How do you PRETEND you are fighting for equal access demanded by MEDICARE AND MEDICAID laws and guidelines when you have no intention of giving it? You say seniors, the poor, the disabled, those with chronic illness will be covered and then make sure they cannot access. The top policy issue meeting that global 1% goal are those DEDUCTIONS, CO-PAYS, AND PREMIUMS. As this article shows for only one disease vector----CANCER----the out of pocket for treatment being $50,000. How many US citizens have access to that cash---because Obama and Clinton neo-liberals ended the ability to accumulate medical debt so today if you cannot show actual cash payment you do not get treatment----you get euthanasia ---you get hospice----NO TREATMENT FOR YOU.
99% WE THE PEOPLE can go to any hospital with our pay stubs to show how much payroll tax we pay adding up to $500,000 ----$1 million for most baby boomers considering inflation---we can come to that hospital with our IRS tax forms to show how much tax we pay demanding that the Federal taxes for medical research that used to come to public research facilities with reduced prices for that use of taxpayer money-----that is how our US public health system worked for 300 years. Now, global 1% and their 5% players, white, black, and brown are saying----sorry, $50,000 up front to access that $1 million in Medicare health savings.
This is of course happening with all common disease vectors-----this will expand a decade or two in number of disease vectors not able to access and in 99% of US citizens not having ability to access.
GLOBAL HEDGE FUND IVY LEAGUE JOHNS HOPKINS GETS GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES ALL OVER THE WORLD AND ACROSS MARYLAND ON FEDERAL AGENCY FRAUDS THESE FEW DECADES.
As Cancer Drugs' Prices Skyrocket, Experts Worry About Burden On Patients, Health Systems
January 30, 2017 Updated January 30, 2017 12:41 PMNov 10, 2017Richard Knox joined Morning Edition to discuss the rising costs associated with cancer drugs. Below is a transcription of our conversation with him.
Richard Knox: New cancer drugs are being approved at a fast pace: dozens a year. And many more are in the pipeline. In the past, these drugs might cost around $10,000 for a year’s treatment. But one recent study found newly-approved cancer drugs carry price tags between $120,000 and $170,000.
Bob Oakes: What's behind this enormous increase?
Knox: It’s complicated, and drug companies don’t reveal what goes into their pricing decisions. But one factor is a 2003 federal law that bars Medicare from negotiating over drug prices. And Medicare Part D — the drug benefit which went into effect 11 years ago — requires Medicare to pay for all approved drugs. Taken together, this means drug companies can charge whatever they want.
Oakes: Big picture, Dick, what are the implications of this trend?
Knox: They’re big – for the health care system and for cancer patients and their families.
One recent study looked at what’s happened with just one treatment for a blood cancer called CLL. Last year, the FDA approved a two-drug combination that’s revolutionized the treatment of CLL. Newly-diagnosed patients on this regimen can now expect to live seven years, and often much longer. And side effects are greatly reduced. But the price tag for each drug is about $130,000, and patients need to take them for the rest of their lives.
Jagpreet Chhatwal of Mass General Hospital, who led the study, tells me the new treatment has tripled the cost of treating a patient with this one type of cancer.
Chhatwal: We find that on average the lifetime cost of treatment with these new therapies would be $600,000.
Knox: And because patients will live much longer, the total number of patients with CLL — all needing lifetime treatment — is rising rapidly. So the total cost burden for the health care system is soaring too.
Oakes: What about the implications for patients?
Knox: Chhatwal says the out-of-pocket costs for patients has gone up even faster.
Chhatwal: That cost is substantial, it's more than $50,000. And if you compare treatments with previous therapies, out-of-pocket cost was around $10,000. So we're talking about a 500 percent increase in out-of-pocket cost of treatment.
Knox: And keep in mind, Bob, that this is just one cancer among at least 200 different types, many of which are being treated with more effective — but more expensive — new drugs.
Chhatwal: We think this is just the tip of the iceberg. The trend is very disturbing.
Knox: It’s a trend that could affect almost every family. Two out of every five Americans will get a cancer diagnosis at some point in their lives.
Oakes: Are skyrocketing drug costs preventing some people from getting potentially life-saving cancer treatment?
Knox: Probably. But, Bob, that’s hard to pin down. People at leading cancer centers tell me they’re able to find a way to treat nearly everybody, so far. But Dr. Otis Brawley, the medical director of the American Cancer Society, tells me that many people don’t ever make it to a leading center.
Brawley: I actually know people who have decided to forego a treatment, because they cannot afford it. And I'm sure there are people who are giving up the option for a cure, because they can't afford it right now. It's just incredibly shameful that this would happen in the United States.
Oakes: That's horrible, Dick. Is there anything that can be done about it?
Knox: That’s not clear, Bob. You may have noticed that our new president declared recently that he was going to demand that drug companies negotiate prices. That would take a change in federal law, at least to allow Medicare to negotiate — and most cancer patients are on Medicare. Drug companies will surely fight that. And then there’s the expected repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Will its replacement will address skyrocketing drug costs, or put the cost of cancer treatment further out of reach? Nobody knows.
This segment aired on January 30, 2017.
We pick on Johns Hopkins because they are in our neck of the woods---you have the same private IVY LEAGUE that was used during Robber Baron frauds these few decades to move all US wealth to global 1% as well. Johns Hopkins is STILL called a non-profit when it has been for decades and is especially now a GLOBAL CORPORATION. Bloomberg took Hopkins to being that global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE corporation and his financial paper BLOOMBERG likes listing Hopkins as a private stock corporation. We have discussed the MOVING FORWARD of all US corporate public stock listings as ending soon after this coming economic crash as any US corporation still around will go bankrupt and be enfolded into these hyper-consolidated multi-national corporations like Hopkins and they will be PRIVATE STOCK owned only by those global 1% and their 2% -----those we find on the boards of these global corporations. No 99% WE THE PEOPLE putting a few dollars in their pockets in stock dividends----
This is why we call JOHNS HOPKINS----GLOBAL BLOOMBERG CORPORATION IN WHAT IS BLOOMBERG FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE 2---NORTH AMERICA---- Hopkins is literally controlling all economic activity in Baltimore and Maryland-----and it is owned and operated by global banking entities like CARLYLE GROUP AND CARROLL GLOBAL HEDGE FUNDS.
$1.1 Billion in Thanks From Bloomberg to Johns Hopkins
By MICHAEL BARBAROJAN. 26, 2013
BALTIMORE — He arrived on campus a middling high school student from Medford, Mass., who had settled for C’s and had confined his ambitions to the math club.
This same situation exists for all our US universities---those public universities are simply being enfolded into that local global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE university.
The reason all this is important in public policy discussion is this--------it is the BOARDS of global corporate campuses----Hopkins was these few decades the only real global campus===now Amazon and UnderArmour are taking control. If we look at the board of Johns Hopkins----we see columns saying RELATIONSHIPS ---we joke about that being NEPOTISM because it shows mostly business relationships but by extension we see the same few global 1% and their 2% on all these global medical campus boards.
THESE ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE IN BALTIMORE TO WHICH OUR BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL----BALTIMORE MAYOR, BALTIMORE STATE ASSEMBLY POLS LISTEN----FORGET THOSE 99% OF BALTIMORE CITIZENS black, white, and brown citizens.
BALTIMORE IS TOPS IN PREDATORY AND PROFITEERING MEDICINE AND WILL FLEECE WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% OUT OF ANY AND ALL ABILITY TO ACCESS STRONG PUBLIC HEALTH SAVINGS AND HEALTH CARE.
Who leads protests against Trump while the biggest of ROBBER BARON FRAUDSTERS expands and eats all our public wealth----killing our public health and access? The 5% players tied to NGOs pretending to help the poor.
Healthcare Providers and Services
Company Overview of The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation
The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation INSIDERS ON Board Members
Ronald Peterson 127 RelationshipsPresident and Trustee--Other Board Members on Board MembersName (Connections)RelationshipsType of Board MembersPrimary CompanyAgeDavid Hodgson MBA116 RelationshipsChairman of the BoardThe Social Entrepreneurs' Fund60Paul Rothman M.D.46 RelationshipsVice ChairmanThe Johns Hopkins Hospital--Alvin Krongard J.D., Esq.55 RelationshipsVice ChairmanUnder Armour, Inc.80Janie Bailey 21 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsThe Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation--Michael Beatty 40 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsH&S Properties Development Corp.--George Bunting Jr.113 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsThe Abell Foundation, Inc.76Edward Cahill 111 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsHLM Venture Partners64Phillip Clough 49 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsABS Capital Partners, Inc.55James Dresher Jr.54 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsSkye Hospitality, LLC--Francis Knott 54 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsThe Johns Hopkins Hospital72Theo Rodgers 78 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsFederal National Mortgage Association76Melanie Sabelhaus 32 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsGifts that Give, Inc.68Manuel Dupkin II75 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsJohns Hopkins University--James Flick Jr.89 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsJohns Hopkins University82Albert Owens Jr., M.D.39 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsFASgen, Inc.--Richard Ross M.D.36 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsThe Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation--C. Armstrong 81 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsSV Investment Partners78Lenox Baker Jr., M.D. 130 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsJohns Hopkins University75H. Baldwin 101 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsW. R. Grace & Co.85Harvey Meyerhoff 75 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsJohns Hopkins University90Shale Stiller Esq.103 RelationshipsMember of the Board of DirectorsJohns Hopkins University
We have spoken about KAISER PERMANENTE as the WEST COAST version of our east coast Johns Hopkins. It controls most west coast health policy----it controls all health think tank discussions----and it is totally global 1% extreme wealth predatory and profiteering health care. That is what makes TEAM JOHNS HOPKINS/KAISER PERMANENTE so bad for US public health---they are simply that global health system wanting only to treat global 1% and their 2%.
'Our new Impact Fund supports reporting on underserved communities, health disparities, community wellbeing, new delivery models and access to healthcare'.
University of Southern California is the same global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE university as Johns Hopkins---for the same reasons being tied to Los Angeles ----so they are the source of much of medical and health care MEDIA and non-profits which are 5% to the 1%----they work to make sure 99% of WE THE PEOPLE do not know what is happening in health care policy. They are the ones saying things like-----SINGLE PAYER -----CROWD SOURCE FUNDING FOR JOEY'S HEALTH CARE-----and were silent throughout ROBBER BARON few decades of massive and systemic frauds against all our 99% citizens' wealth.
We want to end this week's discussion on health policy by reminding folks where NOT TO LOOK FOR HEALTH CARE INFORMATION----if we do look at these propaganda outlets KNOW THAT BIAS to mis-inform working for global 1% wealth and power.
'Boyle Heights Beat captures life as its residents experience it, giving voice to a marginalized community and building trust and connectedness'.
About the Center
Helping journalists investigate health challenges and solutions in their communities and serving as a catalyst for change.
Professional Health Journalism Training & News Partnerships
We partner with reporters and their newsrooms to nurture ambitious journalism that impacts policy and spurs new community discussions. Our all-expenses-paid fellowships offer journalists a chance to step away from their newsrooms to hone health reporting skills. In intimate workshops, field trips and seminars at our home base in Los Angeles, fellows learn from the country's most respected health and medical experts, from top journalists in the field and from each other. We delve into current debates and dilemmas in health and health care; offer tips and mentoring opportunities to extend the reach and impact of projects, and emphasize data skills that help reporters tell incisive and new stories. Throughout, we explore journalism on community health –how circumstances outside the doctor’s office such as violence, access to healthy food, poverty and pollution – contribute to well being.
For six months after our in-person training, senior journalists guide Fellows as they complete ambitious explanatory or investigative Fellowship projects. We have trained more than 800 journalists since 2005. Click here to read the hundreds of stories that our Fellows have produced, changing policy and winning journalism awards. Click here for specifics on all our Fellowships. For questions about upcoming programs, contact us at email@example.com
We award tens of thousands in grants annually to underwrite substantive explanatory and investigative journalism and community engagement by newsrooms.
Our new Impact Fund supports reporting on underserved communities, health disparities, community wellbeing, new delivery models and access to healthcare.
Through the fund, grant makers can contribute critical financial support at a pivotal moment – as Congress and President Trump seek to fundamentally change a historic expansion of U.S. healthcare under the Affordable Care Act.
EXPANSION OF HEALTH CARE------OH, REALLY???
By partnering with the Center, funders invest in a proven partner with an exemplary track record. Grants can go to newsroom-wide projects, individual journalists, or news collaborations, with preference given to mainstream-ethnic media collaborations.
Our Center for Health Journalism Fellows receive reporting grants through out National, California or California Data Fellowships or one of our their related reporting funds. Each year, five to seven of our National Fellows receive grants from the The Dennis A. Hunt Fund for Health Journalism, which honors the legacy of the late Dennis A. Hunt, a visionary leader at The California Endowment who co-founded our program. Another five to seven National Fellows receive grants from our Fund for Journalism on Child Well-Being, which supports journalism on child health, welfare or well-being. All our California and National Fellows also receive reporting grants. Five National Fellows and Five California Fellows receive grants from our Community Engagement Fund.
Our reporting and engagement grants, all competitively awarded, provide critical support and resources at a time of industry upheaval, enabling the reporting of stories that might otherwise have gone untold and providing funds for engagement with communities to further the impact of the work and highlight community voices.
Center for Health Journalism Digital
Center for Health Journalism Digital is an online community for people across a wide range of disciplines who are passionate about fostering great health and medical coverage of our communities. Center for Health Journalism Digital stimulates conversations about health journalism, health communication, blogging, and storytelling. It provides its members with a place to swap ideas, to showcase their work and to benefit from our reporting insights, webinars and tip-filled blogs. Its content has been cited by the Washington Post, NPR, Forbes, Fox News, KQED, the Los Angeles Times, hundreds of blogs and tens of thousands of entries on social media platforms.
To join the Center for Health Journalism Digital community, click here.
The Center for Health Journalism Collaborative
Health Journalism Fellows and their media outlets team with us to tackle ambitious investigative projects on a common theme for maximum impact -- coupled with creative engagement strategies. The first Collaborative project involved seven media outlets in California (the Bakersfield Californian, the Merced Sun-Star, Radio Bilingüe in Fresno, The Record in Stockton, Valley Public Radio in Fresno and Bakersfield, Vida en el Valle in Fresno, and the Voice of OC in Santa Ana). It examined the toll of valley fever, a devastating and overlooked disease plaguing California’s Central Valley. The second Collaborative project, Living in the Shadows, brought together six of our 2013 National Fellows to examine the nexus between immigration status and mental health.
Boyle Heights Beat/El Pulso de Boyle Heights
In partnership with Hoy (Los Angeles Times Media Group), we publish a quarterly bilingual print newspaper written by youth, as well as an online news site, BoyleHeightsBeat.com, written by youth as well as adult contributors from a Latino immigrant neighborhood of Los Angeles. The paper is distributed to 28,000 households, whose members often feel disconnected from or unfairly depicted by mainstream news coverage. It is reported "by and for the community." Boyle Heights Beat captures life as its residents experience it, giving voice to a marginalized community and building trust and connectedness.
Baltimore has absolutely NO REAL MEDIA JOURNALISM---it has NO REAL academic writing coming from LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE stances---it is all geared towards MOVING FORWARD global 1% wealth and power. WE MUST HAVE REAL VOICES IN PUBLIC HEALTH and not simply groups repeating TALKING POINTS.
One of the strongest FUNDING FOUNDATIONS for that ANNENBERG FOUNDATION ON SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY CAMPUS tied to health journalism was DENNIS A HUNT-----RUBEN CASTANEDA writes many articles.
US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT is the most global 1% extreme wealth and global corporate power media outlet in US tied to TIME MAGAZINE. It ranks education and now health care facilities on their ability to EXPAND MARKET SHARE----not on how good they are at educating or providing health care. So, no 99% WE THE PEOPLE stances will ever be found in any of these media outlets.
If we see a citizen tied to these outlets----whether doctor or someone claiming to be a JUSTICE ADVOCATE----we KNOW they are a 5% player, black, white, and brown citizens----NOT A 99% JUSTICE ADVOCATE.
THE FAR-RIGHT WING MEDIA LOVE TO REPORT ON THE PAIN WE THE PEOPLE ARE HAVING----THEY NEVER REPORT ON THE SOURCE OF THAT PAIN----LOCAL US CITY DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE MASSIVE FRAUDS, PUBLIC CORRUPTIONS, STEALING OF COMMUNITY WEALTH AND FUNDING.
U.S. News' Ruben Castaneda Awarded Dennis A. Hunt Fellowship For Health Journalism
First of multi-part series on community health reveals impact of new immigration policies on children of undocumented parents.
Sep 28, 2017 11:30 AM EDT
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/
-- U.S. News & World Report's Ruben Castaneda today published the first of a multi-part series on how immigration policies from the Trump administration are affecting the physical, emotional and mental health of those impacted, including U.S. citizens nationwide who have at least one undocumented parent. The reporting is supported by the Center for Health Journalism's Dennis A. Hunt Fund fellowship, a competitive grants program awarded to journalists reporting on community health.
" Trump Stokes Anxiety Among U.S. Citizen Kids of Undocumented Parents" brought Castaneda to a third-grade classroom in Baltimore, Maryland, telling the story of 22 students who broke down in tears for fear of deportation shortly before this year's inauguration. These students join the currently 4.5 million U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents, and another 1 million children who are themselves undocumented.
In addition to Baltimore, Castaneda traveled to Los Angeles, California, and Portland, Oregon, to capture the fear, depression and anxiety students are experiencing around immigration. Subsequent articles publishing over the next four months include:
- In October, Castaneda will feature an advocacy group that has developed a mental health toolkit for those part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as "Dreamers." The group aims to help Dreamers cope with the stress of being undocumented so they can better advocate to save DACA, the executive order signed by former President Barack Obama's administration protecting a select group of undocumented immigrants who were children when they were brought to the U.S., from detention and deportation.
- In November, Castaneda will spotlight clinicians and educators who are helping children of undocumented parents, from scouting areas where ICE might be present to hosting "Know Your Rights" events with immigration attorneys offering advice about the rights of the undocumented.
- In December, an evaluation of how negative rhetoric around immigration affects the sense of identity for children whose parents are in ICE crosshairs.
National media tries hard to pit US young adults against baby boomer retirees in everything---from shrinking job categories to mandated health insurance pretending to be helping the poor and seniors who are obviously not able to access more and more.
The changes to MEDICARE during OBAMA as part of AFFORDABLE CARE ACT----include this dynamic. Young adults forced to buy health insurance at a time in life they rarely use it----and we are told those HIGH-INCOME citizens are going to be held to paying THEIR FAIR SHARE. High income today is RELATIVE----normally above $250,000 a year. While our US young adults are being pushed into free labor part time temporary internship apprenticeship employment assuring they will not get that income start needed in prime earning years----they are being soaked with more and more taxes, fees, and fines.....where does all that extra mandated health insurance premium for young adults go if seniors and low-income are becoming pushed to preventative care only access?
PURE GLOBAL HEALTH SYSTEM PROFITS.
What we see with this policy is our US affluent now paying into that MEDICARE FUND since 99% of WE THE PEOPLE will have no job or be paid nothing for working----they need some revenue stream ----but these 5% to the 1% are going under the bus as today's baby boomers long before THEY will access all that PAYROLL TAX increase. For the next decade or two---these upper-middle-class will indeed be the only ones accessing MEDICARE----but that will end before they try to access it.
OBAMA AND CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS NEEDED TO EXPAND MEDICARE TAX BECAUSE THE 99% OF LOW AND MIDDLE-CLASS WORKERS ARE DISAPPEARING...NOT TO HELP PAY FOR POOR OR SENIORS.
'These provisions would affect only the 2.6 percent of U.S. households with the highest incomes, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center'.
Above we see the two top global 1% ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE for only the global 1% NGOs ----Brookings Institute meets URBAN INSTITUTE-----great big players. They PRETEND all this is geared to sure up REAL MEDICARE when in fact the $20 trillion in US Treasury bond fraud killed REAL MEDICARE.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a Clinton neo-liberal think tank ergo Brookings Institution. If 99% US WE THE PEOPLE are WAKING UP to all these FAKE NEWS propaganda what are these outlets doing? Most of what they are calling HIGH-INCOME will be those global 2%-----our new global labor pool have not been FOOLED ONCE----these outlets are now writing to FOOL THE NEW IMMIGRANT HIGH-SKILLED WORKERS AND CITIZENS.
Changes in Medicare Tax on High-Income People Represent Sound Additions to Health Reform
March 5, 2010
The President’s health reform plan would raise the Medicare tax rate for single filers with incomes over $200,000 and married filers with incomes over $250,000 — a provision that was included in the Senate-passed health bill — and also would extend this tax to the unearned income these affluent households receive such as income from capital gains, dividends, and royalties. These proposals, which would help finance the expansion of health coverage to more than 30 million Americans, would affect only U.S. households at the very top of the income scale while improving tax equity and economic efficiency.
These provisions would affect only the 2.6 percent of U.S. households with the highest incomes, according to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. The Medicare taxes that the other 97.4 percent of Americans pay would remain unchanged. Among elderly households, only the top 2.2 percent would be touched, with the other 97.8 percent remaining unaffected.
These proposals would mainly affect people with incomes exceeding $1 million a year. The Tax Policy Center reports that 74 percent of the increase in Medicare tax contributions would come from people making over $1 million a year, and 91 percent would come from people with incomes over $500,000. Among elderly households, 78 percent of the new tax contributions would come from those with incomes exceeding $1 million, while 93 percent would come from seniors with incomes over $500,000.
The proposals also would improve both tax equity and economic efficiency. Under current law, people with very high incomes generally pay a smaller share of their income in Medicare taxes than middle-class and low-income working families do because they derive much of their income from capital gains and dividends, which are now exempt from the Medicare tax. The proposal would address this disparity.
The broadening of the Medicare tax would also somewhat improve economic efficiency. The current, very large difference between the overall tax rate applied to ordinary income and the much lower rate applied to capital gains encourages inefficient tax-sheltering activities; it creates large tax incentives for wealthy individuals to engage in financial engineering schemes to convert ordinary income into capital gains. By modestly reducing the differential between the tax rates on ordinary income and the rates on capital gains, the proposal takes a step toward reducing these incentives for tax-shelter activity.
How the Proposals Would Work
Under the current Medicare tax, employees and employers each pay a flat 1.45 percent of a worker’s wage and salary income. (Unlike Social Security payroll taxes, which are not imposed on earnings above a specified ceiling, Medicare taxes are collected on all of a worker’s earnings.) Although employers nominally pay half of the tax, most economists believe that employees ultimately pay the employer share as well — or 2.9 percent overall — as employers pass the tax through to employees in the form of lower wages. (Self-employed workers pay the full 2.9 percent tax but are allowed to deduct half of this amount for income-tax purposes.)
The President’s plan would leave the Medicare tax unchanged for the 97.4 percent of Americans with incomes below $200,000 for single filers and $250,000 for couples. For those high-income households that have incomes above these thresholds, it would modify the tax in two ways.
First, it adopts a provision of the Senate-passed health bill that would raise the employee share of the Medicare tax by 0.9 percentage points — from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent — on the portion of these households’ earnings that exceeds the $250,000 threshold ($200,000 for unmarried filers). Earnings up to these thresholds would continue to be taxed at the current rate.
Second, it would apply the current 2.9 percent rate to these households’ unearned income. This tax would apply only to unearned income above the $250,000 threshold ($200,000 for unmarried filers). Thus, if a married couple had $150,000 in earned income and $150,000 in capital gains and dividends, it would pay the current tax rate on all of its earnings and would pay 2.9 percent of the last $50,000 of its unearned income. The first $100,000 of its unearned income would continue to be exempt from the tax.
In addition, all active income that people above $250,000 secure from operating a closely held business organized as an S corporation would continue to be exempt from the Medicare tax.
Proposals Would Support Fiscal Responsibility and Improve Economic Efficiency
The provisions raising the amount of Medicare HI tax that high-income households pay will provide $184 billion in revenue over ten years, according to very preliminary estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation. These revenues, along with various other revenues and substantial program savings, primarily in Medicare, enable the health reform legislation to reduce deficits modestly both over the next ten years and beyond.
In addition to helping ensure that the health reform legislation is fully paid for, broadening the base of the Medicare tax for high-income households (by extending it to unearned income) would be sound economically. A major source of inefficiency in today’s tax code is that it taxes different types of income at sharply different rates. The much lower tax rates applied to capital gains and dividend income than for earnings stand out in this respect. As the Tax Policy Center has explained:
Low tax rates on capital gains are an important part of many individual income tax shelters, which employ sophisticated financial techniques to convert ordinary income (such as wages and salaries) to capital gains. For top-bracket taxpayers, tax sheltering can save 20 cents per dollar of income sheltered. Tax sheltering is economically inefficient because the resources that go into designing and managing tax shelters could be used instead for productive purposes, and many tax shelter investments pay subpar returns, turning a profit only after considering the tax benefits. 
The proposal to broaden the base of the Medicare tax would narrow the gap between the tax rates that high-income people face on ordinary income and the rates they face on capital gains — and would thereby modestly reduce incentives for economically unproductive tax sheltering. 
Leaning Against the Trend of Increasing Income Inequality
As is well known, incomes have surged in recent decades for households at the top of the income scale while stagnating for ordinary Americans. High-income households also have benefited from very large tax cuts.
- Between 1995 and 2007, the percentage of income that households with incomes over $1 million paid in federal income taxes fell by nearly one-third, from 31.4 percent to 22.1 percent.
- Over the 1995-to-2007 period, the effective income tax rate of the 400 Americans with the highest incomes was cut nearly in half: this group paid an average of 29.9 percent of its income in federal income taxes in 1995, as compared to 16.6 percent in 2007. (To make it into the top 400, a household needed an adjusted gross income of at least $139 million in 2007.) 
This substantial reduction in tax burdens at the top end of the income scale occurred at the same time that before-tax income disparities were widening markedly. In fact, during the most recent economic expansion (from the end of 2001 to the end of 2007), two-thirds of all of the income gain in the nation went to the 1 percent of Americans with the highest incomes.
The new Medicare tax provisions would mitigate this somewhat by making payroll taxes a bit less regressive. The Congressional Budget Office has found that the percentage of total income that a typical middle-class household pays in Medicare and Social Security taxes is nearly six times higher than the percentage of income that people in the top 1 percent of the population pay. The fact that the Medicare tax now applies to wages, salaries, and self-employment income but not to capital gains and dividend income is a key reason why wealthy Americans pay a substantially smaller share of their income in Medicare taxes than low- and middle-income people do.
Capital gains and dividends account for only a tiny share of the income of low- and middle-income families. But they make up 22 percent of the income of people who make between $500,000 and $1 million and 61 percent of the income of people who make more than $10 million. 
- A middle-class family whose income is derived entirely from wages currently faces the full 2.9 percent Medicare tax. 
- But a couple making $10 million a year that receives 61 percent of its income from capital gains and dividends (and the rest from salaries) pays only 1.1 percent of its income in Medicare tax.
- Under the President’s proposal, this multi-millionaire couple would pay 3.2 percent of its income in Medicare tax. (The rate would be lower than 3.2 percent if part of the couple’s $10 million income consisted of active Subchapter S corporation income.)
The President’s proposal would largely eliminate the disparity in effective Medicare tax rates.
These proposals relating to the Medicare tax also would be extremely well targeted. As noted, only the 2.6 percent of households with the highest incomes would be affected at all. And, largely because capital gains, dividends, and other unearned income are so heavily concentrated at the very top of the income scale, households with incomes of more than $1 million, who often now pay only tiny percentages of their income in the Medicare tax, would provide 74 percent of the new revenues from these proposals.
This effect is even greater among seniors. Only 2.2 percent of them would face any increase in taxes. And those with annual incomes exceeding $1 million would be responsible for 78 percent of the new taxes that seniors would pay.
Proposal Would Help Shore Up Medicare’s Finances
The President’s proposal also would improve Medicare’s finances by increasing the revenues dedicated to the Medicare program. As under the Senate-passed health reform bill, the revenues from the additional tax on earned income would be credited to the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund. The combination of the health reform package’s substantial Medicare savings from making the program more efficient and this tax measure would extend the solvency of the HI trust fund by at least ten years, from 2017 to 2027.
The propaganda game by global 1% in PRETENDING to be helping the poor in health care ------was AFFORDABLE CARE ACT KILLING ALL PUBLIC HEALTH CARE IN US calling them health subsidies and moving those funds to CORPORATE SUBSIDIES. This eliminated the need for global Wall Street to steal hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicare funds each year and simply hands it to these global health systems for profit.
In exchange for ending strong public care access for ordinary disease vectors and hospital care global 1% CLINTON/OBAMA pretended low-income would get dentistry, glasses, and lots and lots of mental health treatment. What happened these several years in MEDICAL ENTERPRISE ZONES in US cities? Lots of national medical and dental chains filled with fraud, corruption, and abuse aimed at low-income patients. Now that the frauds are over---time to end that health access.
What MEDICAID will become in US is UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER ----for 99% of US citizens. They will keep using these US terms----Medicare or Medicaid ---but global 1% are MOVING FORWARD global labor pool/refugee developing nation preventative care in US.
The global 1% would not even give that health access if they were not afraid of COMMUNICABLE DISEASE VECTORS that sicken the rich as well as poor. They need maternity and new born care to install MICROCHIP/NANOBOT/VACCINE/TELEMEDICINE which IS that UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSAL CARE.
Just as national charter K-12 school frauds are soaring so too are these 'low-income health chains' ---all that patronage pay-to-play for our 5% white, black, and brown ROBBER BARON pols and players. This is phasing out US standards of care MOVING FORWARD overseas third world preventative care only for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
'Small Smiles' Dental Chain Reaches Settlement for Medical Fraud
By GLENN RUPPEL
Jan. 20, 2010
It's a promise many parents make before taking their children to the dentist: Don't worry, it won't hurt too much. But at some "Small Smiles" dental clinics catering to low-income families on Medicaid, that promise was broken behind closed doors.
Excerpts from this story referencing Kool Smiles
"… t dental chains owned by private-equity firms, Aspen Dental Management and Kool Smiles, put pressure on its dentists to meet production goals, prompting complain …"
"… in. Aspen Dental does not accept Medicaid and has no offices in Texas. But Kool Smiles has clinics throughout Texas, and public records show that the state Attor …"
"… public records show that the state Attorney General has been investigating Kool Smiles for Medicaid fraud.Texas has been embroiled in a Medicaid fraud scandal fo …"..............................................................................................................CPI and FRONTLINE also investigated Aspen Dental and found that its business model of serving patients who cannot afford a dentist had led to complaints of overtreatment and loading patients who cannot afford it with debt.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Reminding the public about ReachOut Healthcare America - Big Smiles Mobile Dental Clinics - One More Child Foundation
School is in, and the ReachOut Healthcare America mobile dental vans are hitting the unsuspecting public schools - which is like turning pedophiles by the dozen loose in each school they visit.
They go by lots of names, including Michigan Mobile Dentists, Big Smiles of Texas, Big Smiles of (name of state) and in Georgia it's, "Help A Child Smile".
CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA determined to make every Federal agency tied to a social or public benefit into a FRAUD MACHINE.
These low income kids could lose access to dental care
by Sara Ashley O'Brien @saraashleyo March 3, 2017: 11:08 AM ET
Trump's Medicaid changes could yank these kids' dental care
Scribbled on a chalkboard outside hellosmile's Queens office are the words, "Health is happiness."Hellosmile, run by Farhad and Dr. Ali Attaie, is a pediatric health startup that aims to give all kids, regardless of how much their parents make, the same chance for a happy, healthy life.
But hellosmile is more than just a doctor's office. It's also on a mission to get parents, children and communities to be active participants in their own health. That includes building its own tech platform to teach employees about the importance of health, and running an innovation lab to create ways of more deeply engaging parents and children.
Hellosmile serves 50,000 children, 70% of its whom are covered by federally funded programs -- Medicaid and Children's Healthcare Insurance Program. But with federal healthcare programs likely to change under President Trump, hellosmile and these children could have uncertain futures.
A hellosmile patient in Jackson Heights, Queens.
The brothers' mission was inspired by one of the first jobs they both had: working at their mother's daycare in the late '80s. After fleeing Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, their single mother Miriam opened a daycare in the Bay Area that had a sliding pay scale. It was there, Farhad Attaie told CNNTech, that they saw how trust and empathy were at the root of taking care of kids.
Years later, Dr. Attaie was working two jobs in New York -- one on the Upper East Side and one in Queens. He saw dental disease disproportionally hitting low income communities. He'd complain to his brother, then an investment banker.
"It dawned on me that this was a huge opportunity because it's a huge, huge problem," Farhad Attaie told CNNTech.
Hellosmile and its 50,000 children
The brothers launched hellosmile in 2007 as a dental health startup.
Dental disease is the most common illness among children, but it also can be largely avoided with the proper nutrition and preventive care. But access to quality care, especially for low income children, isn't always easy to come by.
The government reimburses providers for Medicaid patients, but at a significantly lower rate than they get from private insurers. This means many doctors don't enroll in it.
Experts also say the system incentivizes disease treatment rather than preventative care. Dentists, for example, get the biggest bang for their buck when they replace a mouthful of cavities instead of a routine cleaning.
The result is a sicker population that ultimately costs the government more money. Two preventative dental cleanings cost Medicaid about $200, whereas treating dental decay costs between $8,000 and $12,000 in New York.
Today, hellosmile has 11 locations in primarily low income communities. Five of its clinics also offer medical care.
As a social enterprise, hellosmile's focus has never been solely on their bottom line.
In addition to providing care, it has a unique model that's designed to impact the overall health of the community. It hires people from the neighborhood who start in entry level positions and work their way up (with the exception of dentists and hygienists). It created an online learning and collaboration platform for employees. It also runs an innovation lab that leverages research and design to create everything from multilingual pamphlets to baby toothbrushes.
What's at stake
But sustaining its business could be more difficult if the government changes healthcare reimbursements.
Republicans in Congress are pushing to "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act. Proposals include "block granting" Medicaid or introducing "per capita caps."
A chalkboard outside hellosmile's office prompts guests to respond to the question, "What is health?"
Both would mean states get a fixed sum of federal funding for low income patients. Currently, the federal government matches what states spend on Medicaid -- there's no cap. The purpose of the new proposal is to reduce federal funding over time, but give states more control over their Medicaid programs. However, it's unclear how states will make up the funding difference for those who need care. It could mean states further cut back on Medicaid reimbursements to providers.
In addition to Medicaid, funding for the CHIP program expires in September. The program grants coverage to roughly 8 million low income children above the Medicaid threshold, and legislation is necessary to extend its funding.
Hellosmile is strategizing how to weather any changes, including opening up locations in wealthier communities to offset costs.
Farhad Attaie said that changes to these federal programs could have "a dramatic impact on all of these communities that are underserved. It says something about a community when you say, 'How are you treating this next generation?"
The US public health system had such extreme health fraud during CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA because of the fact global 1% neo-liberals made a once strongly regulated, oversight and accountability health program like MEDICAID into BLOCK GRANTS-----yes, CHIP in many states were simply used as pay-to-play outsourced health services everyone knows are filled with fraud. As we shout---while a global hedge fund IVY LEAGUE Johns Hopkins et al were stealing hundreds of billions from MEDICARE AND MEDICAID----these block grant patronage sent millions to allow fraud by those 5% players. This has occurred these few decades so MEDIA telling us TRUMP is going to create BLOCK GRANTS of Medicaid-----SORRY, CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA has already done that.
Baltimore's health care for low-income is a mess because it was all used to build national health chains.
What will happen under a Trump MOVING FORWARD is this-----global United Nations ILO universal preventative care for global labor pool already has global health corporations handling these developing nation health needs---those global health corporations will simply move into US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---to take all of what used to be our US Medicare and Medicaid. We already see CARLYLE GROUP taking SENIOR care----there will be no more 5% pay-to-play patronage small businesses.
THESE THREATS OF BLOCK GRANTING WHETHER MEDICARE OR MEDICAID THESE FEW DECADES WAS ALWAYS A JOKE AS THESE FEDERAL HEALTH PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN BLOCK GRANTED THROUGHOUT CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----
And mainstream media outlets have KNOWN THIS.
WE LIKE TO REMIND CITIZENS HOW EXTENSIVE HEALTH FRAUD HAS BEEN THROUGH CLINTON ERA----this was late 1990s-----it exploded these few decades and it was our MEDICARE AND MEDICAID TRUSTS
Below you see a well-researched paper on health fraud. Notice that the amount of fraud back in 1998 was $250 billion a year.....THAT WAS BEFORE CORPORATE FRAUD WENT ON STEROIDS
'It is clear to see why Americans consider this the biggest cause, when health care fraud was estimated to cost approximately $100 billion to $250 billion per year in 1998, or 10 percent to 25 percent of total health care spending'
An Undergraduate Honors Thesis by
Professor Nicole C. Quon
Those thinking that was not BLOCK GRANTING as frauds soared to $400-500 billion dollars each year-----then we have swamp land in Florida to sell.
Trump’s Health Plan Would Convert Medicaid to Block Grants, Aide Says
By ROBERT PEARJAN. 22, 2017
Demonstrators this month outside the Trump International Hotel and Tower in New York. They were protesting plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Credit Demetrius Freeman for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s plan to replace the Affordable Care Act will propose giving each state a fixed amount of federal money in the form of a block grant to provide health care to low-income people on Medicaid, a top adviser to Mr. Trump said in an interview broadcast on Sunday.
The adviser, Kellyanne Conway, who is Mr. Trump’s White House counselor, said that converting Medicaid to a block grant would ensure that “those who are closest to the people in need will be administering” the program.
A block grant would be a radical change. Since its creation in 1965, Medicaid has been an open-ended entitlement. If more people become eligible because of a recession, or if costs go up because of the use of expensive new medicines, states receive more federal money.
If Congress decides to create block grants for Medicaid, lawmakers will face thorny questions with huge political and financial implications: How much money will each state receive? How will the initial allotments be adjusted — for population changes, for general inflation, for increases in medical prices, for the discovery of new drugs and treatments? Will the federal government require states to cover certain populations and services? Will states receive extra money if they have not expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, but decide to do so in the future?
Ms. Conway, speaking on the NBC program “Sunday Today,” said that with a block grant, “you really cut out the fraud, waste and abuse, and you get the help directly” to intended beneficiaries.
Medicaid covers more than 70 million people at a combined cost of more than $500 billion a year to the federal government and the states. More than 20 million people have gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act, more than half of them through Medicaid.
The new Congress has approved a budget that clears the way for speedy action to repeal the health care law, President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement. And Mr. Trump has said Congress should take action to repeal and replace the law at the same time, putting pressure on lawmakers to agree on an alternative.
As a candidate, Mr. Trump said he wanted to “maximize flexibility for states” so they could “design innovative Medicaid programs that will better serve their low-income citizens.” On Friday, in his first executive order, he directed federal officials to use all their authority to “provide greater flexibility to states” on the health law.
As part of their “Better Way” agenda, House Republicans said in June that they would roll back the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid and give each state a set amount of money for each beneficiary or a lump sum of federal money for all of a state’s Medicaid program — “a choice of either a per capita allotment or a block grant.”
Governors like the idea of having more control over Medicaid, but fear that block grants may be used as a vehicle for federal budget cuts.
“We are very concerned that a shift to block grants or per capita caps for Medicaid would remove flexibility from states as the result of reduced federal funding,” Gov. Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, a Republican, said this month in a letter to congressional leaders. “States would most likely make decisions based mainly on fiscal reasons rather than the health care needs of vulnerable populations.”
Gov. Robert Bentley of Alabama, a Republican, said that if a block grant reduced federal funds for the program, “states should be given the ability to reduce Medicaid benefits or enrollment, to impose premiums” or other cost-sharing requirements on beneficiaries, and to reduce Medicaid spending in other ways.
In Louisiana, Gov. John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, said he was troubled by the prospect of a block grant with deep cuts in federal funds. “Under such a scenario,” he said, “flexibility would really mean flexibility to cut critical services for our most vulnerable populations, including poor children, people with disabilities and seniors in need of nursing home and home-based care.”
Gov. John W. Hickenlooper of Colorado, a Democrat, said that block grant proposals could shift costs to states and “force us to make impossible choices in our Medicaid program.”
“We should not be forced to choose between providing hard-working older Coloradans with blood pressure medication or children with their insulin,” Mr. Hickenlooper said.