#Anto-American Media

[msclaritea]

The more Ageist attacks that our Israeli-loyal MSM makes on Biden, the more pissed off I get.

" ABC News/Ipsos PollConducted by Ipsos using the probability-based KnowledgePanel®A survey of the American general population (ages 18+)Interview dates: February 9-10, 2024, Number of interviews, adults: 528"

Bottom line, it's pretty clear that Bibi Netanyahu and HIS backers are not pleased with having someone so Pro-American, in the White House. We were supposed to be toast, by now. It should not be up to Israel, whom we have as our representative.

[bestsportmedia]

I agree that they are closer than we know. I also didn’t expect her to post. They must really be family.

Yes! Leo’s transfer drama really showed the closeness of the two families. They have ‘Lunch at the Messi ’ and ‘dinner at the suarez’ type of friendship or at least that’s what it looked like from the the videos. They share a lot of similarities and both are South Americans living in foreign country. I think that made them become close like family.

Yeah, her post surprised me. Since she didn’t post for other friends in the past, I didnt expect her to post for Sofia. I expected Leo’s emotional post. We always see Leo and Luis together and can tell their closeness. Leo has his own custom made Mate tea cup but he leaves it home and drinks Luis’s mate tea 😂. Their friendship is the best friendship I have ever seen in this sport. Anto and Sofia are just as close but its easier to say about Leo and Luis since they’re more in the media.

I think they all will stay in Barcelona after retirement and will be neighbors again.

[goingfullnerd]

New Post has been published on GoingFullNerd

New Post has been published on http://goingfullnerd.com/idws-star-trek-resurgence-adds-depth-and-scope-to-highly-anticipated-upcoming-video-game/

IDW's Star Trek: Resurgence Adds Depth and Scope to Highly Anticipated Upcoming Video Game

The Tie-In Comic Book Miniseries Will Detail the Catastrophe that Befalls the Crew of the U.S.S. Resolute Prior to the Events of the Game

SAN DIEGO, CA (August 17, 2022) – Building upon the wave of excitement for Dramatic Labs’ upcoming interactive video game, IDW is thrilled to announce the five-issue comic book prequel of the same name, Star Trek: Resurgence! Exploring the calamitous events of the U.S.S. Resolute preceding the game’s main storyline, the miniseries will be written by Andrew Grant and Dan Martin with art by Josh Hood (Avatar: The Next Shadow, We Can Never Go Home) and will debut in November.

On a windswept planet bordering the notoriously hostile Talarian Republic, a scientist on the cusp of developing technology that will revolutionize warp goes missing. The crew of the U.S.S. Resolute is tasked with an urgent stealth mission to recover Dr. Leah Brahms and keep her research out of enemy hands!

“I can’t wait for fans to have a truly immersive game experience on the bridge of the U.S.S. Resolute and discover the formative events that indelibly shaped the ship and crew via the comic books,” says Grant. “I’m grateful to have worked on a franchise that is genuinely hopeful about the future, that takes into consideration the needs of the many, and views diversity as a singular source of strength.”

“I really wanted to spend more time with the crew of the U.S.S. Resolute, so I’m thrilled to take fans on another adventure in this prequel comic,” says Martin. “There are some familiar faces along for the ride and as a longtime Star Trek fan myself, it’s sometimes hard to believe that I actually get to bring life to characters which I first met on TV decades ago.”   “Drawing Star Trek is a bit of a double-edged sword. The iconography is burned into the minds of so many fans that when you get something wrong—the phasers, the bridge of a starship, the comms badges—it’s instantly recognizable as being wrong. But when you get it right, the entire experience of being in the 24th century seems to slide right into place,” says Hood.   “The universe is vast in the 24th century, and any opportunity we have to explore the stories of characters that don’t always make it to the big screen gives us a freedom to do things in the comics we don’t always get to do,” says editor Heather Antos. “Combined with Dan and Andrew’s experience working on the game itself, alongside Josh’s clear love of Trek, Star Trek: Resurgence is blasting off into brand-new corners of the Star Trek comics universe.”   Star Trek: Resurgence #1 will be available in November with three variant covers for fans and retailers to enjoy, including Cover A by series illustrator Hood, Cover B by Dramatic Labs, and a retailer incentive variant by Malachi Ward.

For information on how to acquire copies of Star Trek comic books, please contact your local comic shop or visit www.comicshoplocator.com to find a store near you.

DW (NYSE AMERICAN: IDW) is a leading media company providing uniquely compelling stories and characters in various genres for global audiences across all entertainment platforms. The award-winning IDW Publishing and IDW Entertainment divisions holistically evaluate and acquire IP for franchise development across comics and graphic novels, television, theatrical, merchandise, and other entertainment platforms, in addition to bringing world-renowned storytelling to life with our creative partners. About Paramount Consumer Products Paramount Consumer Products oversees all licensing and merchandising for Paramount (Nasdaq: PARAA, PARA), a leading global media and entertainment company that creates premium content and experiences for audiences worldwide. Driven by iconic consumer brands, Paramount Consumer Products’ portfolio includes a diverse slate of brands and content from BET, CBS (including CBS Television Studios and CBS Television Distribution), Comedy Central, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures and Showtime. With properties spanning animation, live-action, preschool, youth and adult, Paramount Consumer Products is committed to creating the highest quality product for some of the world’s most beloved, iconic franchises. Additionally, Paramount Consumer Products oversees the online direct-to-consumer business for CBS and Showtime programming merchandise, as well as standalone branded ecommerce websites for Star Trek, SpongeBob, South Park, and MTV.

Legal Line:  TM & © 2022 CBS Studios Inc.  Star Trek and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.  All Rights Reserved.

[annychristine831]

Helstrom: Everything You Need To Know About The Latest Hulu Horror Show

Halloween season is near, and all the streaming platforms are teasing with their incredible spooky content. Recently, Hulu dropped the first trailer of the upcoming supernatural show Helstrom, and you can check the trailer. And the show promises some guaranteed chills and thrills.

Helstrom is an American television show created by Paul Zbyszewski for Hulu. The series is based on Marvel Comics Satana Hellstrom and Satana’s characters, and it tells a story with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Marvel Studios and ABC Signature Studios produce Helstrom. Sydney Lemmon, in the character of Ana Helstrom and Tom Austen, played the role of Daimon. They are the children of a powerful super killer, known for hunting the worst of humanity. Helstrom was announced to release on the Hulu platform in May 2019 and planned as the first series of Adventure into the Fear franchise in Marvel Television.

The shooting of the show started in October 2019 in Vancouver and will end in March 2020. The series moved to Marvel Studios in December 2019. The team of Helstrom planned to release the show with ten episodes on 16 October 2020. So even though fans will miss the Marvel characters like Eternals, Black Widow, The Falcon, and The Winter Soldier this year, now they will get Helstrom.

In the cast of Helstrom, fans can witness the fantastic performance of Tom Austen. He is an English actor named Thomas Michael Carter initially and known for his popular characters like Guy Hopkins on Grantchester and Jasper Frost on The Royals. Austen started his acting career by portraying a rent boy Anto in the episodic series titled, Shameless in 2010. He also played multi-episode characters on Beaver Falls and The Borgias in 2012.

Sydney Lemmon will also be seen playing the role of Ana Helstrom. Lemmon is known for her award-winning performance in the series Succession opposite Jeremy Strong. She was also nominated for the Saturn Award for her role as Isabelle in the fifth season of Fear the Walking Dead.

And in the role of mother, the audience will see Elizabeth Marvel. Marvel is an American actress. She has appeared in many characters, including Nancy Parras on The District, Elizabeth Keane on Homeland, and Heather Dunbar on House of Cards. Marvel had a recurring role in the Netflix miniseries Unbelievable and season 2 of the FX series Fargo.

Actors Robert Wisdom and Ariana Guerra were seen in projects like Raising Dion and Ballers, respectively, as fellow demon hunters. Wisdom is an American actor known for roles as Norman “Lechero” St. John in the show Prison Break and Howard “Bunny” Colvin in The Wire. In the character of the head of the psychiatric hospital, June Carryl is cast. She is known for shows including Mindhunters, Law & Order: LA, Criminal Minds, Parenthood, Without a Trace, and The Bold and the Beautiful. While movies like Back Roads, What Dreams May Come, and Sweet November.

Now the audience might be confused, is it Helstrom or Hellstrom? It is Helstrom. Although the name of the Marvel comics is Hellstrom. The show is based on the Marvel Comics Television show, but you can not tell that from the official synopsis or trailer.

The series’s plot is based on the two siblings, Satana Hellstrom and her brother Daimon Hellstrom. Their names have been changed and shortened by removing the ‘L’ from Hellstrom and ‘Satana’ changed to ‘Ana.’ both Roy Thomas writes the characters along with John Romita co-creating Satana and Gary Friedrich co-creating Daimon. Daimon’s character debuted in Ghost Rider #1 in 1973, and Satana featured a year later in Vampire Tales #2. The Hellstrom is the original “Son of Satan,” had a headline story in Marvel’s Spotlight for a few years. In the 80s, Hellstrom married Hellcat and joined The Defenders. Satana is more or less featured as the antagonist, though her most notable role came as a member of Thunderbolts.

The development of the show started on 1 May 2019. The executive producer of the series, Paul Zbyszewski, said that the show would add “scars” to the Marvel Cinematic formula of “action, humor, and heart.” The show has suffered production delay due to the global pandemic coronavirus in April 2020. The show was no longer titled as Marvel’s Helstrom. Disney has changed the title to Helstrom to distant Marvel from horror-based content.

Marvel and Hulu announced two series in May 2019, one is Helstrom, and another is Ghost Rider. Marvel revealed that the two shows would not crossover with other franchises.

The comic book and the show have some similarities. In both, the content Daimons worked as professors. And his sister Victoria Hellstrom institutionalized after finding her family’s darkest secret. The character of June Carryl, Louise Hastings, was Marvel’s Occult team member the Darkhold Redeemers. Helstrom is planned to release on 16 October 2020 as a part of Hulu’s “Huluween” and consists of 10 episodes.

The above is all about the latest updates about the show Helstrom. To keep updated about more such latest stay tuned.

I’m Anny. I’m a social media manager living in USA. I am a fan of technology, design, and music. I’m also interested in fitness and movies. You can visit our website:

Source: Helstrom: Everything You Need To Know About The Latest Hulu Horror Show

[ciiromessi]

i dont wanna go too much into friendship cos personally i think sns isnt the most ideal place to judge it. Dani does all these sweet posts for anto&we see anto doing the same sofi&anto otoh live absolutely next to each other have the same personal trainer&by the looks of it seem to be quite close too maybe not a flashy friendship but close one nonetheless. Now i dont think neither of these two are the only friend for her. Basically its tricky to come to conclusion based on just insta. Cont.

Cont. Now the whole marketing thing its a big brand in south america&messi Suarez again big names in south america both their wives are popular in the media hence it makes sense in europe it's them that becomes the promoter of the brand two south americans investing in a big south american brand for shop in europe. Nobody would care honestly about friendship here why would it even matter who has more connection. The big connection the South American one is there that's the main thing.

totally agree with you. i hesitate in these sweeping generalisations of things. daniella is just more into social media, that’s the kind of person she is. truly, i 100% understand the sofi-anto business venture and also because they’re both kind of into the same fashion lol.

[gordonwilliamsweb]

Could Trump’s Push To Undo The ACA Cause Problems For COVID Survivors? Biden Thinks So.

“If Donald Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19 could become a new preexisting condition.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden during a campaign speech in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, June 25, 2020

This story was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.

This story can be republished for free (details).

The same day the Trump administration reaffirmed its support of a lawsuit that would invalidate all of the Affordable Care Act, Joe Biden sharply warned that the suit endangers millions of Americans.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said the law is even more important now, more than a decade after it was enacted, as the COVID-19 epidemic sweeps the U.S. The virus has killed more than 130,000, and Biden noted that some who survive may have long-lasting health problems.

His speech in the battleground state of Pennsylvania focused on a legal challenge headed to the Supreme Court and the fallout if the court upholds a 2018 U.S. District Court decision that struck down the entire ACA, including preexisting condition protections that bar insurers from rejecting people with medical problems or charging them more.

“And perhaps most cruelly of all, if Donald Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19 could become a new preexisting condition,” Biden said.

The Trump administration has supported the challenge. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected next year, after the November presidential election.

But would a decision against the health law affect COVID-19 patients in the way Biden described?

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

We decided to check because it’s likely to come up a lot in the presidential electioneering. We reached out to the Biden campaign to find out the basis for his statement. A campaign spokesperson responded by reiterating the points made by the former vice president in his speech and sharing various news stories about COVID-19 and the preexisting condition coverage issue.

Several law and health policy experts noted that Biden is on fairly firm ground, though the issue — like many others in health care — is complicated.

First, A Little History

Before the ACA went into effect in 2014, insurers on the private market could reject applicants for coverage if they had any number of medical conditions, such as cancer, depression, heart disease — even high blood pressure, acne or plantar fasciitis. Consumers had to fill out forms listing their medical conditions when applying for coverage. An estimated 54 million Americans have a preexisting condition that could have led to a denial under pre-ACA rules, researchers estimate.

Also, at the time, some consumers had coverage cancelled retroactively once they fell ill with a serious or costly disease, as insurers would then comb through years of medical records looking for anything the consumer had failed to report as preexisting, even if it seemed to have little or nothing to do with the patient’s current medical concern.

Those rejections and cancellations mainly affected people who bought their own coverage, not those who got insurance through their jobs.

Job-based coverage, which is the main way most insured people get their plans, had some protections prior to the passage of the ACA. For example, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 said people who held health insurance continuously for at least a year could not face preexisting condition limits when they enrolled in a new employer plan, as long as they didn’t go uninsured for more than 63 days.

Those who didn’t meet that yearlong coverage requirement or went uninsured between jobs could find their medical conditions excluded for up to a year in a new group plan.

Before the ACA, insurers broadly defined preexisting conditions. Many included any condition for which a patient had received treatment, or even undiagnosed conditions for which a reasonable person should have sought treatment.

The ACA changed that. Among other things, it barred insurers from rejecting applicants based on their health, excluding coverage of preexisting medical conditions and charging sick people more than healthier ones. It also ended annual or lifetime dollar limits on coverage and said employers that offer insurance can’t make new workers wait more than 90 days for coverage to kick in.

Could COVID-19 Become A Preexisting Condition?

Biden’s comment raises the question of whether COVID-19 would be considered a preexisting condition in a future without the sweeping health law on the books.

Because the virus is so new, there’s no definitive answer on its long-term health effects.

But media reports note hospitals and physician groups are finding evidence that some recovered COVID patients suffer from lung damage, blood clots, neurological conditions, strokes or fatigue.

Researchers are now starting to follow patients to track long-term effects.

Given insurers’ history, it’s certainly reasonable to assume they would put what are now cropping up as potential COVID complications in the preexisting-condition category, said Sabrina Corlette, who studies the individual insurance market as co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

“There is a real concern that if those preexisting condition protections are overruled or taken down by the Supreme Court, people who have COVID-19 could be medically underwritten, charged more or be denied a policy,” said Corlette.

That is possible, said Joe Antos, resident scholar in health policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. But many of the people most likely to suffer complications from the coronavirus likely already had conditions like diabetes, asthma or heart disease that would already have put them in danger of being rejected for coverage under pre-ACA business practices, he added.

In other words, COVID-19 could simply find a place on a long list of other conditions that could disqualify consumers from obtaining insurance.

And even if the high court tossed out the ACA, insurers might choose to keep offering coverage to people with health problems, say some analysts, including Antos.

But this take triggers skepticism.

“Insurance companies have an obligation to shareholders, and that obligation is to maximize profits,” Corlette said. “They don’t do that by covering a lot of sick people when competitors are not doing it.”

The Biggest Unknown

Sources

Telephone interview with Joe Antos, Wilson H. Taylor resident scholar in health care and retirement policy at the American Enterprise Institute, July 6, 2020

Telephone interview with Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, July 6, 2020

Telephone interview with private practice attorney Christopher Condeluci, who served as tax and benefit counsel to the Senate Finance Committee when the ACA was drafted, July 6, 2020

“My Remarks on the Affordable Care Act in Lancaster, Pennsylvania,” Joe Biden, June 25, 2020

“Texas Judge Strikes Down Obama’s Affordable Care Act as Unconstitutional,” New York Times, Dec. 14, 2018

“Administration Challenges ACA’s Preexisting Conditions Protection In Court,” Kaiser Health News, June 8, 2018

“Supreme Court Won’t Fast-Track Obamacare Case ,” Politico, Jan. 21, 2020

“Nearly 54 Million Americans Have Pre-Existing Conditions That Would Make Them Uninsurable in the Individual Market Without the ACA,” Kaiser Family Foundation, Oct. 4, 2019

“The Emerging Long-Term Complications of Covid-19, Explained,” Vox, June 12, 2020

“What We Know (So Far) About the Long-Term Health Effects of Covid-19,” Advisory Board, June 2, 2020

“Looking Forward: Understanding the Long-Term Effects of Covid-19,” National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, June 3, 2020

“Did The ACA Create Preexisting Condition Protections for People in Employer Plans?” Kaiser Health News and PolitiFact, May 21, 2019

Just how would Congress and the president react if the ACA is struck down?

Under a Biden presidency, coupled with Democrats holding the House and possibly winning the Senate, the ACA would definitely be replaced, the experts all agreed.

Under a second-term Trump administration, Republicans would face a dilemma because — even though the party has called for the law’s repeal since its enactment –— they have been unable to agree on how to replace it. Yet polls have consistently shown that parts of the law, especially the preexisting condition protections, are very popular with a wide swath of voters.

“They don’t want to come across as coming up hard against people who have health conditions,” said Antos.

Private practice attorney Christopher Condeluci, who served as tax and benefit counsel to the Senate Finance Committee when the ACA was drafted, agreed. He thinks Congress or the president would act to save the preexisting condition protections at least.

But how to do so is problematic. That provision is intricately tied with many other parts of the ACA, those aimed at getting as many healthy people to enroll as possible in order to spread costs out among the many, rather than the few.

The ACA did that partly by requiring most Americans to carry insurance coverage — the provision at the heart of the Texas lawsuit seeking to overturn the legislation. Restoring that requirement might be tricky, so the path forward for a split Congress or a second-term Trump presidency to come up with a solution quickly — or at all — if the Supreme Court tosses the entire law is a difficult one.

Our Ruling

Biden said that if Trump had his way, COVID complications could become a preexisting condition. He said this while discussing what might happen if the ACA is overturned by the Supreme Court. Though the statement can’t be definitively proven, there’s a lot of evidence backing it up.

First, some patients are showing at least short-term aftereffects of COVID-19, some of which could be costly. Some may prove long-term.

Second, insurers dislike costly medical conditions. Their business model is designed to have enough healthy enrollees to offset those with costly conditions. Before the ACA, they did that by rejecting people with medical conditions, charging them more or excluding coverage for those conditions. Some also temporarily delayed coverage for specific conditions in group plans offered by employers. Without the ACA, no federal law would prevent them from returning to these practices when selling plans on the individual market.

We rate Biden’s statement Mostly True.

Could Trump’s Push To Undo The ACA Cause Problems For COVID Survivors? Biden Thinks So. published first on https://nootropicspowdersupplier.tumblr.com/

[dinafbrownil]

Could Trump’s Push To Undo The ACA Cause Problems For COVID Survivors? Biden Thinks So.

“If Donald Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19 could become a new preexisting condition.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden during a campaign speech in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, June 25, 2020

This story was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.

This story can be republished for free (details).

The same day the Trump administration reaffirmed its support of a lawsuit that would invalidate all of the Affordable Care Act, Joe Biden sharply warned that the suit endangers millions of Americans.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said the law is even more important now, more than a decade after it was enacted, as the COVID-19 epidemic sweeps the U.S. The virus has killed more than 130,000, and Biden noted that some who survive may have long-lasting health problems.

His speech in the battleground state of Pennsylvania focused on a legal challenge headed to the Supreme Court and the fallout if the court upholds a 2018 U.S. District Court decision that struck down the entire ACA, including preexisting condition protections that bar insurers from rejecting people with medical problems or charging them more.

“And perhaps most cruelly of all, if Donald Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19 could become a new preexisting condition,” Biden said.

The Trump administration has supported the challenge. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected next year, after the November presidential election.

But would a decision against the health law affect COVID-19 patients in the way Biden described?

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

We decided to check because it’s likely to come up a lot in the presidential electioneering. We reached out to the Biden campaign to find out the basis for his statement. A campaign spokesperson responded by reiterating the points made by the former vice president in his speech and sharing various news stories about COVID-19 and the preexisting condition coverage issue.

Several law and health policy experts noted that Biden is on fairly firm ground, though the issue — like many others in health care — is complicated.

First, A Little History

Before the ACA went into effect in 2014, insurers on the private market could reject applicants for coverage if they had any number of medical conditions, such as cancer, depression, heart disease — even high blood pressure, acne or plantar fasciitis. Consumers had to fill out forms listing their medical conditions when applying for coverage. An estimated 54 million Americans have a preexisting condition that could have led to a denial under pre-ACA rules, researchers estimate.

Also, at the time, some consumers had coverage cancelled retroactively once they fell ill with a serious or costly disease, as insurers would then comb through years of medical records looking for anything the consumer had failed to report as preexisting, even if it seemed to have little or nothing to do with the patient’s current medical concern.

Those rejections and cancellations mainly affected people who bought their own coverage, not those who got insurance through their jobs.

Job-based coverage, which is the main way most insured people get their plans, had some protections prior to the passage of the ACA. For example, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 said people who held health insurance continuously for at least a year could not face preexisting condition limits when they enrolled in a new employer plan, as long as they didn’t go uninsured for more than 63 days.

Those who didn’t meet that yearlong coverage requirement or went uninsured between jobs could find their medical conditions excluded for up to a year in a new group plan.

Before the ACA, insurers broadly defined preexisting conditions. Many included any condition for which a patient had received treatment, or even undiagnosed conditions for which a reasonable person should have sought treatment.

The ACA changed that. Among other things, it barred insurers from rejecting applicants based on their health, excluding coverage of preexisting medical conditions and charging sick people more than healthier ones. It also ended annual or lifetime dollar limits on coverage and said employers that offer insurance can’t make new workers wait more than 90 days for coverage to kick in.

Could COVID-19 Become A Preexisting Condition?

Biden’s comment raises the question of whether COVID-19 would be considered a preexisting condition in a future without the sweeping health law on the books.

Because the virus is so new, there’s no definitive answer on its long-term health effects.

But media reports note hospitals and physician groups are finding evidence that some recovered COVID patients suffer from lung damage, blood clots, neurological conditions, strokes or fatigue.

Researchers are now starting to follow patients to track long-term effects.

Given insurers’ history, it’s certainly reasonable to assume they would put what are now cropping up as potential COVID complications in the preexisting-condition category, said Sabrina Corlette, who studies the individual insurance market as co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

“There is a real concern that if those preexisting condition protections are overruled or taken down by the Supreme Court, people who have COVID-19 could be medically underwritten, charged more or be denied a policy,” said Corlette.

That is possible, said Joe Antos, resident scholar in health policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. But many of the people most likely to suffer complications from the coronavirus likely already had conditions like diabetes, asthma or heart disease that would already have put them in danger of being rejected for coverage under pre-ACA business practices, he added.

In other words, COVID-19 could simply find a place on a long list of other conditions that could disqualify consumers from obtaining insurance.

And even if the high court tossed out the ACA, insurers might choose to keep offering coverage to people with health problems, say some analysts, including Antos.

But this take triggers skepticism.

“Insurance companies have an obligation to shareholders, and that obligation is to maximize profits,” Corlette said. “They don’t do that by covering a lot of sick people when competitors are not doing it.”

The Biggest Unknown

Sources

Telephone interview with Joe Antos, Wilson H. Taylor resident scholar in health care and retirement policy at the American Enterprise Institute, July 6, 2020

Telephone interview with Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, July 6, 2020

Telephone interview with private practice attorney Christopher Condeluci, who served as tax and benefit counsel to the Senate Finance Committee when the ACA was drafted, July 6, 2020

“My Remarks on the Affordable Care Act in Lancaster, Pennsylvania,” Joe Biden, June 25, 2020

“Texas Judge Strikes Down Obama’s Affordable Care Act as Unconstitutional,” New York Times, Dec. 14, 2018

“Administration Challenges ACA’s Preexisting Conditions Protection In Court,” Kaiser Health News, June 8, 2018

“Supreme Court Won’t Fast-Track Obamacare Case ,” Politico, Jan. 21, 2020

“Nearly 54 Million Americans Have Pre-Existing Conditions That Would Make Them Uninsurable in the Individual Market Without the ACA,” Kaiser Family Foundation, Oct. 4, 2019

“The Emerging Long-Term Complications of Covid-19, Explained,” Vox, June 12, 2020

“What We Know (So Far) About the Long-Term Health Effects of Covid-19,” Advisory Board, June 2, 2020

“Looking Forward: Understanding the Long-Term Effects of Covid-19,” National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, June 3, 2020

“Did The ACA Create Preexisting Condition Protections for People in Employer Plans?” Kaiser Health News and PolitiFact, May 21, 2019

Just how would Congress and the president react if the ACA is struck down?

Under a Biden presidency, coupled with Democrats holding the House and possibly winning the Senate, the ACA would definitely be replaced, the experts all agreed.

Under a second-term Trump administration, Republicans would face a dilemma because — even though the party has called for the law’s repeal since its enactment –— they have been unable to agree on how to replace it. Yet polls have consistently shown that parts of the law, especially the preexisting condition protections, are very popular with a wide swath of voters.

“They don’t want to come across as coming up hard against people who have health conditions,” said Antos.

Private practice attorney Christopher Condeluci, who served as tax and benefit counsel to the Senate Finance Committee when the ACA was drafted, agreed. He thinks Congress or the president would act to save the preexisting condition protections at least.

But how to do so is problematic. That provision is intricately tied with many other parts of the ACA, those aimed at getting as many healthy people to enroll as possible in order to spread costs out among the many, rather than the few.

The ACA did that partly by requiring most Americans to carry insurance coverage — the provision at the heart of the Texas lawsuit seeking to overturn the legislation. Restoring that requirement might be tricky, so the path forward for a split Congress or a second-term Trump presidency to come up with a solution quickly — or at all — if the Supreme Court tosses the entire law is a difficult one.

Our Ruling

Biden said that if Trump had his way, COVID complications could become a preexisting condition. He said this while discussing what might happen if the ACA is overturned by the Supreme Court. Though the statement can’t be definitively proven, there’s a lot of evidence backing it up.

First, some patients are showing at least short-term aftereffects of COVID-19, some of which could be costly. Some may prove long-term.

Second, insurers dislike costly medical conditions. Their business model is designed to have enough healthy enrollees to offset those with costly conditions. Before the ACA, they did that by rejecting people with medical conditions, charging them more or excluding coverage for those conditions. Some also temporarily delayed coverage for specific conditions in group plans offered by employers. Without the ACA, no federal law would prevent them from returning to these practices when selling plans on the individual market.

We rate Biden’s statement Mostly True.

from Updates By Dina https://khn.org/news/could-trumps-push-to-undo-the-aca-cause-problems-for-covid-survivors-biden-thinks-so/

[stephenmccull]

Could Trump’s Push To Undo The ACA Cause Problems For COVID Survivors? Biden Thinks So.

“If Donald Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19 could become a new preexisting condition.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden during a campaign speech in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, June 25, 2020

This story was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.

This story can be republished for free (details).

The same day the Trump administration reaffirmed its support of a lawsuit that would invalidate all of the Affordable Care Act, Joe Biden sharply warned that the suit endangers millions of Americans.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said the law is even more important now, more than a decade after it was enacted, as the COVID-19 epidemic sweeps the U.S. The virus has killed more than 130,000, and Biden noted that some who survive may have long-lasting health problems.

His speech in the battleground state of Pennsylvania focused on a legal challenge headed to the Supreme Court and the fallout if the court upholds a 2018 U.S. District Court decision that struck down the entire ACA, including preexisting condition protections that bar insurers from rejecting people with medical problems or charging them more.

“And perhaps most cruelly of all, if Donald Trump has his way, complications from COVID-19 could become a new preexisting condition,” Biden said.

The Trump administration has supported the challenge. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected next year, after the November presidential election.

But would a decision against the health law affect COVID-19 patients in the way Biden described?

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

We decided to check because it’s likely to come up a lot in the presidential electioneering. We reached out to the Biden campaign to find out the basis for his statement. A campaign spokesperson responded by reiterating the points made by the former vice president in his speech and sharing various news stories about COVID-19 and the preexisting condition coverage issue.

Several law and health policy experts noted that Biden is on fairly firm ground, though the issue — like many others in health care — is complicated.

First, A Little History

Before the ACA went into effect in 2014, insurers on the private market could reject applicants for coverage if they had any number of medical conditions, such as cancer, depression, heart disease — even high blood pressure, acne or plantar fasciitis. Consumers had to fill out forms listing their medical conditions when applying for coverage. An estimated 54 million Americans have a preexisting condition that could have led to a denial under pre-ACA rules, researchers estimate.

Also, at the time, some consumers had coverage cancelled retroactively once they fell ill with a serious or costly disease, as insurers would then comb through years of medical records looking for anything the consumer had failed to report as preexisting, even if it seemed to have little or nothing to do with the patient’s current medical concern.

Those rejections and cancellations mainly affected people who bought their own coverage, not those who got insurance through their jobs.

Job-based coverage, which is the main way most insured people get their plans, had some protections prior to the passage of the ACA. For example, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 said people who held health insurance continuously for at least a year could not face preexisting condition limits when they enrolled in a new employer plan, as long as they didn’t go uninsured for more than 63 days.

Those who didn’t meet that yearlong coverage requirement or went uninsured between jobs could find their medical conditions excluded for up to a year in a new group plan.

Before the ACA, insurers broadly defined preexisting conditions. Many included any condition for which a patient had received treatment, or even undiagnosed conditions for which a reasonable person should have sought treatment.

The ACA changed that. Among other things, it barred insurers from rejecting applicants based on their health, excluding coverage of preexisting medical conditions and charging sick people more than healthier ones. It also ended annual or lifetime dollar limits on coverage and said employers that offer insurance can’t make new workers wait more than 90 days for coverage to kick in.

Could COVID-19 Become A Preexisting Condition?

Biden’s comment raises the question of whether COVID-19 would be considered a preexisting condition in a future without the sweeping health law on the books.

Because the virus is so new, there’s no definitive answer on its long-term health effects.

But media reports note hospitals and physician groups are finding evidence that some recovered COVID patients suffer from lung damage, blood clots, neurological conditions, strokes or fatigue.

Researchers are now starting to follow patients to track long-term effects.

Given insurers’ history, it’s certainly reasonable to assume they would put what are now cropping up as potential COVID complications in the preexisting-condition category, said Sabrina Corlette, who studies the individual insurance market as co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

“There is a real concern that if those preexisting condition protections are overruled or taken down by the Supreme Court, people who have COVID-19 could be medically underwritten, charged more or be denied a policy,” said Corlette.

That is possible, said Joe Antos, resident scholar in health policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. But many of the people most likely to suffer complications from the coronavirus likely already had conditions like diabetes, asthma or heart disease that would already have put them in danger of being rejected for coverage under pre-ACA business practices, he added.

In other words, COVID-19 could simply find a place on a long list of other conditions that could disqualify consumers from obtaining insurance.

And even if the high court tossed out the ACA, insurers might choose to keep offering coverage to people with health problems, say some analysts, including Antos.

But this take triggers skepticism.

“Insurance companies have an obligation to shareholders, and that obligation is to maximize profits,” Corlette said. “They don’t do that by covering a lot of sick people when competitors are not doing it.”

The Biggest Unknown

Sources

Telephone interview with Joe Antos, Wilson H. Taylor resident scholar in health care and retirement policy at the American Enterprise Institute, July 6, 2020

Telephone interview with Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, July 6, 2020

Telephone interview with private practice attorney Christopher Condeluci, who served as tax and benefit counsel to the Senate Finance Committee when the ACA was drafted, July 6, 2020

“My Remarks on the Affordable Care Act in Lancaster, Pennsylvania,” Joe Biden, June 25, 2020

“Texas Judge Strikes Down Obama’s Affordable Care Act as Unconstitutional,” New York Times, Dec. 14, 2018

“Administration Challenges ACA’s Preexisting Conditions Protection In Court,” Kaiser Health News, June 8, 2018

“Supreme Court Won’t Fast-Track Obamacare Case ,” Politico, Jan. 21, 2020

“Nearly 54 Million Americans Have Pre-Existing Conditions That Would Make Them Uninsurable in the Individual Market Without the ACA,” Kaiser Family Foundation, Oct. 4, 2019

“The Emerging Long-Term Complications of Covid-19, Explained,” Vox, June 12, 2020

“What We Know (So Far) About the Long-Term Health Effects of Covid-19,” Advisory Board, June 2, 2020

“Looking Forward: Understanding the Long-Term Effects of Covid-19,” National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, June 3, 2020

“Did The ACA Create Preexisting Condition Protections for People in Employer Plans?” Kaiser Health News and PolitiFact, May 21, 2019

Just how would Congress and the president react if the ACA is struck down?

Under a Biden presidency, coupled with Democrats holding the House and possibly winning the Senate, the ACA would definitely be replaced, the experts all agreed.

Under a second-term Trump administration, Republicans would face a dilemma because — even though the party has called for the law’s repeal since its enactment –— they have been unable to agree on how to replace it. Yet polls have consistently shown that parts of the law, especially the preexisting condition protections, are very popular with a wide swath of voters.

“They don’t want to come across as coming up hard against people who have health conditions,” said Antos.

Private practice attorney Christopher Condeluci, who served as tax and benefit counsel to the Senate Finance Committee when the ACA was drafted, agreed. He thinks Congress or the president would act to save the preexisting condition protections at least.

But how to do so is problematic. That provision is intricately tied with many other parts of the ACA, those aimed at getting as many healthy people to enroll as possible in order to spread costs out among the many, rather than the few.

The ACA did that partly by requiring most Americans to carry insurance coverage — the provision at the heart of the Texas lawsuit seeking to overturn the legislation. Restoring that requirement might be tricky, so the path forward for a split Congress or a second-term Trump presidency to come up with a solution quickly — or at all — if the Supreme Court tosses the entire law is a difficult one.

Our Ruling

Biden said that if Trump had his way, COVID complications could become a preexisting condition. He said this while discussing what might happen if the ACA is overturned by the Supreme Court. Though the statement can’t be definitively proven, there’s a lot of evidence backing it up.

First, some patients are showing at least short-term aftereffects of COVID-19, some of which could be costly. Some may prove long-term.

Second, insurers dislike costly medical conditions. Their business model is designed to have enough healthy enrollees to offset those with costly conditions. Before the ACA, they did that by rejecting people with medical conditions, charging them more or excluding coverage for those conditions. Some also temporarily delayed coverage for specific conditions in group plans offered by employers. Without the ACA, no federal law would prevent them from returning to these practices when selling plans on the individual market.

We rate Biden’s statement Mostly True.

Could Trump’s Push To Undo The ACA Cause Problems For COVID Survivors? Biden Thinks So. published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/

[naijaurban]

Princess slams Dee-one for mocking her American accent

Princess slams Dee-one for mocking her American accent

Princess has taken to social media to shade Comedian Dee-One after he mocked her supposed American accent.

According to Dee-one, her accent is fake and has a mixture of normal English and Igbo.

Dee-one further noted that Anto was the one that exposed Princess’ fake American accent because she speaks the original accent.

Princess didn’t spare Dee-one online, as she posted, “Before the dragging…

[indefensefobinim]

PREKESE GM FB REWIND 2014-A.I.C TO PENTECOSTALISM IN GHANA

Prekese Ghanamedia

January 21, 2014

·

·

FROM A.I.C TO PENTECOSTALISM IN GHANA?

WHERE DID IT ALL START?

WHY IS IT THAT ALMOST EVERY CHURCH IS NOW USING "FOREIGN MUSICAL EQUIPMENT"?

WHAT IS THE CONTROVERSIAL PROPHET OWUSU-BEMPAH'S ROLE IN GHANA'S PENTECOSTAL HISTORY?

WHY DID OBINIM AND OPAMBOUR FIGHT? WAS IT A REAL FIGHT OR JUST A PR STUFF?

WHY IS IT THAT SOME OF THE RADIO EVANGELISTS AND PROPHETS FIGHTING OTHER SPIRITUAL WORKERS ON AND OFF AIR?

WATCH OUT AS WE BRING YOU THE HISTORY OF GHANA'S PENTECOSTALISM ON SUNDAY IN AN EXCLUSIVE WELL RESEARCHED ARTICLE:

Prophetism’s Media Theology According to V. Randall the communication media has a role in generating, facilitating and shaping the impact of religion in Third World politics.[45] Though his assessment bothers more on religio-political relationships it still offers some insight into the role of the media in Third World evangelisation. Indeed, Asamoah-Gyadu has well observed that the news media play significant role in the ministries of neo-Pentecostal preachers.[46]

Actually, the neo-Pentecostals were not the first to patronise the electronic media in their gospel dissemination. From the late 1970s to 1982 the Ghana Broadcasting Company-TV featured the American televangelist Oral Roberts every Sunday. The only difference is that neo-Pentecostals whose inspiration derives from American televangelists have learned to embrace “the techniques needed to propagate their message on a mass scale…” For them modern media technologies are evangelistic facilitators, weapons for spiritual warfare and have “ontological relevance”.[47]

Moreover, it is not only the Word of Faith or Deliverance strands of neo-Pentecostalism which are ‘exploiting’ the media to their fullest advantage. In fact, it seems that the prophets of the new ‘wave’ are beginning to take the lead in recent times. Notable among the radio stations are the Channel of Righteousness (Channel R), Peace FM, Adom FM and Sunny FM as well as many others in Accra. There are also television stations such as the Metro TV, TV 3, TV Africa and GTV all in Accra. But this phenomenon is not restrictive to Accra. As a matter of fact it cuts across the entire nation. The most current prophetic sensations are Prophets ‘Opambour’ Ebenezer Adarkwa-Yiadom (Prophet One), Daniel Obinim, Chief Mensah, Bishop TT, Akwasi Sarpong, Marfred Acheampong and Isaac Anto. Again, it is not even restricted to Pentecostals; AIC prophets take their fair share in this radio evangelisation. ( J.Q.A)

[isoprene]

Slovenský zmar. For 15 years nothing has been done and this is the result, Hudacek raged

Similarly, his teammates reacted to the incident with the confused anthem, the Germans played them Slovenian a week ago. Twice. Larger shame than both organizing pass-throughs are, however, the up-to-date choices of Zdena Ciger. The Slovaks won only one match - against the weakest team in the world championship, Italy (3: 2 in). The other five ended with their defeat, including the Sunday moms with the Americans.

, Slovakia will not again go into the quarterfinals, on the contrary it still has to fear a possible descent from the elite group of the world championship. It is enough for the Danes to succumb to Italy in the basic playing time and Cíger "chalani" did not get to Sweden."I believe the Dans will help us because we have no chance against Sweden. I understand that fans believe us, but we lack quality. We are expecting one of the strongest players in the tournament, this will be like a game of a cat with a mouse, "said goalkeeper Július Hudáček, after a 1: 6 loss with the United States, completely openly.

He was totally dialed. After the match in an interview with Slovak journalists, emotions were shaking with him.

"It seemed like the Americans played against juniors. But they themselves are juniors. They have their quality, we do not have it. In addition, I lack more dedication. We went to the puck like a wasp of honey. Did you see how we were getting goals?He added: "We could train Mike Babcock and catch Carey Price, but it would not help."

While the Swedes have almost all composed of players from the NHL, Slovaks have no overseas hockey player. Several players from Europe have also rejected the invitation to play. The excuses were so much that the Slovak fans themselves responded with ironic comments.It has also been talked about whether the National Team boycott of many of the players in the Pre-League boycott did not happen at random.

Cíger had to make a lot of improvisations in the team composition, 14 men from the Czech extraliga, including two goalmen, arrived in Cologne.

> "I Latvia has thirteen players in KHL. Why does Slovan Slovaks not have? These are precisely the issues that need to be addressed. The whole system is currently bad. Competent people have been doing nothing for fifteen years, and this is the result. We will have problems for the world championships for a number of years, "said Hudáček.

Are the Slovaks' unscrupulous Slovak performances at MS sadly mirroring the level of the Czech highest competition?No, just look at who Cíger invited. Captain Vladimir Dravecky is in the extralig table of productivity for the past season up to 40th place. And none of his teammates are upstairs. Dravecký himself, although in the media he speaks optimistically and says that Slovakia is not playing so badly, but just does not score goals, is not without fault in the current misery.

In a thrilling match with Latvia, he weakened his team by a stupid foul. And he cut off the hope of victory. "Dravecky made a completely incomprehensible foul as if he was going crazy," criticized television expert Milan Antos.

The Slovaks have shown bouts of high-quality games, but they have been much more criticized.They did not help with the mischievous performance in the opening game, Italy defeated in a prolongation, and they forced it only in 59th minute.

Cíger's cadre twice failed in separate raids, he did not turn only six. Because of this, he has not heard the Slovak anthem as a tribute to the winners. The last chance is left with the Swedes.

[ciiromessi]

Do you think Anto become closer to Sofia than she ever been with Daniella? It seems to me messi family spends a lot of time with Suarez than they ever did with Fabregas family. I mean Dani and Anto used to spend a lot of time together but with Suarez, it's with whole family that attached together not girls only like with Fabregas family. The good thing is their friendship is liked by many otherwise you will be getting more hate messages than ever because the two family is always together 😂

i do think so tbh. it’s like sofi’s fam and anto’s fam get along on every level, from their south american backgrounds to their husbands to their kids. i actually also think sofi is a lot more like anto than daniella is but that’s presumptuous probably cause i’m only speaking off of social media hehe. but yeah omg, back when sofi wasn’t really in the picture, every time daniella and anto would even LIKE each other’s pictures on social media i’d get a troll smh

[gordonwilliamsweb]

Viral Post Alleging Obama-Era Device Tax Caused Current PPE Shortage Is Way Off

“Let me be clear, I signed the medical appliance tax bill that forced companies to outsource manufacturing of masks, gowns, gloves and ventilaors [sic] to China, Europe and Russia to avoid the tax.”

A viral image circulating on social media in April, attributing this statement to President Barack Obama

A social media post, which in April was shared widely on Facebook and made appearances on a conservative online discussion forum, asserts that former President Barack Obama signed legislation that caused companies to manufacture medical devices overseas, including items essential for the current coronavirus pandemic.

This story was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.

This story can be republished for free (details).

Alongside a photo of Obama, the text of the Facebook post says: “Let me be clear. I signed the medical appliance tax bill that forced companies to outsource manufacturing of masks, gowns, gloves and ventilaors [sic] to China, Europe and Russia to avoid the tax.”

The image piqued our interest because it combined a few hot-button issues. First, the concern that the U.S. is experiencing a shortage of ventilators and personal protective equipment, or PPE, like masks, gowns and gloves to help protect front-line workers from coronavirus. Second, issues related to trade imbalances and the outsourcing of American manufacturing abroad are likely to be frequent themes on the presidential campaign trail. So we decided to dig in.

Though the image did not include sourcing or sponsorship information, its target — the “medical appliance tax bill” — seemed to be a reference to the medical device tax (more formally known as the medical device excise tax) that became law as part of the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, much of the social media post tracked closely to statements made by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh during an April 2 episode of his talk show, which included a discussion of the medical device tax.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

A Critical Error

Before we get into the specifics of the medical device tax, two critical elements of the post must be addressed. First, did Obama ever say anything like what the viral image claims? We checked with Eric Schultz, a senior adviser to the former president. In an email he replied: “President Obama obviously didn’t say this!”

A key piece of evidence that supports Schultz’s statement is the use of the term “medical appliance device tax bill.”

Bottom line: We couldn’t find any other reference — either official or unofficial — to a piece of federal legislation bearing this name or nickname. And, though the experts we spoke with agreed the social media post was likely directed at the device tax included in the ACA, none had ever heard it referred to by that moniker — a point that adds more skepticism to the image’s claim.

And What Is The Medical Device Tax?

In order to pay for the ACA’s expansion of health coverage, taxes were increased for various industries — including the medical device industry — that would benefit from more people getting health insurance. The tax was controversial and triggered considerable pushback.

The measure set a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices, sold in the United States beginning in January 2013. The tax applied to both domestic manufacturers and importers of medical devices.

But, it did not apply to items made in the U.S. for foreign export, said John McDonough, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who also served as a senior adviser during the Obama administration and helped write the Affordable Care Act.

“The tax was designed deliberately” to avoid forcing manufacturers to move their production overseas, McDonough wrote in an email.

Opponents of the tax argued that it was a severe financial burden on medical device manufacturers. They also estimated that it would have resulted in the loss of more than 20,000 full-time domestic jobs in the industry.

Joseph Antos, a health policy scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, said that the tax was punishing on the medical device industry because it was implemented on “gross sales rather than profits,” which raised issues for small device firms.

However, a 2015 Congressional Research Service report said that the medical device tax seemed to have only “fairly minor effects” on jobs with “output and employment in the industry falling by no more than two-tenths of 1%.”

Antos said that though the tax “clearly” had an effect on the industry, he wasn’t aware of any studies or statistics that showed production and sales moving overseas because of it.

But Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow and expert in health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, took an even harder line on the social media image’s assertion. “It’s absolutely false on the face of it,” he said. “There was no way the tax provided any incentive to shift production overseas.”

Sources:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Keep the Medical Device Tax,” April 22, 2015

Congressional Research Service, “The Medical Device Excise Tax: Economic Analysis,” Updated June 18, 2015

Email exchange with Mark Brager, vice president of communications, AdvaMed, April 23-24, 2020

Email exchange with Ethan Schultz, senior adviser to Barack Obama, April 23, 2020

Email interview with John McDonough, professor of public health practice, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, April 24, 2020

Email interview with Peter Petri, professor of international finance, Brandeis International Business School, April 26, 2020

Facebook post, April 23, 2020

Federal Register, “Taxable Medical Devices,” Dec. 7, 2012

Forbes, “Medical Device Tax Is History After Trump Signs Repeal,” Dec. 21, 2019

Healthcare Finance News, “Senate Repeals Medical Device Excise Tax in Move Applauded by Med-Tech Manufacturers,” Dec. 19, 2019

Internal Revenue Service, “Medical Device Excise Tax: Frequently Asked Questions,” Updated March 4, 2020

Internal Revenue Service, “Repeal of Medical Device Excise Tax,” Updated Jan. 30, 2020

NBC News, “Trump’s Trade War Exacerbated Shortage of Medical Equipment,” March 27, 2020

Peterson Institute for International Economics, “US-China Trade War Tariffs: An Up-to-Date Chart,” Feb. 14, 2020

Peterson Institute for International Economics, “COVID-19: China’s Exports of Medical Supplies Provide a Ray of Hope,” March 26, 2020

Phone interview with Paul N. Van de Water, senior fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 24, 2020

Politico, “Lawmakers Put New Focus on China Export Rules,” April 21, 2020

Rush Limbaugh Radio Show, “Does Anyone Remember the Obamacare Medical Device Tax?” April, 2, 2020

Vox, “Why America Ran Out of Protective Masks — and What Can Be Done About It,” March 27, 2020

Phone interview with Joseph Antos, scholar in health care and retirement policy, American Enterprise Institute, April 30, 2020

Van de Water also said that while there was some shift of manufacturing overseas while the tax was in effect, there were other factors leading that push, such as competition and pressure to reduce costs.

“There’s no way to attribute that to the device tax itself,” he added.

And, there’s another complication. Congress acted to put the medical device tax on hold at the end of 2015 — in part due to significant lobbying by the medical device industry, as well as opposition to it from both Republican and Democratic members of Congress who had medical device companies headquartered in their states. In December 2019, President Donald Trump permanently repealed the tax when he signed a bipartisan federal spending package.

“The tax was only in effect for three years, from 2013 to 2015,” said Van de Water. “Even if it [the medical device tax] had some effect, that effect would have ended in 2016. We’re now four years later.”

Other Factors

Finally, does the now nonexistent medical device tax have anything to do with our current PPE shortage in the face of the coronavirus pandemic?

The answer to that is also no, said the experts.

The current personal protective equipment shortage can be attributed to the lack of a stockpile reserve of PPE, an initially slow response by the U.S. and the tariffs imposed against Chinese goods by the Trump administration, said Peter Petri, a professor of international finance at Brandeis University outside Boston.

AEI’s Antos considered it an issue of the huge demand for these items, which has made replenishing stockpiles more difficult.

According to a recent report from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in 2018 China was the source of 48% of U.S. imports of PPE. Seventy percent of the United States’ mouth and nose protective gear, such as masks, came from China in 2018. Overall, China is a major supplier of PPE to countries worldwide.

Petri said this makes sense since China is a low-cost manufacturer of these relatively simple products. But it also became a problem once the White House started implementing tariffs on Chinese products.

“For nearly a year, U.S. buyers have been moving their PPE business away from China to other countries because of the Trump tariff wall,” Petri wrote in an email.

But those manufacturers in other countries were not able to scale up their production to make up for the amount of supplies needed when the coronavirus hit.

“Meanwhile Chinese suppliers were turning to markets in Europe. The U.S. could not have chosen a worse time to turn its back on the world’s largest PPE producer,” said Petri.

China’s massive manufacturing capacity did allow it to scale up production to account for the coronavirus pandemic, but because it had already established businesses in other locales and in response to the imposed tariffs, Petri suggested, it is unlikely that China would be as receptive now to U.S. requests for PPE.

Our Ruling

Nothing in this viral image is accurate. There is even a spelling error.

Obama did not sign anything into law called the “medical appliance tax bill.” A moratorium was placed on the medical device tax he did sign into law as part of the Affordable Care Act in late 2015. Therefore, that tax was put on hold in 2016 and eventually repealed by Trump in 2019.

Instead, experts we consulted agreed that the current PPE shortage is more aptly linked to the inadequate national emergency stockpile of PPE, increased demand for the products and the Trump administration’s Chinese trade policies.

Our ruling is Pants on Fire.

Viral Post Alleging Obama-Era Device Tax Caused Current PPE Shortage Is Way Off published first on https://nootropicspowdersupplier.tumblr.com/

[dinafbrownil]

Viral Post Alleging Obama-Era Device Tax Caused Current PPE Shortage Is Way Off

“Let me be clear, I signed the medical appliance tax bill that forced companies to outsource manufacturing of masks, gowns, gloves and ventilaors [sic] to China, Europe and Russia to avoid the tax.”

A viral image circulating on social media in April, attributing this statement to President Barack Obama

A social media post, which in April was shared widely on Facebook and made appearances on a conservative online discussion forum, asserts that former President Barack Obama signed legislation that caused companies to manufacture medical devices overseas, including items essential for the current coronavirus pandemic.

This story was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.

This story can be republished for free (details).

Alongside a photo of Obama, the text of the Facebook post says: “Let me be clear. I signed the medical appliance tax bill that forced companies to outsource manufacturing of masks, gowns, gloves and ventilaors [sic] to China, Europe and Russia to avoid the tax.”

The image piqued our interest because it combined a few hot-button issues. First, the concern that the U.S. is experiencing a shortage of ventilators and personal protective equipment, or PPE, like masks, gowns and gloves to help protect front-line workers from coronavirus. Second, issues related to trade imbalances and the outsourcing of American manufacturing abroad are likely to be frequent themes on the presidential campaign trail. So we decided to dig in.

Though the image did not include sourcing or sponsorship information, its target — the “medical appliance tax bill” — seemed to be a reference to the medical device tax (more formally known as the medical device excise tax) that became law as part of the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, much of the social media post tracked closely to statements made by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh during an April 2 episode of his talk show, which included a discussion of the medical device tax.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

A Critical Error

Before we get into the specifics of the medical device tax, two critical elements of the post must be addressed. First, did Obama ever say anything like what the viral image claims? We checked with Eric Schultz, a senior adviser to the former president. In an email he replied: “President Obama obviously didn’t say this!”

A key piece of evidence that supports Schultz’s statement is the use of the term “medical appliance device tax bill.”

Bottom line: We couldn’t find any other reference — either official or unofficial — to a piece of federal legislation bearing this name or nickname. And, though the experts we spoke with agreed the social media post was likely directed at the device tax included in the ACA, none had ever heard it referred to by that moniker — a point that adds more skepticism to the image’s claim.

And What Is The Medical Device Tax?

In order to pay for the ACA’s expansion of health coverage, taxes were increased for various industries — including the medical device industry — that would benefit from more people getting health insurance. The tax was controversial and triggered considerable pushback.

The measure set a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices, sold in the United States beginning in January 2013. The tax applied to both domestic manufacturers and importers of medical devices.

But, it did not apply to items made in the U.S. for foreign export, said John McDonough, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who also served as a senior adviser during the Obama administration and helped write the Affordable Care Act.

“The tax was designed deliberately” to avoid forcing manufacturers to move their production overseas, McDonough wrote in an email.

Opponents of the tax argued that it was a severe financial burden on medical device manufacturers. They also estimated that it would have resulted in the loss of more than 20,000 full-time domestic jobs in the industry.

Joseph Antos, a health policy scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, said that the tax was punishing on the medical device industry because it was implemented on “gross sales rather than profits,” which raised issues for small device firms.

However, a 2015 Congressional Research Service report said that the medical device tax seemed to have only “fairly minor effects” on jobs with “output and employment in the industry falling by no more than two-tenths of 1%.”

Antos said that though the tax “clearly” had an effect on the industry, he wasn’t aware of any studies or statistics that showed production and sales moving overseas because of it.

But Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow and expert in health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, took an even harder line on the social media image’s assertion. “It’s absolutely false on the face of it,” he said. “There was no way the tax provided any incentive to shift production overseas.”

Sources:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Keep the Medical Device Tax,” April 22, 2015

Congressional Research Service, “The Medical Device Excise Tax: Economic Analysis,” Updated June 18, 2015

Email exchange with Mark Brager, vice president of communications, AdvaMed, April 23-24, 2020

Email exchange with Ethan Schultz, senior adviser to Barack Obama, April 23, 2020

Email interview with John McDonough, professor of public health practice, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, April 24, 2020

Email interview with Peter Petri, professor of international finance, Brandeis International Business School, April 26, 2020

Facebook post, April 23, 2020

Federal Register, “Taxable Medical Devices,” Dec. 7, 2012

Forbes, “Medical Device Tax Is History After Trump Signs Repeal,” Dec. 21, 2019

Healthcare Finance News, “Senate Repeals Medical Device Excise Tax in Move Applauded by Med-Tech Manufacturers,” Dec. 19, 2019

Internal Revenue Service, “Medical Device Excise Tax: Frequently Asked Questions,” Updated March 4, 2020

Internal Revenue Service, “Repeal of Medical Device Excise Tax,” Updated Jan. 30, 2020

NBC News, “Trump’s Trade War Exacerbated Shortage of Medical Equipment,” March 27, 2020

Peterson Institute for International Economics, “US-China Trade War Tariffs: An Up-to-Date Chart,” Feb. 14, 2020

Peterson Institute for International Economics, “COVID-19: China’s Exports of Medical Supplies Provide a Ray of Hope,” March 26, 2020

Phone interview with Paul N. Van de Water, senior fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 24, 2020

Politico, “Lawmakers Put New Focus on China Export Rules,” April 21, 2020

Rush Limbaugh Radio Show, “Does Anyone Remember the Obamacare Medical Device Tax?” April, 2, 2020

Vox, “Why America Ran Out of Protective Masks — and What Can Be Done About It,” March 27, 2020

Phone interview with Joseph Antos, scholar in health care and retirement policy, American Enterprise Institute, April 30, 2020

Van de Water also said that while there was some shift of manufacturing overseas while the tax was in effect, there were other factors leading that push, such as competition and pressure to reduce costs.

“There’s no way to attribute that to the device tax itself,” he added.

And, there’s another complication. Congress acted to put the medical device tax on hold at the end of 2015 — in part due to significant lobbying by the medical device industry, as well as opposition to it from both Republican and Democratic members of Congress who had medical device companies headquartered in their states. In December 2019, President Donald Trump permanently repealed the tax when he signed a bipartisan federal spending package.

“The tax was only in effect for three years, from 2013 to 2015,” said Van de Water. “Even if it [the medical device tax] had some effect, that effect would have ended in 2016. We’re now four years later.”

Other Factors

Finally, does the now nonexistent medical device tax have anything to do with our current PPE shortage in the face of the coronavirus pandemic?

The answer to that is also no, said the experts.

The current personal protective equipment shortage can be attributed to the lack of a stockpile reserve of PPE, an initially slow response by the U.S. and the tariffs imposed against Chinese goods by the Trump administration, said Peter Petri, a professor of international finance at Brandeis University outside Boston.

AEI’s Antos considered it an issue of the huge demand for these items, which has made replenishing stockpiles more difficult.

According to a recent report from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in 2018 China was the source of 48% of U.S. imports of PPE. Seventy percent of the United States’ mouth and nose protective gear, such as masks, came from China in 2018. Overall, China is a major supplier of PPE to countries worldwide.

Petri said this makes sense since China is a low-cost manufacturer of these relatively simple products. But it also became a problem once the White House started implementing tariffs on Chinese products.

“For nearly a year, U.S. buyers have been moving their PPE business away from China to other countries because of the Trump tariff wall,” Petri wrote in an email.

But those manufacturers in other countries were not able to scale up their production to make up for the amount of supplies needed when the coronavirus hit.

“Meanwhile Chinese suppliers were turning to markets in Europe. The U.S. could not have chosen a worse time to turn its back on the world’s largest PPE producer,” said Petri.

China’s massive manufacturing capacity did allow it to scale up production to account for the coronavirus pandemic, but because it had already established businesses in other locales and in response to the imposed tariffs, Petri suggested, it is unlikely that China would be as receptive now to U.S. requests for PPE.

Our Ruling

Nothing in this viral image is accurate. There is even a spelling error.

Obama did not sign anything into law called the “medical appliance tax bill.” A moratorium was placed on the medical device tax he did sign into law as part of the Affordable Care Act in late 2015. Therefore, that tax was put on hold in 2016 and eventually repealed by Trump in 2019.

Instead, experts we consulted agreed that the current PPE shortage is more aptly linked to the inadequate national emergency stockpile of PPE, increased demand for the products and the Trump administration’s Chinese trade policies.

Our ruling is Pants on Fire.

from Updates By Dina https://khn.org/news/fact-check-viral-post-alleging-obama-era-device-tax-caused-current-ppe-shortage-is-way-off/

[stephenmccull]

Viral Post Alleging Obama-Era Device Tax Caused Current PPE Shortage Is Way Off

“Let me be clear, I signed the medical appliance tax bill that forced companies to outsource manufacturing of masks, gowns, gloves and ventilaors [sic] to China, Europe and Russia to avoid the tax.”

A viral image circulating on social media in April, attributing this statement to President Barack Obama

A social media post, which in April was shared widely on Facebook and made appearances on a conservative online discussion forum, asserts that former President Barack Obama signed legislation that caused companies to manufacture medical devices overseas, including items essential for the current coronavirus pandemic.

This story was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.

This story can be republished for free (details).

Alongside a photo of Obama, the text of the Facebook post says: “Let me be clear. I signed the medical appliance tax bill that forced companies to outsource manufacturing of masks, gowns, gloves and ventilaors [sic] to China, Europe and Russia to avoid the tax.”

The image piqued our interest because it combined a few hot-button issues. First, the concern that the U.S. is experiencing a shortage of ventilators and personal protective equipment, or PPE, like masks, gowns and gloves to help protect front-line workers from coronavirus. Second, issues related to trade imbalances and the outsourcing of American manufacturing abroad are likely to be frequent themes on the presidential campaign trail. So we decided to dig in.

Though the image did not include sourcing or sponsorship information, its target — the “medical appliance tax bill” — seemed to be a reference to the medical device tax (more formally known as the medical device excise tax) that became law as part of the Affordable Care Act. Additionally, much of the social media post tracked closely to statements made by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh during an April 2 episode of his talk show, which included a discussion of the medical device tax.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

A Critical Error

Before we get into the specifics of the medical device tax, two critical elements of the post must be addressed. First, did Obama ever say anything like what the viral image claims? We checked with Eric Schultz, a senior adviser to the former president. In an email he replied: “President Obama obviously didn’t say this!”

A key piece of evidence that supports Schultz’s statement is the use of the term “medical appliance device tax bill.”

Bottom line: We couldn’t find any other reference — either official or unofficial — to a piece of federal legislation bearing this name or nickname. And, though the experts we spoke with agreed the social media post was likely directed at the device tax included in the ACA, none had ever heard it referred to by that moniker — a point that adds more skepticism to the image’s claim.

And What Is The Medical Device Tax?

In order to pay for the ACA’s expansion of health coverage, taxes were increased for various industries — including the medical device industry — that would benefit from more people getting health insurance. The tax was controversial and triggered considerable pushback.

The measure set a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices, sold in the United States beginning in January 2013. The tax applied to both domestic manufacturers and importers of medical devices.

But, it did not apply to items made in the U.S. for foreign export, said John McDonough, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who also served as a senior adviser during the Obama administration and helped write the Affordable Care Act.

“The tax was designed deliberately” to avoid forcing manufacturers to move their production overseas, McDonough wrote in an email.

Opponents of the tax argued that it was a severe financial burden on medical device manufacturers. They also estimated that it would have resulted in the loss of more than 20,000 full-time domestic jobs in the industry.

Joseph Antos, a health policy scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, said that the tax was punishing on the medical device industry because it was implemented on “gross sales rather than profits,” which raised issues for small device firms.

However, a 2015 Congressional Research Service report said that the medical device tax seemed to have only “fairly minor effects” on jobs with “output and employment in the industry falling by no more than two-tenths of 1%.”

Antos said that though the tax “clearly” had an effect on the industry, he wasn’t aware of any studies or statistics that showed production and sales moving overseas because of it.

But Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow and expert in health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, took an even harder line on the social media image’s assertion. “It’s absolutely false on the face of it,” he said. “There was no way the tax provided any incentive to shift production overseas.”

Sources:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Keep the Medical Device Tax,” April 22, 2015

Congressional Research Service, “The Medical Device Excise Tax: Economic Analysis,” Updated June 18, 2015

Email exchange with Mark Brager, vice president of communications, AdvaMed, April 23-24, 2020

Email exchange with Ethan Schultz, senior adviser to Barack Obama, April 23, 2020

Email interview with John McDonough, professor of public health practice, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, April 24, 2020

Email interview with Peter Petri, professor of international finance, Brandeis International Business School, April 26, 2020

Facebook post, April 23, 2020

Federal Register, “Taxable Medical Devices,” Dec. 7, 2012

Forbes, “Medical Device Tax Is History After Trump Signs Repeal,” Dec. 21, 2019

Healthcare Finance News, “Senate Repeals Medical Device Excise Tax in Move Applauded by Med-Tech Manufacturers,” Dec. 19, 2019

Internal Revenue Service, “Medical Device Excise Tax: Frequently Asked Questions,” Updated March 4, 2020

Internal Revenue Service, “Repeal of Medical Device Excise Tax,” Updated Jan. 30, 2020

NBC News, “Trump’s Trade War Exacerbated Shortage of Medical Equipment,” March 27, 2020

Peterson Institute for International Economics, “US-China Trade War Tariffs: An Up-to-Date Chart,” Feb. 14, 2020

Peterson Institute for International Economics, “COVID-19: China’s Exports of Medical Supplies Provide a Ray of Hope,” March 26, 2020

Phone interview with Paul N. Van de Water, senior fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 24, 2020

Politico, “Lawmakers Put New Focus on China Export Rules,” April 21, 2020

Rush Limbaugh Radio Show, “Does Anyone Remember the Obamacare Medical Device Tax?” April, 2, 2020

Vox, “Why America Ran Out of Protective Masks — and What Can Be Done About It,” March 27, 2020

Phone interview with Joseph Antos, scholar in health care and retirement policy, American Enterprise Institute, April 30, 2020

Van de Water also said that while there was some shift of manufacturing overseas while the tax was in effect, there were other factors leading that push, such as competition and pressure to reduce costs.

“There’s no way to attribute that to the device tax itself,” he added.

And, there’s another complication. Congress acted to put the medical device tax on hold at the end of 2015 — in part due to significant lobbying by the medical device industry, as well as opposition to it from both Republican and Democratic members of Congress who had medical device companies headquartered in their states. In December 2019, President Donald Trump permanently repealed the tax when he signed a bipartisan federal spending package.

“The tax was only in effect for three years, from 2013 to 2015,” said Van de Water. “Even if it [the medical device tax] had some effect, that effect would have ended in 2016. We’re now four years later.”

Other Factors

Finally, does the now nonexistent medical device tax have anything to do with our current PPE shortage in the face of the coronavirus pandemic?

The answer to that is also no, said the experts.

The current personal protective equipment shortage can be attributed to the lack of a stockpile reserve of PPE, an initially slow response by the U.S. and the tariffs imposed against Chinese goods by the Trump administration, said Peter Petri, a professor of international finance at Brandeis University outside Boston.

AEI’s Antos considered it an issue of the huge demand for these items, which has made replenishing stockpiles more difficult.

According to a recent report from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in 2018 China was the source of 48% of U.S. imports of PPE. Seventy percent of the United States’ mouth and nose protective gear, such as masks, came from China in 2018. Overall, China is a major supplier of PPE to countries worldwide.

Petri said this makes sense since China is a low-cost manufacturer of these relatively simple products. But it also became a problem once the White House started implementing tariffs on Chinese products.

“For nearly a year, U.S. buyers have been moving their PPE business away from China to other countries because of the Trump tariff wall,” Petri wrote in an email.

But those manufacturers in other countries were not able to scale up their production to make up for the amount of supplies needed when the coronavirus hit.

“Meanwhile Chinese suppliers were turning to markets in Europe. The U.S. could not have chosen a worse time to turn its back on the world’s largest PPE producer,” said Petri.

China’s massive manufacturing capacity did allow it to scale up production to account for the coronavirus pandemic, but because it had already established businesses in other locales and in response to the imposed tariffs, Petri suggested, it is unlikely that China would be as receptive now to U.S. requests for PPE.

Our Ruling

Nothing in this viral image is accurate. There is even a spelling error.

Obama did not sign anything into law called the “medical appliance tax bill.” A moratorium was placed on the medical device tax he did sign into law as part of the Affordable Care Act in late 2015. Therefore, that tax was put on hold in 2016 and eventually repealed by Trump in 2019.

Instead, experts we consulted agreed that the current PPE shortage is more aptly linked to the inadequate national emergency stockpile of PPE, increased demand for the products and the Trump administration’s Chinese trade policies.

Our ruling is Pants on Fire.

Viral Post Alleging Obama-Era Device Tax Caused Current PPE Shortage Is Way Off published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/