Typical federal government right hand/left hand confusion has some graduate students at the University of Missouri in Columbia turning their pockets inside out to scrape together enough money to afford health benefits.
On one hand, Obama administration education officials are pushing for colleges and universities to ease the rising cost of attending college, increase institutional need-based scholarships and do whatever they can to help students avoid drowning in student-loan debt.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article31634975.html#storylink=cpy
Earlier this week, Florida Senator Marco Rubio tossed into the Republican presidential campaign ring an abbreviated version of his plan to fix health care. How does his approach (published in Politico magazine) compare to a somewhat more detailed plan released by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker the next day?
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker staked out his claim yesterday to the pole position in the race to lead Republican presidential candidates on Obamacare repeal-and-replace issues. Now, let’s put the Walker plan into perspective, and assess what is still missing or needed to resolve further in later iterations.
“CO-OP enrollment for the first-quarter of 2015 was 869,677 compared to 478,152 for the fourth-quarter of 2014,” said Kaminski. “This increase in enrollment on future financial performance is significant, because it demonstrates that interest is growing, along with a better understanding of how these CO-Ops operate. Additionally, for the smaller plans, the increase has allowed them to build up some scale, which is crucial for their viability going forward. However, the CO-Ops are challenged with operating efficiencies that are below par, having combined ratios as a group of over 110%. ”
Earlier this week, Wisconsin governor and 2016 GOP presidential hopeful Scott Walker released his version of an Obamacare “repeal and replace” plan.
There’s also versions out there from Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Governor Bobby Jindal (R-La.) There are yet others on Capitol Hill: the Republican Study Committee plan, the plan advanced by House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.), and the so-called “Burr-Hatch-Upton” plan. Republicans are often accused of having no alternative to Obamacare, but they actually have many.
An unprecedented House lawsuit against President Obama that was once derided as a certain loser looks stronger now and may soon deliver an early legal round to Republican lawmakers complaining of executive branch overreach.
A federal judge is expected to decide shortly whether to dismiss the suit, but thanks to an amended complaint and a recent Supreme Court ruling, the Republican-backed case has a much better chance of proceeding, attorneys agree.
When it comes to their views of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) this month, the American public remains divided in their opinion of the law; 44 percent say they have a favorable view and 41 percent say they have an unfavorable view.
A majority of registered voters want Congress to repeal or reform Obamacare’s so-called “Cadillac tax” on employers that offer expensive, more generous health-insurance plans for their workers.
A new Morning Consult poll shows 34 percent of registered voters want Congress to repeal the tax, and 31 percent want it changed to prevent out-of-pocket costs from rising too high. Fifteen percent support the tax without modifications, and 19 percent say they are unsure or have no opinion.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) has substantially reformed the health insurance industry in the United States by establishing health insurance marketplaces, also called health exchanges, to facilitate the purchase of health insurance. The ACA has increased transparency in insurance pricing and in issuer pricing behavior. Using 2014 and 2015 Unified Rate Review (URR) data, this study examines changes in health insurance premiums made by individual health insurance issuers in 34 federally facilitated and state-partnership health insurance exchanges.
A new Avalere analysis finds that more than 2 million exchange enrollees eligible for cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) are not receiving the subsidies because they have selected a non-qualifying plan. In addition to the more publicized tax credits that lower consumers’ monthly premiums, exchange enrollees with incomes between 100 and 250 percent ($11,770 – $29,425) of the federal poverty level are eligible for CSRs. Exchange consumers must enroll in a plan on the silver metal level to access CSRs.