Featured Jobs
|
DWC - The 401(k) Experts
|
|
MAP Retirement
|
|
DWC - The 401(k) Experts
|
|
Defined Contribution Account Manager Nova 401(k) Associates
|
|
Retirement Plan Onboarding Specialist Compass
|
|
Relationship Manager - Defined Contributions Daybright Financial
|
|
PPS Pension Services
|
Free Newsletters
“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”
-- An attorney subscriber
|
|
Search the News Archive
|
36425 Matching News Items |
| 1. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
Dec. 18, 2013
"Most people who defend deductibles and co-payments argue that these devices give patients incentives to make better decisions. But, if that is the goal the means to achieve it are too crude and too weak. In the case of the deductible, the incentive to economize vanishes once the deductible is exceeded. In the case of coinsurance, the incentives are incredibly weak. If I have a 10% copayment, my incentive is to consume care until it's worth 10 cents on the dollar to me. At 20%, my incentive is to consume care until it is worth 20 cents on the dollar. Can't we do better than that?"
|
| 2. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
Feb. 6, 2013
"One thing that adds to so much confusion is that people on the left have a huge investment in seeing themselves as more altruistic and more caring than everybody else. Paul Krugman, for example, refers to the Republican Party as the party of Scrooge and sees most elections as Dickensian morality plays -- even though research shows that right-of-center folks are actually more generous than folks on the left, on the average. Today, [I, John Goodman,] ask you to put aside such foolish thoughts and seriously consider the titular issue of this post."
|
| 3. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
Aug. 6, 2013
"In a 2008 paper, the new Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors says that the ideal way to encourage private insurance is by means of a refundable tax credit. The explanation reads like it could have been written by John McCain or by yours truly. If only the president had listened three years ago."
|
| 4. |
Bangor Daily News via Physicians for a National Health Program [PNHP]
Aug. 6, 2007 Excerpt: Bad economics is [John] Goodman's basic charge against 'Sicko.' This charge prompted me, an economist, to see the documentary. My conclusion? Moore is far less guilty of flawed economics and disregard of relevant facts than is Goodman. Moore is also straightforward about his values and ideology, whereas Goodman masks his as scientific economics. This impels me to defend my profession by exposing the falsity of his claims, and some of the salient facts that he ignores. MORE >> |
| 5. |
Uwe E. Reinhardt in Health Affairs
Apr. 8, 2013 "There actually is a current Republican vision. It has been expressed through the House budget resolution. I agree with Goodman, though, that in the past Republicans, John Goodman included, did offer visions on U.S. health care that differ sharply from the one expressed by the House and are worth considering." MORE >> |
| 6. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
May 31, 2013
"Despite the promise that 'If you like the plan you are in, you can keep it,' the AP reports that plans are being cancelled all over the country because of ObamaCare. One insurer explains it this way: ... almost every policy on the street today in the individual and small group markets is not legal for one reason or another[.]"
|
| 7. |
The White House Blog, written by Cecilia Muñoz, Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council
Feb. 3, 2012 Over half of Americans already live in the 28 States that require insurance companies cover contraception: Several of these States like North Carolina, New York, and California have identical religious employer exemptions. Some States like Colorado, Georgia and Wisconsin have no exemption at all. MORE >> |
| 8. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
July 29, 2013
"There are basically three criteria by which to judge a public policy: efficiency, equity and liberty. To what degree does the policy allow us to achieve a social objective at minimum cost? (Efficiency) To what degree does the policy treat people fairly? (Equity) And to what degree does it leave individuals free to make their own decisions? (Liberty) With respect to efficiency ... I see the Republican and Democratic approaches as different as night and day."
|
| 9. |
The Wall Street Journal; subscription may be required
May 29, 2009 Excerpt: Last year liberals mauled John McCain for daring to touch the employer-based exclusion to finance more coverage for the individually uninsured. He was proposing 'a multitrillion-dollar tax hike -- the largest middle-class tax hike in history,' said Barack Obama, whose TV ads were brutal. But now Democrats need the money to finance $1.2 trillion or more for their new health insurance entitlement. Last week Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus released his revenue 'policy options' and high on the list is ... taxing health benefits. Or listen to White House budget director Peter Orszag, who recently told CNN's John King that the exclusion 'was not in the President's campaign plan, it wasn't in our budget. Clearly, some Members of Congress are putting it on the table and we are going to have to let this play out.' MORE >> |
| 10. |
Urban Institute
Mar. 6, 2009
Excerpt: In traditional interview format, our experts talk about the nature of their work and offer insights on what they've learned. Health Policy Center Director John Holahan answers five questions about health care reform.
|
| 11. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
Apr. 3, 2014
"We get our health benefits from our employer because they are non-taxable. If employees bought health insurance on our own, we would pay premiums with after-tax dollars.... But while there may be some job lock due to employer-based benefits, the problem has become way overblown in public discourse ... The real problem with our employer-based health benefits is 'insurance lock'. Until recently, and even now only for very large employers, an employee could only get his health-insurance policy from one insurer: The one chosen by his employer."
|
| 12. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
July 22, 2013
"Item 1 explains the $8 billion in new taxes that insurers must pay the federal government in 2014, an amount that increases through 2018 and then applies in all of the years to come.... Item 10 explains that patients will pay an estimated $2.3 billion more for prescription drugs.... Item 17 is the $25 million in transitional reinsurance program fees.... Item 19 covers the limit on the waiting period for enrollment into employer plans.... Item 22 is the slacker mandate, the requirement that 'children' up to age 26 must be covered by family policies."
|
| 13. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
Sept. 11, 2012
"The ObamaCare law requires the Department of Health and Human Services to establish 'essential health benefits' by looking at 'typical' employer plans. Unfortunately, the plans HHS intends to use as a guide are anything but typical. In its Essential Health Benefits Bulletin, the Department of Health and Human Services envisions a regulatory approach that will end up defining essential benefits as those that are 'substantially equal' to large employer plans."
|
| 14. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
May 12, 2014
"It's too soon for ObamaCare to have resulted in a big boost in spending. And the previous slowdown was underway over a decade. Over the longer period, what does track the slowdown very closely are three other developments: the growth of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), the growth of Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs) and the general trend toward higher deductibles. All three changes mean that patients are paying more medical bills out of their own pockets. And that has produced profound changes[.]"
|
| 15. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
Feb. 18, 2014
"Covering all breast cancer cases registered from 1996 to 2005, the data once again suggest that the uninsured fare almost as well as people on Medicaid.... Several interpretations are possible. One is that the health behaviors of those on Medicaid differ in important, and poorly considered, ways from the health behaviors of those with private insurance. Another is that these results are roughly similar for people on Medicaid and those who are uninsured because during the time covered by the study, people in the United States with serious illness could access health care whether or not they had coverage."
|
| 16. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
June 26, 2013
"We frequently hear that health care is special.... But that specialness does not prima facie warrant regulation. To the contrary, because of the specialness of health care it is extra important that politicians and special interests not be allowed to muck things up. As it turns out, almost all the special regulation in health care has left us worse off than if it had never been legislated in the first place."
|
| 17. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
June 19, 2013
"[I]n a single New York Times editorial -- comparing U.S. and Swedish health care -- [Robert Frank] manages to repeat just about every major misconception about health economics that you are likely to run into.... [T]he real cost of health care is the value of the alternative uses of the real resources that are used to produce that care. So an alternative to adding up questionable monetary totals is to count real resources. And on that score, the picture looks very different."
|
| 18. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
May 8, 2013
"The results from the Oregon Experiment ... show that extending Medicaid to low-income adults did not improve basic clinical measures of health. Given that, it is a bit hard to see how being uninsured can cause 45,000 premature deaths every year -- a figure rivaling the number of Americans killed in the Vietnam War. That's the number physicians for a National Health Program say die prematurely in America due to a lack of health insurance. The Oregon study results probably did not surprise those who have been paying attention to the serious academic literature, however."
|
| 19. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
July 18, 2012
"How many times have you heard that 26-year-olds can be covered by their parent's health insurance as a result of health reform? Quite a few times I suspect. How about the fact that seniors can get free checkups? Yes, that too. How about the fact that health reform really isn't paid for? That half the dollars needed to pay for it will require Medicare cuts so draconian that Congress is unlikely to ever let them take place? Hmm ? You don't remember reading about that? What about the fact that families at the same income level will get vastly different subsidies under the reform -- differences that amount to $10,000 a year or more? Ahh -- You didn't read about that either? Here's the problem. The first two facts -- the ones you hear about often -- are trivial. The second two facts -- the ones you never hear about -- are deadly serious."
|
| 20. |
John Goodman's Health Policy Blog
June 9, 2014
"A new analysis ... estimates that providers delivered $84.9 billion worth of medical care to uninsured people, for which they were not directly paid. However, federal, state, and local governments compensated providers $35.9 billion, leaving $49.0 billion truly uncompensated.... If government stepped up and compensated the remaining $49.0 billion, the total payout would amount to about one percent of all government health spending.... Is this really something we should be turning ourselves inside out over?"
|
| Next » |
|
Here's Help About the Advanced Features That Apply Whenever "All Words" Is Selected in the Search Form
|