Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden speaks at a drive-in rally in Miramar, Florida on October 13, 2020. (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden speaks at a drive-in rally in Miramar, Florida on October 13, 2020. (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)

(CNSNews.com) – Democrat Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats rail against President Trump and Republicans for wanting to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, with its high premiums and co-pays and limited options for millions of Americans.

But even Biden isn’t satisfied with the law as it now stands.

At a campaign stop in Miramar, Florida on Tuesday, Biden urged a larger role for government in Americans’ health insurance coverage, including bigger subsidies and expanded Medicaid/Medicare:

“Together, we’ll build on the Affordable Care Act by adding–by adding a new health insurance option, a not-for-profit option, to give private insurers a real competitor,” Biden said.

“We’ll increase (government) subsidies so premiums are lower cost to get more coverage, lower deductibles, lower out-of-pocket expenses.

“And by the way, anybody, anybody who qualifies for Medicare, but lives in a state like your governor that doesn’t allow for 800,000 people to have it, will automatically be enrolled. It’s wrong.”

Biden meant “anyone who qualifies for Medicaid”; Florida has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. But Biden also could have been thinking about Medicare for all, which has always been the goal of Democrats.

According to the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations, Democrats will secure universal health care through a public option, as follows:

Private insurers need real competition to ensure they have incentive to provide affordable, quality coverage to every American. To achieve that objective, we will give all Americans the choice to select a high-quality, affordable public option through the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

The public option will provide at least one plan choice without deductibles, will be administered by the traditional Medicare program, not private



a group of people in a room: COVID-19 treatment: Dealing with denial of cashless settlement and huge deductions in health insurance claims


© Venkatasubramanian K
COVID-19 treatment: Dealing with denial of cashless settlement and huge deductions in health insurance claims

In the past few months, we’ve heard several stories of people with health insurance policies facing claim rejections, not getting cashless treatments, or having to pay hospital bills out of pocket for COVID-19 hospitalizations. There could be many reasons that insurers give for rejecting claims. Some situations are avoidable. You must ensure that a COVID diagnosis or treatment does not burn a hole into your hard-earned savings.

This article discusses some such key issues, along with actions you could take to avoid or reduce the financial burden of an already taxing health situation.

Claims declined for mild symptom cases: Health Insurance policies cover hospitalization treatments that are considered ‘necessary’ – where there is active treatment carried out in a hospital, under any local or international medical protocol. The claim could be declined if the hospitalization is only for monitoring or investigations, without active treatment.  In the current pandemic, isolation of a patient who is asymptomatic/ has only mild symptoms, where treatment could be managed at home is considered hospitalization without any active line of treatment and hence claims are declined.

What you should do: If you are diagnosed as asymptomatic or have mild symptoms, based on your treating doctor’s advice, you must explore home isolation as an option. If your current residence cannot accommodate isolation, you should prepare yourself for bearing the cost of isolation at a quarantine centre from your own pocket, since this expense is out of the scope of any health insurance policy.

Cashless facility declined, deposit is required: It is being reported that hospitals, part of the empanelled cashless network of insurance companies, are often not honouring cashless facilities. These hospitals are demanding huge deposits before admitting the

Want to migrate your existing coronavirus policy to a different insurer? The IRDAI has officially announced that policy holders can renew, migrate and even port their existing Covid-19 health insurance policy.

Currently the three popular variants of Coronavirus health insurance includes Corona Kavach, Corona Rakshak and Group Corona Kavach Policy.

The IRDAI asked insurers to give policyholders the choice to renew, migrate and allow porting of the above policies.

Accordingly, the three new rules that policyholders should be aware of are:

1. Renewal of policies allowed for three and half months, six and half months or nine and half months as per policyholder’s choice.

2. Porting or migration or continuation will not have any waiting period. Existing waiting period is 15 days for such policies. Waiting period will be applicable only if policyholder alters the sum insured during time of renewal. Applicable onlly for increase in sum insured and not the whole policy. The IRDAI has also allowed portability of Corona Kavach policies from one insurer to another with protection to waiting periods.

3. For Corona Kavach individual policies, insurers can allow migration to other health insurance policies.

4. For group cover policies, insurer can migrate to other service provider when an existing member quits the group or police ceases.

5. While migrating, the waiting period will be protected for the insureds under individual and group policies.

The migration/portability of individual/group Corona Kavach policies to other comprehensive health insurance policies are allowed till the end of the Corona Kavach policy.

Corona Kavach and Corona Rakshak policies can be renewed till March 31, 2021.

The insurance regulator’s move is expected to increase the sale of other health insurance policies.
 

Source Article

President Trump’s third nominee to the Supreme Court declined to answer some questions that seemed steeped in basic facts, such as whether a president has the power under the Constitution to unilaterally delay an election. Barrett also declined to say whether she would recuse herself from a potential 2020 election case as Senate Democrats demanded, saying she would not be “used as a pawn to decide the election for the American people.”

Like high court nominees who preceded her, Barrett repeatedly avoided weighing in on her personal views of landmark decisions and declined to say whether she endorsed opinions from her mentor, former Justice Antonin Scalia, on abortion and same-sex marriage. At the same time, under hours of questioning from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, she reinforced perceptions that she would help solidify a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

On the Affordable Care Act, whose constitutionality will come before the Supreme Court in oral arguments on Nov. 10, Barrett on multiple occasions said she was not “hostile” to the 2010 law that has been the core of the Democratic Party’s argument against her confirmation.

“I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act,” Barrett said under questioning from Democrats who tried to shed light on how she may rule on California v. Texas, a case brought by nearly 20 Republican attorneys general and backed by the Trump administration that challenges the constitutionality of former president Barack Obama’s signature health-care law.

Barrett, who would succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg if confirmed, testified that judges should not be swayed by their personal views on policy.

“Judges can’t just wake up one day and say, ‘I have an agenda. I like guns, I hate guns; I like abortion, I hate abortion,’ and walk

Keith Prisco is a stagehand at the United Center in Chicago and a proud union member of IATSE Local 2. Like tens of millions of Americans, he receives health insurance through his employer for himself and his family. The security of this coverage is even more important for Keith after he was diagnosed with leukemia four years ago. But when COVID-19 put a screeching halt on live events, that meant Keith was out of work — jeopardizing his health care coverage in the middle of a pandemic.

As COVID-19 continues to threaten the health and safety of Americans, millions of workers have found themselves under threat of losing their jobs, their health coverage, and their financial savings — all through no fault of their own.

It is unconscionable that unemployed or furloughed workers could also lose health coverage during a public health crisis, yet there are an estimated 10 to 15 million Americans who have lost their employer-sponsored health insurance since the pandemic began. Many unemployed Americans would prefer to remain on their employer health plan, known as COBRA, but it is often prohibitively expensive — on average, $1,700 per month for a family.

From the earliest days of this crisis, the Chicago labor movement and Sen. Durbin identified continuing health coverage for working people as a critical issue.

That’s why labor unions, health care providers, and consumer organizations are joining with Congress to call for the passage of the Worker Health Coverage Protection Act, a bill introduced by Sen. Durbin that would protect millions of unemployed or furloughed workers from losing their health insurance by enabling them to access subsidized COBRA coverage and keep their insurance. The bill would provide a 100 percent subsidy of COBRA health insurance premiums owed by unemployed workers, in nearly all employment-based health plans,