16,063
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
[[Image:Bad-faith-insurance-coverage.jpg|200px|left]]<h3>[http://www.prwatch.org/node/11184 Will "Obamacare" Force Americans to Buy Junk Health Insurance in 2014?]</h3> by [[Wendell Potter]]<br> The money that patients' rights advocates have to spend trying to convince the Obama administration that Americans should have decent health care benefits pales in comparison to the boatloads of cash insurers and their corporate allies have on hand to do largely the opposite. But at least the advocates are now in the game. Last week a broad coalition of patient-focused groups launched its "I Am Essential" campaign in an effort to make sure that when all of us have to buy health insurance in 2014, we will be getting good value. When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act last year, it included a provision saying that all health insurance plans sold a little more than two years from now must contain "essential health benefits." It established 10 categories of required coverage: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.. Read the rest of this item [http://www.prwatch.org/node/11184 here].
SW: update item
-----
[[Image:Gavelhand401k.jpg|180px|right]]<h3>[http://www.prwatch.org/node/11188 Federal Court Strikes Down Wisconsin Fair Election Law11205 When Medicare Isn't Medicare]</h3> by Brendan Fischer[[Wendell Potter]]<br>A federal appellate court has used Let's say you have a Ford and decide to replace everything under the Uhood with Hyundai parts, including the engine and transmission.SCould you still honestly market your car as a Ford? That question gets at the heart of the controversy over who is being more forthright about GOP Rep. Supreme CourtPaul Ryan's plan to "save" Medicare, Republicans or Democrats. If you overhaul the Medicare system like you did your Ford and tell the public it's still Medicare, are you doing so honestly? As I noted last week, PolitiFact, the St. Petersburg Times'Citizens United v. F.E.C.fact checker, decided that the Democrats'claim that Ryan' decision to strike down a Wisconsin law limiting how much a person can donate to s plan would mean the end of Medicare was so blatantly untrue it merited designation as the 2011 "Lie of the Year." Republicans, whose erroneous claims about health care reform garnered "independent expenditureLie of the Year" political groupsprizes in 2009 and 2010, cheered. For many yearsDemocrats, Wisconsin law has prohibited any individual from donating more than an aggregate $10as you might imagine,000 per year to Political Action Committees (PACs) jeered -- as did some journalists and political candidatespundits. MondayPolitiFact's [http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=11Washington-2623&submit=showdkt decision] from a three-judge panel of based editor defended the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found unconstitutional choice by contending that portion of the law limiting contributions Ryan's proposal to restructure Medicare by providing beneficiaries subsidies to buy private insurance would not "independentend" PACsthe program. It would still be Medicare, which are technically distinct from campaign committeeshe reasoned. The outcome What he's missing is not entirely surprising given recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and that Ryan's proposal would change the program so fundamentally as to represent the identity equivalent of replacing the judges on the panelengine and transmission.Read the rest of this item [http://www.prwatch.org/node/11188 11205 here.] <br>
-----
<!--
-------------------------Recent articles from the Center for Media and Democracy------------------------>
