At a conference earlier this month on Obamacare and the justice system, Amy Solomon, a senior adviser in the U.S. Department of Justice, laid out the Obama administration’s case for why the ACA is good news for states looking to shrink the number of people behind bars. Given that $80 billion is spent nationwide every year on incarceration, Obamacare could be a way to “bend the cost curve,” she said.
Research has shown that access to medical care, especially addiction and mental health services, helps reduce the likelihood that former criminals will offend again. That means lower incarceration costs. Under Obamacare, in about half of states anyone who makes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, or about $15,000 for an individual, can qualify for Medicaid, including ex-cons.
Mother Jones: Listen To Scarlett Johansson Try To Sell You On Obamacare
Last Friday, Planned Parenthood announced that they had enlisted three actresses to help them inform Americans about details of theAffordable Care Act. Scarlett Johansson, Aisha Tyler, and Gabrielle Union (all active in progressive politics) each recorded special phone messages to remind callers about Obamacare eligibility. Planned Parenthood provided Mother Jones with audio files of the three phone messages.
I’m a single young professional, not covered by health insurance, working on my application to grad school. Two years ago, I looked at the price for health insurance for an individual, and it was discouraging. A bare-bones policy would have cost me almost a thousand dollars, and would still leave me bankrupt if anything went wrong. I’ve been uninsured since then, compulsively hoarding money so I could pay the bills if something went wrong and I became terribly injured or sick, and paying the full uninsured cost whenever I needed something looked at.
Today, I signed up for health insurance through the New York State of Health exchange. The price for a solid silver-level plan before subsidies was only a bit more than a third of what I had been quoted by the Freelancers’ Union two years ago – $350. With the tax credit, it’s even less. Now that I know my out-of-pocket is capped, I can put my savings toward going to grad school and becoming a certified teacher, as I’ve wanted to do for years.
We will save $100 a month for a FAR superior plan to our old one. With my old plan when my husband was treated for cancer two years ago we were $10,000 out of pocket before real coverage kicked in.
The other woman in my office is a 60 year old diabetic. She works three part-time jobs, and has kept one part-time job she hates just for the health insurance. She applied for the Silver plan and even with her preexisting condition will be covered for $69 a month. She is quitting the hatred job and will put more time into the home organizing business she’s starting (and she’s quite good at it!)
10:35: President Obama delivers remarks on immigration reform
12:0: Jay Carney briefs the press
4:50: President Obama participates in an event with the DNC’s Women’s Leadership Forum
ThinkProgress: That Time Republicans Thought You Shouldn’t Repeal Health Care Reform Because Of Enrollment Glitches
Bush PartDMillions of Americans try to enroll in health care benefits during the first days of a new government health care program. They rely on indispensable government website that had been “pitched as a high-tech way” to sort through available coverage options. They’re encountering countless glitches and technical errors: the website freezes, displays incorrect plan information and sends insurers erroneous reports.
Administration officials — clearly caught off guard by the surge of technical difficulties — respond to “tens of thousands of complaints” from angry beneficiaries and promise to “fix every problem as quickly possible.”
This sounds like the familiar story of the last few days of the Obama administration’s rollout of the exchanges. But, actually, those quotes, and that scenario, is taken from the Bush administration’s efforts to implement the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2005 and 2006.
Steve Benen: Cruz depends on Goldman Sachs for health care
When I first saw headlines this morning about Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Goldman Sachs’ health plan, I initially thought lobbyists for the financial giant had come up with their own alternative to the Affordable Care Act, and the far-right Texas senator had decided to embrace the proposal on Capitol Hill.
But that’s not what’s happened at all. The headlines are far more literal…
There are certain matters to be kept in mind while discussing the “investigations” that the House is about to launch into what I have no doubt will be referred to no later than next Monday as Glitchgate on CNN.
Point The First: These “investigations” are no more serious than were the endless probes into IRS dumbassery and Benghazi, BENGHAZI!, BENGHAZI! The way we know this is by the caliber of the experts that the committee is planning to call….
…. The most important things to remember is that these hearings have absolutely nothing to do with improving a law that every single one of these Republicans would like to feed to the shredder. This is like hiring arsonists to fix your smoke alarms.
True, that sentence comes with a large asterisk. It is working in states that have followed the essential design of the Affordable Care Act, particularly in Kentucky, Connecticut, Washington and California. The law was written with states’ rights and state responsibilities in mind. States that created their own health-care exchanges — and especially those that did this while also expanding Medicaid coverage — are providing insurance to tens of thousands of happy customers, in many cases for the first time.
Those seeking a model for how the law is supposed to operate should look to Kentucky. Gov. Steve Beshear , a Democrat in a red state, has embraced with evangelical fervor the cause of covering 640,000 uninsured Kentuckians….
Steve Benen: Putting immigration back on the front burner
With the shutdown over and the debt ceiling raised, officials in Washington have to decide what, if anything, they’re prepared to work on next. If the last several days are any indication, congressional Republicans are eager to talk about a dysfunctional website, which I suppose is a step up from Benghazi conspiracy theories.
But President Obama hasn’t given up hope on comprehensive immigration reform. It was the issue he emphasized as the shutdown crises neared its end, and it’s the issue he’ll push later this morning in a speech at the White House.
The Hill: Obama to go on post-shutdown fundraising blitz for Democrats
President Obama plans to be the star guest for at least eight fundraising events around the country over the next five weeks for House and Senate Democrats …. The fundraising push starts Friday in New York with events for House Democrats and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The president will then head to Boston for another House Democratic fundraiser on Oct. 30, before traveling early next month to Miami and Philadelphia to raise money at two events for Senate Democrats.
Obama will then head to Seattle and San Francisco to raise money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the fundraising arm of House Democrats.
In late November, Obama will do a joint event for the DCCC and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Los Angeles. Obama is also expected to travel next month to Dallas, where he postponed an event because of the government shutdown earlier this month, for another fundraiser.
First lady Michelle Obama, sources say, will also lend her support at upcoming committee events, including a DNC event in Washington.
It’s not ‘moderates’ vs. ‘conservatives. The two opposing Republican sides, if they really are opposing, are ‘radical’ and ‘conservative.’ And only one side is fighting. The other is rolling over….
The more I think about this Republican “civil war,” the less it looks like war to me. It often gives the appearance of being war because these Tea Party people march into the arena with a lot of fire, brimstone, and kindred pyrotechnics that suggest conflict. But what, really, in hard policy terms, are these two sides arguing about? Practically nothing.
It’s a disagreement chiefly over tactics and intensity. That’s a crucial point, and so much of the media don’t understand it. But I’m here to tell you, whenever you read an article that makes a lot of hay about this “war” and then goes on to describe the Republican factions as “moderate” and “conservative,” turn the page or click away. You are either in the hands of an idiot or someone intentionally misleading you.