Pacific Progressive

Fair, Effective, and Efficient Health Care: The Importance of the Affordable Care Act

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Raúl Arce-Contreras, Vanessa Cárdenas 

In the year since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, it has already had a positive impact on millions of Americans, many of them Latinos. The new health law takes important steps to help alleviate the gap in health disparities among different racial and ethnic groups, and enhances protections for consumers, which is particularly important for many low-income people of color. The notable provisions include:

• Ending the abusive insurance company practice of refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions
• Offering up new coverage options for young people
• Allowing small businesses to provide care for their employees

Why are these three benefits so important to Hispanics and African Americans in the United States? Because they suffer disproportionately from chronic diseases, including diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Take diabetes. Hispanics are 50 percent more likely to die from diabetes than non-Hispanic whites. Almost 15 percent of African Americans and 14 percent of Hispanics suffer from diabetes compared to 8 percent of whites. Health insurers considered having these conditions a basis for denying or dropping coverage, a practice abolished by the new law.

Fair, Effective, and Efficient Health Care: The Importance of the Affordable Care Act

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Raúl Arce-Contreras, Vanessa Cárdenas 

In the year since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, it has already had a positive impact on millions of Americans, many of them Latinos. The new health law takes important steps to help alleviate the gap in health disparities among different racial and ethnic groups, and enhances protections for consumers, which is particularly important for many low-income people of color. The notable provisions include:

• Ending the abusive insurance company practice of refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions
• Offering up new coverage options for young people
• Allowing small businesses to provide care for their employees

Why are these three benefits so important to Hispanics and African Americans in the United States? Because they suffer disproportionately from chronic diseases, including diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Take diabetes. Hispanics are 50 percent more likely to die from diabetes than non-Hispanic whites. Almost 15 percent of African Americans and 14 percent of Hispanics suffer from diabetes compared to 8 percent of whites. Health insurers considered having these conditions a basis for denying or dropping coverage, a practice abolished by the new law.

Tax Expenditure of the Week: Accelerated Depreciation: Counting Down the Country’s Biggest Tax Breaks, Week by Week

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Seth Hanlon 

This is part of a new CAP series called the “Tax Expenditure of the Week.” The series aims to explain the often-confusing constellation of tax breaks in a way the average taxpayer can understand. Every Wednesday we will focus on one tax expenditure, explaining what it is, what purpose it is intended to serve, and whether it is effective toward that purpose. We will also review relevant reform proposals.

Subjecting these dozens of tax breaks to greater scrutiny is part of our broader focus on making government work better and achieving better results for the American people, which is the goal of CAP’s “Doing What Works” project.

This week we’re looking at “accelerated depreciation,” the IRS rule allowing businesses to write off the costs of investments faster than they actually wear out.

What is accelerated depreciation?

Accelerated depreciation is the set of IRS rules that allow businesses to deduct from their taxable income the declining value of business-related investments, such as equipment and machinery, faster than the value of those assets actually declines.

If at First You Don't Secede ...

by: Randall Amster J.D., Ph.D., t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

Progressive eyes rightly have been transfixed on Wisconsin of late, with the en masse display of "people power" directly confronting attempts to erode public infrastructure and eviscerate the leverage of collective bargaining that so many have struggled for over the decades. Coming on the heels of popular uprisings in Egypt and across the region, and with the potential for an ensuing general strike in the offing if austerity measures persist, the "Whisky Rebellion" has captured the imagination of workers and activists, spawning solidarity actions around America and inspiring people in other states to push back against comparable right-wing machinations.

Arizona has been no exception, as hundreds gathered in Phoenix recently to show their support for protesters in Wisconsin and to voice their displeasure at similar policies in their midst. If there's another state in the union with a competing claim to be the frontline of reactionary politics gone haywire, it is surely Arizona. Beset by invidious legislation and a decimated economy, among other issues, the nascent "failed state" ethos that has taken hold in the desert is escalating even as the leading edge of a people's movement begins to push back half a continent away. While Phoenix bears little overt resemblance to Madison, either geographically or politically, the national assault on sane governance compels us to explore the linkage.

The Importance of Independence: Affordable Care Act’s Independent Payment Advisory Board Key to Quality Care at Lower Cost

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Judy Feder, Nicole Cafarella

A year ago this week, President Barack Obama signed into law our nation’s first comprehensive health reform law, the Affordable Care Act, which not only extends health insurance protection to tens of millions of Americans but also actually reduces the deficit—in large part because of measures the law takes to responsibly slow the growth in Medicare and overall health spending. Lowering the projected growth of health care costs is a key promise of the law because these ever-escalating costs drain businesses, government coffers, and individuals’ savings. Yet many who criticize the law as a budget buster are aiming to repeal some of its key cost-containment features.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board is a case in point. The Affordable Care Act establishes this board to serve as a guarantor that the law’s cost-containment goals will actually be achieved. If the government’s main health care program for the elderly and disabled Medicare exceeds its per capita cost-growth targets under the new law, then the Independent Payment Advisory Board is empowered to recommend ways to reduce program expenditures by changing the way Medicare pays health care providers.

The Consequences of Conservatism" Loss of Wealth Stunning During Great Recession

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Christian E. Weller 

The 2012 presidential primary season is already upon us and the Grand Old Party is, not surprisingly, engaged in a grand old opportunity to rewrite history about the causes and consequences of the Great Recession. So it’s time, once again, to set the record straight.

The Great Recession was so great not just because of very sharp unemployment increases but also due to an unprecedented decline in wealth—as the Federal Reserve detailed in a report released this week. That wealth destruction is key to understanding the Great Recession since massive house price drops led to a foreclosure crisis that then fueled massive layoffs. Much of the unprecedented wealth destruction in 2007 and 2008 can be traced back to failed economic policies under President George W. Bush, when opportunities to put the economy and the labor market on the right track were ignored.

Incoming President Barack Obama’s hand was thus forced to first pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to save the economy from sliding deeper into an economic hole amid rising job losses, and to then tackle the problems that had been ailing the economy and American families—low incomes and rapidly rising prices for health care and energy—for the previous eight years.

The Impact of City-Specific Minimum Wage Standards

From the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

City minimum wages don't hurt the employment prospects of low-wage workers, according to a new report released today by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) that analyzes the wage and employment effects of the first three city-specific minimum wages in the U.S.

“The experience of the first three cities to implement city-wide minimum wages demonstrates that these laws can raise the earnings of low-wage workers with no negative impact on employment,” said John Schmitt, a senior economist at CEPR and an author of the study.

The report, "The Wage and Employment Impact of Minimum-Wage Laws in Three Cities," evaluates the effects of city-specific minimum wage standards in San Francisco, Santa Fe, and Washington DC. The authors used data from a virtual census of establishments in these cities, their surrounding suburbs and nearby metropolitan areas and found these policies did not have significant negative effects on the employment of low-wage workers.

The authors compared wages and employment before and after the city minimum wage with changes over the same period in wages and employment in comparable establishments in nearby areas that did not see an increase in the minimum wage.

Backgrounder: Behind the Battle Over Hidden Debit Card Fees

by Marian Wang ProPublica

A provision within the financial reform bill that would regulate debit card transaction fees could be postponed by a year or two following fierce objections from banks. Specifically, banks large and small are objecting to a Fed proposal to limit what are known as interchange fees — the fees they collect from merchants every time a customer uses a bank-issued debit card to make a purchase.

Lawmakers in both houses of Congress last week drafted legislation to postpone writing new debit interchange rules for one to two years. According to Dodd-Frank, the rules were supposed to be finalized by April 21 and to go into effect by July 21.

Consumer groups have decried the delay, saying it would postpone much-needed reform to a system that is “uncompetitive, non-transparent and harmful to consumers [1]” [PDF]. At the same time, these groups voiced concerns that if interchange reform passes, banks will levy other charges on consumers — something many banks have warned they may do.

Given the controversy, we’re taking a closer look at how interchange works and what’s at stake for banks, for businesses and for consumers.

How Interchange Works

Many consumers are only vaguely aware of the existence of the interchange fees—or “swipe fees”—but they’re still paying for them because the costs are ultimately passed on to consumers [2] in the form of higher retail prices. The fees often cause retailers to offer discounts for cash or set minimums for credit and debit purchases.

AT&T Deal Raises Questions About Economy, Net Neutrality

by: Nadia Prupis, t r u t h o u t | Report

Consumer advocacy groups and politicians from both sides of the aisle have begun to speculate on what the impending merger between AT&T and T-Mobile will mean for the country's economy and the effect it could have on contentious policy issues, such as network neutrality.

The $39 billion deal was announced over the weekend. The sale will not officially close until the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Justice Department finish conducting regulatory reviews, which could take up to 18 months.

AT&T chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson said the transaction will create "significant customer, shareowner, and public benefits," and that "with additional spectrum and network capabilities, we can better meet our customers' current demands."

The acquisition would reduce the amount of national wireless providers from four to three and give AT&T approximately 130 million subscribers - about 43 percent of the market - making it the biggest mobile phone carrier in the United States. The FCC and the Justice Department could impose certain restrictions on AT&T/T-Mobile before approving the deal to ensure that the new entity gives up ownership of some of its airwaves and provides coverage in rural areas.

Critics of the deal warn that less competition could have a negative impact on the economy, particularly as mobile devices increase in popularity among average consumers.

Top Five Ways Health Reform Is Helping Women and Their Families: How Women Are Benefiting a Year Later

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Eesha Pandit 

This column is adapted from the Raising Women’s Voice’s publication, “What Women Are Getting from Health Reform: The Top Ten List.”

March 23 marks the one-year anniversary of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and on March 24 advocates are celebrating the health care reform law’s advantages for women.

This past year, however, many of the law’s improvements in insurance coverage were overshadowed by attacks on the Affordable Care Act and on women’s reproductive health care coverage. The criticisms have left many women confused about what health reform means for them. Simply put, the law is working for women, our families, and our communities. But, the fight for women’s access to comprehensive reproductive health care in health reform is ongoing, and there are other important issues that still need our voices.

We hope to clear up the confusion by explaining the top five ways the Affordable Care Act is already helping women. This list is followed by three important issues that need attention as we move forward with implementing the law.

Top five ways health reform is helping women

Health Reform and Employment: A One-Year Update

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By David M. Cutler 

The Affordable Care Act is 1 year old today, sufficient time to gauge some aspects of the law. A ruling on the individual mandate—whether it is constitutional to require individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fine—is still some time off, but the economic impact of reform is better understood. Several recent studies highlight the tradeoffs and provide estimates of the effects.

Financially speaking, there are two parts to the health reform law: a combination of tax credits and Medicaid expansions known as “universal coverage provisions” that are designed to get all Americans access to affordable health care; and a host of reforms aimed at making the medical care system deliver higher-quality care at lower costs. The first of these, the universal coverage provisions, will affect both labor demand and labor supply in many different directions. Expanded insurance coverage will increase demand for health care workers, while reductions in Medicare and Medicaid spending will lower demand. Universal coverage will increase the ability of workers to change jobs or leave the labor force entirely, while reductions in costs for small firms and some large firms will boost employment there.

For People With Mental Health Issues, Care Is Often Elusive

This article was published by Kaiser Health News.

By Michelle Andrews 

In any given year, more than a quarter of U.S. adults have a diagnosable mental health problem — from depression to bipolar disorder — yet fewer than half get any kind of treatment for it. The figures are similar for children.

Many who do receive care get it through their primary-care physician rather than a mental health professional like a psychiatrist or psychologist. That's partly by choice: People prefer to talk to someone they know and trust about medical problems, and for many, there's still a stigma in seeing a "shrink."

More From This Series Insuring Your Health

But part of the reason people turn to their primary-care doctors or go without care is that it can be tough to get an appointment with a mental health expert. Psychiatrists, in particular, are in short supply, especially in rural areas.

Just a Couple More Things About NPR

by: Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Like Jake LaMotta and his brother Joey in the bloody boxing classic "Raging Bull," we are gluttons for punishment. So, here we are again, third week in a row, defending NPR against the bare-knuckled assault of its critics.

Our earlier pieces on the funding threat to NPR have generated plenty of punches, both pro and con. And although most of the comments were welcome, and encouraged further thinking about the value of public media in a democratic society, a few reminded us of the words of the poet and scholar James Merrick: "So high at last the contest rose/From words they almost came to blows!"

Nonetheless, reading those comments and criticisms made us realize there are a couple of points that these two wizened veterans of public broadcasting - with the multiple tote bags and coffee mugs to prove it - would like to clarify.

For one, when we described the right-wing media machine as NPR's "long-time nemesis," it was not to suggest that somehow public radio is its left-wing opposite. When it comes to covering and analyzing the news, the reverse of right isn't left; it's independent reporting that toes neither party nor ideological line. We've heard no NPR reporter - not a one - advocating on the air for more government spending (or less), for the right of abortion (or against it), for or against gay marriage, or for or against either political party, especially compared to what we hear from Fox News and talk radio on all of these issues and more.

A Nation of Support for Marriage Equality: Religious Americans Add to Majority Support for Marriage Equality

This article was published by the Center for American Progress.

By Sally Steenland 

Some good news on the heels of the marriage equality defeat in the Maryland state legislature: A majority of Americans—53 percent—now support marriage equality according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll. That’s up from only 32 percent support in 2004.

Some of the biggest gains in support have come from religious Americans. Sixty-three percent of white Catholics now support marriage equality, up from just 40 percent in 2004. White Protestants also show major shifts—57 percent of nonevangelical Protestants support marriage equality, up from 2004 when only 41 percent showed support.

It’s true that white evangelicals remain widely opposed—only 25 percent support marriage equality. But even that number is an 11 percent increase from 2004, when only 14 percent showed support.

These numbers demonstrate that the public has moved ahead of the religious institutions they belong to and the politicians who represent them. Those in the pews are expressing a lived reality that is dynamic and complex. More and more, people have openly gay and lesbian friends, co-workers, and family members. They have neighbors who live in committed same-sex unions. When real people bump up against religious ideology, most often it’s the ideology that breaks and gets swept away.

The Wisconsin Retirement System is One of the Healthiest in the Country

By Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Analysis

Wisconsin's pension system is on excellent financial footing and among the healthiest in the nation, according to multiple independent reports and an analysis by the Center on Wisconsion Strategy and the Center for Economic and Policy Research. These reports show that the fund has consistently contributed 100 percent of the amount of money that actuaries calculate is needed each year. As a result, while the fund's holdings dipped in 2008 due to stock market losses, it remains one of the most solid in the country and has enough funds to cover the promieses made not only to current retirees but to those in the future.

Report - PDF