Group items tagged

The State Department Federal Credit Union is not affiliated with the State Department nor in any way with the US Government and you don’t have to be connected in any way with the Federal Government to qualify.  

Credit unions are member-owned financial cooperatives which exist for the benefit of their customers.  Like banks, credit unions accept deposits, make loans and provide a wide array of financial services to their members

The ACA-Members/SDFCU account is simple to open and maintain. Everything can be done online. The most up-to-date EMV secure (Chip enabled) cards are available

Member “deposits” and savings – technically “shares” – are insured by the National Credit Union Insurance Fund, in a similar way to the way bank deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

SDFCU offers the opportunity to work with a certified financial counselor, if you like. This is a free service. Also, you can appoint your own investment advisor, using a power of attorney. 

Now, as the policy is entrenched is institutionalized, people want their older kids on it, they want pre-existing conditions covered and an open marketplace, they support it.”

The current numbers from the Kaiser Family Foundation have the ACA approval nationally running at 55 percent favorable to 39 percent unfavorable. A New York Times/Siena College poll released this week likewise shows support for Obamacare at a 55 percent to 40 percent margin. Women bump that up to 62-33 percent. The support/oppose numbers break predictably along party lines, but independent voters are very much pro-ACA, supporting it by 55-37 percent. Repeal and replace is no longer acceptable for most of the public.

In a Midwestern Great Lakes Poll released in early October, that 56 percent of voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—the states that really matter—were in favor of the ACA with only 36 percent opposed.

Also odd is how Trump talks about health care on the rare occasions he does bring it up. “We are rounding the corner,” Trump said in Janesville. “The vaccines are unbelievable. Except for a little politics. We have unbelievable vaccines coming out real soon. And the therapeutics are unbelievable.”

Unmentioned by Trump: Any of the facets of health care that voters say are important to them: Protections for pre-existing conditions (very or somewhat important to 94 percent) Lowering of health care costs (92 percent) The future of Medicare (90 percent) Health effects from the coronavirus (95 percent) The future of the ACA (74 percent)

an "ACA for All" system would prevent government from operating health insurance while allowing it to regulate and finance health insurance for most Americans. The ACA for All would not be "socialized medicine" -- where government not only finances healthcare but supplies it through public hospitals, clinics, and the direct employment of clinicians. ACA for All would continue to rely on private industry (private doctors and private hospitals) and personal responsibility, and would limit the government's role in healthcare delivery.

A Republican plan for universal healthcare would offer those with non-employer-based coverage an adequately sized tax deduction, big enough to cover the cost of a family health insurance plan. And, for the first time since the 1940s, individuals would pay taxes on the value of employer-based health insurance above a certain threshold (based on the average costopens in a new tab or window of a family health insurance plan).

she is not surprised at the robust increase in the number of people enrolling in ACA insurance since President Biden reopened enrollment in January. As of last month, the administration says, more than 1 million people had signed up.

"Over the last couple of years, I've worked with a lot of the state-based marketplaces and we could see the difference in enrollment when the states were actively pushing coverage," Brooks-LaSure said. A former congressional and Obama administration health staffer, she most recently worked as managing director at the consulting firm Manatt Health.

Brooks-LaSure also suggested that the Biden administration would support efforts in Congress to ensure coverage for the millions of Americans who fall into what's come to be called the Medicaid gap. Those are people in the dozen states that have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act who earn too little to qualify for ACA marketplace coverage.

Brooks-LaSure said she would prefer that states use the additional incentive funding provided in the recent American Rescue Plan toward expanding their Medicaid programs "because, ideally, states are able to craft policies in their own states; they're closest to the ground."

Last year's economic downturn — and the resulting drop in tax revenue from employees' paycheck withholdings — is likely to accelerate the date when Medicare's hospital insurance program will not be able to cover all of its bills.

Democrats in Congress are looking at both lowering Medicare's eligibility age and adding benefits the program now lacks, including dental, hearing and vision coverage.

"I hope that we, when we are looking at solvency, really focus on making sure we keep the Medicare program robust," said Brooks-LaSure. "And that may mean some changes that strengthen the program."

"I had to pray that my insurance would approve of my transplant just in the nick of time," she says. "I had that Stage 4 label attached to my name and that has dollar signs. Who wants to invest in someone with stage four?"

After doing her research, Rafieei says she intends to vote for Joe Biden, who helped get the ACA passed in this first place.

Even ten years after the Affordable Care Act locked in a health care protection that Americans now overwhelmingly support — guarantees that insurers cannot deny coverage or charge more based on preexisting medical conditions — voters once again face contradicting campaign promises over which candidate will preserve the law's legacy.

A majority of Democrats, Independents and Republicans say they want their new president to preserve the ACA's provision that protects as many as 135 million people from potentially being unable to get health care because of their medical history.

President Donald Trump has pledged to keep this in place, even as his Administration heads to the U.S Supreme Court the week after Election Day to argue the entire law should be struck down.

And yet the Trump administration has not unveiled a health care plan or identified any specific components it might include. In 2017, the administration joined with Congressional Republicans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, but none of the GOP-backed replacement plans could summon enough votes. The Republicans' final attempt, a limited "skinny repeal" of parts of the ACA, failed in the Senate because of resistance within their own party.

But the state's governor also embraced the Republican effort to repeal and replace the law in 2017, and now Arizona's Attorney General is part of the lawsuit — that will be heard by the Supreme Court on Nov. 10 — that could topple the entire law.

Republicans have often tried to skirt health care as a major issue this election cycle because there isn't the same political advantage to pushing the repeal and replace argument, says Mark Peterson, a professor of public policy, political science and law at UCLA.

"Not everybody, particularly Republicans, associates the ACA with protecting preexisting conditions," he says. "But it is pretty striking that overwhelmingly Democrats and Independents do — and a number of Republicans — that's enough to give a significant national supermajority."

the penalty was never big enough to persuade a critical mass of people to buy insurance, so repealing it might not cripple the individual health-insurance market

Many Democrats say repealing the mandate would shred the ACA as younger, healthier people decline to get coverage, raising costs for older and sicker individuals

more experts are concluding that rising premiums next year would exempt many more people from the mandate.

a recent study that in the 15 most-expensive states, premiums would exceed the affordability threshold for a person with an income of $50,000

“Premiums for Obamacare policies next year will be so high that millions will be exempt from the tax penalty whether Congress repeals it or not.”

the news of premium hikes will work in his favor, though his criticism in reaction to news has revealed more about the limitations of his own policy knowledge than anything about how he’d fix the problem.

For one: The administration’s announcement is a mere formalizing of increases many people familiar with the industry predicted throughout the year.

If Trump is indicative, Republican politicians don’t have the language to capitalize on some of the weaknesses of the law right now. Over the past two years, neither their calls for blanket repeal of Obamacare, nor the coverage of historic gains in insurance coverage, have meaningfully altered public opinion one way or the other.

Only a small sliver of the population is enrolled through the exchanges, and most people in the country are covered through their employers, where premiums have risen at rates similar to previous years.

The federal government will protect most Americans from the real financial impacts of a spike in premiums, and only between five and seven million people will bear the full sticker shock of Obamacare premium hikes.

Additionally, most people with subsidized coverage who are directly threatened by the loss of Aetna or other major insurers won’t have to go shopping for new plans until 2017.

he future of the Affordable Care Act isn’t even the top health care issue for registered voters, but that finding comes with a few grains of salt. Sixty-six percent of those polled viewed the future of Medicare as a non-exclusive “top priority,” with an equal proportion viewing access and affordability of health care as such.

Proposals like Donald Trump’s that involve remaking a system that is just beginning to settle have challenges with winning over many people who actually have to navigate the changes involved.

So what’s left for Republicans and Donald Trump? Probably not another health-reform-fueled revolution. It’s unlikely that premium increases can influence enough lives now to provide that kind of momentum at the polls, and Trump’s incoherence looks more like a last-ditch gambit than legitimately savvy capitalization on what appear to be real problems with the law.

Americans are seeking affordable ways forward with what they have in ways that disrupt their lives the least. For now, their response is probably not panic

Expanding subsidies for high earners, and cutting health coverage off from the working poor: it sounds like a left-wing caricature of mustache-twirling, top-hatted Republican fat cats.

"It's even worse than what passed out of the Republican House last Congress," the aide said. "The whole notion of that sort of block granting idea just rips out even more of the protections."

House Republicans are rolling out their complex plan as Trump struggles to articulate broad ideas for the nation's health care, and as Democrats campaign across the country on an easy-to-explain vision for extending coverage to everyone.

That plan -- so far a patchwork quilt of health care proposals that Trump's team hopes will stack up to a comprehensive vision -- will serve as the White House's answer to the growing support on the left for the kind of universal health care system that Republicans have spent years warning against.

"The White House welcomes the RSC announcement and their contributions to improving our healthcare system," Judd Deere, White House spokesman, told CNN. "The Trump Administration continues to work to improve healthcare more broadly, which includes creating a system that protects the vulnerable and those with pre-existing conditions and delivers the affordability Americans needs, the choice and control they want, and the quality they deserve."

The House GOP plan comes against the backdrop of a court case that has the potential to upend the nation's health insurance system and the 2020 election campaign. Federal appellate court judges in Louisiana are now considering a case brought by a coalition of Republican-led states, and backed by the Trump administration, that argue Obamacare as a whole is unconstitutional because Congress essentially eliminated the penalty for not having health insurance, the so-called individual mandate. A US District Court judge in Texas in December sided with the Republican states.

The Trump administration has chosen not to defend the law, leaving many Republicans concerned that they will not have a replacement ready if the appellate court upholds the lower court's ruling. Democrats are already attacking Trump and the GOP for threatening the coverage of millions of Americans, and if the court invalidates the ACA, Republicans could be left with the blame for dismantling the country's health care system without preparing a realistic replacement.

"Do you want a president who wants to have the government take over your health care, or do you want personal choices?" Marshall said Monday. "So even though there's impeachment and all those other things going on here, I think this -- healthcare -- is the issue of 2020."

Trump's appointment of a new Supreme Court justice marks the third of his tenure in office, giving Republicans a historic opportunity to deliver on the key conservative priority and campaign promise of transforming the federal courts through lifetime appointments.

Barrett, who is 48 years old, is likely to serve on the court for decades and will give conservatives a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, a shift in its makeup that could have dramatic implications for a range of issues that could come before it, including the future of the Affordable Care Act and any potential disputes regarding the 2020 election.

They moved to confirm Barrett over the objections of Democrats who have argued that the process has been a rushed and cynical power grab that threatens to undermine Ginsburg's legacy.

Senate

Senate Republicans, who hold a majority in the cham

Senate Republicans, who hold a majority in the chamber, pushed ahead with one of the quickest nomination proceedings in modern times following the death of the late Justice and liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg last month

"By any objective standard, Judge Barrett deserves to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. The American people agree. In just a few minutes, she'll be on the Supreme Court," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said ahead of the final confirmation vote

The confirmation battle has played out in a bitterly-divided Senate, but the outcome has not been in question for much of the fight. With few exceptions, Senate Republicans quickly lined up in support of Barrett after her nomination by President Trump, while Democrats united in opposition.

Two Republican senators crossed party lines to vote with Democrats in opposition to a key procedural vote on Sunday -- Collins and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.Murkowski announced that she would ultimately vote to confirm Barrett in the final vote

Senate Republicans largely rallied around the nomination, however, praising Barrett as exceedingly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court

Senate Democrats, in contrast, have decried the nomination and the confirmation process. Democrats have warned that Barrett's confirmation will put health care protections and the Affordable Care Act in jeopardy. They have argued that the confirmation process has been rushed and accused Republicans of hypocrisy in moving ahead with the nomination after blocking consideration of former President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in 2016.

Democrats, who are in the minority, have been limited in their ability to oppose the nomination, but have protested the process in a variety of ways.

When the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance the nomination, Democratic senators on the panel boycotted the vote, filling their seats instead with pictures of people who rely upon the Affordable Care Act in an effort to draw attention to an upcoming case on the health care law's constitutionality and their arguments that Barrett's confirmation would put the law at risk.

During confirmation hearings, Democrats sought to elicit answers from Barrett on a number of controversial topics the Supreme Court could take up. Barrett repeatedly declined, however, to specify how she might rule on a range of topics, from the Affordable Care Act to Roe v. Wade and the high court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

Barrett explained during the hearings that she shared a philosophy with the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, whom she clerked for, but argued she would not be an identical justice if she is confirmed.

"This is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. It is time we got our national priorities right," Sanders told the Michigan rally.

Britt Waligorski, 31, a health care administrator for a dental practice, said she didn't get health insurance through work but has been covered through the health law for three years. While the premiums have gone up, she said she is concerned that services for women will be taken away if it is repealed.

About 2,000 people cheered and held rainbow and American flags and signs that read "Don't Make America Sick Again" and "Health Care For All" at the rally.

Republicans want to end the fines that enforce the requirement that many individuals buy coverage and that larger companies provide it to workers.

With eager anticipation, the Kremlin is counting the days to Donald Trump's inauguration and venting its anger at Barack Obama's outgoing administration, no holds barred.

At the same time, Russian officials are blasting the outgoing U.S. administration in distinctly undiplomatic language, dropping all decorum after Obama hit Moscow with more sanctions in his final weeks in office.

On Sunday, Vice President-elect Mike Pence insisted the Trump presidential campaign had no contacts with Russia and denied that the incoming national security adviser spoke with Russian officials in December about sanctions. He added that such questions were part of an effort to cast doubt on Trump's victory.

In an interview Friday with The Wall Street Journal, Trump said he might do away with Obama's sanctions if Russia works with the U.S. on battling terrorists and achieving other goals.

"We and many analysts believe that the (agreement) is consolidated. The new U.S. administration will not be able to abandon it," Araqchi told a news conference in Tehran, held a year after the deal took effect.

Trump, who will take office on Friday, has threatened to either scrap the agreement, which curbs Iran's nuclear programme and lifts sanctions against it, or seek a better deal.

"It's quite likely that the U.S. Congress or the next administration will act against Iran and imposes new sanctions."

But Iran is still subject to an U.N. arms embargo and other restrictions, which are not technically part of the nuclear agreement.

The event was marked by tense exchanges as Trump repeated his refusal to release his tax returns and denounced media outlets that published stories based on unverified allegations about his ties to the Kremlin

Trump began his remarks on Tuesday by blaming “inaccurate news” for his decision not to take questions from the press more often.

Trump went on to address a pair of reports published Tuesday night that touched on unverified accusations about his relationship with Russia. The first report, which came from CNN, said intelligence officials had presented information to Trump alleging that the Russian government had an ongoing relationship with members of his campaign — and, more sensationally, possessed compromising information about him that could be used for blackmail.

“I want to thank a lot of the news organizations … some of whom have not treated me very well over the years. …

“It’s all fake news. It’s phony stuff. It didn’t happen, and it was gotten by opponents of ours, as you know, because you reported it and so did many of the other people.

“No, no, no,” Jones said with a sly grin that barely disguised his evident hostility. Sitting back in his barber chair, he shook his head and narrowed his eyes. “That’s not why you are here. You’re here because of the billboards, because of the KKK. That’s why you are here.”

When the controversial billboards were ripped down and defaced, they were replaced almost immediately.

“While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, ‘What made America great in the first place?

The Trump campaign quickly disavowed the endorsement

Trump also won office by promising to keep American troops out of “wars of choice,” but he could be drawn back into conflicts –whether in the Middle East or South China Sea – by his own choleric temperament and by his intemperate National Security Advisor Michael Flynn

Finally, Trump and the Republicans could be damaged by another economic downturn although that’s less likely to happen over the next four years if Trump goes through with his tax cuts and infrastructure spending

as far as regaining Congress and the White House is concerned, the best offense in this case is a good defense. Much of the Democrats’ success will inevitably depend on Trump and the Republicans advancing unpopular proposals, and the Democrats making them pay for them at the ballot box.

A new study from the American Action Forum that looks at healthy 30-year-old men finds that underlying premiums for those individuals will increase by an average of 260 percent

. For example, the drop-down boxes for security questions aren’t working, which shouldn’t be a traffic-related problem

In a sense, the AAF study is more relevant to the problem at hand. Obamacare makes healthy people pay more for insurance in order to subsidize sicker people. It makes younger people pay more to subsidize older people. It makes men pay more to subsidize women. It makes everyone pay more to cover benefits, taxes, and fees that consumers might not ordinarily want.

nearly five million Americans fall into what’s called the “Medicaid gap”

In Germany, employees' premiums are a percentage of their incomes, so low-wage workers simply pay rock-bottom insurance rates.

Germany actually pioneered this type of insurance—it all started when Otto von Bismarck signed his Health Insurance Bill of 1883 into law. (It’s still known as the “Bismarck model” because of his legacy, and other parts of Europe and Asia have adopted it over the years.)

You can think of this setup as the Goldilocks option among all of the possible ways governments can insure health. It's not as radical as single-payer models like the U.K.’s, where the government covers everyone. And it's also not as brutal as the less-regulated version of the insurance market we had before the ACA.

Since there are no provider networks in Germany, doctors don’t know what other providers patients have seen, so there are few ways to limit repeat procedures.

All things considered, it’s good to be a sick German. There are no network limitations, so people can see any doctor they want. There are no deductibles, so Germans have no fear of spending hundreds before their insurance ever kicks in.

There’s also no money that changes hands during a medical appointment. Patients show their insurance card at the doctor’s office, and the doctors' association pays the doctor using money from the sickness funds. "You don’t have to sit at home and sort through invoices or wonder if you overlooked fine print,”

That insurance card, by the way, is good for hospital visits anywhere in Europe.

of all of the countries studied, Germans were the most likely to be able to get a same-day or next-day appointment and to hear back from a doctor quickly if they had a question. They rarely use emergency rooms, and they can access doctors after-hours with ease.

And Germany manages to put its health-care dollars to relatively good use: For each $100 it spends on healthcare, it extends life by about four months, according to a recent analysis in the American Journal of Public Health. In the U.S., one of the worst-performing nations in the ranking, each $100 spent on healthcare resulted in only a couple of extra weeks of longevity.

those differences aside, it’s fair to say the U.S. is moving in the direction of systems like Germany’s—multi-payer, compulsory, employer-based, highly regulated, and fee-for-service.

The German government is similarly trying to push more people into “family physician” programs, in which just one doctor would serve as a gatekeeper.

like the U.S., Germany may see a shortage of primary-care doctors in the near future, both because primary-care doctors there don’t get paid as much as specialists, and because entrenched norms have prevented physician assistants from shouldering more responsibility

With limitations on how much they can charge, German doctors and hospitals instead try to pump up their earnings by performing as many procedures as possible, just like American providers do.

Similarly, “In Germany, it will always be an operation,” Göpffarth said. “Meanwhile, France and the U.K. tend to try drugs first and operations later.”

With few resource constraints, healthcare systems like America's and Germany's tend to go with the most expensive treatment option possible. An American might find himself in an MRI machine for a headache that a British doctor would have treated with an aspirin and a smile.

Perhaps the biggest difference between our two approaches is the extent to which Germany has managed to rein in the cost of healthcare for consumers. Prices for procedures there are lower and more uniform because doctors’ associations negotiate their fees directly with all of the sickness funds in each state. That's part of the reason why an appendectomy costs $3,093 in Germany, but $13,000 in the U.S.

Now, Maryland is going a step further still, having just launched a plan to cap the amount each hospital can spend, total, each year. The state's hospital spending growth will be limited to 3.58 percent for the next five years. “We know that right now, the more [doctors] do, the more they get paid,” John Colmers, executive director of Maryland’s Health Services Cost Review Commission, told me. “We want to say, ‘The better you do, the better you get paid.’”

certain U.S. states have tried a more German strategy, attempting to keep costs low by setting prices across the board. Maryland, for example, has been regulating how much all of the state’s hospitals can charge since 1977. A 2009 study published in Health Affairs found that we would have saved $2 trillion if the entire country’s health costs had grown at the same rate as Maryland’s over the past three decades.

“In Germany, there is a uniform fee schedule for all physicians that work under the social code,” Schlette said. “There’s a huge catalogue where they determine meticulously how much is billed for each procedure. That’s like the Bible.”

“The red states are unlikely to follow their lead. The notion that government may be a big part of the solution, instead of the problem, is anathema, and Republican controlled legislatures, and their governors, would find it too substantial a conflict to pursue with any vigor.”

no other state has Maryland’s uniform, German-style payment system in place, “so Maryland starts the race nine paces ahead of the other 46 states,” McDonough said.

the unique spirit of each country is what ultimately gets in its way. Germany’s more orderly system can be too rigid for experimentation. And America’s free-for-all, where hospitals and doctors all charge different amounts, is great for innovation but too chaotic to make payment reforms stick.

rising health costs will continue to be the main problem for Americans as we launch into our more Bismarckian system. “The main challenge you’ll have is price control,” he said. “You have subsidies in health exchanges now, so for the first time, the federal budget is really involved in health expenditure increases in the commercial market. In order to keep your federal budget under control, you’ll have to control prices.”

A GOP strategist argues along the same lines: “They sidelined the president,” Rob Collins, the Executive Director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) told reporters at a backslapping post-election briefing. Instead, Collins argued, Democrats shouldn’t have been scared off by Republican attempts to tie Obama to their candidates. Collins said NRSC polling had long identified the economy as the issues voters cared about most, and one where Democrats stood to gain. “We felt that that was their best message and they sidelined their best messenger,” he said. Collins added that in many states, Democratic candidates had positive stories to tell. “In Colorado, unemployment is 5.1 percent and they never talked about it,” he added. “They were so focused on independents that they forgot they had a base,” Collins said of Democratic Senate candidates. “They left their base behind. They became Republican-lite.”