thefiscaltimes--2020-09-09--Medicaid Work Requirements in Arkansas Didn’t Boost Employment: Study

A new study of work requirements for Medicaid recipients in Arkansas finds that they did nothing to increase employment but did impose substantial hardships on those who lost coverage as a result of the requirements .
The background : Arkansas was the first state to impose work requirements on some Medicaid beneficiaries , under which adults between the ages of 30 and 49 had to work at least 20 hours per week , be engaged in community activities or receive exemptions in order to continue to receive health care coverage .
A federal judge halted the program in April 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not before 18,000 adults had been removed from Medicaid for noncompliance .
The findings : The new study , published in Health Affairs , compared those in Arkansas who had been subject to the requirements to those who had not been , and the population in Arkansas to the population in other states .
Researchers found no difference in employment rates between populations , contrary to the argument put forth by proponents of work requirements that they would inspire people to get jobs .
And they found that at least half of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequent problems with medical debt , delays in receiving care and delays in taking medications .
The researchers also found that there was considerable confusion about the program rules and serious barriers to reporting participation status for Medicaid recipients in the state .
“ In conclusion , our study showed that Arkansas ’ s work requirements led to coverage losses associated with important negative impacts on medical debt and affordability of care without improving employment , ” the researchers wrote .
“ Our results should provide a strong note of caution for federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies in the future.
” Joan Alker , a researcher at Georgetown University ’ s Center for Children and Families who has been a critic of work requirements , said Wednesday that the study shows that Medicaid work requirements are not really designed to help the poor .
“ Let ’ s be clear , ” Alker said , “ this policy is about punishing low income people .
”

A new study of work requirements for Medicaid recipients in Arkansas finds that they did nothing to increase employment but did impose substantial hardships on those who lost coverage as a result of the requirements.
The background: Arkansas was the first state to impose work requirements on some Medicaid beneficiaries, under which adults between the ages of 30 and 49 had to work at least 20 hours per week, be engaged in community activities or receive exemptions in order to continue to receive health care coverage. A federal judge halted the program in April 2019, 10 months after it started, but not before 18,000 adults had been removed from Medicaid for noncompliance.
The findings: The new study, published in Health Affairs, compared those in Arkansas who had been subject to the requirements to those who had not been, and the population in Arkansas to the population in other states. Researchers found no difference in employment rates between populations, contrary to the argument put forth by proponents of work requirements that they would inspire people to get jobs. And they found that at least half of those who lost their Medicaid coverage reported subsequent problems with medical debt, delays in receiving care and delays in taking medications.
The researchers also found that there was considerable confusion about the program rules and serious barriers to reporting participation status for Medicaid recipients in the state.
“In conclusion, our study showed that Arkansas’s work requirements led to coverage losses associated with important negative impacts on medical debt and affordability of care without improving employment,” the researchers wrote. “Our results should provide a strong note of caution for federal and state policy makers considering work requirement policies in the future.”
Joan Alker, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families who has been a critic of work requirements, said Wednesday that the study shows that Medicaid work requirements are not really designed to help the poor. “Let’s be clear,” Alker said, “this policy is about punishing low income people.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-08--Majority of Young Adults Now Living With Their Parents

The coronavirus pandemic is pushing millions of young Americans back into their family homes , according to a new report @ @ @ @ @ .
In July , nearly 26.6 million people between the ages of 18 and 29 @ @ @ @ @ all young adults – were living with one or both parents .
That marks the @ @ @ @ @ people in that age group have done so , surpassing levels seen during the Great @ @ @ @ @ that data is sparse for the ‘ 30s , and levels may have been higher @ @ @ @ @ 1930 and 1940 Census counts . )
`` Essentially we saw about a little over @ @ @ @ @ home ... with their parents or grandparents , from a year ago , '' Cheryl @ @ @ @ @ at Zillow , told CNN .
“ A big share of that population that moved @ @ @ @ @ Gen Z , 18- 25-year-olds , and even some millennials as well .
”

The coronavirus pandemic is pushing millions of young Americans back into their family homes, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center.
In July, nearly 26.6 million people between the ages of 18 and 29 – or 52% of all young adults – were living with one or both parents. That marks the first time the majority of people in that age group have done so, surpassing levels seen during the Great Depression. (Researchers note that data is sparse for the ‘30s, and levels may have been higher at some point between the 1930 and 1940 Census counts.)
"Essentially we saw about a little over 3 million more people moving home ... with their parents or grandparents, from a year ago," Cheryl Young, a senior economist at Zillow, told CNN. “A big share of that population that moved home are young people, Gen Z, 18- 25-year-olds, and even some millennials as well.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-08--McConnell to Force Vote on ‘Skinny’ Coronavirus Relief Bill

The Senate is back in session and lawmakers returning from the August recess are finally ready to jump into action and cement a long-delayed deal on the next coronavirus relief package .
No , of course not .
Congress is picking up right where it left off , which is to say Republicans and Democrats are still smack in the middle of their month-long standoff on a coronavirus bill , maneuvering to score political points and cast blame with little prospect for an agreement anytime soon .
What ’ s new : Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vote this week on a slimmed-down relief bill that would cost upwards of $ 500 billion , well shy of the $ 1 trillion plan McConnell released in July .
The package would provide $ 300 a week in supplemental unemployment benefits through the end of the year , $ 258 billion in funding for small businesses , $ 105 billion for education , $ 47 billion for vaccines and testing , $ 10 billion for child care and $ 10 billion for the U.S .
Postal Service .
It would also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care providers and reportedly includes divisive “ school choice ” language .
It does not include another round of $ 1,200 stimulus checks to individuals or aid to state and local governments .
`` It does not contain every idea our party likes , '' McConnell said in a statement .
`` I am confident Democrats will feel the same .
Yet Republicans believe the many serious differences between our two parties should not stand in the way of agreeing where we can agree and making law that helps our nation . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 350 billion in offsets , according to a summary cited by Roll Call in order to draw more support from fiscal conservatives .
Still going nowhere : “ The legislation is not expected to advance , since that would require support from Democrats , who ’ ve held out for a larger package , ” The Washington Post reports .
“ McConnell has struggled even to unite Republicans behind the bill , and is likely to suffer some GOP defections.
” Politico reports that Senate Republican leaders are trying to find a path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not yet clear they ’ ll be able to reach even that threshold .
“ The inability to get 51 GOP votes would be a big defeat for the White House and Senate GOP leadership , ” Politico ’ s Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer write .
What it means : The move is an attempt to ratchet up pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) .
“ Senate Republicans and administration officials believe Pelosi will come under growing pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who face tough reelections and have been uneasy about the failure to act on additional economic stimulus , ” the Post reports .
“ McConnell ’ s new legislation is partly an attempt to attract the attention of such lawmakers.
” Pelosi and Schumer quickly dismissed the GOP plan .
“ Senate Republicans appear dead-set on another bill which doesn ’ t come close to addressing the problems and is headed nowhere , ” they said in a joint statement , adding , “ this emaciated bill is only intended to help vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check the box ’ vote to maintain the appearance that they ’ re not held hostage by their extreme right-wing that doesn ’ t want to spend a nickel to help people.
” A bit of good news : One possible bright spot in the bipartisan stalemate is that Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have tentatively agreed to a “ continuing resolution ” to fund the government and avoid a shutdown at the beginning of next month .
The bottom line : With only a few weeks to go before lawmakers leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigning , a deal still appears unlikely .
Vice President Mike Pence told CNBC on Friday that nobody wants another round of direct payments more than Trump , and Politico reports that the White House is set to take “ baby steps ” toward an agreement this week by embracing a $ 1.5 trillion price tag .
But the overall price of a bill and the issue of state and local aid remain significant obstacles .
Any GOP urgency to reach a bipartisan deal has also been diminished by last week ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million jobs in August and the unemployment rate fell to 8.4 % — still high but down enough for the White House to continue to tout what it says is a strong recovery .
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Friday told Bloomberg TV that , while a targeted relief package would be helpful , the country would be fine without an additional coronavirus relief bill .
“ We can absolutely live with it , ” he said .

The Senate is back in session and lawmakers returning from the August recess are finally ready to jump into action and cement a long-delayed deal on the next coronavirus relief package.
No, of course not. Congress is picking up right where it left off, which is to say Republicans and Democrats are still smack in the middle of their month-long standoff on a coronavirus bill, maneuvering to score political points and cast blame with little prospect for an agreement anytime soon.
What’s new: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced Tuesday that he plans to hold a vote this week on a slimmed-down relief bill that would cost upwards of $500 billion, well shy of the $1 trillion plan McConnell released in July.
The package would provide $300 a week in supplemental unemployment benefits through the end of the year, $258 billion in funding for small businesses, $105 billion for education, $47 billion for vaccines and testing, $10 billion for child care and $10 billion for the U.S. Postal Service. It would also provide liability protection for businesses and health care providers and reportedly includes divisive “school choice” language. It does not include another round of $1,200 stimulus checks to individuals or aid to state and local governments.
"It does not contain every idea our party likes," McConnell said in a statement. "I am confident Democrats will feel the same. Yet Republicans believe the many serious differences between our two parties should not stand in the way of agreeing where we can agree and making law that helps our nation."
The package also includes at least $350 billion in offsets, according to a summary cited by Roll Call in order to draw more support from fiscal conservatives.
Still going nowhere: “The legislation is not expected to advance, since that would require support from Democrats, who’ve held out for a larger package,” The Washington Post reports. “McConnell has struggled even to unite Republicans behind the bill, and is likely to suffer some GOP defections.”
Politico reports that Senate Republican leaders are trying to find a path to get 51 votes, but it’s not yet clear they’ll be able to reach even that threshold. “The inability to get 51 GOP votes would be a big defeat for the White House and Senate GOP leadership,” Politico’s Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer write.
What it means: The move is an attempt to ratchet up pressure on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). “Senate Republicans and administration officials believe Pelosi will come under growing pressure from moderate members of her own caucus who face tough reelections and have been uneasy about the failure to act on additional economic stimulus,” the Post reports. “McConnell’s new legislation is partly an attempt to attract the attention of such lawmakers.”
Pelosi and Schumer quickly dismissed the GOP plan. “Senate Republicans appear dead-set on another bill which doesn’t come close to addressing the problems and is headed nowhere,” they said in a joint statement, adding, “this emaciated bill is only intended to help vulnerable Republican Senators by giving them a ‘check the box’ vote to maintain the appearance that they’re not held hostage by their extreme right-wing that doesn’t want to spend a nickel to help people.”
A bit of good news: One possible bright spot in the bipartisan stalemate is that Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have tentatively agreed to a “continuing resolution” to fund the government and avoid a shutdown at the beginning of next month.
The bottom line: With only a few weeks to go before lawmakers leave town again for the final stretch of campaigning, a deal still appears unlikely.
Vice President Mike Pence told CNBC on Friday that nobody wants another round of direct payments more than Trump, and Politico reports that the White House is set to take “baby steps” toward an agreement this week by embracing a $1.5 trillion price tag. But the overall price of a bill and the issue of state and local aid remain significant obstacles. Any GOP urgency to reach a bipartisan deal has also been diminished by last week’s employment report showing the economy added 1.37 million jobs in August and the unemployment rate fell to 8.4% — still high but down enough for the White House to continue to tout what it says is a strong recovery.
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Friday told Bloomberg TV that, while a targeted relief package would be helpful, the country would be fine without an additional coronavirus relief bill. “We can absolutely live with it,” he said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-08--Pharma CEOs Pledge to Abide by Science, Not Politics, for Coronavirus Vaccine

The chief executive officers of nine pharmaceutical companies – AstraZeneca , BioNTech , GlaxoSmithKline , Johnson & Johnson , Moderna , Novavax , Pfizer , Merck and Sanofi – have pledged to uphold scientific standards as their firms work to develop coronavirus vaccines .
In a letter released Tuesday , the CEOs said they “ want to make clear our on-going commitment to developing and testing potential vaccines for COVID-19 in accordance with high ethical standards and sound scientific principles.
” The unusual public statement comes amid growing concerns that President Trump may attempt to rush vaccines or treatments for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand in the fall election .
The Trump administration has rolled out “ Operation Warp Speed ” to accelerate the development and manufacture of vaccines , and the president said over the weekend that a vaccine could be ready by October – a claim that has been questioned by federal health officials .
“ It ’ s unprecedented in my experience that industry would do something like this , ” Ira Loss of Washington Analysis , which monitors drug regulations and legislation for investors , told Stat .
“ But we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 , starting with the FDA , where the commissioner has proven to be malleable , to be kind , at the foot of the president.
” Loss added that drugmakers are concerned about the public losing faith in their products .
“ The companies are aware that , on a good day , they have trouble selling vaccines to 25 % of the country that is suspicious about safety , ” he said .
“ So the last thing they need is to have Trump pull a stunt and push through a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many ways , the industry is doing a defensive move to ensure they ’ re not going to have to defend any approval because the president is doing a dance .
”

The chief executive officers of nine pharmaceutical companies – AstraZeneca, BioNTech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Novavax, Pfizer, Merck and Sanofi – have pledged to uphold scientific standards as their firms work to develop coronavirus vaccines.
In a letter released Tuesday, the CEOs said they “want to make clear our on-going commitment to developing and testing potential vaccines for COVID-19 in accordance with high ethical standards and sound scientific principles.”
The unusual public statement comes amid growing concerns that President Trump may attempt to rush vaccines or treatments for the coronavirus in order to strengthen his hand in the fall election. The Trump administration has rolled out “Operation Warp Speed” to accelerate the development and manufacture of vaccines, and the president said over the weekend that a vaccine could be ready by October – a claim that has been questioned by federal health officials.
“It’s unprecedented in my experience that industry would do something like this,” Ira Loss of Washington Analysis, which monitors drug regulations and legislation for investors, told Stat. “But we’ve experienced unprecedented events since the beginning of Covid-19, starting with the FDA, where the commissioner has proven to be malleable, to be kind, at the foot of the president.”
Loss added that drugmakers are concerned about the public losing faith in their products. “The companies are aware that, on a good day, they have trouble selling vaccines to 25% of the country that is suspicious about safety,” he said. “So the last thing they need is to have Trump pull a stunt and push through a vaccine ahead of its time. In many ways, the industry is doing a defensive move to ensure they’re not going to have to defend any approval because the president is doing a dance.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-08--National Debt Will Exceed Size of Economy in 2021

The CBO also updated its budget outlook Wednesday , estimating that the federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2020 would come in at $ 3.3 trillion , down from its previous estimate of $ 3.7 trillion .
The deficit for the 2021 fiscal year was projected to be $ 1.8 trillion .
The new projections mean that the national debt is already close to the size of the total economy and will likely surpass it next year .
The CBO said it expects federal debt held by the public to equal roughly 98 % of the size of the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 % in 2021 .
By 2023 , the debt will equal 107 % of GDP – the highest level in U.S. history , exceeding the previous peak set in 1946 in the aftermath of World War II .
By comparison , the debt-to-GDP ratio stood at 79 % at the beginning of 2019 and 35 % in 2007 .
The CBO said federal outlays will equal about 32 % of GDP in 2020 , a roughly 50 % increase from the year before and the highest since 1945 .
Outlays are projected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GDP over the next five years .
Revenues are expected to fall from 16.3 % of GDP in 2019 to 15.5 % in 2021 , due to the economic effects from the pandemic , before rising to 18 % of GDP by 2030 .
Deficits expected to continue .
“ It will be hard to ratchet down this spending going forward , and we are going to be entering a long stretch of deficits well above historical averages , ” G. William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center told The Washington Post .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would take center stage politically any time soon : “ [ A ] s a matter of national politics , the deficit was not a matter of concern before the pandemic and it won ’ t be after.
” Former CBO chief economist Wendy Edelberg said she doubted the latest increase in the size of the debt was significant in and of itself .
“ There ’ s no economic difference between a ratio of 99 % and a ratio of 101 % , ” she told The Wall Street Journal .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money well spent .
“ It was a massive rise in borrowing and quite shocking , but incredibly effective .
On the flip side , this is exactly why we , as a country , want to have room to increase borrowing during times of emergency.
” Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said the latest numbers serve as a reminder that the debt remains an important issue .
`` What should be absolutely clear from today ’ s report is that after the virus is contained and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afford to continue ignoring the trajectory of our debt any longer , '' she said .

The CBO also updated its budget outlook Wednesday, estimating that the federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2020 would come in at $3.3 trillion, down from its previous estimate of $3.7 trillion. The deficit for the 2021 fiscal year was projected to be $1.8 trillion.
The new projections mean that the national debt is already close to the size of the total economy and will likely surpass it next year. The CBO said it expects federal debt held by the public to equal roughly 98% of the size of the economy by the end of 2020 and exceed 100% in 2021. By 2023, the debt will equal 107% of GDP – the highest level in U.S. history, exceeding the previous peak set in 1946 in the aftermath of World War II.
By comparison, the debt-to-GDP ratio stood at 79% at the beginning of 2019 and 35% in 2007.
The CBO said federal outlays will equal about 32% of GDP in 2020, a roughly 50% increase from the year before and the highest since 1945. Outlays are projected to fall to roughly 22% of GDP over the next five years. Revenues are expected to fall from 16.3% of GDP in 2019 to 15.5% in 2021, due to the economic effects from the pandemic, before rising to 18% of GDP by 2030.
Deficits expected to continue. “It will be hard to ratchet down this spending going forward, and we are going to be entering a long stretch of deficits well above historical averages,” G. William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center told The Washington Post. Hoagland also said he doubted the issue would take center stage politically any time soon: “[A]s a matter of national politics, the deficit was not a matter of concern before the pandemic and it won’t be after.”
Former CBO chief economist Wendy Edelberg said she doubted the latest increase in the size of the debt was significant in and of itself. “There’s no economic difference between a ratio of 99% and a ratio of 101%,” she told The Wall Street Journal. She also said he coronavirus-related deficit spending was money well spent. “It was a massive rise in borrowing and quite shocking, but incredibly effective. On the flip side, this is exactly why we, as a country, want to have room to increase borrowing during times of emergency.”
Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said the latest numbers serve as a reminder that the debt remains an important issue. "What should be absolutely clear from today’s report is that after the virus is contained and the economy has recovered, lawmakers cannot afford to continue ignoring the trajectory of our debt any longer," she said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-08--A Doctor Was Charged $10,984 for a Covid Test – by His Own Employer

When Dr. Zachary Sussman went to Physicians Premier ER in Austin for a COVID-19 antibody test , he assumed he would get a freebie because he was a doctor for the chain .
Instead , the free-standing emergency room charged his insurance company an astonishing $ 10,984 for the visit — and got paid every penny , with no pushback .
The bill left him so dismayed he quit his job .
And now , after ProPublica ’ s questions , the parent company of his insurer said the case is being investigated and could lead to repayment or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the latest to show how providers have sometimes charged exorbitant prices for visits for simple and inexpensive COVID-19 tests .
ProPublica recently reported how a $ 175 COVID-19 test resulted in charges of $ 2,479 at a different free-standing ER in Texas .
In that situation , the health plan said the payment for the visit would be reduced and the facility said the family would not receive a bill .
In Sussman ’ s case , the insurer paid it all .
But those dollars come from people who pay insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prices are a major reason why Americans pay so much for health care .
Sussman , a 44-year-old pathologist , was working under contract as a part-time medical director at four of Physicians Premier ’ s other locations .
He said he made $ 4,000 a month to oversee the antibody tests , which can detect signs of a previous COVID-19 infection .
It was a temporary position holding him over between hospital gigs in Austin and New Mexico , where he now lives and works .
In May , before visiting his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wanted the test because he had recently had a headache , which can be a symptom of COVID-19 .
He decided to go to one of his own company ’ s locations because he was curious to see how the process played out from a patient ’ s point of view .
He knew the materials for each antibody test only amounted to about $ 8 , and it gets read on the spot — similar to an at-home pregnancy test .
He could even do the reading himself .
So he assumed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it on the house .
But the staff went ahead and took down his insurance details , while promising him he would not be responsible for any portion of the bill .
He had a short-term plan through Golden Rule Insurance Company , which is owned by UnitedHealthcare , the largest insurer in the country .
( The insurance was not provided through his work . )
During the brief visit , Sussman said he chatted with the emergency room doctor , whom he didn ’ t know .
He said there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hand on me , ” he said .
His vitals were checked and his blood was drawn .
He tested negative .
He said the whole encounter took about 30 minutes .
About a month later , Golden Rule sent Sussman his explanation of benefits for the physician portion of the bill .
The charges came to $ 2,100 .
Sussman was surprised by the expense but he said he was familiar with the Physicians Premier high-dollar business model , in which the convenience of a free-standing ER with no wait comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well say Gucci on the outside , ” he said of the facility .
Physicians Premier says on its website that it bills private insurance plans , but that it is out-of-network with them , meaning it does not have agreed-upon prices .
That often leads to higher charges , which then get negotiated down by the insurers , or result in medical bills getting passed on to patients .
Sussman felt more puzzled to see the insurance document say , “ Payable at : 100 % .
” So apparently Golden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better deal and had paid more than two grand for a quick , walk-in visit for a test .
He was happy not to get hit with a bill , but it also didn ’ t feel right .
He said he let the issue slide until a few weeks later when a second explanation of benefits arrived from Golden Rule , for the Physicians Premier facility charges .
This time , an entity listed as USA Emergency sought $ 8,884.16 .
Again , the insurer said , “ Payable at : 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on its website that it licenses the Physicians Premier ER name for some of its locations .
Now Sussman said he felt spooked .
He knew Physicians Premier provided top-notch care and testing on the medical side of things .
But somehow his employer had charged his health plan $ 10,984.16 for a quick visit for a COVID-19 test .
And even more troubling to Sussman : Golden Rule paid the whole thing .
Sussman was so shaken he resigned .
“ I have decided I can no longer ethically provide Medical directorship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote in his July 13 resignation email .
“ If not outright fraudulent , these charges are at least exorbitant and seek to take advantage of payers in the midst of the COVID19 pandemic.
” Sussman agreed to waive his patient privacy so officials from the company could speak to ProPublica .
USA Emergency Centers declined interview requests and provided a statement , saying “ the allegations are false , ” though it did not say which ones .
The statement also said the company “ takes all complaints seriously and will continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues pertaining to their emergency room care or bill .
…The allegations received pertain to a former contracted employee , and we can not provide details or further comment at this time.
” Physicians Premier advertises itself as a COVID-19 testing facility on its website , with “ results in an hour.
” According to the claims submitted by Physicians Premier to Golden Rule , obtained by Sussman , the physician fee and facility fees were coded as emergency room visits of moderate complexity .
That would mean his visit included an expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sussman said the staff only took down a cursory medical history that took a few minutes related to his possible exposure to COVID-19 .
And he said no one examined him .
The claims also included codes for a nasal swab coronavirus test .
But that test was not performed , Sussman said .
The physician ’ s orders documented in the facility ’ s medical record also do not mention the nasal swab test .
Those charges came to $ 4,989 .
The claims show two charges totaling $ 1,600 for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreadsheet available on its website on Friday , Physicians Premier lists a price of $ 75 for the antibody test .
For comparison , Medicare lists its payment at $ 42.13 for COVID-19 antibody tests .
That ’ s because Medicare , the government ’ s insurance plan for the disabled and people over 65 , sets prices .
Complicating matters , Texas is the nation ’ s epicenter for free-standing emergency rooms that are not connected to hospitals .
Vivian Ho , an economist at Rice University who studies the facilities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ trying to mislead the consumer.
” They set up in locations where a high proportion of people have health insurance , but they don ’ t have contracted rates with the insurers , Ho said .
They are designed to look like lower-priced urgent care centers or walk-in clinics , Ho said , but charge much higher emergency room rates .
( The centers have defended their practices , saying that they clearly identify as emergency rooms and are equipped to handle serious emergencies , and that patients value the convenience .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sussman texted an acquaintance who works as a doctor at Physicians Premier .
The acquaintance said the facility typically only collects a small percentage of what gets billed .
“ I just don ’ t want to be part of the game , ” Sussman texted to him .
Shelley Safian , a Florida health care coding expert who has written four books on medical coding , reviewed Sussman ’ s medical records and claims at ProPublica ’ s request .
The records do not document a case of a complex patient that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the patient visit , she said .
For example , the chief complaint is listed as : “ A generic problem ( COVID TESTING ) .
” Under “ final acuity , ” the medical record says , “ less urgent.
” Under the medical history it says , “ NO SYMPTOMS.
” Safian described the charges as “ obscene ” and said she was shocked the insurer paid them in full .
“ This is the exact opposite of an employee discount , ” she said .
“ Obviously nobody is minding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to profiteering during the pandemic when it passed the CARES Act .
The legislation , signed into law in March , says health insurers must pay for out-of-network testing at the cash price a facility posts on its website , or less .
But there may be other charges associated with the tests , and insurers generally have tried to avoid making patients pay any portion of costs related to COVID-19 testing or treatment .
The charges for Sussman ’ s COVID-19 test visit are “ ridiculous , ” said Niall Brennan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cost Institute , a nonprofit organization that studies health care prices .
Brennan wondered whether the CARES Act has made insurers feel legally obligated to cover COVID-19 costs .
He called it “ well intentioned ” public policy that allows for “ unscrupulous behavior ” by some providers .
“ Insurance companies and patients are reliant on the good will and honesty of providers , ” Brennan said .
“ But this whole pandemic , combined with the CARES Act provision , seems designed for unscrupulous medical providers to exploit.
” It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for services they did not provide .
But ProPublica has previously reported how little insurers , including UnitedHealthcare , do to prevent fraud in their commercial health plans , even though experts estimate it consumes about 10 % of all health care costs .
For-profit insurance companies don ’ t want to spend the time and money it takes to hold fraudulent medical providers accountable , former fraud investigators have told ProPublica .
Also , the insurance companies want to keep providers in their networks , so they easily cave .
In mid-July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Golden Rule ’ s website to report his concerns about the case .
Short-term health plans are typically less expensive because they offer less comprehensive coverage .
Sussman said he appreciated that his plan covered the charges , and felt compelled to tell the company what had happened .
That led to a phone conversation with a fraud investigator .
They went line by line through the charges and Sussman told him many of the services had not been provided .
“ His attitude was kind of passive , ” Sussman said of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no indignation .
He took in stride , like , ‘ Yep , that ’ s what happens.
’ ” The investigator said he would escalate the case and see if the facility had submitted any other suspect claims .
But Sussman never heard back .
Maria Gordon-Shydlo , a spokeswoman for UnitedHealthcare , which owns Golden Rule , would not provide anyone to be interviewed .
She said in an emailed statement that the company ’ s first priority during the pandemic “ has been to ensure our members get the care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID testing and treatment .
Unfortunately , there are some providers who are trying to take advantage of this and are inappropriately or even fraudulently billing.
” “ Golden Rule has put processes in place to address excessive COVID-related billing , ” the statement said .
“ We are currently investigating this matter and , if appropriate , will seek to recoup any overpayment and potentially refer this case to law enforcement.
” Golden Rule ’ s 100 % payment of the charges may simply come down to “ incompetence , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who spent years running a company that advised employers who self-fund their insurance .
Insurance companies auto-adjudicate millions of claims on software that may be decades old , said Bricker , who produces videos to help consumers and employers understand health care .
If bills are under a certain threshold , like $ 15,000 , they may sail through and get paid without a second look , he said .
UnitedHealth Group reported net earnings of $ 6.6 billion in the second quarter of 2020 .
Bricker said the company may be paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t “ want to create any noise ” by saying no at a time its own earnings are so high , Bricker said .
Texas has a consumer protection law that ’ s designed to prevent businesses from exploiting the public during a disaster .
The attorney general ’ s office has received and processed 52 complaints about health care businesses and billing or price gouging related to the pandemic , a spokeswoman from the office said in an email .
The agency does not comment on the existence of any investigations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to overpriced COVID-19 tests .
Sussman said he got one voicemail from a billing person at Physicians Premier , saying she wanted to explain the charges , but he did not call back .
He said he spoke out about it to ProPublica because he opposes Medicare-for-all health care reform proposals .
Bad actors in the profession could cause doctors to lose their privilege to bill and be reimbursed independently , he said .
Most physicians are fair with their billing , or even conservative , he said .
“ If instances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more ammo for advocates of a single-payer system .
”

When Dr. Zachary Sussman went to Physicians Premier ER in Austin for a COVID-19 antibody test, he assumed he would get a freebie because he was a doctor for the chain. Instead, the free-standing emergency room charged his insurance company an astonishing $10,984 for the visit — and got paid every penny, with no pushback.
The bill left him so dismayed he quit his job. And now, after ProPublica’s questions, the parent company of his insurer said the case is being investigated and could lead to repayment or a referral to law enforcement.
The case is the latest to show how providers have sometimes charged exorbitant prices for visits for simple and inexpensive COVID-19 tests. ProPublica recently reported how a $175 COVID-19 test resulted in charges of $2,479 at a different free-standing ER in Texas. In that situation, the health plan said the payment for the visit would be reduced and the facility said the family would not receive a bill. In Sussman’s case, the insurer paid it all. But those dollars come from people who pay insurance premiums, and health experts say high prices are a major reason why Americans pay so much for health care.
Sussman, a 44-year-old pathologist, was working under contract as a part-time medical director at four of Physicians Premier’s other locations. He said he made $4,000 a month to oversee the antibody tests, which can detect signs of a previous COVID-19 infection. It was a temporary position holding him over between hospital gigs in Austin and New Mexico, where he now lives and works.
In May, before visiting his family in Scottsdale, Arizona, Sussman wanted the test because he had recently had a headache, which can be a symptom of COVID-19. He decided to go to one of his own company’s locations because he was curious to see how the process played out from a patient’s point of view. He knew the materials for each antibody test only amounted to about $8, and it gets read on the spot — similar to an at-home pregnancy test.
He could even do the reading himself. So he assumed Physicians Premier would comp him and administer it on the house. But the staff went ahead and took down his insurance details, while promising him he would not be responsible for any portion of the bill. He had a short-term plan through Golden Rule Insurance Company, which is owned by UnitedHealthcare, the largest insurer in the country. (The insurance was not provided through his work.)
During the brief visit, Sussman said he chatted with the emergency room doctor, whom he didn’t know. He said there was no physical examination. “Never laid a hand on me,” he said. His vitals were checked and his blood was drawn. He tested negative. He said the whole encounter took about 30 minutes.
About a month later, Golden Rule sent Sussman his explanation of benefits for the physician portion of the bill. The charges came to $2,100. Sussman was surprised by the expense but he said he was familiar with the Physicians Premier high-dollar business model, in which the convenience of a free-standing ER with no wait comes at a cost.
“It may as well say Gucci on the outside,” he said of the facility. Physicians Premier says on its website that it bills private insurance plans, but that it is out-of-network with them, meaning it does not have agreed-upon prices. That often leads to higher charges, which then get negotiated down by the insurers, or result in medical bills getting passed on to patients.
Sussman felt more puzzled to see the insurance document say, “Payable at: 100%.” So apparently Golden Rule hadn’t fought for a better deal and had paid more than two grand for a quick, walk-in visit for a test. He was happy not to get hit with a bill, but it also didn’t feel right.
He said he let the issue slide until a few weeks later when a second explanation of benefits arrived from Golden Rule, for the Physicians Premier facility charges. This time, an entity listed as USA Emergency sought $8,884.16. Again, the insurer said, “Payable at: 100%.”
USA Emergency Centers says on its website that it licenses the Physicians Premier ER name for some of its locations.
Now Sussman said he felt spooked. He knew Physicians Premier provided top-notch care and testing on the medical side of things. But somehow his employer had charged his health plan $10,984.16 for a quick visit for a COVID-19 test. And even more troubling to Sussman: Golden Rule paid the whole thing.
Sussman was so shaken he resigned. “I have decided I can no longer ethically provide Medical directorship services to the company,” he wrote in his July 13 resignation email. “If not outright fraudulent, these charges are at least exorbitant and seek to take advantage of payers in the midst of the COVID19 pandemic.”
Sussman agreed to waive his patient privacy so officials from the company could speak to ProPublica. USA Emergency Centers declined interview requests and provided a statement, saying “the allegations are false,” though it did not say which ones.
The statement also said the company “takes all complaints seriously and will continue to work directly with patients to resolve issues pertaining to their emergency room care or bill. …The allegations received pertain to a former contracted employee, and we cannot provide details or further comment at this time.”
Physicians Premier advertises itself as a COVID-19 testing facility on its website, with “results in an hour.” According to the claims submitted by Physicians Premier to Golden Rule, obtained by Sussman, the physician fee and facility fees were coded as emergency room visits of moderate complexity. That would mean his visit included an expanded, problem-focused history and examination. But Sussman said the staff only took down a cursory medical history that took a few minutes related to his possible exposure to COVID-19. And he said no one examined him.
The claims also included codes for a nasal swab coronavirus test. But that test was not performed, Sussman said. The physician’s orders documented in the facility’s medical record also do not mention the nasal swab test. Those charges came to $4,989.
The claims show two charges totaling $1,600 for the antibody test Sussman received. In a spreadsheet available on its website on Friday, Physicians Premier lists a price of $75 for the antibody test.
For comparison, Medicare lists its payment at $42.13 for COVID-19 antibody tests. That’s because Medicare, the government’s insurance plan for the disabled and people over 65, sets prices.
Complicating matters, Texas is the nation’s epicenter for free-standing emergency rooms that are not connected to hospitals. Vivian Ho, an economist at Rice University who studies the facilities, said their business model is based on “trying to mislead the consumer.” They set up in locations where a high proportion of people have health insurance, but they don’t have contracted rates with the insurers, Ho said. They are designed to look like lower-priced urgent care centers or walk-in clinics, Ho said, but charge much higher emergency room rates. (The centers have defended their practices, saying that they clearly identify as emergency rooms and are equipped to handle serious emergencies, and that patients value the convenience.)
The day after he resigned, Sussman texted an acquaintance who works as a doctor at Physicians Premier. The acquaintance said the facility typically only collects a small percentage of what gets billed. “I just don’t want to be part of the game,” Sussman texted to him.
Shelley Safian, a Florida health care coding expert who has written four books on medical coding, reviewed Sussman’s medical records and claims at ProPublica’s request. The records do not document a case of a complex patient that would justify the bills used to code the patient visit, she said. For example, the chief complaint is listed as: “A generic problem (COVID TESTING).” Under “final acuity,” the medical record says, “less urgent.” Under the medical history it says, “NO SYMPTOMS.”
Safian described the charges as “obscene” and said she was shocked the insurer paid them in full. “This is the exact opposite of an employee discount,” she said. “Obviously nobody is minding the store.”
Congress opened the door to profiteering during the pandemic when it passed the CARES Act. The legislation, signed into law in March, says health insurers must pay for out-of-network testing at the cash price a facility posts on its website, or less. But there may be other charges associated with the tests, and insurers generally have tried to avoid making patients pay any portion of costs related to COVID-19 testing or treatment.
The charges for Sussman’s COVID-19 test visit are “ridiculous,” said Niall Brennan, president and CEO of the Health Care Cost Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies health care prices. Brennan wondered whether the CARES Act has made insurers feel legally obligated to cover COVID-19 costs. He called it “well intentioned” public policy that allows for “unscrupulous behavior” by some providers. “Insurance companies and patients are reliant on the good will and honesty of providers,” Brennan said. “But this whole pandemic, combined with the CARES Act provision, seems designed for unscrupulous medical providers to exploit.”
It’s illegal for medical providers to charge for services they did not provide. But ProPublica has previously reported how little insurers, including UnitedHealthcare, do to prevent fraud in their commercial health plans, even though experts estimate it consumes about 10% of all health care costs. For-profit insurance companies don’t want to spend the time and money it takes to hold fraudulent medical providers accountable, former fraud investigators have told ProPublica. Also, the insurance companies want to keep providers in their networks, so they easily cave.
In mid-July, Sussman used the messenger system on Golden Rule’s website to report his concerns about the case. Short-term health plans are typically less expensive because they offer less comprehensive coverage. Sussman said he appreciated that his plan covered the charges, and felt compelled to tell the company what had happened.
That led to a phone conversation with a fraud investigator. They went line by line through the charges and Sussman told him many of the services had not been provided. “His attitude was kind of passive,” Sussman said of the fraud investigator. “There was no indignation. He took in stride, like, ‘Yep, that’s what happens.’” The investigator said he would escalate the case and see if the facility had submitted any other suspect claims. But Sussman never heard back.
Maria Gordon-Shydlo, a spokeswoman for UnitedHealthcare, which owns Golden Rule, would not provide anyone to be interviewed. She said in an emailed statement that the company’s first priority during the pandemic “has been to ensure our members get the care they need and are not billed for COVID testing and treatment. Unfortunately, there are some providers who are trying to take advantage of this and are inappropriately or even fraudulently billing.”
“Golden Rule has put processes in place to address excessive COVID-related billing,” the statement said. “We are currently investigating this matter and, if appropriate, will seek to recoup any overpayment and potentially refer this case to law enforcement.”
Golden Rule’s 100% payment of the charges may simply come down to “incompetence,” said Dr. Eric Bricker, a Texas internist who spent years running a company that advised employers who self-fund their insurance. Insurance companies auto-adjudicate millions of claims on software that may be decades old, said Bricker, who produces videos to help consumers and employers understand health care. If bills are under a certain threshold, like $15,000, they may sail through and get paid without a second look, he said.
UnitedHealth Group reported net earnings of $6.6 billion in the second quarter of 2020. Bricker said the company may be paying bills without questioning them because it doesn’t “want to create any noise” by saying no at a time its own earnings are so high, Bricker said.
Texas has a consumer protection law that’s designed to prevent businesses from exploiting the public during a disaster. The attorney general’s office has received and processed 52 complaints about health care businesses and billing or price gouging related to the pandemic, a spokeswoman from the office said in an email. The agency does not comment on the existence of any investigations, but has not filed any cases related to overpriced COVID-19 tests.
Sussman said he got one voicemail from a billing person at Physicians Premier, saying she wanted to explain the charges, but he did not call back. He said he spoke out about it to ProPublica because he opposes Medicare-for-all health care reform proposals. Bad actors in the profession could cause doctors to lose their privilege to bill and be reimbursed independently, he said. Most physicians are fair with their billing, or even conservative, he said. “If instances like these go unchecked it will provide more ammo for advocates of a single-payer system.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-09--Trump Knew, Downplayed Coronavirus Threat: Woodward Recordings

President Trump acknowledged in early February that the coronavirus pandemic was more deadly than the flu and said in March that he was intentionally playing down the severity of the virus outbreak , according to recordings of interviews with journalist Bob Woodward for a new book .
The private comments contrast sharply with the president ’ s public claims that the virus would simply “ disappear ” and was “ very much under control.
” In a February 7 phone interview , Trump made clear he knew the threat the novel virus posed : • “ You just breathe the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s passed .
And so that ’ s a very tricky one .
That ’ s a very delicate one .
It ’ s also more deadly than even your strenuous flus .
… This is deadly stuff.
” As The Washington Post notes , Trump would go on to tell the public that the virus was no worse than the flu , saying it would soon disappear and that his administration had the outbreak under control .
Trump claimed later in February that the number of U.S. cases `` within a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down close to zero , '' and he continued to hold campaign rallies that experts warned could put attendees at risk .
In a March 19 interview with Woodward , Trump admitted he was purposely minimizing the threat from the virus : • “ To be honest with you , I wanted to always play it down .
I still like playing it down because I don ’ t want to create a panic.
” In that March interview , Trump also told Woodward that “ plenty of young people ” were contracting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim publicly that children are “ almost immune ” to infection .
Joe Biden , the Democratic presidential nominee , blasted Trump for the recorded comments , saying the president ’ s decisions betrayed the American people and cost “ tens of thousands of lives and millions more of American livelihoods.
” “ He knew how deadly it was .
He knowingly and willingly lied about the threat it posed for months , ” Biden said at an event in Michigan .
“ He failed to do his job , on purpose , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary Kayleigh McEnany insisted Wednesday that the president has never lied to the American public about Covid and was exhibiting strong leadership by trying to maintain confidence and calm .
“ The president never downplayed the virus , ” she said .
Trump later reiterated to reporters that he wanted to show strength and avoid public panic .
He said his administration has done an “ amazing job ” in combatting the virus and that the country otherwise would have seen millions of Covid-19 deaths .
Woodward conducted 18 interviews with Trump for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to be released next week .
CNN and The Washington Post obtained copies of the book and published details and audio recordings on Wednesday .
The book reportedly also includes brutal criticisms of Trump from several of his former top national security officials .
Why it matters : These are potential bombshells that could have Trump again on the defensive about his coronavirus response even as his campaign has tried to shift the focus in the presidential race .
Yes , Trump has managed to survive and maintain the support of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time the revelations are more directly tied to the voting public ’ s health and wellbeing — and the Covid death toll is nearing 190,000 .
One thing is certain : You ’ ll be hearing a lot more about Woodward ’ s book over the next week .
Read more about Woodward ’ s revelations at The Washington Post and CNN .

President Trump acknowledged in early February that the coronavirus pandemic was more deadly than the flu and said in March that he was intentionally playing down the severity of the virus outbreak, according to recordings of interviews with journalist Bob Woodward for a new book. The private comments contrast sharply with the president’s public claims that the virus would simply “disappear” and was “very much under control.”
In a February 7 phone interview, Trump made clear he knew the threat the novel virus posed:
“You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed. And so that’s a very tricky one. That’s a very delicate one. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flus. … This is deadly stuff.”
As The Washington Post notes, Trump would go on to tell the public that the virus was no worse than the flu, saying it would soon disappear and that his administration had the outbreak under control. Trump claimed later in February that the number of U.S. cases "within a couple of days is going to be down close to zero," and he continued to hold campaign rallies that experts warned could put attendees at risk.
In a March 19 interview with Woodward, Trump admitted he was purposely minimizing the threat from the virus:
“To be honest with you, I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down because I don’t want to create a panic.”
In that March interview, Trump also told Woodward that “plenty of young people” were contracting the virus. The president would later claim publicly that children are “almost immune” to infection.
Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, blasted Trump for the recorded comments, saying the president’s decisions betrayed the American people and cost “tens of thousands of lives and millions more of American livelihoods.”
“He knew how deadly it was. He knowingly and willingly lied about the threat it posed for months,” Biden said at an event in Michigan. “He failed to do his job, on purpose,” he said.
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany insisted Wednesday that the president has never lied to the American public about Covid and was exhibiting strong leadership by trying to maintain confidence and calm. “The president never downplayed the virus,” she said.
Trump later reiterated to reporters that he wanted to show strength and avoid public panic. He said his administration has done an “amazing job” in combatting the virus and that the country otherwise would have seen millions of Covid-19 deaths.
Woodward conducted 18 interviews with Trump for his book, “Rage,” due to be released next week. CNN and The Washington Post obtained copies of the book and published details and audio recordings on Wednesday. The book reportedly also includes brutal criticisms of Trump from several of his former top national security officials.
Why it matters: These are potential bombshells that could have Trump again on the defensive about his coronavirus response even as his campaign has tried to shift the focus in the presidential race. Yes, Trump has managed to survive and maintain the support of his base after past damaging comments, but this time the revelations are more directly tied to the voting public’s health and wellbeing — and the Covid death toll is nearing 190,000. One thing is certain: You’ll be hearing a lot more about Woodward’s book over the next week.
Read more about Woodward’s revelations at The Washington Post and CNN.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-09--Deficit Hits $3 Trillion in 2020: CBO

Deficit Hits $3 Trillion in 2020: CBO

The federal budget deficit was $ 198 billion in August , the Congressional Budget Office projected on Wednesday , bringing @ @ @ @ @ 11 months of the 2020 fiscal year to $ 3 trillion .
The CBO reiterated @ @ @ @ @ year deficit of $ 3.3 trillion , or 16 % of the size of the @ @ @ @ @ since 1945 .
The chart below shows the effect of coronavirus spending on the deficit @ @ @ @ @ .

The federal budget deficit was $198 billion in August, the Congressional Budget Office projected on Wednesday, bringing the deficit for the first 11 months of the 2020 fiscal year to $3 trillion.
The CBO reiterated its projection for a full year deficit of $3.3 trillion, or 16% of the size of the economy — the highest level since 1945.
The chart below shows the effect of coronavirus spending on the deficit this year compared to 2019.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-09--Reducing National Debt Will Be ‘Big Second-Term Priority’ for Trump, White House Says

Donald Trump famously declared while running for president that he would eliminate the national debt during two terms in office .
`` We 're not a rich country .
We 're a debtor nation , ” Trump told The Washington Post in April of 2016 .
“ We 've got to get rid of the $ 19 trillion in debt.
” Asked how long that would take , Trump said , “ I think I could do it fairly quickly ...
I would say over a period of eight years.
” But the debt has done nothing but grow under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the coronavirus crisis drove the annual deficit over the $ 3 trillion mark and the national debt as a percentage of the economy to its highest level since World War II , Trump ’ s fiscal policies of tax cuts and higher spending were driving the deficit and debt substantially higher .
Three years into his presidency , the deficit had grown by more than 60 % and trillions had been added to the national debt .
Nevertheless , on Wednesday White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany renewed the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as soon as he wins reelection .
“ The debt is a second-term priority of his , ” McEnany told Fox News Wednesday , citing “ unprecedented growth ” as a means of accomplishing that goal .
Tax cuts won ’ t do it : In her response to a question about the huge increase in the deficit this year , McEnany referred to increases in federal revenues in 2018 and 2019 , which she attributed to the GOP tax cuts passed in 2017 , while implying that such revenues could help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post ’ s Dave Weigel pointed out last week in response to a claim by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin that the Trump tax cuts “ were creating growth that would pay down the debt over time , ” the deficit was rising in the wake of the GOP tax cuts , and the debt was projected to keep growing , not shrink .
The coronavirus crisis simply accelerated trends already in place .
And Trump ’ s recent suggestion that he might eliminate payroll taxes certainly wouldn ’ t help .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration has released virtually no details on its agenda for a second term .
But the president has indicated that , in addition to cutting taxes , he wants to cut spending , saying in May , `` we 're going to cut ... we 're going to cut back very substantially . ''
Asked if he had a plan for reducing the debt , Trump told a conservative radio host , “ I do , I do .
That bothers me too , but we ’ re going to get out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record , however , suggests that it is unlikely that there is such plan .
And aside from slashing spending , which would require a Republican sweep of Congress in November in addition to a Trump victory , faster economic growth is the only tool the White House has cited for its budget reduction effort .
The prospects for such extraordinary growth , however , remain quite poor , leaving a second Trump administration few options for achieving its goal of debt reduction .

Donald Trump famously declared while running for president that he would eliminate the national debt during two terms in office.
"We're not a rich country. We're a debtor nation,” Trump told The Washington Post in April of 2016. “We've got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.” Asked how long that would take, Trump said, “I think I could do it fairly quickly ... I would say over a period of eight years.”
But the debt has done nothing but grow under Trump. Even before the federal response to the coronavirus crisis drove the annual deficit over the $3 trillion mark and the national debt as a percentage of the economy to its highest level since World War II, Trump’s fiscal policies of tax cuts and higher spending were driving the deficit and debt substantially higher. Three years into his presidency, the deficit had grown by more than 60% and trillions had been added to the national debt.
Nevertheless, on Wednesday White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany renewed the president’s vow to start reducing the debt — just as soon as he wins reelection.
“The debt is a second-term priority of his,” McEnany told Fox News Wednesday, citing “unprecedented growth” as a means of accomplishing that goal.
Tax cuts won’t do it: In her response to a question about the huge increase in the deficit this year, McEnany referred to increases in federal revenues in 2018 and 2019, which she attributed to the GOP tax cuts passed in 2017, while implying that such revenues could help reduce the debt. But as The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel pointed out last week in response to a claim by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin that the Trump tax cuts “were creating growth that would pay down the debt over time,” the deficit was rising in the wake of the GOP tax cuts, and the debt was projected to keep growing, not shrink. The coronavirus crisis simply accelerated trends already in place. And Trump’s recent suggestion that he might eliminate payroll taxes certainly wouldn’t help.
So what’s the plan? The Trump administration has released virtually no details on its agenda for a second term. But the president has indicated that, in addition to cutting taxes, he wants to cut spending, saying in May, "we're going to cut ... we're going to cut back very substantially." Asked if he had a plan for reducing the debt, Trump told a conservative radio host, “I do, I do. That bothers me too, but we’re going to get out of it.”
Trump’s track record, however, suggests that it is unlikely that there is such plan. And aside from slashing spending, which would require a Republican sweep of Congress in November in addition to a Trump victory, faster economic growth is the only tool the White House has cited for its budget reduction effort. The prospects for such extraordinary growth, however, remain quite poor, leaving a second Trump administration few options for achieving its goal of debt reduction.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-10--Senate Dems Block GOP’s Scaled-Back Coronavirus Relief Bill

Senate Republicans on Thursday failed to advance their scaled-back coronavirus relief package , as Democrats blocked the roughly $ 650 billion plan , which they called woefully inadequate .
House Democrats in May passed a $ 3 trillion package and Democratic leaders have pressed for a $ 2.2 trillion compromise deal .
Thursday ’ s Senate vote — 52-47 , shy of the 60 votes needed — was almost entirely along party lines , underscoring just how dug in both sides remain after months of deadlock on additional legislation to address the pandemic and its economic toll .
The result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question heading into the vote was whether Republicans would be able to round up enough votes in their own caucus to make a display of GOP unity that could potentially strengthen their hand in any future negotiations — and , as they prepare for peak campaign season , better enable them to blame Democrats for not delivering more aid to suffering Americans .
They did .
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote against the plan ( citing an unwillingness to add to the national debt ) .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll spare you the details of the partisan sniping that came before and after the vote .
What it all means : You can probably forget about another coronavirus relief package before the November elections .
No new talks are currently scheduled and it may take some new pressure point for that to change .
In the meantime , each side is looking to stick together and waiting for the other party to crack .
“ If past is prologue , there 's actually a significant chance that the public heat on many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will have them come to their senses , and they 'll start negotiating with us in a serious way , ” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said ahead of the vote .
A number of Republican senators indicated Thursday that they weren ’ t optimistic about the chances of a deal before November .
`` Congress is not going to pass another COVID relief bill before the election , '' Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) said on Twitter .
Sen. Chuck Grassley put the onus on Democrats and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks like they do n't want to get to an agreement , ” he said , according to The Hill .
“ So my guess is , as of now , unless Pelosi changes her mind and talks to the White House , there 's not gon na be anything done.
” Asked what happens next , McConnell reportedly offered a similar view : “ Well , hopefully Democrats will come back to the table .
”

Senate Republicans on Thursday failed to advance their scaled-back coronavirus relief package, as Democrats blocked the roughly $650 billion plan, which they called woefully inadequate. House Democrats in May passed a $3 trillion package and Democratic leaders have pressed for a $2.2 trillion compromise deal.
Thursday’s Senate vote — 52-47, shy of the 60 votes needed — was almost entirely along party lines, underscoring just how dug in both sides remain after months of deadlock on additional legislation to address the pandemic and its economic toll.
The result was as expected, as the only question heading into the vote was whether Republicans would be able to round up enough votes in their own caucus to make a display of GOP unity that could potentially strengthen their hand in any future negotiations — and, as they prepare for peak campaign season, better enable them to blame Democrats for not delivering more aid to suffering Americans.
They did. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the only Republican to vote against the plan (citing an unwillingness to add to the national debt). No Democrats voted for it.
We’ll spare you the details of the partisan sniping that came before and after the vote.
What it all means: You can probably forget about another coronavirus relief package before the November elections. No new talks are currently scheduled and it may take some new pressure point for that to change. In the meantime, each side is looking to stick together and waiting for the other party to crack.
“If past is prologue, there's actually a significant chance that the public heat on many Republican senators as they go back home will have them come to their senses, and they'll start negotiating with us in a serious way,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said ahead of the vote.
A number of Republican senators indicated Thursday that they weren’t optimistic about the chances of a deal before November. "Congress is not going to pass another COVID relief bill before the election," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said on Twitter.
Sen. Chuck Grassley put the onus on Democrats and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to break the stalemate. “It looks like they don't want to get to an agreement,” he said, according to The Hill. “So my guess is, as of now, unless Pelosi changes her mind and talks to the White House, there's not gonna be anything done.”
Asked what happens next, McConnell reportedly offered a similar view: “Well, hopefully Democrats will come back to the table.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-10--Labor Market Still Struggling as Trump's Unemployment Aid Runs Out

More than 857,000 workers filed initial jobless claims at the state level last week , the Labor Department announced Thursday , and another 839,000 filed first-time claims in the federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program .
State filings have been under 1 million for two weeks in a row , but the combined state and federal number is still well above that level and has been rising for four weeks straight .
All told , about 30 million people were receiving unemployment benefits in the week ending August 22 .
“ The unexpectedly high levels of claims underscore the uneven nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Bloomberg ’ s Reade Pickert said Thursday .
“ Many businesses are hiring or bringing back workers , yet millions remain unemployed and others are on the chopping block as more companies announce job cuts and small-business aid runs dry.
” Some economists are raising alarms about the wobbly recovery .
“ It ’ s a gut punch to see these numbers every Thursday with no improvement , ” Diane Swonk , chief economist at the accounting firm Grant Thornton , told The New York Times .
“ The numbers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Konkel , an economist at Indeed Hiring Lab , told The Washington Post that the latest report “ really points to mounting damage from the coronavirus.
” Bloomberg economist Eliza Winger said that the “ labor market recovery appears to be flattening well shy of the pre-pandemic peak.
” Improvements but plenty of pain , too .
Job losses are on a long and bumpy downward trend but remain at alarmingly high levels .
Good news arrived last week when the Labor Department announced that the unemployment rate had dropped to 8.4 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the news during the coronavirus crisis , there ’ s a substantial footnote : About 1.1 million furloughed workers are being counted as employed , and roughly 3.7 million people have left the workforce since March .
Factoring in those details , some economists say a more realistic unemployment rate would be closer to 9.9 % .
Trump ’ s unemployment aid running out .
The $ 300 per week in unemployment assistance President Trump made available from disaster relief funds is starting to run out , and the Federal Emergency Management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restricted to a maximum of six weeks .
Officials in several states , including Montana , Texas , Tennessee and New Mexico , said they have been told that funding for their programs would end in the week ending September 5 , five weeks after the program ’ s retroactive start date of August 1 .
At least 20 states have received funds so far through the Lost Wages Assistance program that Trump authorized by executive action on August 8 , though more have applied and are awaiting payment .
About $ 30 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 44 billion fund , according to Politico .

More than 857,000 workers filed initial jobless claims at the state level last week, the Labor Department announced Thursday, and another 839,000 filed first-time claims in the federal Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program.
State filings have been under 1 million for two weeks in a row, but the combined state and federal number is still well above that level and has been rising for four weeks straight. All told, about 30 million people were receiving unemployment benefits in the week ending August 22.
“The unexpectedly high levels of claims underscore the uneven nature of the labor market’s recovery,” Bloomberg’s Reade Pickert said Thursday. “Many businesses are hiring or bringing back workers, yet millions remain unemployed and others are on the chopping block as more companies announce job cuts and small-business aid runs dry.”
Some economists are raising alarms about the wobbly recovery. “It’s a gut punch to see these numbers every Thursday with no improvement,” Diane Swonk, chief economist at the accounting firm Grant Thornton, told The New York Times. “The numbers are going in the wrong direction.”
AnnElizabeth Konkel, an economist at Indeed Hiring Lab, told The Washington Post that the latest report “really points to mounting damage from the coronavirus.” Bloomberg economist Eliza Winger said that the “labor market recovery appears to be flattening well shy of the pre-pandemic peak.”
Improvements but plenty of pain, too. Job losses are on a long and bumpy downward trend but remain at alarmingly high levels. Good news arrived last week when the Labor Department announced that the unemployment rate had dropped to 8.4% in August. But as with much of the news during the coronavirus crisis, there’s a substantial footnote: About 1.1 million furloughed workers are being counted as employed, and roughly 3.7 million people have left the workforce since March. Factoring in those details, some economists say a more realistic unemployment rate would be closer to 9.9%.
Trump’s unemployment aid running out. The $300 per week in unemployment assistance President Trump made available from disaster relief funds is starting to run out, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced Thursday that payments would be restricted to a maximum of six weeks. Officials in several states, including Montana, Texas, Tennessee and New Mexico, said they have been told that funding for their programs would end in the week ending September 5, five weeks after the program’s retroactive start date of August 1.
At least 20 states have received funds so far through the Lost Wages Assistance program that Trump authorized by executive action on August 8, though more have applied and are awaiting payment. About $30 billion has been paid out from the $44 billion fund, according to Politico.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-16--Federal Officials Release Plan to Distribute Coronavirus Vaccine

The federal government plans to being distributing a vaccine within 24 hours of approval by the Food and Drug administration , Trump administration health officials said Wednesday .
In an 11-page briefing from the departments of Health and Human Services and Defense and a 57-page “ playbook ” from the Center for Disease Control , federal officials outlined a plan to deploy an eventual vaccine , relying in part on the pharmaceutical distribution company McKesson .
The vaccine , which is expected to require two shots delivered two or three weeks apart , would be free or very low cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is no approved vaccine as yet , and health officials provided different estimates for when to expect one .
Paul Mango , deputy chief of staff for policy at the Department of Health and Human Services , said Wednesday that he believed that a vaccine would be approved by the end of the year , enabling all Americans to be vaccinated by the end of March 2021 .
CDC Director Robert Redfield said the process would likely take longer .
`` I think there will be vaccine that will initially be available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but very limited supply , and it will have to be prioritized , '' Redfield said at the Senate hearing .
“ If you 're asking me when is it going to be generally available to the American public so we can begin to take advantage of vaccine to get back to our regular life , I think we 're probably looking at late second quarter , third quarter 2021.
” President Trump said Tuesday that a vaccine may be ready “ within weeks , ” and he claimed Wednesday that Redfield ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no circumstances will it be as late as the doctor said , '' Trump said .
Distribution plan draws criticism .
Sen. Patty Murray ( D-WA ) said the federal plan was incomplete .
“ It ’ s clear that this is still not the kind of comprehensive , end-to-end national plan I ’ ve called for and that we desperately need , '' she said .
“ We are still missing important details on research and review , like what standards FDA will use to authorize a vaccine for emergency use … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in clinical trials , and manufacturing , like how we address supply chain issues and avoid bottlenecks .
And we still need more details on addressing disparities .
”

The federal government plans to being distributing a vaccine within 24 hours of approval by the Food and Drug administration, Trump administration health officials said Wednesday.
In an 11-page briefing from the departments of Health and Human Services and Defense and a 57-page “playbook” from the Center for Disease Control, federal officials outlined a plan to deploy an eventual vaccine, relying in part on the pharmaceutical distribution company McKesson. The vaccine, which is expected to require two shots delivered two or three weeks apart, would be free or very low cost, officials said.
Conflicting timelines. There is no approved vaccine as yet, and health officials provided different estimates for when to expect one.
Paul Mango, deputy chief of staff for policy at the Department of Health and Human Services, said Wednesday that he believed that a vaccine would be approved by the end of the year, enabling all Americans to be vaccinated by the end of March 2021.
CDC Director Robert Redfield said the process would likely take longer. "I think there will be vaccine that will initially be available some time between November and December, but very limited supply, and it will have to be prioritized," Redfield said at the Senate hearing. “If you're asking me when is it going to be generally available to the American public so we can begin to take advantage of vaccine to get back to our regular life, I think we're probably looking at late second quarter, third quarter 2021.”
President Trump said Tuesday that a vaccine may be ready “within weeks,” and he claimed Wednesday that Redfield’s timeline was mistaken. "Under no circumstances will it be as late as the doctor said," Trump said.
Distribution plan draws criticism. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) said the federal plan was incomplete. “It’s clear that this is still not the kind of comprehensive, end-to-end national plan I’ve called for and that we desperately need," she said. “We are still missing important details on research and review, like what standards FDA will use to authorize a vaccine for emergency use … how we make sure disparities are addressed in clinical trials, and manufacturing, like how we address supply chain issues and avoid bottlenecks. And we still need more details on addressing disparities.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-16--Trump Says Health Care Plan Is Ready, but White House Has No Details

President Trump said Tuesday that his long-promised replacement for the Affordable Care Act is ready to go .
“ I have it all ready , and it ’ s a much better plan for you , ” Trump told an audience member at a town hall meeting hosted by ABC News .
Trump has been claiming for more than a year that a `` phenomenal '' new health care plan is just weeks away from being revealed , with the delivery date forever slipping into the future .
( Kaiser Health News has a rundown on the “ health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Asked about the plan Wednesday , White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters that the details are not available for public review .
“ It ’ s going to be a very comprehensive strategy — one where we ’ re saving health care while Democrats are trying to take health care away , ” McEnany said .
`` I ’ m not going to give you a readout of what our health care plan looks like and who ’ s working on it .
If you want to know , come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Earlier in the day , White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows also said that Trump ’ s health care plan is ready and will be unveiled sometime before the election .
The plan will focus on executive action , Meadows said , “ with a legislative component that is more visionary.
” A review of Trump ’ s health care record so far .
Avoiding the problematic issue of Trump ’ s alleged plan , analysts at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation released a report this week that examines President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last three and half years .
Some highlights from the overview and the full analysis : * On the Affordable Care Act : “ From the start of his presidential term , President Trump took aim at the Affordable Care Act , consistent with his campaign pledge leading up to the 2016 election .
He supported many efforts in Congress to repeal the law and replace it with an alternative that would have weakened protections for people with pre-existing conditions , eliminated the Medicaid expansion , and reduced premium assistance for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains in force , President Trump ’ s Administration is supporting the case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the ACA in its entirety that is scheduled for oral arguments one week after the election.
” * On Medicare and Medicaid : “ The Administration has proposed spending reductions for both Medicaid and Medicare , along with proposals that would promote flexibility for states but limit eligibility for coverage under Medicaid ( e.g.
, work requirements ) .
” * On drug prices : “ The President has made prescription drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has issued several executive orders and other proposals that aim to lower drug prices ; most of these proposals , however , have not been implemented , other than one change that would lower the cost of insulin for some Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes , and another that allows pharmacists to tell consumers if they could save money on their prescriptions .
The Trump Administration has also moved forward with an initiative to improve price transparency in an effort to lower costs , though it is held up in the courts.
” * @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Trump administration has not established a coordinated , national plan to scale-up and implement public health measures to control the spread of coronavirus , instead choosing to have states assume primary responsibility for the COVID-19 response , with the federal government acting as back-up and ‘ supplier of last resort.
’ The President has downplayed the threat of COVID-19 , given conflicting messages and misinformation , and often been at odds with public health officials and scientific evidence .
”

President Trump said Tuesday that his long-promised replacement for the Affordable Care Act is ready to go. “I have it all ready, and it’s a much better plan for you,” Trump told an audience member at a town hall meeting hosted by ABC News.
Trump has been claiming for more than a year that a "phenomenal" new health care plan is just weeks away from being revealed, with the delivery date forever slipping into the future. (Kaiser Health News has a rundown on the “health care plan that never comes” here.)
Asked about the plan Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters that the details are not available for public review. “It’s going to be a very comprehensive strategy — one where we’re saving health care while Democrats are trying to take health care away,” McEnany said. "I’m not going to give you a readout of what our health care plan looks like and who’s working on it. If you want to know, come work here at the White House."
Earlier in the day, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows also said that Trump’s health care plan is ready and will be unveiled sometime before the election. The plan will focus on executive action, Meadows said, “with a legislative component that is more visionary.”
A review of Trump’s health care record so far. Avoiding the problematic issue of Trump’s alleged plan, analysts at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation released a report this week that examines President Trump’s record on health care over the last three and half years. Some highlights from the overview and the full analysis:
* On the Affordable Care Act: “From the start of his presidential term, President Trump took aim at the Affordable Care Act, consistent with his campaign pledge leading up to the 2016 election. He supported many efforts in Congress to repeal the law and replace it with an alternative that would have weakened protections for people with pre-existing conditions, eliminated the Medicaid expansion, and reduced premium assistance for people seeking marketplace coverage. While the ACA remains in force, President Trump’s Administration is supporting the case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the ACA in its entirety that is scheduled for oral arguments one week after the election.”
* On Medicare and Medicaid: “The Administration has proposed spending reductions for both Medicaid and Medicare, along with proposals that would promote flexibility for states but limit eligibility for coverage under Medicaid (e.g., work requirements).”
* On drug prices: “The President has made prescription drug prices a top health policy priority and has issued several executive orders and other proposals that aim to lower drug prices; most of these proposals, however, have not been implemented, other than one change that would lower the cost of insulin for some Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, and another that allows pharmacists to tell consumers if they could save money on their prescriptions. The Trump Administration has also moved forward with an initiative to improve price transparency in an effort to lower costs, though it is held up in the courts.”
* On the response to the coronavirus: “The Trump administration has not established a coordinated, national plan to scale-up and implement public health measures to control the spread of coronavirus, instead choosing to have states assume primary responsibility for the COVID-19 response, with the federal government acting as back-up and ‘supplier of last resort.’ The President has downplayed the threat of COVID-19, given conflicting messages and misinformation, and often been at odds with public health officials and scientific evidence.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-15--House Moderates Pitch $1.5 Trillion Coronavirus Relief Plan

Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) said Tuesday that the House , just back in session after its summer recess , won ’ t leave for the November elections until a deal is reached on another coronavirus relief package .
“ We have to stay here until we have a bill , ” Pelosi reportedly told House Democrats on a conference call .
The House is scheduled to adjourn on October 2 , but Pelosi faces pressure from rank-and-file members reluctant to head home for the final stretch of the campaign season without being able to show action on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ stay here ” doesn ’ t necessarily mean “ stay here.
” Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland reportedly said Tuesday that lawmakers would be on stand-by next month to vote on any deal and wouldn ’ t be required to stay in town .
Problem Solver Caucus pitches its own plan : The Problem Solvers Caucus , a bipartisan group of some 50 House members , put out its own framework for a Covid relief deal Tuesday , saying it was aiming to get negotiators talking again .
The roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ultimate price tag could vary depending on the course of the pandemic — calls for another round of stimulus checks ; additional unemployment aid ; $ 500 billion for state and local governments ; $ 400 billion for election assistance ; $ 290 billion for small business loans ; $ 145 billion for schools and child care ; and $ 100 billion in funding for virus testing and other health care .
The Problem Solvers plan would set supplemental federal unemployment payments at $ 450 a week for eight weeks and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but with those payments not to exceed the person ’ s previous wage , addressing Republican concerns that jobless people were making more in benefits than they were at work .
The lawmakers say their framework is meant to provide enough support for six months , with the state and local funding lasting for a full year .
The plan reportedly developed over six weeks with the knowledge of the White House and bipartisan congressional leadership , but it appears unlikely to gain much traction .
The Washington Post reports that the proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate , where Republicans are expected to balk at the price tag , ” which is much higher than the roughly $ 650 billion the GOP provided in its last bill .
Eight Democratic House committee chairs quickly rejected the proposal , too .
“ When it comes to bolstering the public health system , supporting state and local governments , and assisting struggling families , the Problem Solvers ’ proposal leaves too many needs unmet , ” the Democrats said in a statement .
“ With the general election just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sabotaged by the Trump administration , their proposal also abandons our responsibility to protect the life of our democracy.
” What ’ s next : There are still no signs of renewed talks between congressional Democrats and the White House .
Pelosi continues to press for a roughly $ 2.2 trillion package and to insist that a “ skinny ” bill like those proposed by Republicans would be insufficient .
And Jared Kushner , senior adviser and son-in-law to President Trump , told CNBC on Tuesday that a deal may have to wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same time , ” The Washington Post ’ s Erica Werner reports , “ if it becomes clear in coming days that no comprehensive deal is in reach , Pelosi may start holding votes on individual issues such as funding for coronavirus testing , to show House Democrats trying to address the problem .
”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Tuesday that the House, just back in session after its summer recess, won’t leave for the November elections until a deal is reached on another coronavirus relief package.
“We have to stay here until we have a bill,” Pelosi reportedly told House Democrats on a conference call. The House is scheduled to adjourn on October 2, but Pelosi faces pressure from rank-and-file members reluctant to head home for the final stretch of the campaign season without being able to show action on the pandemic and its economic effects.
But “stay here” doesn’t necessarily mean “stay here.” Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland reportedly said Tuesday that lawmakers would be on stand-by next month to vote on any deal and wouldn’t be required to stay in town.
Problem Solver Caucus pitches its own plan: The Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan group of some 50 House members, put out its own framework for a Covid relief deal Tuesday, saying it was aiming to get negotiators talking again. The roughly $1.5 trillion package — it’s ultimate price tag could vary depending on the course of the pandemic — calls for another round of stimulus checks; additional unemployment aid; $500 billion for state and local governments; $400 billion for election assistance; $290 billion for small business loans; $145 billion for schools and child care; and $100 billion in funding for virus testing and other health care.
The Problem Solvers plan would set supplemental federal unemployment payments at $450 a week for eight weeks and then up to $600 a week, but with those payments not to exceed the person’s previous wage, addressing Republican concerns that jobless people were making more in benefits than they were at work.
The lawmakers say their framework is meant to provide enough support for six months, with the state and local funding lasting for a full year.
The plan reportedly developed over six weeks with the knowledge of the White House and bipartisan congressional leadership, but it appears unlikely to gain much traction. The Washington Post reports that the proposal “is likely to meet sharp resistance in the Senate, where Republicans are expected to balk at the price tag,” which is much higher than the roughly $650 billion the GOP provided in its last bill.
Eight Democratic House committee chairs quickly rejected the proposal, too.
“When it comes to bolstering the public health system, supporting state and local governments, and assisting struggling families, the Problem Solvers’ proposal leaves too many needs unmet,” the Democrats said in a statement. “With the general election just 49 days away and the Postal Service sabotaged by the Trump administration, their proposal also abandons our responsibility to protect the life of our democracy.”
What’s next: There are still no signs of renewed talks between congressional Democrats and the White House. Pelosi continues to press for a roughly $2.2 trillion package and to insist that a “skinny” bill like those proposed by Republicans would be insufficient. And Jared Kushner, senior adviser and son-in-law to President Trump, told CNBC on Tuesday that a deal may have to wait until after the election.
“At the same time,” The Washington Post’s Erica Werner reports, “if it becomes clear in coming days that no comprehensive deal is in reach, Pelosi may start holding votes on individual issues such as funding for coronavirus testing, to show House Democrats trying to address the problem.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-15--More Uninsured Last Year, Even as Poverty Shrank to Record Low

Nearly 30 million people lacked health insurance at some point in 2019 , the U.S. Census Bureau said Tuesday , an increase of about 1 million from the year before .
The number of uninsured increased for the third year in a row .
“ The number of Americans uninsured increased by 2.3 million from 2016 to 2019 , after dropping by 20 million in the years following passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 , ” Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation tweeted Tuesday .
Levitt said the “ nicks and cuts inflicted on the ACA ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause of the increase in the number of uninsured , and cited “ massive cutbacks in outreach , leeway given to states to restrict their Medicaid programs , and repeal of the individual mandate penalty.
” The health insurance numbers stand in contrast to the data on income and poverty also reported by the Census .
A record low share was living in poverty in the U.S. in 2019 , the government said , with 10.5 % of the population in poverty , down from 11.8 % in 2018 — the lowest figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published .
Median household income rose to $ 68,700 , the highest level recorded in the data series , which stretches back to 1967 .

Nearly 30 million people lacked health insurance at some point in 2019, the U.S. Census Bureau said Tuesday, an increase of about 1 million from the year before. The number of uninsured increased for the third year in a row.
“The number of Americans uninsured increased by 2.3 million from 2016 to 2019, after dropping by 20 million in the years following passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010,” Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation tweeted Tuesday. Levitt said the “nicks and cuts inflicted on the ACA” by the Trump administration are a likely cause of the increase in the number of uninsured, and cited “massive cutbacks in outreach, leeway given to states to restrict their Medicaid programs, and repeal of the individual mandate penalty.”
The health insurance numbers stand in contrast to the data on income and poverty also reported by the Census. A record low share was living in poverty in the U.S. in 2019, the government said, with 10.5% of the population in poverty, down from 11.8% in 2018 — the lowest figure since 1959, when estimates were first published. Median household income rose to $68,700, the highest level recorded in the data series, which stretches back to 1967.