Obama Care: Jan 24, 2013

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Statement by the President on Senator Rockefeller

Statement by the President on Senator Rockefeller | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email Updates Contact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Americans Spoke Out

To prevent a $2K tax hike on middle-class families

7 Things You Need to Know

About the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Jack Lew Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources E-Gov Strategies and Guides E-Gov Circulars E-Gov Memoranda /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Statements & Releases The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release January 11, 2013 Statement by the President on Senator Rockefeller

Jay Rockefeller first arrived in West Virginia as a young volunteer, eager to improve the lives of working families. And for more than four decades, he has continued to fight tirelessly on their behalf. From his time in the state legislature to the Governor’s office to the Senate floor, Jay has built an impressive legacy, one that can be found in the children who have better schools, the miners who have safer working conditions, the seniors who have retired with greater dignity, and the new industries that he helped bring to West Virginia. A long-time champion of health care reform, Jay was also instrumental in the fight to make sure that nobody in America has to go broke because they get sick. Michelle and I join the people of West Virginia in thanking Senator Rockefeller for a lifetime of service, and I look forward to continuing to work with him over the next two years.

Blog posts on this issue January 11, 2013 4:50 PM ESTPresident Obama Hosts President Karzai

We'll soon reach a milestone in Afghanistan -- when Afghan forces take full responsibility for their nation's security and the war draws to a close.

January 11, 2013 12:00 AM ESTWest Wing Week: 01/11/13 or "The Interests of Our Country" January 10, 2013 4:30 PM ESTPresident Obama Nominates Jacob Lew as Treasury Secretary

President Obama Nominates Jacob Lew as Treasury Secretary

The President asks Jacob Lew -- the current White House chief of staff -- to serve as the next Treasury Secretary.

En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

Is ObamaCare Causing Health Insurance Premiums to Rise?

The full title of the legislation commonly known as ObamaCare is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It's often described using just the last three words — the Affordable Care Act — and “affordability” was at the heart of the White House’s argument for the law. But so far, there are few signs that health care will become more affordable as a result of the law. Indeed, it increasingly looks as if the opposite could be true — that ObamaCare may be causing higher premiums rather than preventing them.

Over the weekend, The New York Times published a report noting that health insurers across the nation are both “seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums” — this despite the fact that “one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.”

The Times reports that health insurers have successfully raised rates by at least 20 percent in Ohio and Florida, increases that it says add several hundred dollars to the monthly cost of insurance. And in California, three insurers have requested increases of more than 20 percent for individuals who do not receive employer-sponsored insurance and small businesses. The story describes those two groups as “particularly vulnerable” to high rate increases.

The Times isn’t the first to report big health insurance increases coming down the pipeline. Aetna’s CEO warned last month that small and individual group markets were likely to increase by an average of 25 to 50 percent, and suggested that some policyholders might see their rates double.

What’s going on? Why are these rates going up?

A big chunk of the Times article focuses on the law’s insurance rate review provision, which gives the federal government the power to review but not reject health insurance rate increases.

Some state insurance regulators already have the power to reject rates, however, and the Times suggests that the double-digit rate increases “[demonstrate] the striking difference between places like New York, one of the 37 states where legislatures have given regulators some authority to deny or roll back rates deemed excessive, and California, which is among the states that do not have that ability.”

So is the problem that ObamaCare did not grant new powers to reject rate increases? California health insurance commissioner Dave Jones offers an explicit endorsement of this theory, saying that the lack of new authority to reject health insurance rate increases is a “huge loophole in the Affordable Care Act.”

Jones might have rejected higher rates in California if given the chance, and it's true that some states, Massachusetts in particular, have used their rate authority aggressively. But the power to reject rates has not always stopped double digit increases in other states. In fact, according to a 2011 Congressional Research Service report on health insurance rate review policies in the states, both Ohio and Florida have “prior approval” requirements in place in their individual, small, and large group markets. In contrast to California’s “file and use” rules, which allow regulators limited power to disapprove a filing if an insurer is found to not be in compliance with some other regulation, prior approval rules mean that “insurance companies must file proposed rate changes and the state has the authority to approve, disapprove or modify the request.” And yet according to the Times, both states have seen premium increases in excess of 20 percent.

Perhaps there's another explanation? For example: Might ObamaCare’s new rules and regulations being playing some role in the increases? There’s good reason to think the law itself is at least partially responsible.

It's seems likely, for example, that ObamaCare’s new coverage mandates have contributed to some of the increase in the individual market: Consulting firm Aon Hewitt estimates that those premiums have gone up about 5 percent as a result of the law.

That explains some of the increase. But not all of it. Which is why those looking for another culprit should consider the possibility that a provision intended to help consumers get better value for their money is actually costing them higher premiums.

That provision, often referred to as the 80/20 rule, sets mandatory medical loss ratios (MLRs) for health insurers. The MLR is an accounting requirement which says that insurers have to spend at least 80 percent of their total premium revenue on medical expenses, leaving just 20 percent for administrative costs, marketing, and other non-medical expenditures. Any insurer that fails to meet this target must issue rebates to customers. This year, insurers rebated about $1 billion.

The MLR provision creates two incentives for insurers to jack up health insurance premiums. One is the plain fact that with profit and administrative costs capped as a percentage of premium revenue, the easiest way to generate larger profits is to charge higher premiums.

The other is that the rebate requirement means insurers may need to charge higher up-front premiums in order to protect themselves from the risk of a bad year. As Scott Harrington, a professor in the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Health Management, explained in a November 2012 paper, that’s because health insurance claims — and thus MLRs — fluctuate significantly between years. Harrington's paper, which got funding from a health insurance trade group, argues that the annual variation, and the resulting uncertainty, creates a problem for insurers: If claims are low in a given year, they end up rebating the difference to the customer because of the MLR rule. If claims are unexpectedly high, however, they end up eating the difference. Insurers thus have a incentive to protect themselves by charging high premiums at the outset, and then paying those premiums back in rebates should claims come in at low or expected levels.

Is the MLR rule causing the higher premium requests? It's hard to say with certainty, but it fits the bill in many ways: Harrington's analysis suggests that the high up front premiums should be concentrated in the small-group and individual markets, which is exactly what the Times reports. No matter what, it's clear that ObamaCare isn't resulting in lower premiums. And for many people, in the years after the law, premiums aren't just going to up up a little. They're going to rise a lot.

View the original article here

Three Things The NRA Wants You To Believe About Biden’s Gun Safety Task Force That Aren’t True

On Thursday, the National Rifle Association (NRA) blasted the Obama administration for undermining Americans’ Second Amendment rights just moments after its representatives met with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House task force to reduce gun violence.

Two years ago, the NRA wouldn’t even meet with President Obama and the group’s CEO and executive vice president Wayne LaPierre warned that he would confiscate “our firearms” and undermine America’s greatness. In a statement following Thursday’s meeting, the group demonstrated that it’s still not interested in reducing gun crimes, offering three misleading claims about its intentions:

1. The NRA was “prepared to have a meaningful conversation.” The NRA claimed that it’s willing to consider “school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.” The glaring omission in that list is any action involves the sale of guns and ammunition. It’s the same tactic they tried in their widely-panned press conference where they went so far as to blame hurricanes, but not guns. The resistance to any gun violence prevention measures that involve actual firearms shows that the NRA really wasn’t interested in a “meaningful conversation” where all options were on the table.
2. The White House has “an agenda to attack the Second Amendment.” Despite LaPierre’s paranoid insistence that the White House was lulling gun owners into a false sense of security by not passing any gun laws during his first four years, the Obama administration actually expanded gun rights in its first four years by loosening restrictions for concealed carry on federal grounds. Both Biden and Obama have insisted that they have no intention of changing the right to bear arms — rather, they simply want to create restrictions that make it harder for murderers to acquire their weapon of choice.
3. The “Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions.” There’s really no proof that universal background checks, restrictions on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and expanded mental health services are “failed solutions.” In fact, evidence points to the opposite: Since the repeal of the assault weapons ban, mass shootings have drastically increased and studies show that the firepower of gunmen (how many rounds they shoot, and how quickly they shoot them) has jumped significantly.

Biden plans to deliver his suggestions for possible gun violence prevention laws to Obama on Tuesday. On Friday, he will meet with the entertainment and television industries. It’s likely that will be a more positive meeting, since representatives have signalled they will be more receptive to Biden’s case. In a statement, they wrote, “We welcome the opportunity to share that history and look forward to doing our part to seek meaningful solutions.” That’s despite that videogames and movies, unlike guns, can’t kill people.

View the original article here

President Obama to Award Medal of Honor

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

On February 11, 2013, President Barack Obama will award Clinton Romesha, a former active duty Army Staff Sergeant, the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry.

Staff Sergeant Romesha will receive the Medal of Honor for his courageous actions while serving as a Section Leader with Bravo Troop, 3d Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division during combat operations against an armed enemy at Combat Outpost Keating, Kamdesh District, Nuristan Province, Afghanistan on October 3, 2009.

He will be the fourth living recipient to be awarded the Medal of Honor for actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. He and his family will join the President at the White House to commemorate his example of selfless service.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Staff Sergeant Romesha separated from the Army on April 4, 2011. He and his family currently live in Minot, North Dakota. He is married to Tamara (Tami) Romesha and they have three children; Dessi, Gwen, and Colin.

Staff Sergeant Romesha enlisted in the Army in September 1999 as an M1 Armor Crewman. After completion of training at Ft Knox, he was assigned as a Tank Gunner with B Company, 1-63rd Armor, Camp Vilseck, Germany which included an Operational Deployment to Kosovo. After Germany, he was assigned as a Gunner/Assistant Tank Commander with A Company, 2-72nd Armor, Camp Casey, Korea. Following Korea, which included a Combat Tour to Iraq, he was assigned as a Section Leader with 3-61st Cav, Ft Carson, CO. There he completed the Long Range Reconnaissance Course, Advanced Leader Course, and Air Assault Training.

At the time of the October 3, 2009 combat engagement, Staff Sergeant Romesha was a Section Leader assigned to B Troop, 3-61 Cav, 4th BCT, 4th ID. His actions were performed at COP Keating, Kamdesh District, Afghanistan.

His military decorations include: the Afghanistan Campaign Medal w/ Campaign Star, Iraq Campaign Medal w/three Campaign Stars, Bronze Star Medal, three Army Commendation Medals, Purple Heart, five Army Achievement Medals, Valorous Unit Award, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Kosovo Campaign Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Non Commissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon w/ Numeral 2, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon w/ Numeral 5, NATO Medal w/ Bronze Service Star, and the Combat Action Badge.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

THE MEDAL OF HONOR:

The Medal of Honor is awarded to members of the Armed Forces who distinguishes themselves conspicuously by gallantry above and beyond the call of duty while:

• engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;
• engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or
• serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

The meritorious conduct must involve great personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his or her comrades and must have involved risk of life. There must be incontestable proof of the performance of the meritorious conduct, and each recommendation for the award must be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.

We'll soon reach a milestone in Afghanistan -- when Afghan forces take full responsibility for their nation's security and the war draws to a close.

The President asks Jacob Lew -- the current White House chief of staff -- to serve as the next Treasury Secretary.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Obama campaign to host conference on future plans

Former staff and volunteers for President Obama's successful reelection campaign will hold a conference in Washington over the inauguration weekend to solicit ideas on how to move forward with the sprawling organization developed over two presidential bids.

In an email to supporters Thursday, former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said the group would host discussions with the goal of figuring out how to use the campaign's infrastructure and voter database to support the president in his second term.

"Issues like immigration, climate change, and gun violence will be debated over these next four years, and President Obama is ready to take them on — but he needs us by his side," Messina wrote. "Our goal is to help him get things done, but also to help change how things get done in Washington in the first place."

The event has been dubbed the "Obama Campaign Legacy Conference," and supporters across the country were encouraged to participate online. According to the campaign, participants will also have a voice in "the structure and leadership of the new organization." Links from the email also prompt supporters to continue to donate to the campaign, a sign that the president's record-shattering fundraising team could continue to be a major force in future cycles.

On Thursday, Politico reported that Messina would be opening the newly restructured group's office just blocks from the White House. While he is not expected to hold an official West Wing title, the former campaign manager will likely play a large political role in Obama's second term — especially with the expected retirement of senior adviser David Plouffe.

One possibility is that the campaign is converted into a super-PAC or issues-based nonprofit organization. Alternatively, the campaign could turn over its databases to the Democratic National Committee, although it has thus far been reluctant to allow other candidates access.

The former Obama campaign has already played a prominent role in policy debates since the president's reelection. During the debate over the "fiscal cliff," the campaign frequently emailed supporters in an attempt to rally them around the Democrats' tax plan. After a deal was struck, the president recorded a video celebrating the deal that was released in an email to the campaign's listserv.

View Comments

View the original article here

France Sends Troops To Mali As U.S. Mulls Drone Strikes

A 2012 map showing rebel-held territory in Mali

France has responded to a request for help from Mali by sending military forces to aid in the Malian government’s push back on an offensive launched by rebel forces in the north of the country.

The initial forces on the ground are there to take part in a United Nations-authorized mission to boost training of the Malian Army, ahead of an international force due to be deployed in the fall of this year. Several other European countries have also pledged to send trainers to Mali, but France surprised many with the swiftness of its action. President Francois Hollande laid out the thinking behind France’s decision in a speech on Friday:

“France, like its African partners, cannot accept this. I have decided that France will respond, alongside our African partners, to the request from the Malian authorities.
“We will do it strictly within the framework of the United Nations Security Council resolution. We will be ready to stop the terrorists’ offensive if it continues.”

France — which has a history of intervening in the region, such as in Cote d’Ivoire in 2011 — had previously indicated publicly that it would wait for a further clarification of U.N. resolutions before taking action. While these forces are not necessarily mandated to engage in combat with the coalition of rebels and Islamists in control of Northern Mali, French diplomats are now arguing behind closed doors that previously passed U.N. resolutions give them the authority to do so, should France choose. Given the ease in which the rebels, whose make-up include groups thought to be affiliated with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), took a key town on Thursday, Hollande may make that call relatively soon.

France’s speedy response may help make U.S. decision-makers coming to a conclusion regarding the region far easier. After the Sept. 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, reports floated the possibility that the U.S. was considering launching drone strikes against AQIM. Those strikes never came to fruition, but remain a distinct possibility, as J. Peter Pham, director of the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center, sees U.S. counter-terrorism officials being increasingly open to air strikes. “Drone strikes or airstrikes will not restore Mali’s territorial integrity or defeat the Islamists, but they may be the least bad option,” said Mr. Pham, a senior strategy adviser to the U.S. military’s Africa Command.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has confirmed that France has already used its air force to halt the southern advance of rebels in Mali.

View the original article here

For Balanced Deficit Reduction, The Next Budget Deal Must Be 90 Percent Tax Revenue

Between the recent fiscal cliff deal, the Budget Control Act of 2011, and the federal budget negotiation of Spring 2011, the United States has succeeded in reducing its deficits for the next decade by over $2 trillion. The first brought in over $600 billion in new revenue, while the two budget deals cut over $1.5 trillion in spending, including reduced interest payments on a smaller debt.

As both the Center for American Progress and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities have noted, the end result of all that leaves the country’s total deficit-reduction efforts grossly tilted towards the GOP’s priorities: spending cuts dominate new tax revenue by approximately three to one.

The CBPP’s report also fleshed out the implications of this imbalance going forward. In order to stabilize the debt for the next decade, another $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction is needed, accompanied by about $200 billion in additional interest savings. The CBPP’s numbers also show that for the final result to be a true 50-50 balance between spending cuts and tax increases, nearly 90 percent of the additional $1.2 trillion must come from revenue increases:

[E]ven if the additional savings [from $1.2 trillion in additional deficit reduction] were divided evenly between revenue increases and program cuts, the total deficit reduction under the three deficit-reduction packages would be heavily weighted toward budget cuts: 64 percent budget cuts to 36 percent revenue increases, or a ratio of nearly 2 to 1. To achieve a 50-50 split for the combined deficit-reduction packages, policymakers would have to obtain nearly 90 percent of the additional $1.2 trillion in savings from revenue increases.
In contrast, if all of the additional savings were to come from program cuts, as Republican congressional leaders have suggested, the overall ratio would be still more skewed, with more than four-fifths coming on the spending side — a ratio of nearly 5 to 1.

So the Democrats’ proposal that further deficit reduction include $1 trillion in additional revenue — which arguably denotes the far-left flank of the debate at this point — comes the closest to meeting the 50-50 test. Meanwhile, Republicans’ insistence that “the tax issue is finished” would push the country towards an even more wildly skewed result. America remains as far as ever from the ostensibly bipartisan goal of balanced deficit reduction.

View the original article here

Insurers' 2014 Hikes Already Taking Toll

If you work for a small business, your next health insurance premium may give you sticker shock.

Many of the small-business and individual insurance policies are working the health reform law’s 2014 fees into their 2013 bills, contributing to double-digit premium increases for some people.

All those new consumer benefits packed into the health reform law — birth control without a co-pay, free preventive care and limits on when insurers can turn down a customer — had to be paid for somehow.

So the law’s drafters included a new tax on health insurers, starting at $8 billion in 2014 and increasing to $14 billion within four years, to help meet the new expenses. And insurers in 2014 will also have to pay a “reinsurance contribution” to cushion health plans that end up with a lot of sick customers under new rules requiring them to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Some health insurance companies are getting a jump-start, passing on those 2014 fees to consumers in policies that start in 2013.

While insurance rates have been going up for years — and not all of the new increases can be pinned to the health law — the hikes will certainly give more fuel to Obamacare critics.

(PHOTOS: 10 alarmist quotes on health law ruling)

Insurers say they have no choice but to increase premiums to cover those costs. But it’s hitting pocketbooks sooner than some people expected, and that’s causing controversy.

Everyone, even many of the law’s supporters, admit premiums are going to go up under the health law — although many people will get subsidies to help pay for coverage. Many of the costs — and the priciest benefits — were pushed beyond the 2012 election to 2014. But if the public revolts when they see 10 percent,15 percent or 20 percent rate hikes, already shaky support for the health law could suffer.

That means there’s a lot at stake for insurance companies and the law’s supporters when consumers see their health insurance bills.

The law’s backers have a history of using steep rate increases to garner public support for health reform — and against insurers. One turning point that helped the law’s passage was when Democrats blasted a 39 percent rate increase requested by Anthem Blue Cross in California in early 2010.

Now, insurers are being proactive, arguing the health law is driving the increase in prices.

“There’s a massive new health insurance tax that starts in 2014,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans. “For policies that are sold in 2013 and extend into next year, there’s going to be taxes imposed. … As a result, like all taxes, they will be reflected in premiums charged.”

View the original article here

Ex-GOP Congressman Calls Out Gun Lobby: ‘This Is Not About Protecting The 2nd Amendment,’ ‘The NRA’s About Money’

Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe,’ had a very public awakening to gun violence in the aftermath of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary that left 20 children and seven adults dead. In recent weeks, the former six-term Republican congressman went from longtime supporter of the National Rifle Association to an advocate for more gun safety measures. But it appears Scarborough is not just waking up to the danger of guns — he’s also becoming aware of the dangerous gun lobby.

This morning, Scarborough took aim at the NRA, calling out the organization’s resistance to any gun safety by saying “this is not about protecting the second amendment,” “the NRA’s about money.” He also called out the Republican party for going along with the delusional policies of the NRA, which have nothing to do with safety, but rather with sales:

SCARBOROUGH: This is about gun manufacturers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. This is about retailers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. Do you know how much money these people have made over the slaughter of 20 innocents in Newtown? Do you know how much richer these rich gun manufacturers have gotten over the past month, and how the NRA uses that tragedy to gin up fears, and websites use that tragedy to gin up fears that they’re coming to take your guns away? Hey got news for you: They can’t take your guns away. We’ve got something called the Second Amendment to the constitution[...]
SCARBOROUGH: The NRA’s about money… This isn’t gun control. The big lie that the NRA is pushing on gun owners to try to whip stupid people into a frenzy is they’re coming to take your guns away. And I say stupid people because you have to be stupid in 2013 to believe that the federal government can come and take your hand guns, or come and take your shotguns.

Watch it:

(HT: Mediaite)

View the original article here

Obama Care

Donations Are Always Welcome and Appreciated

Translate

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Statement by the President on Senator Rockefeller

Is ObamaCare Causing Health Insurance Premiums to Rise?

Three Things The NRA Wants You To Believe About Biden’s Gun Safety Task Force That Aren’t True

President Obama to Award Medal of Honor

Obama campaign to host conference on future plans

France Sends Troops To Mali As U.S. Mulls Drone Strikes

For Balanced Deficit Reduction, The Next Budget Deal Must Be 90 Percent Tax Revenue

Insurers' 2014 Hikes Already Taking Toll

Ex-GOP Congressman Calls Out Gun Lobby: ‘This Is Not About Protecting The 2nd Amendment,’ ‘The NRA’s About Money’

About Me

Blog Archive