How The Girl With the Purple Cane Lost Her Obamacare Plan

image

The Obama administration has boasted that under the Affordable Care Act, “all Americans now have secure access to health insurance,” and “Americans will have the security of knowing that they don’t have to worry about … being rated up or denied coverage altogether due to a disability.” Liz Jackson’s story demonstrates that these promises, like others made by Obamacare’s authors, are not true.

On paper, Jackson—who has a  a severe nerve condition that prevents her from working—seems exactly the kind of American the Affordable Care Act was designed to help. When Obamacare was enacted, Jackson—who is is also known as “The Girl With the Purple Cane"—did not just sign up for a government-subsidized plan herself, she trained as a volunteer ‘health care navigator’ to help others sign up. But earlier this year, the collapse of her insurer, Health Republic Insurance of New York — the largest of 12 health care co-ops nationwide set to close this year — has left her and more than 200,000 others without medical coverage after their plan ceases on Nov. 30.

So far, 750,000 Americans have lost their existing coverage when an Obamacare co-op collapsed, threatening their continuity of care. Jackson’s experience further shows how the amount enrollees pay for their Obamacare plans can skyrocket due to a disability.

On Wednesday, December 16th, at 12:00 p.m. at the Cato Institute, Jackson will share her experience with discontinuity of care under the ACA, arguing that Congress should mend the Affordable Care Act, not end it. Can Congress fix Obamacare? Or are these sorts of failures inevitable consequences of a government guarantee of access to medical care?

Can’t make it to the event? You can watch it live online at www.cato.org/live and join the conversation on Twitter using #CatoEvents

Supreme Court Validates Obama’s Executive Power Grab

image

The Supreme Court has ruled in King v. Burwell that individuals who get their health insurance through an exchange established by the federal government are eligible for tax subsidies.  

Says Cato scholar Michael F. Cannon, “The Court today validated President Obama’s massive power grab, allowing him to tax, borrow, and spend $700 billion that no Congress ever authorized.…In doing so, the Court has sent a dangerous message to future administrations: If you are going to violate the law, make sure you go big.”

Today at 3: p.m. EST, Cato scholars will be answering your questions on King v. Burwell’s overall impact and what the decision will mean for individuals enrolled in state health plan exchanges.

Tweet your questions using ‪#‎CatoConnects‬ & SHARE with your friends.

Want to read up on the case before today’s event? Check out these links:

What Will Obama Do if He Loses King v. Burwell?

image

Originally posted by garhedlund

We’ve famously been told that the Department of Health & Human Services has no Plan B if the Supreme Court decides against the administration in King v. Burwell. But what if the Supreme Court forces the executive branch’s hand?

 Ilya Shapiro takes a look ahead to what President Obama will do if the government does indeed lose King v. Burwell

Read more….

Do Doctors Practice Defensive Medicine?

image

Tort reform that limits medical malpractice (“med mal”) suits can affect healthcare spending in a couple of different ways. However, on theoretical grounds, it is not clear whether tort reform will reduce healthcare spending. New research from Myungho Paik, Bernard Black and David A. Hyman revisits the impact of tort reform and med mal risk on healthcare spending. They find that there is no evidence that adoption of damage caps reduces either Part A or Part B Medicare spending, and in fact, there is some evidence that specific caps lead to higher Part B spending.