We showed how Maryland is already reaching beyond affordability for what are working class and middle-class who are the one's pushed to buy BRONZE. Our poor and working class are the one's pushed onto MEDICAID. Many on SILVER are there because of SUBSIDY ----that is how poor over 90% of Americans are becoming---soon to be 99% of Americans black, white, and brown citizens. BRONZE is high-deductible meaning people are paying the premium and then not affording the health care access.
HARVARD'S U MASS WAS EARLIEST TO INSTALL ROMNEYCARE AS JOHNS HOPKINS IN MD===FAR-RIGHT WING HEALTH POLICY.
What data has shown throughout MA ROMNEYCARE was------more people with health insurance but unable to access actual health care. Health corporations get that premiums----NO HEALTH CARE FOR YOU. That data of course is now expanding across US as OBAMACARE IS ROMNEYCARE.
The health insurance mandate was NEVER about creating a pool of money to help fund health care for the poor----that pool of money comes from our FEDERAL tax revenue by the BUCKETFUL.
So, why are global banking 1% looking for other revenue streams for buckets of money from which to pocket? Because Federal MEDICARE AND MEDICAID is ending ----NO BUCKETFUL OF MONEY THERE----so they install HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATE for 99% of citizens to pay premiums all their lives not needing nearly the access paid.
Keep in mind-----REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES have shouted this since the 1990s as data was available then -----here are those FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT 5% MEDIA telling us in 2012 ----as OBAMACARE was being installed ---what we already knew.
But we KNOW FORBES----KRUGMAN are not telling 99% WE THE PEOPLE this now for good motives----this article is of course spreading more lying, cheating, to abet stealing.
Oct 15, 2012 @ 03:06 AM 29,340 2 Free Issues of Forbes
Why Health Insurance is Not the Same Thing as Health Care
Avik Roy , Political commentary from Forbes’ Opinion Editor
Obama health-care adviser Zeke Emanuel outside his office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
For most people in the health policy community, the word “coverage” carries a certain emotional power. People without health insurance coverage, we believe, are one bad break away from disability and destitution. Hence, many politicians, researchers, and activists believe that expanding coverage is more important than any other policy goal. But not all health insurance is created equal. Indeed, there are tens of millions of Americans who believe they have “health insurance” who can’t get actual health care when they truly need it. If Obamacare remains the law of the land, this problem will get worse, not better.
(DISCLOSURE: I am an outside adviser to the Romney campaign on health care issues. The opinions contained herein are mine alone, and do not necessarily correspond to those of the campaign.)
Earlier this month, in an interview with the Columbus Dispatch, Mitt Romney pointed out that, in America, anyone who has a heart attack has access to hospital care. “We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack,’” he said. “No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government, or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.”
Paul Krugman: Mitt Romney is ‘blind’
Paul Krugman, upon reading these factually accurate remarks, went ape-dung. “These are remarkable statements,” wrote Krugman on Sunday in the New York Times. “Going to the emergency room when you’re very sick is no substitute for regular care, especially if you have chronic health problems. When such problems are left untreated—as they often are among uninsured Americans—a trip to the emergency room can all too easily come too late to save a life. So the reality, to which Mr. Romney is somehow blind, is that many people in America really do die every year because they don’t have health insurance.”
I don’t know if I’ve ever read a Krugman column in which Krugman didn’t paint those who disagree with him as morons or liars. But Krugman has a point—one that Mitt Romney agrees with, by the way—that emergency care is no substitute for regular care. Krugman, though, takes this kernel of truth and attempts to make a gallon of Obamacare popcorn out of it.
Krugman’s logic, and that of many Obamacare supporters, goes like this: (1) It’s not enough to offer all Americans free emergency room care, because access to early diagnosis and treatment is important to good health; (2) The uninsured don’t have access to such care, whereas the insured do; (3) Obamacare, by reducing the number of people without insurance by 30 million, gives 30 million more Americans access to such care; and (4) Mitt Romney, by pledging to repeal Obamacare, seeks to deny such health care to tens of millions of Americans.
Not all health insurance helps people live longer
There is, however, a key flaw in Krugman’s logic. It is this. Just because you have a piece of paper that says you have “health insurance” doesn’t mean that you can see a doctor when you need to.
There are three major forms of health insurance in America: Medicare, our government-sponsored program for the elderly; Medicaid, our government-sponsored program for the poor; and private insurance for most everyone else. As I have described extensively on this blog, it’s much harder to get a doctor’s appointment if you’re on Medicaid than if you have private insurance, because Medicaid pays doctors so little that doctors can’t afford to see Medicaid patients. This, in turn, leads patients on Medicaid that are at best no different than being uninsured, and in many cases even worse.
Krugman contemptuously dismisses such talk. “Conservatives love to cite the handful of studies that fail to find clear evidence that insurance saves lives,” he writes. (Here’s the most rigorous of them.) “The overwhelming evidence, however, is that insurance is indeed a lifesaver, and lack of insurance a killer. For example, states that expand their Medicaid coverage, and hence provide health insurance to more people, consistently show a significant drop in mortality compared with neighboring states that don’t expand coverage.”
In fact, Krugman is wrong. The overwhelming evidence goes in the other direction. That evidence shows that people with private, commercial health insurance have substantially better outcomes than those without insurance; but that Medicaid makes little to no difference.
Understanding this data really matters, because of the 30 million people that Obamacare expands coverage to, about half get that coverage through a cavalier and reckless expansion of Medicaid.
Medicaid has little impact on preventive care
Let’s review the evidence. In a paper I wrote in March for the Manhattan Institute, I went through research studying nearly a million patients, showing that patients on Medicaid had worse outcomes than those with no insurance at all.
The study Krugman cites in his column, regarding supposedly improved mortality in three states that expanded Medicaid, was statistically flawed. Only one state—New York—showed a significant improvement against its (biased) comparator. In another state, Maine, mortality under the Medicaid expansion got worse.
Another study that Obamacare’s supporters like to cite comes from Oregon. But the Oregon study, so far, has only described patients’ subjective view of their own health, rather than looking at objective clinical outcomes such as death and longevity.
Let’s look at the specific question Paul Krugman raised. Are patients on Medicaid diagnosed and treated earlier than they would have been if they were uninsured? There is no evidence of that to date.
Indeed, the evidence goes in the opposite direction. To take one of many examples, a group of researchers at the American Cancer Society looked at 533,715 women with breast cancer, and asked: When those women were first diagnosed with breast cancer, were they diagnosed with early-stage or late-stage disease? And how did that correlate to their insurance status?
That correlation matters, because if you already have late-stage cancer when the doctors first discover it, it's much harder for you to receive curative treatment. Quite literally, the difference between being diagnosed with Stage I and Stage IV breast cancer is the difference between life and death.
Sadly, what the ACS researchers found was quite typical for the literature. Women without insurance were 2.4 times as likely to have late-stage breast cancer upon diagnosis than women with private insurance. But those on Medicaid performed even worse on this metric than did the uninsured; Medicaid patients were 2.5 times as likely to obtain a late-stage diagnosis as those on private insurance. And the authors adjusted their results for race, age, income, education, and geography, among other factors.
The study, like all studies, has its quirks and limitations. But it's typical of the mountains of published data describing Medicaid's poor access and poor outcomes. “Our results are in agreement with and extend those from previous, smaller studies," write the authors in their paper. "The uninsured and Medicaid populations…are less likely to receive timely follow-up and are more likely to experience greater delays in diagnosis and treatment.”
Obama adviser: Medicaid has little impact on survival
Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post, reacting to the same Romney interview as Paul Krugman, wrote a piece entitled “Yes, insurance status does matter for your health.” She spoke to Obama adviser Ezekiel Emanuel, of the University of Pennsylvania, who confirmed to her that health insurance does matter. “In almost every way we’ve looked at it,” said Emanuel, “if you’re uninsured you get worse or more delayed care. In the case of cancer, this is something that can be a matter of life and death.”
To illustrate his point, he sent Sarah a chart, comparing cancer survival times for patients with private insurance, Medicaid, and no insurance at all:
But Sarah neglected to comment about the most notable aspect of this chart. While patients with private insurance lived significantly longer than those with no insurance, patients with Medicaid didn’t. If Medicaid were a drug, the FDA would reject it without a second thought.
Expanding coverage has to be done the right way
This, then, is the fundamental problem with Obamacare. It expands coverage, in large part, by pouring trillions of dollars into the Medicaid program, without making any meaningful improvements to the way that program is structured. And Scott Gottlieb and Tom Miller, of the American Enterprise Institute, fear that Obamacare’s private insurance exchanges will also suffer from poor quality and poor access, just like Medicaid.
The proper goal, then, is not merely to expand coverage out of some obsession with an arbitrary statistic, but rather to do what we can to make it easier for Americans to buy high-quality, private insurance.
The way to do that is to make private insurance cheaper, by liberating the government restrictions that make it difficult for individuals to purchase insurance for themselves, instead of from their employers.
OH, REALLY?????? AND WHICH INDUSTRY WHEN DEREGULATED BECAME CHEAPER?
Depending upon how Romney’s plan were to be structured, it could offer universal coverage to all Americans, or achieve more modest expansions of coverage in exchange for reducing the deficit. Either way, the Romney plan focuses on giving more Americans access to high-quality private insurance.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Mitt Romney’s plan expanded insurance coverage to 10 million people, in comparison to Obamacare’s 30 million, by making health insurance cheaper. According to the people like Paul Krugman who insist that all coverage is the same, Obamacare is the better option.
But the 10 million people who might get private insurance under a Romney administration would enjoy the same access to high-quality care that employers provide to their employees. That private insurance would have a real impact on the quality of their health and the length of their lives. Under Obamacare, few will be able to say the same thing.
The article above wants to make two points---both of which are not true. First, far-right wing global banking 1% media like FORBES want to pretend the poor are better off if they receive PRIVATE INSURANCE rather than FEDERAL MEDICAID OR MEDICARE. This of course refers to PRIVATIZED MEDICARE-----MEDICARE ADVANTAGE AND MEDIGAP all policy written to more heavily subsidize these private health policies these few decades killing the public Federal MEDICARE/MEDICAID funding making it cover less. FORBES says----a global corporate welfare queen is better than 99% of citizens simply having their taxes come back to their communities as local public health care access.
'But not all health insurance is created equal. Indeed, there are tens of millions of Americans who believe they have “health insurance” who can’t get actual health care when they truly need it'.
Obama's AFFORDABLE CARE ACT was designed to be ROMNEYCARE but far worse for 99% of US citizens and our 99% new immigrants. We all knew the front-loaded expanded MEDICAID would disappear---and we knew INSURED WOULD NOT MEAN ACCESS TO CARE. We knew this in 1990s---here is NYTIMES telling us in 2015.
ROMNEYCARE and JOHNS HOPKINS are far-right wing global banking so allowing them to write health care policy means ending US public health.
Insured, but Not Covered
By ELISABETH ROSENTHALFEB. 7, 2015
WHEN Karen Pineman of Manhattan received notice that her longtime health insurance policy didn’t comply with the Affordable Care Act’s requirements, she gamely set about shopping for a new policy through the public marketplace. After all, she’d supported President Obama and the act as a matter of principle.
Ms. Pineman, who is self-employed, accepted that she’d have to pay higher premiums for a plan with a narrower provider network and no out-of-network coverage. She accepted that she’d have to pay out of pocket to see her primary care physician, who didn’t participate. She even accepted having co-pays of nearly $1,800 to have a cast put on her ankle in an emergency room after she broke it while playing tennis.
But her frustration bubbled over when she tried to arrange a follow-up visit with an orthopedist in her Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield network: The nearest doctor available who treated ankle problems was in Stamford, Conn. When she called to protest, her insurer said that Stamford was 14 miles from her home and 15 was considered a reasonable travel distance. “It was ridiculous — didn’t they notice it was in another state?” said Ms. Pineman, 46, who was on crutches.
She instead paid $350 to see a nearby orthopedist and bought a boot on Amazon as he suggested. She has since forked over hundreds of dollars more for a physical therapist that insurance didn’t cover, even though that provider was in-network.
The Affordable Care Act has ushered in an era of complex new health insurance products featuring legions of out-of-pocket coinsurance fees, high deductibles and narrow provider networks. Though commercial insurers had already begun to shift toward such policies, the health care law gave them added legitimacy and has vastly accelerated the trend, experts say.
The theory behind the policies is that patients should bear more financial risk so they will be more conscious and cautious about health care spending. But some experts say the new policies have also left many Americans scrambling to track expenses from a multitude of sources — such as separate deductibles for network and non-network care, or payments for drugs on an insurer’s ever-changing list of drugs that require high co-pays or are not covered at all.
For some, like Ms. Pineman, narrow networks can necessitate footing bills privately. For others, the constant changes in policy guidelines — annual shifts in what’s covered and what’s not, monthly shifts in which doctors are in and out of network — can produce surprise bills for services they assumed would be covered. For still others, the new fees are so confusing and unsupportable that they just avoid seeing doctors.
It is true that the Affordable Care Act has erased some of the more egregious practices of the American health insurance system that left patients bankrupt or losing homes to pay bills. Insurers can no longer deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, for example. And the new policies cap out-of-pocket spending so long as the patient receives care within the plan. Most important, the act has offered health insurance to an estimated 10 million Americans who did not have any, often by expanding Medicaid or providing subsidies.
But by endorsing and expanding the complex new policies promoted by the health care industry, the law may in some ways be undermining its signature promise: health care that is accessible and affordable for all.
“I’m always curious when I read this ‘good news’ that health costs are moderating, because my health care costs go up significantly each year, and I think that’s a common experience,” said Mark Rukavina, president of Community Health Advisors in Massachusetts.
While much of the focus in the past has been on keeping premiums manageable, “premiums now tell only a part of the story,” Mr. Rukavina said, adding: “A big part of the way they’ve kept premiums down is to shift costs to patients in the form of co-pays and deductibles and other types of out-of-pocket expenses. And that can leave patients very vulnerable.”
Such policies desperately need improvement, patients and professionals like Mr. Rukavina say. But with the Republicans attacking the Affordable Care Act at all turns, even political supporters seem reluctant to acknowledge that it has some flaws. The narrative has been cast in black or white: It’s working, or it’s a failure. The reality, of course, is gray.
AT this point, we don’t have a good definition of “affordable” — or how to measure it fully and fairly. Many studies show that national health costs, while still rising, are not growing as fast as they once were. But what does that mean for individual patients? So far the research has yielded mixed results.
A study by the Commonwealth Fund this month found that the rise in health insurance premiums in employer-based plans had slowed in 31 states since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (good news, right?). But premiums were still rising faster than median incomes (hmm). More important, perhaps, the researchers found that patients were paying more in health care expenses than ever before, during a time of stagnant wages (not so great). In fact, nearly 10 percent of median household income now goes to pay premiums and deductibles, the study found. And that does not include other kinds of health payments that patients now encounter, such as co-pays and uncovered drugs or services.
A recent New York Times/CBS poll found that 46 percent of Americans said they had trouble affording health care, up 10 percentage points in just one year. Some of the cost problems may ease as patients — now known as health care consumers — learn what to expect and how to choose and navigate their plans.
But other problems may be related to the process by which the plans are created. Under the Affordable Care Act each state was asked to select a benchmark plan as its standard. It had to cover certain “essential health benefits” like maternity care and prescription drugs; it had to have a defined actuarial value depending on the level of plan. Silver plans, for example, had to cover 70 percent of charges, leaving consumers with 30 percent. But within those parameters, competing insurers had leeway to set premiums, co-payments and deductibles, and to create networks by negotiating with doctors and hospitals. Naturally, they created policies that met the core criteria while minimizing their financial risk.
Suddenly there were hundreds of new insurance products that had never been tested in real time. Their shortcomings are now playing out in various ways.
Alison Chavez, 36, who is self-employed, signed up for a marketplace plan in October 2013 that she hoped would be an improvement on her previous plan. She had recently been given a diagnosis of breast cancer and was just beginning therapy, so she was careful to choose a policy on the Covered California marketplace that included her physicians.
But in March, while in the middle of treatment, she was notified that several of her doctors and the hospital were leaving the plan’s network. She was forced to postpone a surgery as she scrambled to buy a new commercial policy that included her doctors. “I’ve been through hell and back, but I came out alive and kicking (just broke),” she wrote in an email.
Dr. Alexis Gersten, a dentist in East Quogue, N.Y., switched her family and 11 employees to a new Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan for 2014, after a previous small-business group plan was canceled. She bought the plan through a broker, and says she was unaware that it was an Affordable Care Act plan. When her son needed an ear, nose and throat specialist, the nearest was in Albany, five hours away. Though her cardiologist was on the network list, he said he did not take the plan. She ended up driving an hour to see a new one. A dispute with the insurer about how to count deductibles left her with a $457 pediatrician’s bill. This year she has chosen a new policy.
“People may have a checklist when they buy insurance: First, premiums, then the deductible — and those are pretty easy to understand because they’re set dollar amounts,” said Lynn Quincy, associate director of health reform policy at Consumers Union. But new policies demand different and more difficult kinds of calculations, she said: “The terms are unfamiliar, and figuring out networks is especially murky.”
Compounding the problem is the lack of basic information to shop effectively. When Andrea Greenberg, a New York lawyer, called the help line of Health Republic to clarify the difference between two plans, she found herself speaking to someone reading off a script in the Philippines. “I was really outraged,” she said. “This is an important decision with potentially dire consequences. It’s not like you’re choosing a sweater.”
Likewise, it took many phone calls for Aviva Starkman Williams, a California computer engineer with insurance through her employer, to determine whether the pediatrician doing her son’s 2-year-old checkup was in-network for 2015. Only three of the pediatricians in her doctor’s six-person group were listed in her plan’s online directory, and since her deductible had tripled from the previous year’s, she wanted to limit her out-of-pocket payments.
The practice’s office manager couldn’t tell her for sure. The insurer’s representative said he didn’t know because doctors came in and out of network all the time, likening the situation to players’ switching teams in the National Basketball Association. “If you don’t have updated information, who does?” she asked. “Isn’t it your job to know?”
Ms. Quincy said regulators needed to do a much better job setting requirements and policing plan practices and offerings, particularly provider networks. Few states have clear standards and many rely on consumer complaints to ferret out problems.
Last month, the California insurance commissioner, Dave Jones, announced new emergency regulations concerning networks, noting: “Health insurers’ medical provider directories have been inaccurate, misleading consumers into signing up with a health insurer for access to a doctor, specialist or hospital, only to learn that these medical providers are not actually a part of the health insurer’s network.”
But for now, patients are most often left to fend for themselves. When Amy Moses, a tech entrepreneur in New York City, went online to select a plan, she paid a relatively pricey $650 per month for a United Healthcare plan to make sure her network included a longtime physician. One month into the year, the doctor’s practice was bought by a hospital, which then dropped the plan, so her doctor did as well. (A year later the doctor was still listed in the network directory.)
She discovered the change only when she contacted the physician for a referral for an urgent outpatient procedure costing thousands of dollars that had been recommended by an in-network surgeon. (Both the referring doctor and the surgeon had to be in-network for coverage.) “I literally had three days to find a new in-network internist and score an appointment to get a referral, or cancel my procedure,” she said. “I was stuck in insurance purgatory.”
COMMONWEALTH FUND is a global WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION NGO---we would not go there for real data-----but NYTIMES now does.
Employer-based plans have somewhat lower rates because we no longer have UNIFORMITY is who, what, when, why, and how health prices and costs are applied------global corporate campuses get discounted prices -----Federal public health programs get soaked with profiteering. Second, employer-based plans are driven by corporations owning their own health corporations pushing their employees to WELLNESS PREVENTATIVE CARE----ONLY. These employees are still paying high-premium rates for their corporate-owned health care policies----still paying all those high-deductions, fees----while that global corporate campus is getting kickbacks from global health systems.
'A study by the Commonwealth Fund this month found that the rise in health insurance premiums in employer-based plans had slowed in 31 states since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (good news, right?). But premiums were still rising faster than median incomes (hmm)'.
There will be no amount of INFORMED CONSUMERISM to keep families having lower health costs----that is NOT THE GOAL. As US health institutions consolidate into global health system monopolies there will be no choice. But national media and Obama and Clinton neo-liberals said this was all about giving US citizens more CHOICE-----but---they are far-right wing global banking 1% and they LIE, CHEAT, STEAL.
'Though her cardiologist was on the network list, he said he did not take the plan. She ended up driving an hour to see a new one. A dispute with the insurer about how to count deductibles left her with a $457 pediatrician’s bill. This year she has chosen a new policy'.
ALL OF THE FAKE ALT RIGHT ALT LEFT POPULIST HEALTH CARE 5% PLAYERS KNEW ALL THIS----AS MARYLAND HEALTH CARE FOR ALL----MARYLAND HEALTH INITIATIVE---BOTH GLOBAL HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUE JOHNS HOPKINS' NGOS.
Here is CLARENCE PAGE----HOME OF OBAMA---Chicago Tribune also knowing back in 1990s what OBAMACARE as ROMNEYCARE had as a goal----now making it about THE REPUBLICANS......Obamacare IS a far-right wing health policy-----written by REPUBLICAN think tanks. CLINTON/OBAMA global banking 5% pols and players white, black, and brown citizens always blaming their policy stances on the Republicans because they are PRETENDING to be left----when they are FAR--RIGHT WING.
Health care 'access' is not the same as 'coverage'
Clarence PageContact Reporter
Watching top Republicans explain their proposed Affordable Care Act replacement can make you wonder who hijacked the English language.
For example, if you're like me, you might have been shocked by the news that 24 million fewer Americans will have health insurance by 2026 if the Republican-proposed alternative passes, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — including 14 million fewer people in the next year alone.
But that's OK, say Republican congressional leaders. House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, already had declared such gloomy outlooks to be a "bogus" metric. It's not "coverage" that counts, he said; it's "access."
"What matters is that we're lowering costs of health care and giving people access to affordable health care plans," Ryan said in a news conference. Ryan, a self-described "policy wonk," was excited.
He loves the mere sound of words like "freedom," "choice" and "access" even when the reality of "access" amounts to having the freedom to be offered decent health insurance but also being too poor to buy it.
And he's not alone. "Insurance is not really the end goal here," Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Budget and Management, later told NBC. "We're choosing instead to look at what we think is more important to ordinary people: Can they afford to go to the doctor?"
OK, call me old-fashioned but I thought being able to afford to go to the doctor is why we have insurance.
But, no, said White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn to host Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" about the prospect of millions losing their health insurance: "It's not just about coverage, it's about access to care. It's about access to be able to see your doctors."
So where did I get the idea that the goal was coverage? Maybe President Donald Trump had something to do with that when he promised a Republican plan that would provide "insurance for everybody."
But he also said in a White House meeting with House Republicans after the Grand Old Party's proposed legislation was unveiled that it "will lower costs, expand choices, increase competition and ensure health care access for all Americans."
There's that word "access" again. By now, I suppose, we should know from experience that only the president's most recent version of the truth should be believed, if that.
What gives? Is promising "access" a nice-sounding squishy doublespeak way to say, "We're not giving you any more money to help you buy insurance"?
That's the biggest reason why the CBO and other analysts expect to see millions lose coverage under the Republican plan. Yet Speaker Ryan and other GOP leaders are more excited by the $337 billion that the CBO says the federal government will save over the next decade by shifting most of the ACA's health care burden back to the states and to individuals.
The Republican plan would remove mandates that require everyone to buy insurance, which have enabled the ACA to bar insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It would replace subsidies with tax credits to help low-income people buy insurance, and it would expand health savings accounts so more people could save more of their own money to pay for their own health care.
But market-driven incentives work best for people who can afford them. I like HSAs, for example, but households that are living paycheck-to-paycheck often find they simply can't afford to salt away much savings. One health crisis can eat up your health savings overnight. And there goes your "access."
All of which makes it all the more poignant — or sad, as President Trump might tweet — that the biggest losers in what's being called "Trumpcare" probably would be the core supporters of Trump's election campaign.
The same lower-income, older voters who voted for him in rural red-state America stand to lose more in federal insurance subsidies than any other demographic, according to an analysis of country voting and tax credit data by Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times.
That's the political base that Trump in his inaugural address lauded as the forgotten men and women to whom he had given a political voice. Now the burden is on Trump to show whether "access" to health insurance is as good as the real thing.
As we said---OBAMACARE made ROMNEYCARE worse-----by attaching all Federal funding for low-income citizens poor and seniors to only accessing pain/mental health PHARMA----slowly losing the ability to access vital ordinary health care for major disease vectors our POOR AND SENIORS acquired by eating GREEN REVOLUTION food----filled with fat, sugar, MONSANTO fertilizer/pesticides-----now morphing to NOT BEING FOOD at all.
'Not all health insurance helps people live longer'
The same global banking 1% BIG AG/BIG MEAT Green Revolution creating GATEWAY MEDICINE business for corporate medicine----are now creating food sources with questionable nutrient values at all. So, we were fighting foods loaded with fats, sugar, farmed by BIG AG AND BIG MEAT with chemical covering......now global banking 1% are pushing foods that will not enter the body systems as vitamins, minerals needed for nutrition.
BUT, THE GOOD NEWS IS---THERE IS A PATENT FOR THAT.
So, rather than harm health with natural excess of fats and sugars----we are MOVING FORWARD to toxicity from what are being called 'NATURAL' manufactured protein, carb, fat, vitamins and minerals. Yes, the human body simply excretes these chemicals---but in levels found in these manufactured foods-----the high-levels are damaging our organ systems.
YES, THOSE IPAB---THAT FDA-------THAT GLOBAL HEALTH SYSTEM ----THOSE DASTARDLY COUNTY/CITY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS KNOW THIS.
This is all the far-right wing global banking 1% GREEN REVOLUTION that has throughout CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA been used to corrupt every REAL left social progressive policy tied to public health and environment......killing ORGANICS now moving to kill VEGAN.
What we are seeing in FAKE VEGAN products are what are ordinary nutrients being offered in ways our body cannot absorb them as NUTRIENTS so the excess is excreted but not before entering liver and kidney----what are the major organ disease vectors these few decades? KIDNEY AND LIVER DISEASES.
The 10 Vitamins & Other Nutrients That can be HARMFUL When Taken in Excess
An estimated 150 million Americans take dietary supplements on a daily basis in an effort to add nutrition to their diets. In 2006 alone, nearly 94 million multivitamin supplements were sold (not including those sold by Wal-Mart), according to Information Resources, Inc., along with:
- 63 million individual "letter" vitamins
- 57 million non-herbal supplements
- 51 million mineral supplements
- 29 million herbal supplements
Do you have a cabinet full of dietary supplements? Be sure you're not getting too much of a good thing by monitoring the amount of vitamins you're taking.
However, be wary of the mindset that if a little is good, more is even better. While it's nearly impossible to overdose on vitamins from eating whole foods, it is possible to get excessive, potentially harmful amounts of nutrients when taking them in supplement form.
This is particularly true of fat-soluble vitamins, which accumulate in your body and are stored for later use (water-soluble vitamins, meanwhile, are not readily stored in the body), though even water-soluble vitamins and minerals can be problematic in large doses.
The Best Way to Get Your Vitamins
Of course, the best way to get the nutrients your body needs is by eating a variety of healthy foods (or in the case of vitamin D, getting it through safe and sensible sun exposure). Whole foods contain an array of health-promoting micronutrients and phytochemicals that provide a beneficial synergistic effect that is not obtained when you take isolated vitamin supplements.
That said, there is a wide disparity in quality among supplements on the market, and if you do choose to take them you should do your homework to find a reputable manufacturer of high-quality natural supplements.
Meanwhile, some physicians in the natural health field do recommend high doses (beyond the typical government limits) of certain nutrients, such as vitamin C, for the treatment of specific health conditions.
Vitamins to Keep a Close Watch On
If you take any of the following dietary supplements, particularly in mega-dose form, or if you take a variety of multivitamins everyday, be careful that you are not exceeding a healthy amount. The Daily Recommended Dietary Allowances and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels listed below are provided only as a guide. Taking supplements in excess of or below these amounts should only be done under the guidance of a knowledgeable health care professional.
Taking too much iron can lead to liver problems, accumulation of fluid in the lungs, fatigue, headache, low blood sugar, coma and testicular problems in men.
Daily Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA): 8 mg for men, 18 mg for women (8 mg for women 51 and over)
Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (UL) (This is the highest dose adults can take without experiencing adverse effects): 45 mg/day
2. Vitamin A
Excess vitamin A (even at just double the RDA) can increase the risk of birth defects and cause liver damage, reduced bone mineral density (which can lead to osteoporosis), and central nervous system disorders.
RDA: 3,000 IU (International Units) for men, 2,310 IU for women
UL: 10,000 IU/day
3. Vitamin C
Taking large amounts of vitamin C can lead to gastrointestinal upset and diarrhea. There are also reports (that have yet to be confirmed) that it may cause genetic mutations, birth defects, increased oxidative stress, kidney stones and even cancer.
RDA: 90 mg for men, 75 mg for women
UL: 2,000 mg/day
Though rare, excessively high intakes of calcium can lead to hypercalcemia (elevated levels of calcium in the blood), impaired kidney function and decreased absorption of other minerals, including iron, zinc, magnesium, and phosphorus.
Before taking any dietary supplement, be sure to talk with your doctor. Many of them contain active ingredients that can interact with medications, foods and each other, causing some unwanted (and unexpected) effects.
RDA: 1,000 mg for adults 19-50, 1,200 mg for those 51 and over
UL: 2500 mg/day
5. Vitamin E
Because vitamin E is an anticoagulant, taking too much may increase the risk of bleeding problems. Also, according to the American Heart Association, excess amounts (even 400 IU/day or more) of this vitamin may increase the risk of death.
RDA: 22.5 IU
UL: 1,500 IU/day
6. Vitamin D
When taken in excess, vitamin D can raise blood levels of calcium, which can cause mental changes, such as confusion. It can also result in nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, weakness, and weight loss.
Adequate Daily Intake (AI) (used when there is not enough scientific evidence available to establish an RDA): 400 IU, 600 IU for those 71 and over
UL: 2,000 IU/day
A zinc overdose (which can occur from as little as150 to 450 mg/day) can reduce immune function and good cholesterol levels, and alter iron function and copper levels.
RDA: 11 mg for men, 8 mg for women
UL: 40 mg
In rare instances, too much selenium can result in a condition called selenosis (this occurs when selenium blood levels are greater than 100 µg/dL). Symptoms of selenosis include gastrointestinal upset, hair loss, white blotchy nails, garlic breath odor, fatigue, irritability, and mild nerve damage.
RDA: 55 µg
UL: 400 µg/day
9. Vitamin B6
At high doses (lower than 500 mg per day), vitamin B6 can result in nerve damage to the arms and legs.
RDA: 1.3 mg for those 19-50, 1.7 mg for men 51 and over, 1.5 mg for women 51 and over
UL: 100 mg/day
Taking too much copper can lead to organ damage (liver and kidneys) and neurologic problems. Other symptoms include weakness, abdominal pain, nausea, learning disabilities, memory lapses, diminished concentration, insomnia, seizure, delirium, stuttering and hyperactivity.
RDA: 900 mcg
UL: 10,000 mcg
Where the RIGHT WING GREEN REVOLUTION corrupted our REAL left social progressive ORGANICS movements in place for centuries by contaminating fresh organics with MONSANTO seeds blowing in the wind-----now, global banking 1% is corrupting our VEGAN movements by pushing VEGAN filled with GREEN REVOLUTION MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS that are harmful and/or deadly.
Now, our 5% to the 1% global banking pols and players SELL these harmful FADS-----they do it to temporarily have businesses that will disappear once that FAD has been used to saturation. Our organics corrupted by making fair trade into FREE TRADE from third world nations---our organics corrupted by building monopoly organic grocers like WHOLEFOODS that were never really ORGANIC.
So, too is this corruption hitting the VEGAN MOVEMENT. Vegans are more PURE in their eating than organics----but right wing GREEN REVOLUTION is selling the idea of manufactured foods being VEGAN when they are as harmful as MONSANTO/FERTILIZER/PESTICIDE food sources.
IF YOU ARE NEW TO VEGAN EATING----PLEASE DON'T BE SOLD ON CORRUPTED VEGAN SOURCES. WE ARE NOW GOING FROM CORRUPTED NUTRIENT SOURCES---TO PATHWAYS NOT ALLOWING NUTRIENT ABSORPTION AT ALL....
Food waste has been WASTE for a reason. MILITANT VEGANS? Really????????????????
Be Fair Be Vegan Campaign Comes to Hobart Tasmania (AU)
Below we see what are ALL FAKE VEGAN media sites. We know they are FAKE because they use the global banking 1% talking point----GREEN REVOLUTION ---and they do not educate against what is neo-liberal manufactured foods pretending to be VEGAN.
YOU MUST USE REAL FRESH FOODS AND NO ARTIFICIALLY MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS EVEN WHEN THEY ARE CALLED 'NATURAL'.
HUMANS have always been OMNIVORES----our bodies need meat and vegetables. People taking time away from meat/dairy----cleansing body is not bad------moving 99% of citizens away from meat under the guise of environmentalism or public health----NOT GOOD SCIENCE OR PUBLIC HEALTH. Creating a VEGAN MOVEMENT to sell FAKE VEGAN patented products------very, very, very ,very bad.
February 20, 2017 · 5:14 pmBe Fair Be Vegan Campaign Comes to Hobart Tasmania (AU)
Why Be Vegetarian Be A Part Of Green Revolution - twrwsw.de
- Green Revolution - facebook.comwww.facebook.com/pages/Green-Revolution/... Vegetarian/Vegan Restaurant in ... with a ton of love! ... Green Revolution was in Derbyshire today catering for a lovely group of ladies who decided to treat ...
- Why Be Vegetarian Be A Part Of Green Revolutionwadena.de/...be_vegetarian_be_a_part_of_green_revolution.pdf Browse and Read Why Be Vegetarian Be A Part Of Green Revolution Why Be Vegetarian Be A Part Of Green Revolution ... Many people may be love to read, but not a book.
- Home - Safe For Veganswww.safeforvegans.co.uk Veganism made easy! Safeforvegans helps you recognize products that are safe for vegan consumption. Download our app and be part o f the green revolution.
8 Reasons Everyone Hates Vegans
LIKE OGP ON FACEBOOK :
One Green Planet
January 3, 2014
1. They credit their vegan diet for their health, wellness and energy.
Who needs to drink green juices and smoothies to be healthy? Can’t they just stick to lifting weights and enjoy steak for dinner like normal people? Hippies.
2. They love animals. Ugh.
Isn’t that sickening? Caring for animals and fighting for their rights?! I mean, come on. How can they care more about cows than Louis Vuitton!? Damn those morals!
3. Some of them even look cute as a button!
Look at them, eating greens, blending smoothies, shooting arrows like elves. Do they want to live forever? It’s so unfair.
4. They care about the Earth—those jerks!
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, massive water and air pollution, soil erosion and contamination…who cares about this mumbo jumbo? Oh, wait, vegans!
5. They mislead you with their food…wicked, tricksy, false!
They make delicious cupcakes, cookies, muffins and a whole bunch of stuff without any butter, cream, cheese, milk….those cheats! Even Paula Deen hates them.
6. They are so demanding….why can’t they just enjoy bacon like normal people!
Vegans create pandemonium at restaurants just because they don’t want to eat greasy, high-cholesterol, heart-clogging food. They want this and that and don’t put that on my food, could I have extra this? Geez vegans, just shut up and sit down!
7. Such elitists….spending all their money on veggies!
They sit on their high horse and judge others. Why don’t they just advocate for change in food subsidies so vegetables are less expensive? Oh, they do do that? Well, they repulse me.
8. Worst of all…science and medicine supports them!
Want to read more posts like this? Sign up for our newsletter below!
'Beyonce is launching her own vegan meal delivery service in the US with her personal trainer Marco Borges'.
If we do not think these VEGAN FADS are about pushing FAKE VEGAN PATENTED PRODUCTS-----then we will be buying swampland in Florida next. As we said yesterday------a FAKE FOOD product like TANG is not keeping the human body from essential nutrients---we simply drink one glass while eating and drinking other sources for nutrients. What the GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATIONS are doing is expanding these sources of FAKE FOODS AND DRINKS pretending they offer nutrient sources that are NOT GETTING TO OUR BODY. So, now they are making MAIN MEALS of manufactured vegan foods.
WE SAW HAITIANS reduced to eating DIRT because of CLINTON GREEN REVOLUTION. Please do the research----is is NATURAL FRESH ORGANIC FOOD SERVED AS VEGAN----
We can be SURE BEYONCE AND JZ are FAKE VEGAN food as global banking 1% freemason STARS.
Order from Beyonce's kitchen; launches delivery meal service
Singer along with personal trainer starts vegan meal service
Published Wednesday, February 04, 2015
Beyonce won a record-setting six Grammys at the 2010 ceremony. (Invision/AP, File)
Beyonce is launching her own vegan meal delivery service in the US with her personal trainer Marco Borges.
The 'Pretty Hurts' hitmaker, who participated in a meat-free challenge with husband Jay Z in December 2013 in a bid to adopt 'a healthy lifestyle,' has teamed up with her personal trainer Marco Borges for the new venture, 22 Days Nutrition, which will provide customers with organic, plant-based, gluten-free, soy-free and dairy-free meals for three weeks.
The 33-year-old star, who is close friends with lifestyle guru and clean-eating advocate Gwyneth Paltrow, said in a statement: "I am so grateful that I took the challenge and credit Marco with leading by example. He is the most energetic person I know and it's all because of his decision to live a healthy lifestyle. He came up with a great program to get people motivated to make better nutritional choices. I am excited to partner with him."
The meals will range in price from $9.76 to $16.50 each and Beyoncé is confident anyone will be able to stick to the programme.
She said: "All you have to do is try. If I can do it, anyone can."
The 'Drunk in Love' hitmaker and Jay Z decided to eat vegan food for 22 days shortly before his birthday in late 2013.
The 45-year-old rapper explained the reason for their experiment on his blog at the time, writing: "Psychologists have said it takes 21 days to make or break a habit. On the 22nd day, you've found the way.
"This all began a few months back when a good friend and vegan challenged me to embrace a 'plant-based breakfast' everyday. It was surprisingly easier on me than I thought.
"It just feels right! So you can call it a spiritual and physical cleanse."
'The elimination of the penalties does not technically remove the requirement to obtain healthcare coverage'.
TRUMP sold his TAX REFORM as ending the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT MANDATE----when it actually didn't.
'Instead, their plan would leave it up to states to preserve, revise or dump the requirement'.
What we are seeing is more and more and more DEREGULATION of US health care. Some states do this---some do that----some call the mandate by another name-----and VOILA----no centralized MEDICARE AND MEDICAID giving all 99% of US citizens and our new immigrants the same access to health care. Here in Maryland health access is tied to PAY-TO-PLAY, PATRONAGE -----
So, the MANDATE is not going away. What we are already seeing is this-----US citizens are being forced to attach to one global health system which has total power over what health policies are offered at what price. It is allowing tiered levels of access creating third world preventative care vs GLOBAL MARKET RATE MEDICINE.
These insurance plans require a patient to follow that corporate doctor's treatment or else be bumped to higher cost insurance tier---and corporate doctors are more and more attached to predatory profiteering health products---
WE KNOW THESE PRODUCTS ARE BAD----IF WE REFUSE THEM WE FACE BEING BUMPED TO HIGHER PRICE LESS ACCESS PLAN----AND CANNOT OPT OUT.
The Supreme Court called this MANDATE a TAX-----so it would fall into ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE-----where public subsidy is not allowed but TAXING the 99% is tops.
TAXING TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION says the US Supreme Court. Indeed, that is what has brought MEDICARE spending down-----
Why Obamacare's Much-Criticized Individual Mandate Is Likely to Endure (for Now)
by Stateline | September 15, 2017
By Michael Ollove
The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that Americans either carry health insurance or pay a fine remains the law’s most unpopular feature. Nevertheless, a bipartisan group of governors is insisting that the so-called individual mandate remain in place — at least for now.
In a letter sent late last month, the governors urged federal lawmakers to retain the mandate to help stabilize insurance markets. But the group, which is led by Republican John Kasich of Ohio and Democrat John Hickenlooper of Colorado, also said states should be given the opportunity to devise “a workable alternative” to it, subject to federal approval.
Earlier this week, Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana proposed a repeal of the ACA that would eliminate the federal mandate. Instead, their plan would leave it up to states to preserve, revise or dump the requirement.
In its early days, the Trump administration signaled it would not penalize people for not having health insurance. The IRS said it did collect penalties this year, although prior to the filing deadline, it announced that it would accept returns from those who didn’t provide the requested information on insurance coverage. The current penalty is either 2.5 percent of household adjusted gross income, or $695 for an adult and $347.50 for a child, whichever is greater. The maximum penalty is $2,085 for a household.
Health policy analysts say the Trump administration’s threat to withhold ACA funding has unsettled insurance companies and destabilized health insurance markets. That is one reason the governors’ group favors keeping and enforcing the mandate for now.
Many critics of the mandate object to it on philosophical grounds, noting that it obliges Americans to purchase a product whether they want it or not. Supporters argue that short of universal health insurance, the mandate is the best way to draw everyone — including young and healthy people who presumably will pay more in premiums than they collect in claims — into the insurance pool, thereby making coverage affordable for everybody else.
Several insurers have abandoned markets in parts of the country this year, complaining that too few young and healthy people were enrolling. As a result, the insurers said, they were paying more in claims than they were collecting in premiums. In some areas, the companies sought steep premium increases for next year, bringing protest from many policyholders.
Getting rid of the mandate now might convince even more young and healthy people to forgo insurance, further destabilizing markets and perhaps chasing some insurers out of them, said Greg Moody, director of Kasich’s Office of Health Transformation.
“You can’t replace it now without the whole market falling apart around us,” Moody said.
Waiting Periods, Surcharges
Once the market is stable, Moody said, states with Democrats in power might try to strengthen the mandate by increasing penalties for non-compliance or strengthening enforcement. More likely, aides to Democratic governors say, those states might not change the mandate at all and instead revise other elements of the law, such as establishing reinsurance pools to help insurers to remain financially solvent.
States with Republicans in control might move to replace the mandate with something other than a direct financial penalty. Since the ACA was enacted in 2010, Republicans and some right-leaning think tanks have floated ideas for other approaches that would encourage Americans to enroll in health insurance without levying fines on them. Some of these ideas were incorporated in Republican repeal-and-replace proposals that failed to win congressional support in the spring and summer.
Under most of these alternatives, people who opted out of health insurance and then changed their minds would have to wait until they could obtain coverage, pay premium surcharges, or go without coverage for medical conditions they developed while uninsured.
JoAnn Volk, a senior research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, said that each of those alternatives are intended to do what the mandate does now — get as many people into the health insurance marketplace as possible — while at least nominally suggesting that consumers have a choice.
“If you get rid of the mandate, you still need some very strong incentive to get healthy people to buy coverage now and not when they get sick,” Volk said.
WHY FOR GOODNESS SAKE DO WE HAVE TO DO THAT???? MEDICAID HAS FOR SEVERAL DECADES BEEN FULLY FUNDED FROM FEDERAL TAXES ALREADY PAID.
The insurance industry, which largely supports the mandate, has stayed out of the debate for the most part, except to note that “well designed” alternatives could be acceptable, presumably if they drew in at least as many enrollees as the mandate.
Health policy analysts say the mandate, in combination with other ACA provisions, has helped reduce the U.S. uninsured rate, from 13.3 percent before the law was implemented to 8.8 percent now. Among the so-called young invincibles, 18- to 35-year-olds who tend to use less medical care, the rate has dropped from 25.2 to 14.6 percent.
According to the IRS, 85 percent of taxpayers indicated that they had health coverage in 2016. About 6.5 million people paid $3 billion in penalties for not having insurance, an average payment of about $470.
The federal government does not seek payment from taxpayers who do not have refunds coming, and it does not have the capacity to attach liens on homes or garnish wages, although it can obtain payments in future years if the taxpayer does qualify for a refund then.
Not As Effective?
Conservatives, like the Heritage Foundation’s Edmund Haislmaier, and libertarians, like Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute, prefer alternatives that would allow consumers to choose whether to purchase health insurance. They also would open the door to allowing insurers to charge some people more for their pre-existing conditions.
But other health care analysts, including Volk and Sarah Lueck, a senior policy analyst at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, say none of the alternatives would induce as many people to buy insurance as the mandate does now, and they all would lead to higher premiums. A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office confirmed those fears.
State Democratic officials largely agree the alternatives would lead to higher premiums, but they are willing to allow Republican governors to devise solutions that could work in their states.
And that’s exactly the point, Ohio’s Moody said. A state like Ohio, where premiums have not increased sharply, might be able to replace the mandate without the negative consequences of higher premiums. That might not work in other places.
Still, as Lueck says, no one has convinced her that any alternative will work as well as the mandate.
“We’ve learned in the first few years of law that the individual mandate is the most effective tool that we have,” Lueck said.
And, she said, there would be a human cost to the alternative methods. “It hits at people who are sick and made a miscalculation or were just confused by the paperwork.”