eventually whittled down to about $2.4 billion. More than 20 were launched. By 2016, 17 had collapsed, leaving hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries without coverage. In every case, the reason was simple fiscal math: The co-ops couldn't bring in enough premium revenue to cover medical expenses. If you view the co-ops as test cases for a public option, there are lessons to be learned from these failures: Launching a new health insurance plan at reasonably competitive rates that also bring in enough money to pay the bills is difficult, even with billions in federal funding at your disposal. There's little reason to think that a federally backed public option would fare any better, especially since lawmakers would face considerable political pressure to keep premiums artificially low. There's a crucial difference, of course, between a government-subsidized insurer run as a nonprofit and an entirely government-run health insurance plan. When Obamacare's co-ops ran out of money, they shut down. A national public plan might conceivably continue to operate at a loss forever, with taxpayers making up the difference. Medicare's long-looming insolvency—currently set for 2026—makes clear that long-term actuarial soundness is no requirement for a government health care program. And a public option's costs could be greater than Medicare's, since it there would be considerable political pressure to pay higher rates. That's what happened in Washington, the only state to implement a public option. As The New York Times reported in June, state legislators originally wanted to set up a state-run health insurance plan that would pay the same rates as Medicare. But that would have represented a steep reduction from the rates paid by private insurance; Obamacare plans, for example, paid about 174 percent of Medicare rates. Doctors and hospitals pushed back against the proposal, and lawmakers eventually gave in, passing a plan that paid 160 percent of Medicare rates. As the bill's sponsor, state Sen. David Frockt (D–46th District), told the Times, that concession was the only way to get the bill over the finish line. "I don't think the bill would have passed at Medicare rates," he said. "I think having the Medicare-plus rates was crucial to getting the final few votes." Biden isn't the only prominent Democrat to back a public option. Influential Senate Democrats—who would presumably end up crafting much of any actual legislation—have been touting the idea recently too, saying that they no longer worry about trying to appease their Republican opponents. But the problems and complications with building a new government-run insurance plan aren't exclusively a matter of Republican obstructionism. Hospitals and doctors will lobby for higher rates under any circumstance, and designing insurance that is actuarially sound while offering competitive benefits and pricing will be a challenge no matter what. In other words, it would still come with plenty of potential pitfalls—and so far, Democrats appear to have few if any plans to deal with them. Finally, there is the matter of the public option's place in the health care debate as the sensible, pragmatic fallback position for those who see Medicare for All as too much, too soon. Biden and others are pitching the idea as a moderate alternative to single-payer, but this is a relative comparison that works only because Medicare for All is even more radical. A public option might be less immediately disruptive than a full-stop single-payer overhaul, but it would still substantially increase the feds' role in financing health care. Over time, it would expand and extend the federal government's control over the system, giving both Congress and the executive branch another means with which to influence the delivery of health care. It wouldn't quite be a government takeover, but the government would certainly tighten its grip. | Peter Suderman ([email protected]) | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/UPsCU5W0-Kw/ | 2019-09-05 17:38:34+00:00 | 1,567,719,514 | 1,569,331,232 | health | healthcare policy |
237,374 | hitandrun--2019-12-13--Public Health Scholars Warn: 'Prohibitionist' E-Cigarette Policies Undermine a 'Tremendous' Harm Red | 2019-12-13T00:00:00 | hitandrun | Public Health Scholars Warn: 'Prohibitionist' E-Cigarette Policies Undermine a 'Tremendous' Harm Reduction Opportunity | In a wake-up call for people who claim to be concerned about smoking-related disease and death, five prominent public health scholars warn that the "tremendous" harm-reducing potential of e-cigarettes could be nullified by panicky political responses to underage consumption and vaping-related lung injuries. "The evidence warns against prohibitionist measures," they write in a Science article published yesterday. "Restricting access and appeal among less harmful vaping products out of an abundance of caution while leaving deadly combustible products on the market does not protect public health. It threatens to derail a trend that could hasten the demise of cigarettes, poised to take a billion lives this century." The authors—Amy Fairchild, dean of the Ohio State University's College of Public Health; Cheryl Healton, dean of New York University's College of Global Public Health; James Curran, dean of Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health; David Abrams, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at New York University; and Ronald Bayer, a professor of sociomedical sciences at Columbia—observe that discussions of vaping "often neglect distinctions between nicotine and THC; between adults and youth; and between products obtained through the retail and black markets." While black-market cannabis products containing the additive vitamin E acetate figure prominently in the recent lung disease outbreak, they note, "nicotine or flavored vaping liquids have not yet been implicated." And while adolescent vaping, which has surged in recent years, does involve legal nicotine products, the authors warn that misguided efforts to curtail it could deter smokers from switching to a much less hazardous source of nicotine. Consider the prohibition of flavored e-liquids, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering and which several jurisdictions, including Michigan, Massachusetts, and New York City, already have imposed. "Vaping flavors with or without nicotine may appeal to youth, but flavors also appeal to adult smokers and help them switch," Fairchild et al. write. "Evidence suggests that the vast majority of smokers who successfully switch completely from smoking combustible products to vaping do so—after weeks, months, or years of dual use—by transitioning from vaping tobacco or menthol flavored liquids to other flavors and often to lower nicotine concentrations or even to no nicotine in order to reduce the triggers that remind them of their prior smoking product." San Francisco has gone further than flavor restrictions by banning e-cigarettes outright, a policy endorsed by the American Medical Association. That approach, the article argues, gives insufficient weight to the reductions in smoking-related mortality that could be achieved if e-cigarettes remain legal, accessible, and appealing as an alternative to the conventional, combustible kind. "There is solid scientific evidence that vaping nicotine is much safer than smoking," the authors note, while "evidence from multiple strong observational studies and randomized trials suggests that vaping nicotine is more appealing and more effective than [nicotine replacement therapy, such as patches and gum,] at displacing smoking." Although the FDA does not like to talk about it, that displacement is not limited to adults. Fairchild and her co-authors point out that "population youth smoking rates dropped much faster in the years vaping surged the most (2013–2019) than in prior years, reaching record lows during that same period, which suggests that nicotine vape use may be replacing smoking more than promoting it." E-cigarette prohibitionists may think they are acting "out of an abundance of caution," but the policies they advocate look downright reckless when you consider the ongoing death toll from cigarette smoking. "The most conservative estimates suggest that were vaping nicotine to replace most smoking over the next 10 years, 1.6 million premature deaths would be avoided and 20.8 million quality adjusted years of life would be saved in the United States alone," the authors write. "The greatest gains would be among younger cohorts. Across the globe, more than 8 million smokers will die prematurely from smoking cigarettes, not from nicotine itself, in 2019 alone. The potential benefit of appropriately regulated, innovative, noncombusted nicotine modes of delivery could have a tremendous impact globally." | Jacob Sullum ([email protected]) | http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/Dyr3PEmGTJw/ | 2019-12-13T17:50:33Z | 1,576,277,433 | 1,576,282,810 | health | healthcare policy |
290,215 | lifesitenews--2019-11-12--Alberta passes bill to protect conscience rights of pro-life healthcare workers | 2019-11-12T00:00:00 | lifesitenews | Alberta passes bill to protect conscience rights of pro-life healthcare workers | EDMONTON, Alberta, November 11, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — The Alberta United Conservative Party (UCP) passed a private member’s bill on first reading Thursday that protects the conscience rights of healthcare workers and religious organizations who refuse to participate in practices such as abortion or euthanasia. While mainstream media is full of stories warning that Bill 207 will restrict access to abortion and euthanasia, Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Society, lauded the bill as “fabulous.” Introduced by UCP backbencher Dan Williams (Peace River), the Conscience Rights (Health Care Providers) Protection Act reasserts the Charter rights of healthcare professionals to refuse to advise, assist or perform any “medical procedures” — such as abortions, contraception and euthanasia — they object to for personal or religious beliefs, CBC reported. The purpose of the bill is to “protect healthcare providers and religious health care organizations from being subject to a claim for damages based on the exercise of rights under section 2(a) of the Charter,” it reads. It will safeguard physicians “from having to do an act or refer for an act that they consider to be morally wrong,” Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews. A great benefit of the law is that it does not list specific procedures, which allows wide latitude for doctors to conscientiously object to a number of “procedures” based on their religious convictions, he pointed out. Currently, Alberta has a “1-800” number for a health ministry service that will direct patients who are seeking such morally objectionable services as euthanasia or abortion, and that doctors are expected to give to their patients, he said. The bill also extends conscience protection to religious organizations, which the Charter does not, Schadenberg said. The bill passed 36-15 on first reading, with all UCP members present voting for it and all NDP members voting against it. Premier Jason Kenney was not present for the vote. Williams tweeted Thursday about the bill’s first step: However, among media naysayers were Global News talk-show host Charles Adler and Macleans Magazine reporter Jason Markusoff, who tweeted in response: Calgary Herald columnist Don Braid pointed out the conscience rights’ bill “provides immunity from complaint or discipline to health providers that refuse to deal with patients whose needs offend their conscience.” The bill “never uses the word abortion, which makes it potentially wide-reaching. Conscience rights could also be expanded to help for LGBTQ people and assisted death,” opined Braid. Moreover, CBC ran a story Sunday warning the bill could affect access to hormone therapy or medical treatment for transgender individuals. The NDP also claimed the bill is the UCP’s attempt to limit access to abortion, but Williams said last Wednesday that is “absolutely not” the case. “Let me be clear, this bill not only protects freedom of conscience, but it also in no way limits access to healthcare services in the province,” Williams said. The rookie MLA said his bill was a response to the “moral distress” of doctors who believe their conscience rights are under threat, particularly after the Appeal Court of Ontario ruling last May, the CBC reported. The appeal court upheld the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s policy mandating that doctors who conscientiously object to certain medical “procedures” must provide an “effective referral” — that is, for the purposes of the act — to their patients. “There is a real concern. They feel as though within the province, particularly in health care, but in our country at large across all professions and in public, there is an attack on conscientious belief and a diversity of views,” Williams said, as quoted in the CBC. “This legislation is intended only to protect the Charter rights that individuals have and access to all these (medical) services will continue afterwards as before — no changes,” he added. The bill has now been referred to the Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members' Public Bills. There are 63 UCP MLAs in the Alberta legislature to the NDP’s 24. | null | https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alberta-passes-bill-to-protect-conscience-rights-of-pro-life-healthcare-workers | 2019-11-12T01:08:00+00:00 | 1,573,538,880 | 1,573,560,162 | health | healthcare policy |
318,699 | motherjones--2019-08-05--Trump Blames Shootings on Mental Illness But Hes Spent the Past 2 Years Trying to Cut Access to He | 2019-08-05T00:00:00 | motherjones | Trump Blames Shootings on Mental Illness. But He’s Spent the Past 2 Years Trying to Cut Access to Health Coverage. | During an address to the nation on the Monday morning following a weekend in which two mass shootings in the United States left 31 people dead, President Donald Trump deflected the blame for the massacres away from firearm access, saying, “Mental illness and hatred pulls the trigger, not the gun.” But despite voicing concerns about mental illness, Trump has taken repeated action during his presidency to restrict Americans’ access to health care, including mental health care. Trump has been a long-time critic of the Affordable Care Act, most recently supporting a lawsuit that aims to strike down the ACA entirely. As Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy, explains, the ACA requires insurers to cover mental health care and bars them from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions, including mental illness. “The research is very clear that the ACA significantly increased coverage, which in turn increased access to behavioral health treatment, mental health services, treatment for addition, that have all resulted in improved mental health for individuals who gained coverage,” Park said. “If you take that coverage away, certainly that would be a huge negative impact on mental health in the United States.” Prior to the ACA, popularly known as Obamacare, insurance companies didn’t necessarily have to pay for mental health coverage, and, as a result, 18 percent of people enrolled in private plans didn’t have mental health benefits. The ACA included mental health as one of the 10 “essential benefits” that must be included in all insurance plans sold on the individual or small-group markets. But through the lawsuit and the bills that Republican lawmakers tried to pass in 2017, Trump has spent his presidency trying to erase those essential benefits. “The Trump administration has worked to roll back the ACA and insurance regulation, moving in the direction of less coverage of mental health, not more,” Larry Levitt, the executive vice president for health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said via email. “The administration is arguing in court that the entire ACA should be overturned, including the expansion of Medicaid and benefit requirements, including for mental health.” The Trump administration has already diminished access to mental health care by expanding the duration of short-term health plans, so-called “junk insurance” plans that do not have to comply with the ACA and typically don’t include coverage for mental health. “People get stuck in these plans, and if they have a behavioral health issue, they’re gonna likely go without needed care,” Park said. The connection between mental illness and mass shootings, it should be noted, is weak. Even though research has shown that gun control reduces firearm-related deaths, the United States—which has had more mass shootings than any other country—has failed to pass comprehensive gun control measures. Recent mass shootings have been motivated by racism, anti-Semitism, and anti-immigrant sentiments. But if we were to accept the specious notion that unchecked mental illness was solely responsible for the epidemic of mass shootings in the US, Trump’s efforts to restrict Americans’ access to mental health care would have done more to contribute to the problem than to solve it. “His general approach is to make it harder for people to access health coverage,” Park said. “As a result, that would make it more difficult to access needed care for behavioral health issues.” | Abigail Weinberg | https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/08/trump-blames-shootings-on-mental-illness-but-hes-spent-the-past-2-years-trying-to-cut-access-to-health-coverage/ | 2019-08-05 20:13:51+00:00 | 1,565,050,431 | 1,567,534,791 | health | healthcare policy |
347,518 | newsmax--2019-12-24--Critics: Buttigieg Health Plan Slams Consumers at Year's End | 2019-12-24T00:00:00 | newsmax | Critics: Buttigieg Health Plan Slams Consumers at Year's End | Pete Buttigieg's moderate alternative to Medicare for All has a catch: People who choose not to enroll could still face bills totaling thousands of dollars, in a plan that critics say expands the individual mandate, the least popular part of Obamacare. "Mayor Buttigieg's retroactive enrollment is just a supercharged version of the unpopular individual mandate that he's trying to obscure with misleading rhetoric," said Matt Bruenig, head of the People's Policy Project, a left-wing think tank, reports The Washington Post. "Instead of paying a $695 fine at the end of the year for being uninsured, you are hit with a bill to pay an entire year of premiums that could be ten times that amount. This will be a political nightmare." Buttigieg's plan, critics say, might leave Americans with bills at the end of the year of more than $7,000. Under Buttigieg's proposal, people who do not have healthcare coverage will find themselves automatically enrolled in the government plan, and then billed at the end of the year for "retroactive coverage." His campaign says the plan will him to fill his promise of universal health coverage while not tossing out private insurance altogether. A spokeswoman denied Buttigieg has misled voters and justified charging back payments because people being charged will have had coverage over the year. The choice, according to a statement, will not involve whether or not to have insurance, but instead where to get it. Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., both back Medicare for All plans that would require Americans to switch to a new $30 trillion single-payer system, which has led to criticism from Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. He says his own $1.5 trillion plan is more centrist and less expensive, as it offers patients the choice between a government plan and a private one. "You take a version of Medicare, a public plan," he said at a recent Davenport, Iowa, event. "You can stay on a [private] plan if you'd rather. Or you can come to the public plan if you want." Buttigieg, along with former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., have released policies that would create a public option, or new government insurance plan, that would provide competition with private health insurance. | null | https://www.newsmax.com/politics/pete-buttigieg-insurance-individual-mandate-obamacare/2019/12/24/id/947234 | Tue, 24 Dec 2019 19:21:41 EDT | 1,577,233,301 | 1,577,234,949 | health | healthcare policy |
383,059 | npr--2019-01-09--Democrats Health Care Ambitions Meet The Reality Of Divided Government | 2019-01-09T00:00:00 | npr | Democrats' Health Care Ambitions Meet The Reality Of Divided Government | House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a speech Thursday to the new Congress that Democrats want "to lower health care costs and prescription drug prices and protect people with pre-existing medical conditions." **Carolyn Kaster/AP** ****hide caption**** ****toggle caption**** Carolyn Kaster/AP House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a speech Thursday to the new Congress that Democrats want "to lower health care costs and prescription drug prices and protect people with pre-existing medical conditions." Carolyn Kaster/AP In her first speech as speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi made it clear that she knows that health care is key to why voters sent Democrats to Congress. "In the past two years the American people have spoken," [Pelosi ](https://www.speaker.gov/)told members of Congress and their families who were gathered Thursday in the House chamber for [the opening day](https://www.npr.org/2019/01/03/681727613/pelosi-poised-to-retake-gavel- as-house-speaker-with-new-session-of-congress) of the session. "Tens of thousands of public events were held, hundreds of thousands of people turned out, millions of calls were made, countless families, even sick little children — [our little lobbyists,](https://www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2017/07/19/537208601/her-own-medical-future-at-stake-a-child-stormed- capitol-hill) our little lobbyists — bravely came forward to tell their stories and they made a big difference," said Pelosi, a California Democrat. What is the Democrats' mandate? "To lower health care costs and prescription drug prices and protect people with pre-existing medical conditions," she said to applause. In their campaigns last year,[ Democrats promised](https://www.npr.org/2018/10/25/660281890/2018-is-the-year-democrats- got-comfortable-talking-health-care-again) to protect the Affordable Care Act, and the access to coverage that it guarantees for many people. Many Democrats went further, running on the promise of "Medicare-for-all." But now that Democrats control the House, their ambitions are meeting up with reality. With the Senate in Republican hands and President Trump having promised to repeal the ACA, Democrats' ability to make sweeping health policy changes is limited. Instead, they'll likely rely on hearings and turn to the courts to try to influence health policy and shore up the ACA. Pelosi started on Day 1. Just hours after her speech, House Democrats voted to [intervene in a lawsuit](https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/682349986/house-democrats-hire-new- top-lawyer-to-defend-affordable-care-act) in an effort to protect the Affordable Care Act. The House will join several state attorneys general in appealing [the ruling of a federal district judge in Texas](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/14/677002085/texas- judge-rules-affordable-care-act-unconstitutional-but-supporters-vow-to-app) that the law is unconstitutional. And [Rep. Frank Pallone](https://pallone.house.gov/), D-N.J., head of the [Energy and Commerce Committee](https://energycommerce.house.gov/), announced a hearing on the impact of the ruling. He said he intends to hold lots of hearings to review the Trump administration's actions around the ACA — actions he calls "sabotage." "At a time when the Trump administration is doing all the sabotage of the ACA, I think the focus really has to be on trying to prevent the sabotage and making sure the ACA is strengthened," he said in an interview in his Capitol Hill office. That "sabotage" includes Trump's decision to[ stop reimbursing insurance companies](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/10/13/557541856 /halt-in-subsidies-for-health-insurers-expected-to-drive-up-costs-for-middle- clas) for discounts they're required by law to give to their lowest-income clients, Pallone said. He also cited a Department of Health and Human Services rule change that allows insurance policies that [don't carry the full benefits ](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/10/01/652141154/buyer-beware- new-cheaper-insurance-policies-may-have-big-coverage-gaps)required by the ACA to be renewed for up to three years. In the past, those plans were intended to serve as a bridge for someone between jobs and were limited to just a few months Pallone said these and other changes may violate the law. "I think if you do some good oversight and find out what the sabotage consists of, then you can say, 'Well this isn't allowed under the law,' " Pallone said. "And then you either take it to court or try to get legislation passed." Oversight is a powerful tool, said [Chiquita Brooks- LaSure](https://www.manatt.com/Chiquita-Brooks-LaSure), a former HHS official who is now a managing director at Manatt Health Strategies, a lobbying firm. "I don't think we should underestimate how important that is, when decisions that are being made are questioned and officials have to defend them," she said. For the past two years, the focus in Washington has been on repealing or dismantling the Affordable Care Act. That's about to change, she said. "That energy can now shift to examining what the administration is doing and putting forth other ideas and other proposals, some of which might generate bipartisan agreement," she said. Pallone is hopeful that Republicans may support some measure to shore up the ACA. In the last Congress, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., [proposed bills ](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/01/540656651/trumps- tweets-threaten-to-destabilize-insurance-markets)that would restore those payments to insurers, and he backed a plan to create a reinsurance program that could help reduce premiums. Pallone acknowledged Democrats' plans are much less ambitious than the "Medicare-for-all" proposals that many of his colleagues touted during their campaigns. "I just think it's unlikely that we could ever pass it," he said. "So I don't want to prioritize that." | Alison Kodjak | https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/01/09/683055963/democrats-health-care-ambitions-meet-the-reality-of-divided-government?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=news | 2019-01-09 16:40:00+00:00 | 1,547,070,000 | 1,567,553,333 | health | healthcare policy |
409,640 | pinknewsuk--2019-04-30--Iowa Republicans pass bill to cut off funding for trans peoples healthcare | 2019-04-30T00:00:00 | pinknewsuk | Iowa Republicans pass bill to cut off funding for trans people’s healthcare | Signup to receive a daily roundup of the top LGBT+ news stories from around the world Iowa Republicans have launched an eleventh-hour plot to cut off funding for transgender people’s healthcare. Republicans in the Iowa Senate launched a surprise attack on Friday (April 26), quietly slipping in an amendment to a crucial healthcare funding bill taking aim at transgender people. The amendment, penned by Senator Mark Costello, carves a broad exemption into non-discrimination healthcare laws, stipulating that civil rights measures “shall not require any state or local government unit or tax-supported district to provide for sex reassignment surgery or any other cosmetic, reconstructive, or plastic surgery procedure related to transsexualism, hermaphroditism, gender identity disorder, or body dysmorphic disorder.” LGBT+ rights campaigners say the provisions are a “deliberate and brazen attempt to quietly rollback the rights of transgender Iowans,” handing officials the power to indefinitely block transgender healthcare provisions. The bill had already cleared the Iowa House before the amendment was slipped in, meaning the funding bill has been cleared to head to to the desk of Governor Kim Reynolds despite calls for a vote in the lower chamber on stripping the amendment. ACLU of Iowa executive director Mark Stringer said: “The amendment to the Health and Human Services budget bill is dangerous and harmful. It risks people’s health and lives to score political points. “Banning Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery would bring significant harm to people who rely on Medicaid and who desperately need this surgery. This is a matter of life and death. “This cruel amendment has no basis in medicine or science. Every major medical association agrees gender dysphoria is a serious medical condition and that surgical treatment is medically necessary for some transgender people. “That includes the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the National Association of Social Workers, and the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH). “It is a clear violation of equal protection under the Iowa Constitution because it would discriminate against people simply because they are transgender.” The bill also seeks to block sex education funding from going to Planned Parenthood, which Stringer warns would “be extremely detrimental for our state and would likely reduce the progress that has been made in reducing the teenage pregnancy rate, among other positive gains in sex education.” JoDee Winterhof of Human Rights Campaign added: “As a native Iowan, it’s disturbing to see lawmakers in my home state trying to roll back the clock on progress and discriminating against transgender people at the eleventh legislative hour. “These lawmakers should be focusing on ways to improve the health and wellbeing of all Iowans, not targeting transgender people to win cheap political points. Reynolds, a Republican, is yet to say whether she will sign the bill. In a statement to KCCI, a spokesperson said: “The governor appreciates and will consider all feedback from Iowans on the various pieces of legislation that is now on her desk. “In the coming weeks, she will review each bill with her policy team and then make a decision.” Earlier this month, gay presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg was met by anti-gay protesters in Iowa who chanted homophobic messages at him. | Nick Duffy | https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/04/30/iowa-republicans-bill-funding-trans-healthcare/ | 2019-04-30 21:08:48+00:00 | 1,556,672,928 | 1,567,541,602 | health | healthcare policy |
409,712 | pinknewsuk--2019-05-04--Iowa governor signs law limiting funds for trans and intersex healthcare | 2019-05-04T00:00:00 | pinknewsuk | Iowa governor signs law limiting funds for trans and intersex healthcare | Signup to receive a daily roundup of the top LGBT+ news stories from around the world Iowa governor Kim Reynolds signed a law that will limit public funds for trans and intersex healthcare. Iowa Republicans introduced a last-minute amendment to the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) budget bill on April 26 in an effort to carve a broad exemption into non-discrimination healthcare laws. The amendment to the law signed by Governor Reynolds on Friday (May 3) stipulate that civil rights measures “shall not require any state or local government unit or tax-supported district to provide for sex reassignment surgery or any other cosmetic, reconstructive, or plastic surgery procedure related to transsexualism, hermaphroditism, gender identity disorder, or body dysmorphic disorder.” As such, those procedures will no longer be funded under public programs such as Medicaid. The amendment directly undermines a March ruling by Iowa’s Supreme Court, which stated that the state’s Civil Rights Act protects transgender Iowans from discrimination based on gender identity, including in the provision of services via Medicaid. The law comes into effect the moment the governor signs it. LGBT+ campaigners have condemned the legislation and Governor Reynolds’ decision to sign it. “It’s deeply disappointing that Gov. Kim Reynolds is caving to the pressure from some radical lawmakers in the Iowa Senate, instead of protecting the rights and dignity of transgender Iowans,” said JoDee Winterhof, senior vice president of policy and political affairs at the Human Rights Campaign. Winterhof added: “Gov. Reynolds had the option to line-item veto this provision and leave the rest of the funding bill intact, but she did not. This sends a strong message that she is not working for all of her constituents and a craven desire to please Iowa’s most extreme lawmakers. As a native Iowan, Iowa deserves better—and different—leaders.” LGBT+ rights group One Iowa also condemned the governor’s decisions in a statement on Friday. “We are deeply disappointed that Gov. Reynolds has ignored medical experts, Iowa business leaders, cost analysis data, and the many transgender Iowans and allies who shared their stories with her to sign this bill into law,” the statement read. It added: “By signing this cruel legislation into law, Gov. Reynolds has told every transgender Iowan that they are second-hand citizens and unwelcome in our state. Make no mistake, this law threatens people’s lives. Today is a shameful day to be an Iowan.” | Sofia Lotto Persio | https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/05/04/iowa-law-limiting-funds-trans-intersex-healthcare/ | 2019-05-04 13:52:34+00:00 | 1,556,992,354 | 1,567,541,168 | health | healthcare policy |
416,913 | politico--2019-01-07--POLITICOHarvard poll Many Democrats back a taxpayer-funded health care plan like Medicare for All | 2019-01-07T00:00:00 | politico | POLITICO/Harvard poll: Many Democrats back a taxpayer-funded health care plan like Medicare for All | More than 4 in 5 Democrats want Congress to enact a taxpayer-funded, national health care plan such as Medicare for All, according to a new Harvard/POLITICO poll gauging the public’s health and education priorities for 2019. Some 42 percent of Democratic respondents to the poll supported repealing and replacing Obamacare — mostly in the interest of building on the health law's coverage gains and creating a new system so that more Americans have health insurance. While support for a national, taxpayer-funded plan is concentrated on the Democratic side, 60 percent of Republican respondents backed allowing Americans under 65 to buy into Medicare (71 percent of respondents overall supported the idea, and 83 percent of Democrats). “What Republicans are saying is, ‘Sure, I think we should have another option,’” said Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who helped design the poll with POLITICO. “In the mind of the person answering it, they're hearing choice. And that's not Medicare for All, which everybody in America has the same card.” Meanwhile, 65 percent of respondents (70 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of Republicans) support a public health insurance option that would compete with private payers. The proposal divided Democrats during the bitter debate leading to passage of the 2010 health care law. The poll showed most people weren't aware of a Medicare buy-in or public option but were broadly supportive of the ideas when informed about them. The poll identified efforts to curb prescription drug prices as an area of potential bipartisan compromise this year. Addressing the cost of medicines ranked as respondents' top priority for the new Congress, with 92 percent saying doing so is extremely important (94 percent of Democrats and 89 percent of Republicans). The two parties were also in overwhelming agreement that lawmakers should make sure insurance companies provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions — a message that Democrats capitalized on in the midterm elections. And the vast majority of Democrats (93 percent) and Republicans (78 percent) also don’t want Congress to cut Medicare benefits. “Some of the caucuses in the Republican House have made cutting back on Medicare their budgetary strategy for deficits,” Blendon said. “An important finding here is that in a world where Medicare was not really a big issue in this election, how important Republicans feel about not cutting benefits in Medicare.” The poll found the public is largely unaware there's no longer a penalty for not obtaining health insurance. Only 36 percent of respondents were aware that congressional Republicans used their tax bill to gut the ACA's individual mandate. The effect of that change on Obamacare enrollment remains unclear. Sign-ups on the federal health exchange saw a modest 3.4 percent dip this year. But Blendon said it’s too soon to tell what the elimination of the penalty does to enrollment, since most consumers don’t know it’s gone. On education policy, the poll found bipartisan majorities strongly supporting efforts to reduce student debt and increase spending on K-12 public education. Republicans ranked making it easier for students to attend charter or private schools a higher priority than Democrats, who were more supportive of increased spending on community college. The poll surveyed 1,013 adults between Dec. 11-16. The margin of error is between plus or minus 3.7 and 5.2 percentage points. | [email protected] (Rachel Roubein) | https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/07/politico-harvard-poll-medicare-for-all-1061791 | 2019-01-07 14:21:52+00:00 | 1,546,888,912 | 1,567,553,568 | health | healthcare policy |
417,064 | politico--2019-01-27--Newsom makes health care the centerpiece of Californias resistance to Trump | 2019-01-27T00:00:00 | politico | Newsom makes health care the centerpiece of California’s resistance to Trump | For California under Gov. Gavin Newsom, the resistance to President Donald Trump is about health care. Much as his predecessor Jerry Brown made climate change the state’s big challenge to Trump, Newsom has embarked on a health agenda that includes extending care to undocumented adults and direct government negotiation of drug prices. Unlike the other potential and announced 2020 candidates pushing universal health care, Newsom isn't just talking theoretically, so there’s much more at risk. If his innovations in expanding Obamacare, extending Medicaid to undocumented immigrants — itself a jab at Trump’s hard-line immigration policies — and negotiating lower drug prices work, he could emerge as a hero of the Democratic Party. His policies could be templates for candidates pushing ahead on universal health care — an aspiration shared by Democrats even if they are still divided on what specific policies to pursue and how quickly to pursue them. “In his first day in office, Gov. Newsom established himself as a major force on health care among Democrats and in the states, and that was never true of Gov. Brown,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. But the strategy carries a lot of peril. The push to extend care will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars and could stress health systems by attracting more undocumented immigrants. Meanwhile, Newsom’s reluctance to make single-payer health care his top priority after campaigning on it could antagonize the political left, including the California Nurses Association, which has thwarted past health legislation it deemed too timid. The emerging 2020 Democratic field — and governors of other states — will be watching. "He’s among the first to try to do some of these things," Chris Jennings, who served as a health policy adviser in both the Clinton and Obama administrations said. Even though California's size offers more resources and leverage, "many of the policies he's pursuing can be replicated through individual states or collaborations, and a number of states are starting to think about those things." Newsom at his Jan. 7 inauguration announced he wants California to be the first state to extend Medicaid coverage to undocumented adults, building on Brown’s 2016 move to cover undocumented children. Newsom also wants to install an Obamacare-style individual mandate, which Congress effectively wiped out nationwide in the 2017 tax law. And he wants the state to harness its buying power to bring down drug prices by creating the largest direct purchaser of prescription drugs in the country. The 51-year-old former San Francisco mayor and lieutenant governor is tapping into an issue that resonates with Californians. A new poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the California Health Care Foundation found 45 percent of residents surveyed ranked making health care more affordable as “extremely important” — just behind education and ahead of affordable housing as priorities for the governor and Legislature. Newsom isn’t the first California governor to elevate the issue. A decade ago, Arnold Schwarzenegger launched an ambitious bipartisan effort to reshape the state’s health system based on a model pioneered by Massachusetts that later became the basis of the Affordable Care Act. It crashed after encountering resistance from single-payer advocates on the left who didn’t think it went far enough and conservatives. Newsom’s Medicaid expansion, which will cost the state about $260 million a year, has already prompted pushback from Republicans in Congress, where a group of senators led by Bill Cassidy (R-La.) has introduced legislation that would strip a portion of California's federal Medicaid funding if it's determined federal dollars were paying for Medi-Cal services for undocumented adults. But California says that’s moot because it’s using its own funds — which also means it doesn’t require the Trump administration’s approval. Though the response to Newsom’s plan within the state has been more positive, with interest groups eager not to antagonize the new administration, Republican state legislators have questioned the long-term cost of such an open-ended entitlement expansion — and the wisdom of wading into a high-profile immigration debate. State Sen. John Moorlach, a Republican from Orange County who was born in the Netherlands, said after Newsom unveiled his budget that he’s troubled the Medi-Cal expansion might benefit those “who didn’t come through the front door like my folks and I did.” “I’m just concerned with how do we pay for it, how does it work and is it fair.” he said. The governor’s in-your-face start is “vintage Newsom,” according to Ben Tulchin, a Democratic strategist and pollster, who called it a “clear push-off on the Trump administration’s priorities on taking people’s health care away from them and taking on immigrants.” Tulchin said Newsom, who implemented San Francisco’s landmark universal health access program while he was mayor and issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples just weeks after he was inaugurated, has a “much stronger track record on social services and caring for people" than Brown, who blocked a number of costly health care initiatives in his last years in office, including legislation to enact a single-payer health system. "It’s how he campaigned and is coming through in how he’s governing.” "It's almost impossible to do anything in health care and not ruffle feathers,” added Kaiser's Levitt. “The governor is walking quite a tightrope so far successfully in not bringing on significant opposition.” That could yet change. Newsom's plan to lower drug prices by having the state negotiate with drug companies on behalf of all state agencies, as well as leverage the power of its Medicaid drug purchasing, is sure to draw strong industry opposition and possibly litigation. Many details still need to be fleshed out, such as whether the state needs a federal waiver to increase its negotiating might for drugs purchased through Medi-Cal. Newsom also is proposing to reinstate the Obamacare mandate to buy insurance after Congress zeroed out the penalty for noncompliance. Vermont, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., have weighed similar moves, despite the lingering unpopularity of the penalty. In California's case, Newsom is wagering the requirement will prod more middle-class residents into the state's Obamacare exchange, Covered California. Penalties for noncompliance could help subsidize coverage for people with incomes that are 400 to 600 percent of the federal poverty level. Peter Lee, head of Covered California, said Newsom’s announcement on the mandate demonstrated courage. “Penalties aren’t fun,” the state exchange director told POLITICO. “It really is an act of courage, which was one of the taglines of his campaign.” Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California, said the mandate shouldn’t be the only source of that funding. “Our ideal world is when nobody pays the individual mandate penalty because everybody is signing up for coverage,” he said. Newsom is also likely to face continued pressure from the California Nurses Associations and other supporters of a "Medicare for all"-style system. Though he supports the concept, Newsom has adopted a go-slow approach that could yet antagonize supporters on the left who want it to remain a signature goal. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), said California should pass single-payer legislation before the 2020 election, to establish a model if Democrats pull off a sweep and gain control of the White House and both houses of Congress. David McCuan, a political analyst and professor at Sonoma State University, said Newsom’s early actions on health appear calculated to draw a contrast with Trump and the climate in Washington. “It not only marks Newsom as a progressive champion," McCuan said, "it also sends a shot across the bow to Washington D.C." | [email protected] (Victoria Colliver) | https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/27/california-gavin-newsom-health-care-1096727 | 2019-01-27 11:54:50+00:00 | 1,548,608,090 | 1,567,550,635 | health | healthcare policy |
417,497 | politico--2019-04-01--Killing Obamacare kills Trumps health agenda too | 2019-04-01T00:00:00 | politico | Killing Obamacare kills Trump’s health agenda, too | President Donald Trump wants to eliminate HIV in the U.S., contain the opioid crisis and lower the cost of prescription drugs — but all of those need Obamacare to be successful. And Trump just promised to kill it. His HIV plan relies on key pieces of Obamacare to expand access to prevention and treatment services for Americans at risk of contracting the deadly virus. Expanding opioid prevention relies heavily on Medicaid, which expanded under Obamacare. And Trump’s push to lower drug prices would use an innovation program that tests drug cost modeling — and was created by Obamacare. So while the notion of killing Obamacare altogether arouses the GOP base, the reality is that the decade-old law is so intertwined with the entire U.S. health care system that repealing large chunks of it would destroy the ability to do things Trump actually likes. Even members of Trump’s team have raised red flags. Outgoing FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said Thursday that overturning Obamacare could thwart an initiative to get cheaper forms of insulin on the market. Carl Schmid, an AIDS Institute leader and co-chair of Trump’s HIV advisory board, called the ACA decision “an unfortunate distraction from ending the HIV epidemic initiative.” “He’s just completely consigning his own initiatives to the ash heap if the ACA goes down," said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy expert at George Washington University. “It has become the fabric of the health care system.” If the law is struck down in court, as the president is rooting for, an estimated 25 million people will lose coverage through private insurance and Medicaid expansion, and insurers will no longer be required to cover people with pre-existing conditions like HIV/AIDS. The HIV and opioid crises are intertwined because HIV infections have increased with people sharing needles for injecting drugs. Any Obamacare changes that hurt one of those efforts will have serious ramifications for the other. “Trump’s attempt to dismantle the ACA would critically undermine the goal of ending the HIV epidemic in the United States in the near term,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-founder and co-chair of the bipartisan congressional HIV/AIDS caucus. “It would be like pulling the chair out from under the initiative,” said Jen Kates, director of Global Health and HIV Policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. In the days before Obamacare’s guarantees of coverage despite pre-existing conditions, people with HIV seeking individual insurance were denied 100 percent of the time, she said. Advocates and lawmakers have similar concerns about the national response to the opioid crisis, which Trump declared a public health emergency in 2017, which Trump declared a public health emergency in 2017. The Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid covers about 1.2 million people getting mental health and addiction treatment, according to a study published in Health Affairs. Finally, Trump’s plan to lower drug prices to what patients pay overseas depends on various parts of the ACA, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid’s Innovation Center — a vehicle for testing new payment models. The president last week abruptly shifted his previous position and signaled support for a federal judge’s ruling that the ACA in its entirety should be thrown out, despite objections from his health secretary and attorney general. Obamacare’s fate is likely to once again be settled by the Supreme Court. Trump has promised something better in its place, but no one knows what that might be. If Obamacare goes, prevention services and screening requirements provided under the ACA’s essential health benefits would be eliminated. This would occur as Obamacare was expected to soon require that PrEP, a drug that can prevent new HIV infections, be made available for free in all health insurance plans. Without those protections, fewer people could be diagnosed and get care — directly undermining a key goal of the Trump administration’s HIV strategy: to detect infections and treat people more quickly to avoid spread of the disease. Recent CDC data shows about eight in 10 new infections are transmitted by people who don’t know they’re infected. Public health experts are deeply concerned by any potential rollback in services, particularly in Medicaid, which covers more than 40 percent of all people living with HIV, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion is credited with increasing coverage of people with HIV — which jumped from 36 percent in 2012 to 42 percent in 2014 and has probably grown since many more states have bolstered their Medicaid rolls. The Trump HIV plan doesn’t count on states expanding Medicaid, but “they were also not expecting a state to lose access to Medicaid expansion as a result of a court case,” said Bill McColl, AIDS United’s vice president of advocacy and policy. To make its HIV plan work, the Trump administration planned to rely on non-profit health clinics and hospitals that receive steep discounts on drugs. Obamacare expanded this program, known as 340B, to rural, critical access and community hospitals. That drug savings money is credited with keeping many of these facilities open and alleviating some of the burden on health centers that treat uninsured and low-income HIV patients. If financially strapped rural hospitals lose their 340B status due to the elimination of Obamacare, it will place a huge burden on other places that treat HIV patients, like the Ryan White Clinics, said Peggy Tighe, the lead lobbyist for Ryan White Clinics for 340B Access. The cuts to 340B would also hurt anti-addiction treatment because some of the patients treated for HIV infections in rural hospitals and clinics are also opioid users, Tighe said. More than 170 hospitals were added to the drug discount program thanks to Obamacare in the seven states the Trump administration's HIV plan targets, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration. About 1,000 rural hospitals throughout the country joined the program, according to 340B Health, which lobbies for these health care facilities. By eliminating Medicaid expansion, reversing the ACA would make Trump’s plan to eliminate HIV vastly more expensive, “although still a worthy goal,” Schmid said. The billions Congress has appropriated to expand opioid treatment services would be undermined without the health care law’s coverage and consumer protections, such as the requirement that insurers cover addiction care the same way they cover other medical services. “You cannot strengthen a response to these problems if your foundation is weak,” said Andrew Kessler, founder and principal at Slingshot Solutions. When it comes to drug prices, ending Obamacare immediately would raise costs for seniors and state governments, while other Americans might see their drug coverage disappear entirely thanks to the loss of the ACA’s mandate that all health plans cover prescription medications. Seniors would likely spend around $2,000 or more in out-of-pocket drug costs each year without Obamacare, estimates Juliette Cubanski, Kaiser Family Foundation’s associate director of Medicare policy. That’s because the ACA requires drugmakers to provide big discounts to seniors in the coverage gap phase of Medicare Part D. And states would no longer be entitled to the larger discounts on drugs provided to Medicaid programs under Obamacare. Meanwhile, Trump administration efforts to get cheaper medicines to market could falter. Obamacare created the biosimilar pathway, a way for companies to bring cheaper versions of some of the most costly and complex biologic medicines to market. Eliminating the biosimilar pathway could cripple efforts to get cheaper versions of insulin to patients. Starting in 2020, insulin will be regulated as a biologic, finally giving companies seeking to make cheaper copycats a way to get a product approved that could be automatically substituted for branded insulin, whose cost has been rising. Gottlieb, who as FDA chief has made biosimilars a priority, acknowledged at a Senate Appropriations hearing Thursday that if Obamacare is overturned it would thwart FDA’s plan to increase access to them. “It’s a very important pathway and we fully support it, obviously,” Gottlieb said in response to questions from Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont). “We think it has been profoundly impactful with consumers.” Other Trump plans to lower the cost of medicines also would be stymied, like the president’s idea to test aligning Medicare payments for pricey doctor-administered drugs to the lower costs paid by other wealthy nations. This and other similar demonstrations can’t be done without Obamacare's Innovation Center, which gives the government broad powers to test new health policies without congressional approval. | [email protected] (Brianna Ehley) | https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/01/obamacare-trump-hiv-health-agenda-1244370 | 2019-04-01 09:03:31+00:00 | 1,554,123,811 | 1,567,544,448 | health | healthcare policy |
275,413 | ipolitics--2019-05-28--Renting vacant space at RCMP NS headquarters to cost 161400 annually Casey | 2019-05-28T00:00:00 | ipolitics | Renting vacant space at RCMP NS headquarters to cost $161,400 annually: Casey | The federal government is losing out on over $160,000 each year because prime office space in the headquarters of the Nova Scotia RCMP remains vacant, says Liberal MP Bill Casey. The Nova Scotia MP shared with iPolitics parts of a redacted copy of the 2017 internal RCMP feasibility study on relocating its emergency communications centre for Nova Scotia from Truro to its headquarters in Dartmouth that he received through an access-to-information request. One page in the report analyzing the “status quo” arrangement states that if the 306 square metres of excess space in the building remains unused, the Nova Scotia RCMP will have to reimburse the lost rental costs to Public Services and Procurement Canada — the landlord for federal properties. Based on current rental rates, this would cost the police force $161,400 annually over 10 years, which would collectively total over $1.6 million, according to the report. In a letter sent last week to RCMP commissioner Brenda Lucki, Casey asked why the police force was considering maintaining the excess space for the next decade instead of seeking out other federal tenants. “Why would the RCMP have a plan to continue to rent this empty space for 10 more years at an additional cost of 1.6 million dollars?” Casey wrote in the letter, which he shared with iPolitics. “None of this makes sense to me and I look forward to your explanations,” he wrote. Casey, whose riding includes Truro, has been a vocal opponent of relocating the communications centre, arguing it creates unnecessary safety risks as it would place the two largest police emergency communications systems in Nova Scotia within a few blocks of each other. Dartmouth is already home to the emergency call centre for the Halifax Regional Police. An outside examination of the relocation was announced last week after Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale asked the RCMP to examine Casey’s concerns. In a Facebook post earlier this year, Casey said he was told by some RCMP officers that the facility was being moved largely to fill vacant space in the public works building that houses the police force’s provincial headquarters. The RCMP is paying rent for the entire building, despite it being larger than is needed, Casey said, and moved the centre to prevent other departments or agencies, namely the Fisheries Department, from assuming the space. The Nova Scotia RCMP confirmed to iPolitics that it currently plans to house the relocated communications centre — starting in 2021 — in vacant space at its headquarters, saying it will allow for an “optimal space layout and accommodation” of all current employees, managers and administrative staff. The police agency also said it has a “responsibility to maximize the use of our space at headquarters.” Casey, though, has said multiple reports from emergency planning bodies warn against closely concentrating sensitive police communication services, with the two centres responsible for fielding 96 per cent of emergency calls in the province. If the communication facilities are brought closer together and simultaneously knocked out, he warned that ambulance, fire and 911 calls, as well as police dispatches, will go quiet for all of Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia RCMP said the police agency undertook an “extensive study” of the Truro communications centre, and the decision to relocate the facility to Dartmouth came after considering “employee health and wellness, operational requirements and fiscal responsibility now and into the future.” Other local politicians in Truro are joining Casey’s call to halt the planned relocation, including the town’s provincial representative and a military veteran seeking to replace Casey as the federal Liberal candidate in his central Nova Scotia riding in 2019. Truro NDP MLA Lenore Zann publicly released a letter Friday she wrote to Goodale and Lucki asking for the relocation to be suspended pending the results of the probe ordered by the minister. She said she observed “several substantial errors in the data” in the 2017 RCMP feasibility report that led her to believe its conclusion to support moving the centre to Dartmouth “appears to be based on incorrect information.” “If the correct data had been applied it is my belief that a completely different conclusion would have been reached,” she wrote. Jim Hardiman, a retired colonel with the Canadian Armed Forces seeking the Liberal nomination in Cumberland-Colchester, released a letter he wrote to Lucki outlining his concerns with the proposed relocation. A former senior operations officer for Canada’s military mission to Afghanistan, Hardiman echoed Casey’s concerns about clustering sensitive communication infrastructure and Halifax hosting nuclear powered vessels, also stressing that the city’s coastal location made it more vulnerable to serious storms. “It is my opinion that the proposed move from Truro to Burnside is poorly considered,” he wrote, referencing the community in Dartmouth where the RCMP headquarters is located. *This story has been updated to clarify how the outside examination of the planned relocation came to be. | Marco Vigliotti | https://ipolitics.ca/2019/05/28/rcmp-spends-13675-each-month-for-vacant-space-at-ns-headquarters-casey/ | 2019-05-28 18:53:11+00:00 | 1,559,083,991 | 1,567,539,955 | disaster, accident and emergency incident | emergency planning |
543,413 | sputnik--2019-09-07--Dorian Theres No Universal Model That Can Predict Category or Impact of Hurricane Former UN Expe | 2019-09-07T00:00:00 | sputnik | Dorian: There's No Universal Model That Can Predict Category or Impact of Hurricane – Former UN Expert | On 5 September, Hurricane Dorian brought heavy rains, strong winds and tornadoes to the Carolina coast leaving more than 200,000 people without power. Despite being downgraded to Category 2 on Thursday morning it was still dangerous, resulting in the closure of airports and harbours in the region. But as Dorian slowly loses steam the question arises as to how early one can predict a natural disaster and its direction. "A catastrophe arising from natural causes is a 'declared disaster' based on number of deaths and a declaration by a state and/or federal authority," says Dr Waheed Uddin, a professor, consultant, and former UN expert. "In the case of Hurricane Dorian in this first week of September 2019 on the south Atlantic coast of the US, disasters have been declared for all counties of Florida and affected counties in other states by the respective State Governors and the White House." "NASA/NOAA satellites series GOES are used to scan the tropical storm and monitor the hurricane path in real time helping to predict the trajectory path and its impact zone" which helps "the state and local authorities to provide adequate warning to the affected population, mobilise emergency personnel, and execute emergency management plans," Uddin said. But he added that "there is no universal weather or climate model that can predict precisely what category of tropical storm or hurricane will impact when and it's precisely location of landfall." Peter Gleick, an American scientist working on issues related to the environment, says that "scientists are getting better and better are forecasting and seeing hurricanes in advance." "Each year, an estimate of how many hurricanes may form in the Pacific is issued, and our satellites and other remote sensing now sees tropical storms and hurricanes form very early, given more and more advanced warning to areas threatened," Gleick says. "There is still, and will always be some uncertainty about strength, speed, and direction of hurricanes, but emergency planning for them has greatly improved in recent years." As of July 2019, there have been six weather and climate disaster events which each cost the US over $1 billion, according to the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). In 2018 the cost of US disasters amounted to $91 billion with only 2017, 2005 and 2012 being more expensive. In 2017, the total economic loss from hurricanes Harvey and Irma reached $125 billion, while in 2012 Hurricane Sandy and 2005 Hurricane Katrina exceeded $100 billion each. According to Uddin, 47% of the billion-dollar declared disasters in the US are caused by floods and coastal hurricanes. Citing the FEMA database of declared national emergencies in the US from 1953 to 2016 the professor notes that a total of 2,198 national emergencies were declared including: Natural disasters usually have a dramatic human and economic impact resulting in multi-million dollar losses: so far, Dorian has claimed the lives of 30 people and could cost the Bahamas $7 billion in insured and uninsured losses, as Bloomberg reported Thursday, citing catastrophe insurance specialist Karen Clark & Co. According to the National Hurricane Center, Dorian has become "the strongest Atlantic hurricane landfall on record with the 1935 Labor Day hurricane". "This tragic event reminds us to question that where should be the priorities for international disaster aid," said Uddin. "One of the United Nation’s priorities is for year 2100 climate change speculations of carbon dioxide induced global warming hypothesis that has not been proven by physical evidence." According to Uddin, the UN-operated Green Climate Fund bank should provide $500 million from its "climate fund" to help communities in the Bahamas and build disaster resilient infrastructure assets. American scientist Peter Gleick holds a different view, and believes that the best way to address the natural disaster issue and cope with losses is to act proactively and focus on the climate change problem. "The smartest investment is to reduce the risk of disasters, rather than to have to respond to them after they happen," says Gleick. "This is 'prevention' rather than 'response'. For example, we must slow the rate of climate change, or extreme events will become stronger and more frequent. The costs of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are far less than the cost of failing to do so and paying for the consequences." In June 2019, the US Congress passed a disaster relief bill envisioning the provision of more than $19 billion to US regions that had been hit by natural disasters. However, judging by the record of previous disaster events in the country in years 2018, 2017, 2012 and 2005 the sum seems likely to be insufficient. "Congress regularly passes disaster relief bills and when disaster costs rise above them, they sometimes pass additional bills to provide more funds," said Peter Gleick. Uddin echoes Gleick by saying that "the Congress can process a special supplementary aid bill like in the case of the 2017 Hurricane Maria disaster of Puerto Rico." Gleick is warning that "the costs of disasters are growing," urging American politicians "to pay more attention to addressing climate change, extreme events, and the growing risks of human disasters." Uddin, meanwhile, has outlined a roadmap which, in his view, can help tackle the problem. "To effectively utilise disaster resilience funding the following workflow is recommended for a specific region: · Identify and prioritise the top two to three natural disaster risks based on the frequency of occurrences. · Make simulation models and risk maps using the current topographic data and hazard forces. · Prioritise specific locations and infrastructure assets which are more prone to disaster risks and design and harden the infrastructure for longer life". Meanwhile, according to the National Hurricane Centre, Dorian isn't the only event that deserves monitoring given that three other disturbances are emerging in the Atlantic, including post-tropical cyclone Gabrielle, a disturbance off the coast of Africa that can morph into a cyclone within the next 48 hours and a potential cyclone near the Caribbean. The views and opinions expressed by the speakers do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik. | null | https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201909071076740588-dorian-theres-no-universal-model-that-can-predict-category-or-impact-of-hurricane-ex-un-expert/ | 2019-09-07 06:00:00+00:00 | 1,567,850,400 | 1,569,330,941 | disaster, accident and emergency incident | emergency planning |
1,069,899 | usatoday--2019-01-18--Shutdown panics domestic violence shelters despite temporary eleventh-hour reprieve | 2019-01-18T00:00:00 | usatoday | Shutdown panics domestic violence shelters despite temporary, eleventh-hour reprieve | Domestic violence shelters got an eleventh-hour reprieve Thursday as the Department of Justice announced its offices that distribute essential funding for victims' advocates would remain funded through March 1 despite the partial government shutdown. Unease had given way to panic and exasperation at many shelters as the clock ticked down to when DOJ's Office of Justice Programs and Office on Violence Against Women were set to close Friday, and pre-approved funds that nonprofits count on would no longer be processed. "People are freaked. They are so panicked," said Cindy Southworth, executive vice president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). "The emotional rollercoaster is inhumane." Though grants for 2019 have already been awarded to nonprofits that work with victims of domestic and sexual violence, recipients spend against those awards then submit reimbursement requests to the government on a monthly basis. If those funds are not processed on time, organizations can be left scrambling to finance payrolls, rent and utilities with private donations or local funding. More: Security, immigration controls fray as impasse over Trump's wall stretches into its fourth week More: White House tries to bypass Pelosi on shutdown talks, but moderate Democrats rebuff offer "It's great to get a six-week reprieve. But that's not a budget," Southworth said. "Let’s get spending bills passed, and victim advocates back to survivor safety and not worrying about having to stay afloat." For many in the field, the shutdown has kept directors up at night wondering how they will manage operations if federal funding falls through. Donna Kelly, director of CEASE Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Shelter in eastern Tennessee, said in an emergency meeting Monday, she and the nonprofit's board decided to cut half the program's staff in order to prioritize keeping clients currently in the 26-bed shelter safe. "Staff were alerted on Tuesday, with four days notice, that we'd be laying 17 people off," Kelly said. On Friday morning, Kelly received word that they'd continue to receive funds through February. "Layoffs will not happen on Monday, but the uncertainty is still there. Feels like we received a reprieve, but won't be able to continue without stress and worry until this is resolved." CEASE, like many similar programs across the country, receives grants through acts including the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). For weeks, grantees were told to submit payment requests by 6 a.m. on Jan. 18 before DOJ staffers who process payments would be furloughed. On Friday morning, the Office of Justice Program website (which, like all of DOJ's pages, is not being regularly updated during the shutdown), still contained a disclaimer that the office would not be operational after 5 p.m. At 4:50 p.m. Thursday, minutes before their offices began to close for the day, grantees began receiving word that the offices would continue to be funded. Wyn Hornbuckle, deputy director of DOJ's Office of Public Affairs, confirmed to USA TODAY Thursday that the offices would remain funded through March 1. Rep. José Serrano (D-NY), chairman of the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Committee, said while DOJ has found a temporary way to continue funding these efforts, "they may still run out of funding as long as the shutdown continues." “We need a full funding bill to make sure that funding doesn’t run out for important VAWA, VOCA and other grant programs intended to help and protect victims of domestic violence and crime.” Shelter and program directors were able to exhale as the notice came through, but say the state of uncertainty is taking a toll on their ability to render life-saving services and on morale for already underpaid staff. "Listening to some of the most courageous but also heartbreaking stories" is part of everyday work for shelter and hotline staff, she said. "Then the same heroes who do this work every day are being told ‘You’re going to be laid off Monday — no wait, you have six more weeks.' It’s the toll on the psyche that makes me angry." Southworth says many organizations in NNEDV were looking to credit and loans as options to ride out a lapse in funds, but interest charges and late fees can't be paid with grants so organizations would have to eat those costs. More: The most dangerous place for a woman? Her home, UN study shows More: Five generations of domestic violence prompts campaign to break cycle for young women "Advocates are squirreling away their private money, they're cutting anything extra like meals for victims or bus tokens," Southworth said. "And all the hours we’re spending emergency planning we're never going to get back." Alice Skenandore, director of Wise Women Gathering Place in Green Bay, Wisconsin, says four of its 12 grants come directly from the federal government to help pay for the nonprofit's Native American culturally-specific services for all victims of violence, including current rent payments for five families. If those were to be held up, Skenandore says she was prepared to cover payroll for Wise Women’s 21 employees through mid-February using a combination of credit, other grants and possibly taking out a loan. Turning Point, the only agency dedicated to services for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault in Macomb County, Michigan, a part of metro Detroit, began voicing concerns about the impact of the ongoing shutdown earlier this month. CEO Sharman Davenport said the shelter was at capacity, and if promised federal funds aren't paid out, she's unsure how long they'll be able to pay for necessities like heat and electricity. Larger organizations, like the Sojourner Family Peace Center, the largest provider in Wisconsin, typically have reserves that can help tide them over until reimbursements are cleared. But none are immune from the painful decisions of what programs would be axed in order to keep their most vital functions solvent. "I’m having to be very clear on a day-to-day basis, and having to forecast what I’m going to have to do when. It's familiar territory, but this is at a different level, it's threatening to choke off really vital services," said Sojourner president and CEO Carmen Pitre. "It's pretty incredible pressure in an area where there was already extreme pressure." Unlike Soujourn, CEASE has no reserves, and little opportunity in their rural pocket of Appalachia to independently raise $100,000 to make up for the federal funds they rely on as two-thirds of their monthly $150,000 budget. “We never turn anyone away that’s in a safety-need situation, we may put people on a couch for a night or two, but we try not to ever turn them away," Kelly said. "That’s where it's going to be really, really hard.” CEASE ran at slightly over capacity last year as demand for services has remained high. Sojourner also saw an increase in clients in 2018. NNEDV, citing a 2013 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, says an average of three women are killed every day by a current or former intimate partner. Nearly 1 in 5 adult women and about 1 in 7 adult men report having experienced severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That dire need hasn't helped break the stalemate in Washington, where lawmakers let the Violence Against Women Act lapse as negotiations around the federal budget hit an impasse over Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Proponents of VAWA rang the alarm in June, proposing an amended reauthorization, but it was caught up in partisan politics. Advocates lament the loss of bipartisan support they've historically received. But say the hardest part of the political standstill has been the impact on staff. “A lot of our staff live paycheck-to-paycheck, several are single mothers with multiple children that they’re taking care of. But just as hard as 'what are they going to do financially' is 'what are their clients are going to do without them?'” Kelly said. “I think that’s hitting them harder than their own loss. It’s the fear. We deal with life and death, and the clients that we work with depend on that advocacy. We literally could be putting peoples' lives in danger by not being easy to access.” If you are experiencing violence or in need of help, you can chat with someone from the National Domestic Violence Hotline live at thehotline.org or if you are afraid your internet usage might be monitored, call them at 1−800−799−7233 or TTY 1−800−787−3224. | Cara Kelly, USA TODAY | http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/~/592842224/0/usatodaycomwashington-topstories~Shutdown-panics-domestic-violence-shelters-despite-temporary-eleventhhour-reprieve/ | 2019-01-18 18:42:27+00:00 | 1,547,854,947 | 1,567,551,839 | disaster, accident and emergency incident | emergency planning |
398,514 | osce--2019-04-03--Humane return policy critical to well-functioning immigration system say OSCE parliamentarians in B | 2019-04-03T00:00:00 | osce | Humane return policy critical to well-functioning immigration system, say OSCE parliamentarians in Brussels | BRUSSELS, 3 April 2019 – The Return Policy of European Union Member States and Belgium’s practices in this area were the focus of a visit by members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly’s Ad Hoc Committee on Migration to Brussels on Tuesday, led by Chair Nahima Lanjri (Belgium). The delegation of parliamentarians stressed that both solidarity towards people in need of protection and the return of irregular migrants are key issues for a balanced and effective migration policy, and that return policies should be based on the principle ‘voluntary if possible, forced if necessary.’ With the proposals for a reformed EU Directive on Returns currently being debated in the European Council and the European Parliament, the delegation called for an emphasis on promoting alternatives to detention. The delegation also stressed the importance of safeguarding the dignity and fundamental rights of all migrants, with special regard for vulnerable categories of migrants, especially children and families with minor children. “Whether we are talking about ‘regular’ or ‘irregular’ migrants, accompanied or unaccompanied minors, refugees or asylum seekers, or any other category, we must remember that we are first and foremost talking about people and that the best interests of the child must always be given primary consideration. In any decision affecting children, including the implementation of return policies, it is vital that certain principles are upheld, such as the right to family unity and education.” She stressed that unaccompanied minors should never be detained and children should be granted access to adequate education and, as far as possible, be allowed to finish the school year before being repatriated. In that context, she also drew attention to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, as it is celebrating its 30 years anniversary this year. Lanjri also called for a more rigorous monitoring of forced returns to ensure that the principle of non-refoulement is not violated. Furthermore, she noted that voluntary returns should always be given preference, and preferably with prior preparatory groundwork through a social work approach. The experience of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) also clearly points to increased sustainability of returns when reintegration assistance is provided. Indeed, she called for re-examining the criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of returns which currently relies to a great extent on statistics on the number of persons returned without further follow-up. Members expressed concern that the detention of children with families was now a reality both on paper and in practice in Belgium. Taking note of legislative changes in July 2018 and the construction of closed family units, they emphasized that these should be used only as a measure of last resort. Members also called for limits on periods of detention to be counted on a cumulative basis rather than on individual periods, in order to prevent abuse. The first part of the programme consisted of briefings on the current status of discussions within the EU on how to make returns more effective as well as on the basic principles which should underpin return policies. The OSCE parliamentarians met with officials from the IOM, the European Commission, the European Parliament, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and non-governmental organizations working with vulnerable children. The second component of the programme examined current practice in Belgium, seeking to identify lessons learned and examples of good practice. In the afternoon, the delegation visited the Steenokkerzeel repatriation centre in the vicinity of Brussels airport which is an immigration detention centre which, since the summer of 2018 also includes a number of ‘family units’ intended for the detention of families with minor children. For more information on the work of the OSCE PA's Ad Hoc Committee on Migration, please click here | SSharma | https://www.osce.org/parliamentary-assembly/416051 | 2019-04-03 13:08:32+00:00 | 1,554,311,312 | 1,567,544,248 | politics | fundamental rights |
598 | 21stcenturywire--2019-09-14--The Turkish Rap Attack Fighting the Status Quo with Loaded Words | 2019-09-14T00:00:00 | 21stcenturywire | The Turkish Rap Attack: Fighting the Status Quo with Loaded Words | It’s been said that art has the power to change the world, but does it have the power to reverse Turkey’s current Islamist trajectory? The New Turkey is all but an Islamic state in the making, a modern country caught between a seductive yet escapist modernity and a strict yet prayerful authoritarianism, caught between pleasure and duty, as it were. And somewhere in the middle is Turkey’s youth, busily participating in the digital world like their peers elsewhere while listening to Rap music and partaking of other licit and illicit pleasures . . . And, lest we forget, the majority of Turkey’s population of nearly 84 million at present is young, with the “median age . . . at 30.9 years . . . [and with] 27% ranging from 0 to 14 years of age,” and “12.97 million people aged 15-24,” according to the TÜİK (or the Turkish Statistical Institute) – that means that young Turks (aged between 0 and 24) make up about 40% of the country’s total population. And these young people are basically no different from young people elsewhere. Last April, the unemployment figure in Turkey was at a staggering 14.7%, with the “youth unemployment rate [at] 20.3%,” or one fifth of Turkey’s youngsters are experiencing joblessness. The TÜİK research furthermore indicated that “[m]ore than half of young people in the country (55.4%) said [nevertheless that] they were happy last year,” which also means that nearly half of Turkey’s young population last year experienced some kind of discomfort and felt that they were not reaching their full potential in the country. Arguably, prospects of impending joblessness, and resultant hopelessness leading to escapist stratagems involving video games, drug abuse, and other harmless and less innocent pastimes – factors that could very well transform these young Turks (arguably about 20% of the population) into rebels with a cause, particularly if we keep in mind that “[o]fficial figures . . . showed that 93% of [the] young population had internet access in 2018,” opening the prospect of the nowadays much-vaunted and -feared ‘internet radicalisation.’ In contrast. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (or the Prez), the Islamist politician who has been leading his party (the Development and Justice Party or AKP) and the country into the current post-Kemalist century, seems happily oblivious of these young people and their proclivities. After all, Erdoğan belongs to a very different demographic – born in 1954, at present 65 years of age. Rather than thinking about integrating his country’s younger generations into a global network of young people and their hopes and cares, since 2012, he has been adamant about his desire to rear pious generations that will work and pray for the benefit their home country and their god (Allah). For that reason, the 19th National Education Council (or Şura), held in December 2013, issued a momentous 179 “recommendatory decisions,” in line with the Prez’s desire for future generations of pious Turks. These recommendations “included the introduction of religious courses into the curriculum of primary schools. Whereas, middle school pupils undergoing training to memorize the Quran (known as hafızlık in Turkish) would be able to leave school for the duration of two years but will still be allowed to sit exams. At the same time religious instruction in high schools will be doubled, while the teaching of the history of Turkey’s reforms and the principles of Kemalism in middle and high schools will be subjected to a critical revision more in line with a contemporary understanding and current needs. But the most spectacular ‘recommendation’ or decision was arguably to turn the instruction of the Ottoman language (Osmanlıca, in Turkish) into a compulsory course for vocational religious high schools as well as social science high schools.” In January 2015, I put forward the notion that “these classes in the Ottoman language are more like a backdoor to learning the Arabic alphabet, which is a prerequisite for reading the Quran.” And that is indicative of the new Turkish status quo that has replaced the Kemalist version of secularism that kept Islam hidden from view yet alive and well behind the scenes. In reality, these recommendations were all but following the facts on the ground, as already in 2012 religious or “Imam Hatip education was extended to middle schools for pupils aged 10 to 14,” as noted by Reuters‘ Daren Butler. The Turkish state had originally founded İmam Hatip Lyceums or High Schools to educate young men to be imams (or prayer leaders) and preachers. And according to statistics recently released by the Ministry of National Education (or Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, commonly acronymsed as MEB), a grand total of 3, 286 İmam Hatip Middle School are at present active in the country, of which 427 are İmam Hatip Lyceums or High Schools (İHL). In time, the Prez and his henchmen would arguably like to turn all educational establishments in the land into religious establishments. These educational policies are in stark contrast to those originally espoused during the Kemalist years, when “religion was banned altogether from the schools for fourteen years between 1935 and 1949,” as remarked by Marmara University’s Dr Aylin Akpınar. On the other hand, the social scientist Turan Bilge Kuşcu conducted some research of his own into the matter of İmam Hatip Lyceums; and, his “results . . . show that 50% of parents indicated that they had chosen to send their children to “İHL” because of their desire for their children to receive a “religious education,” as published in the periodical Derin Maarif (or ‘Deep Education, ‘a name and word choice suggestive of the conservative and Islamic nature of its editorial line). Around the world, today’s youth culture seems centred around the phenomenon known as Hip-hop. As explained by National Geographic‘s Tom Pryor: “hip-hop culture has [currently] metastasized from its urban American roots into the global juggernaut it is today, [and] that’s largely thanks to the insistent, irresistible appeal of rap.” Nowadays, artists rap in English, in French, in Filipino, in any possible language, including Turkish. And last Friday, 6 September 2019, the Turkish public was exposed to a veritable rap attack targeting the nation’s youth (in the form of the rapper Ezhel‘s song/clip ‘Olay,’ released on YouTube), a musical assault on the status quo with the potential to rival the Friday Prayer (a weekly event that embodies and reinforces the status quo with governemnt-approved sermons). Ezhel’s ‘Olay’ is a musical release that caused a real storm in a tea cup (or maybe not) across Turkey’s computers and virtual landscapes. The Turkish writer and music critic Barış Akpolat queries whether the day will go down in history as the day a “revolution in Turkish Rap music” occurred . . . On Twitter, the University of California, Santa Cruz-PhD Candidate Kenan Sharpe stated that the “newest song by #Ezhel & crew is out. This bold music video features news clips/footage from the last 10-ish years of traumatic events in Turkish/world history. However you read the use of these images from our collective past, this video is certain to stir up discussion” (11:19 pm, 5 Sep 2019). The clip accompanying Ezhel’s track ‘Olay’ shows a wide variety of scenes of social unrest and protests in Turkey and across the wider world – visuals of the Ankara Massacre (10 October 2015), as well as of the 2013 Gezi protests and 2016‘s Coup-that-was-no-Coup, and many other instances of national and international outrage and unrest. Watch: . In fact, the previous day (Thursday, 5 September 2019), a collective of 17 Turkish rappers, under the wing of Şanışer, “one of the best rappers of the last years,” according to the ekşi sözlük user breuer, had released their own rap attack: “Rapper #Şanışer is causing a sensation in #Turkey with an epic video, #Susamam – “I can’t stay silent” – featuring more than a dozen other artists decrying injustices, environmental destruction, violence against women, inhumanity, and apolitical inaction,” as tweeted by the Istanbul-based journalist Jennifer Hattam (10:47 am. 6 Sep 2019). This nearly 15-minute epic rapfest includes a grand variety of words dealing with things and situations that are going wrong in the New Turkey. For instance, the female rapper Deniz Tekin deals with the issue of violence against women and sexual harassment, while Şanışer himself tackles the issue of street animals and animal rights, while others deal with topics like nature, the rule of law and justice (or the lack thereof in the country), education … All in all, #Susamam purports to be a real critique of the state of affairs in AKP-led Turkey, though never explicitly and definitely not openly referring to anything or anyone specific. And, as pointed out by Akpolat, conspicuous in its absence are LGBTİ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual and Intersexed) concerns and matters – asking rightfully, “[w]hich non-homosexual rapper could do justice to this topic with his/her words?” Watch: The timing of both releases seems very deliberate, or maybe it is just the result of fortuitous marketting. Ezhel’s song was released on a Friday, and as is probably well-known by now, the last day of the West’s working week carries a exceptional status in the Muslim world: “On Fridays, Muslims gather for a special congregational prayer in the early afternoon, which is required of all Muslim men . . . It replaces the dhuhr prayer at noon [one of the five prayer sessions Muslims are meant to observe]. Directly before this prayer, worshipers listen to a lecture delivered by the Imam or another religious leader from the community,” as can be read on the educational website Learn Religions. In Turkey, the Directorate of Religious Affairs (also known simply as Diyanet, in Turkish) has been taking care of these sermons since 1924, when Mustafa Kemal (later known as Atatürk, 1881-1938) abolished the Caliphate in conjunction with the Office of the Sheikh-ul-Islam (or Meşihat/Şeyhülislamlık, in Turkish), which also included Ministry of Pious Endowments. The Sheikh-ul-Islam had been responsible for all aspects of religious life in the Ottoman lands, given that Islam had been the official religion of the state. And following the establishment of the Republic of Turkey (1923), the Office of the Sheikh-ul-Islam was simply replaced by the Diyanet or Directorate of Religious Affairs (1924), as a branch of government attached to the office of the prime minister. During the Kemalist period (1923-2002), the influence of the Diyanet was limited at best, and Friday Prayers were only sparsely attended. Particularly, as the day had become the end of the working week in 1935, with the “weekly holiday [commencing] from 1 p.m. Saturday until Monday morning,” centred around Sunday, as expressed by the eminent (yet Arab-hating) Islamic studies specialist Bernard Lewis (1916-2018). In January 2016, the official Turkish news agency Anadolu Ajansı released the following statement: in Ottoman times, “there was no defined weekend for officials living in the Ottoman Empire. The overall tendency was to have a day off on Fridays for Muslims, on Saturday for Jews and on Sunday for Christians — holy days for each religion.” In Kemalist Turkey, by contrast, and particularly, during the years of One-Party Rule (1923-59), “Islam was literally crowded out of the public sphere,” as worded by E. S. Çarmıklı. But in the New Turkey, led by the Prez and his AKP henchmen, Islam has made a not-so sudden comeback to the public sphere and private as well as political life, and “on 8 Jan 2016, to be precise, [then-Prime Minster Ahmed Davutoğlu] issued the Friday Prayer circular that allows male public servants to attend the obligatory Friday prayers (Salatul Jumu’ah) without interrupting their office hours (female believers are obviously exempt from fulfilling this religious duty, as it would lead to a mixing of the sexes at the mosque),” as I related in March 2016. Hence, Friday has again acquired sacred and sacrosanct properties amongst many Turks, with men now regularly and fastidiously attending Friday Prayers to listen to AKP-sanctioned sermons, delivered by their local Imams emanating from the Diyanet‘s Ankara offices. As a result, public displays of personal piety have now become rather commonplace. And, many pious people thus tend to regard Thursday night equally sacred and sacrosanct, as it is but the preamble to Friday. As wordsmiths, clearly cognizant of what is happening all around, Ezhel and Şanışer released their visual and verbal assaults on the new status quo on symbolically charged days of the week The reaction was not slow in coming: in the Islamist propaganda rag Yeni Şafak, the columnist Ali Saydam published his response to these sounds ostensibly challenging the nation’s faith and political system. Saydam starts off his piece by indicating that “this type of music,” referring to Rap and Hip hop, “emerged as a product of black subculture in the western world.” And he continues that as a result, “characteristics of ‘protest’ constitute a large part of its identity.” He even utilises the term ‘counterculture’ in his argument, stating that in Scandinavian countries where the GNP is “high” and the “distribution of income balanced,” musical products of this nature do not find the same amount of “consumers” (or “buyers”) as in the United States, where “income injustice” is rife and social protests widespread. These insights lead Saydam to declare that Rap (and Hip hop music) is an “imported cultural artifact,” with its roots in “America’s Lumpenproletariat,” that as a natural consequence cannot fulfill an “oppositional function” in Turkey. Saydam literally declares that the “words used,” oftentimes “in broken Turkish, [and] sometimes in need of subtitles,” display a “mechanical understanding of protest,” and that, “in a way,” these songs therefore constitute “the most primitive dimension of protest.” In contrast, nowadays Rap music and culture is highly popular in Turkey, particularly among young and younger Turks. In other words, as a whole the country appears to possess a large potential audience for Rap and Hip hop music. And as a result, Şanışer and Ezhel do have a large market for their message. In fact, various members of the opposition CHP (or Republican People’s Party), recently on a high as a result of Ekrem İmamoğlu’s entry to the offices of the İBB (or İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality) in İstanbul’s Saraçhane district, quickly realised the explosive potential harboured by the Rap songs: the social media account of the Şişli Municipality in İstanbul, as well as those handled by the municipalities of Datça, Borçka, and the city of Eskişehir shared the “epic video, #Susamam” with their followers. Even Eskişehir’s Mayor Yılmaz Büyükerşen and İstanbul district Maltepe’s mayor Ali Kılıç shared the track on their personal social media accounts. In contrast, the lawyer and AKP member Hamza Dağ took to Twitter to criticise the rappers and their songs, saying that “[a]rt should not be [used] as a vehicle for provocation and political manipulation,” adding that “we know very well how those who say #Susamam [“I can’t stay silent”] remained voiceless during Turkey’s most critical eras,” insinuating that opponents of AKP rule are people who have in the past welcomed military interventions, a slur oftentimes used in connection with the CHP and its members. As such, Dağ also posted a link to a video on the YouTube channel Gayri Resmi Hesap, showing an anonymous man vocally criticising the Rap song, its singers and listeners. In addition, the speaker on the YouTube video easily manages to insert the PKK into his monologue, insinuating that the Kurdish terror group is responsible for most of the violence and unrest in Turkey. On Sunday, 8 September, the propaganda rag Yeni Şafak directly targeted the rapper Şanışer, calling his track #Susamam a “joint PKK/FETÖ production,” using the two favourite slurs used by AKP henchmen to slander enemies and malign malcontents. And now, Turkey’s television channels and internet broadcasters are busily discussing the songs and its contents, while the underlying message seems all but lost. Though the tracks are invigorating and stirring, the likelihood that these rappers will have an actual impact on the wider population of the New Turkey seems distant . . . Ezhel and Şanışer are all but preaching to the converted, Turkey’s voiceless urban youth mired in video games and 24-hour internet access – “this nation’s hopeless youth.” The one-time Baywatch star Pamela Anderson, now famously infamous for supporting the guardian angel of the free press, Julian Assange, joined in the mood, tweeting Şanışer’s track to a much wider and non-Turkish audience. The journalist Burak Abatay seems optimistic: “[i]n a place like Turkey, where the youth’s life has been taken out of its hands for the past 17 [AKP-led] years, such a young ‘thing’ like Rap’s flag of rebellion should be flying very high.” Abatay sees Rap as a “raised first” moving into the future “with hope.” And, while it is true that the songs communicate a spirit of rebellion and youthful revolt, Ezhel and Şanışer hardly are the New Turkey’s Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious. Their words may be loaded with a strong message, but will these heavy words manage to penetrate the intolerable wall of silence surrounding the Prez and his AKP henchmen. Still, as tweeted by Pamela Anderson, “[a]rtists can change the world – artists are #freedomfighters.” Then justice died, and until it touched me, I just shut up, became complicit Now I think twice before I tweet Find myself fearing my own country’s police I’m sorry, your legacy is this nation’s hopeless youth *** 21WIRE special contributor Dr. Can Erimtan is an independent historian and geo-political analyst who used to live in Istanbul. At present, he is in self-imposed exile from Turkey. He has a wide interest in the politics, history and culture of the Balkans, the greater Middle East, and the world beyond. He attended the VUB in Brussels and did his graduate work at the universities of Essex and Oxford. In Oxford, Erimtan was a member of Lady Margaret Hall and he obtained his doctorate in Modern History in 2002. His publications include the revisionist monograph “Ottomans Looking West?” as well as numerous scholarly articles. In Istanbul, Erimtan started publishing in Today’s Zaman and in Hürriyet Daily News. In the next instance, he became the Turkey Editor of the İstanbul Gazette. Subsequently, he commenced writing for RT Op-Edge, NEO, and finally, the 21st Century Wire. You can find him on Twitter at @theerimtanangle | 21wire | https://21stcenturywire.com/2019/09/14/the-turkish-rap-attack-fighting-the-status-quo-with-loaded-words/ | 2019-09-14 14:29:34+00:00 | 1,568,485,774 | 1,569,330,301 | education | religious education |
10,415 | aljazeera--2019-02-27--At Indian air raid site no casualties and a mysterious madrassa | 2019-02-27T00:00:00 | aljazeera | At Indian air raid site, no casualties and a mysterious madrassa | Jaba, Pakistan - Indian air raids launched on Pakistani territory earlier this week destroyed parts of a mostly uninhabited forest and a farmer's field, witnesses and local officials told Al Jazeera, although mystery remains around a seminary run by armed group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) near the bombing site. Four bombs hit a forest and a field in a remote area outside of the northern Pakistani town of Jaba, about 100km north of capital Islamabad, Al Jazeera found on a visit to the site on Wednesday. Splintered pine trees and rocks were strewn across the blast craters, and there was no evidence of any infrastructure debris or casualties. Metal shrapnel from the bombs was visible at four distinct craters. India claimed on Tuesday to have conducted air raids against a "Jaish-e-Mohammed training camp" in the area, saying "a very large number of JeM terrorists, trainers, senior commanders and groups of jihadis who were being trained for [suicide] action were eliminated." Pakistan denied that any casualties had occurred. On Wednesday, Pakistan's military said its aircraft launched air strikes on six locations on the India-administered territory in the disputed region of Kashmir. Local hospital officials and several residents who rushed to the scene said they did not find any bodies or wounded people following the Indian attack, which took place at approximately 3am local time on Tuesday. "I woke up at the sound of the first explosion, and ran out of bed," said Nooran Shah, 58, a farmer on whose land two of the bombs landed. "The second blast knocked the doors off my house." When Shah went outside to investigate, he said, a piece of shrapnel or a stone struck him on the forehead, leaving a wound. Syed Rehman Shah, 50, a neighbour, said he, too, ran outside his home when he heard the explosions. "I heard four loud explosions, separated by a few seconds each," said Rehman Shah. "It felt like the day of judgement had come." Shah said he saw "fire and smoke" when he exited his home, and ran to the aid of his neighbour. Shah was unconscious on the ground with a wound to his forehead, Rehman Shah said. He was moved to safety and later taken to hospital. The walls of Shah’s home appeared cracked, with several holes where shrapnel appeared to have hit them. "We are just farmers out here, we grow wheat and maize," said Rehman Shah. "Some people keep some livestock." Following the air raids, India's foreign ministry said it had hit a training camp run by JeM founder Masood Azhar's brother-in-law, Yousuf Azhar. Founded in 2000, JeM is an armed group that has launched several high-profile attacks against Indian security and government targets, mostly in the disputed region of Kashmir. Most recently, JeM claimed a suicide attack that killed more than 42 Indian security forces personnel in the Indian-administered Kashmir town of Pulwama, triggering the latest crisis between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. India accuses Pakistan of offering sanctuary to JeM and other armed groups. Following the Pulwama attack, a top Indian military commander said the country had evidence the attack had been "controlled" by Pakistani intelligence. Pakistan denies the charge, and says it has been acting against JeM since it banned the group in 2002. Less than a kilometre to the east of one of the bomb craters, atop a steep ridge, sits a seminary run by JeM, residents told Al Jazeera. A road sign located some distance away confirmed the location of the seminary, and that it was run by the armed group. The sign for the Madrassa Taleem-ul-Quran lists Masood Azhar as its leader, and Muhammad Yousuf Azhar as its administrator. Masood Azhar founded the JeM after he was released from Indian custody in exchange for more than 150 hostages after the hijacking of an Indian commercial airliner in 1999. He remains under US sanctions for JeM's alleged links with the Afghan Taliban. Yousuf Azhar is wanted by India in connection with the 1999 hijacking. Al Jazeera was unable to visit the site of the seminary. Residents offered conflicting accounts of the facility's work, with some saying it only offered religious education for local school children, while others alleged it was a training camp for JeM fighters. "The madrassa there, at the top of the mountain, that is a training camp for mujahideen [religious fighters]," said one resident, gesturing in the direction of the seminary. He spoke on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of the subject. "Everyone here knows there is a Jaish camp there, at the madrassa," said another 31-year-old local resident, also on condition of anonymity. "It is an active training centre, they teach people how to fight there." Others, however, disputed that claim. "There is no camp here, and no terrorists either," said Mir Afzal Gulzar, who lives a few kilometres away from the bombing site. "There was a mujahideen camp here, during the 1980s, but it is gone now," he said. There is evidence to suggest the seminary was an active recruitment centre, if not training site, for JeM. In April 2018, Abdul Rauf Asghar - a top JeM commander and Masood Azhar's brother - addressed a yearly religious gathering at the seminary, calling upon those present to join "jihad", or Islamic religious war, according to an article in JeM-affiliated publication al-Qalam. "This institution is progressing every day in its aim of providing education, and instruction in religion and jihad," reads the article. Speakers at the event praised the concept of fighting in the name of religion and "offered arguments against certain notions that have been spread against jihad", the article says. A US Department of Defence memo dated January 31, 2004, leaked by Wikileaks in 2011, indicates the existence of "a [JeM] training camp that offers both basic and advanced terrorist training on explosives and artillery" located near Jaba's geographic location. The memo detailed the case of Khalil Rehman Hafez, a Pakistani national and member of JeM, who was captured in Afghanistan while fighting US forces and transferred to the Guantanamo Bay prison. Hafez was released and repatriated to Pakistan in 2004. Back at the bomb site in Jaba, the afternoon sun shines through a thick pine forest, as local residents gather at Nooran Shah's house. Some investigate the crater, under the watchful eye of Pakistani soldiers, while others pose for local news media cameras. In the shadow of the cracked wall of Shah's house, a defiant group begins to yell patriotic slogans for the cameras. Shah, a slight man clad in a blue shalwar kameez and still sporting a white bandage around his forehead, turns to face another interviewer. Asad Hashim is Al Jazeera's digital correspondent in Pakistan. He tweets @AsadHashim | null | https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/02/indian-air-raid-site-casualties-mysterious-madrassa-190227183058957.html | 2019-02-27 20:18:44+00:00 | 1,551,316,724 | 1,567,547,154 | education | religious education |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.