<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Swampland &#187; Kate Pickert &#124; TIME.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://swampland.time.com/author/katepickert/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://swampland.time.com</link>
	<description>Political insight from the Beltway and beyond</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 20:38:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='swampland.time.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://swampland.time.com/osd.xml" title="Swampland" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://swampland.time.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>What’s Wrong with the Violence Against Women Act?</title>
		<link>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/27/whats-wrong-with-the-violence-against-women-act/</link>
		<comments>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/27/whats-wrong-with-the-violence-against-women-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:22:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Domestic Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=89143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=89143&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nation.time.com/2013/02/27/whats-wrong-with-the-violence-against-women-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Domestic Policy</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/domestic_violence_0227.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/domestic_violence_0227.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/domestic_violence_0227.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Domestic Violence</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Andrew Cuomo&#8217;s Abortion Proposal Says About Access in 2013</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/19/what-andrew-cuomos-abortion-proposal-says-about-access-in-2013/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/19/what-andrew-cuomos-abortion-proposal-says-about-access-in-2013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=88420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are two Americas when it comes to abortion—one in which it’s nearly impossible to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and one in which access to the procedure is mostly unfettered and often publicly financed. Geography is everything. While abortion has been a federally protected right for 40 years, in some states, women must travel hundreds of miles and devote days to terminating pregnancies; poor women who can&#8217;t afford to pay out of pocket must find privately-funded organizations to pick up the tab. In others, obtaining an abortion is logistically as simple as making and showing up to a standard doctor&#8217;s appointment. New York is one of the latter, with few abortion restrictions and greater access to the procedure than nearly any other state. Gov. Andrew Cuomo reportedly wants to widen access even further and has proposed rewriting a state law that now limits abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy to women whose lives are in danger. Cuomo’s proposal, as reported by the New York Times, would also allow abortions after 24 weeks to protect a woman&#8217;s health. According to the New York Times, Cuomo wants to ensure wide access to abortion in New York state is on the books in case the Supreme Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade. (PHOTOS: 40 Years After Roe: Inside North Dakota’s Only Abortion Clinic) Cuomo’s proposal is being cheered by abortion rights activists and panned by anti-abortion groups, including the Catholic Church. But the truth is, Cuomo’s plan is more about symbolism than changing much of anything for women’s reproductive health—in New York state or anywhere else. Even though the New York state&#8217;s current law doesn&#8217;t explicitly allow late-term abortions to protect a woman&#8217;s health, Roe v. Wade said that abortions that take place after a fetus might be able to survive on its own outside the womb are permissible to protect the life or health of the woman who is pregnant. So Cuomo&#8217;s propsal, which is not new, may not significantly alter the legal landscape for women, although some providers may be more<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=88420&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/19/what-andrew-cuomos-abortion-proposal-says-about-access-in-2013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Abortion</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/abortion-domestic-policy/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/160813958.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/160813958.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/160813958.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Governor Cuomo Speaks On His State Of The State And Budget Message</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obamacare and GOP Governors &#8211; Is This a Tipping Point?</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/06/obamacare-and-gop-governors-is-this-a-tipping-point/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/06/obamacare-and-gop-governors-is-this-a-tipping-point/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:45:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=87238</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This post was updated at 2:20 p.m. on Feb. 6, 2013 Opposing the Affordable Care Act appears to have gone from a principled stance to an impracticality for some Republican governors. In a move drawing fierce criticism from some conservatives, Ohio Gov. John Kasich (who campaigned in 2010 on a platform that included denouncing the health care law) announced on Monday that he supports a vast expansion of his state’s Medicaid program, made possible by the ACA, that could bring new insurance coverage to millions of Americans nationwide. Then Wednesday, Michigan&#8217;s governor, Republican Rick Snyder, followed suit. In total, six Republican governors have now said they will participate in Obamacare&#8217;s Medicare expansion. Because he had been so critical of the ACA in the past, Kasich’s decision could provide political cover for other Republican governors who may be considering similar expansions of Medicaid, which is a joint state and federal program. Under the ACA, states that open Medicaid to everyone earning up to 133% of the federal poverty level ($14,856 in 2012 for a single person) will receive 100% federal funding for newly eligible enrollees initially, phasing down to 90% by 2020. (Most states now receive a far smaller federal match for Medicaid beneficiaries.) Kasich said it “makes great sense for the state of Ohio.” Still, Kasich’s decision, presented as part of his latest budget that now goes before the state legislature, was surprising. He joined more than 20 other states that sued to overturn the ACA back in 2011. After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the health care law but said the Medicaid expansion specifically should be optional for states, Kasich issued a statement saying that he was “very concerned that a sudden, dramatic increase in Medicaid spending could threaten Ohio’s ability to pursue needed reforms in other areas, such as education.” Philip Klein, a conservative writer for the Washington Examiner, says Kasich’s Medicaid decision is “political cowardice” and &#8220;a demonstration of how difficult it is to defeat big government.&#8221; An editorial in the Wall Street Journal<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=87238&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/06/obamacare-and-gop-governors-is-this-a-tipping-point/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Health Care</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/health-care/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/sl-kasich-0206.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/sl-kasich-0206.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/sl-kasich-0206.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Ohio Gov. John Kasich addresses the crowd during a campaign rally with presidential candidate Mitt Romney at Port Columbus International Airport in Columbus, on Nov. 5, 2012.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Waste or Haste? Electronic Health Record Payments Under Scrutiny</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/29/waste-or-haste-electronic-health-record-payments-under-scrutiny/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/29/waste-or-haste-electronic-health-record-payments-under-scrutiny/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:21:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=82904</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Big government sometimes moves too slowly and with too much red tape to be effective. A new highly critical report from the Inspector General of Health and Human Services shows just how difficult it is for the feds to move faster on spending programs and still look out for taxpayer dollars. The IG report, released Thursday, concerns some $7 billion in sweetener payments the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are handing out to doctors and hospitals that adopt electronic health records (EHR). This incentive program is funded by the HITECH Act, part of the 2009 stimulus bill, which is intended to bring the U.S. health care system more technologically in line with other business sectors like banking and retail. Widespread, if not universal, adoption of EHR systems is job No. 1 if the federal government is to succeed at implementing many of the ideas in Obamacare designed to reduce the growth of health-care spending. It may seem staggering that the U.S. health care system was not already organized electronically by 2009, but paper charts and illegible hand-written prescriptions persisted. This happened partly because upgrading to from paper to EHR is very expensive; hence, the sweetener payments from the feds that are supposed to blunt this cost. The problem the IG pointed out in his new report is that CMS, in an effort to speed up adoption of EHR on a national basis, didn’t verify the information doctors and hospitals self-reported about how their EHR systems function. CMS took this reporting at face value, which the IG says leaves the program “vulnerable” to paying out billions in incentive payments to providers who haven’t done enough to deserve them. (VIDEO: TIME Explains: Obamacare&#8217;s &#8216;Health Panel&#8217;) The incentive payments to doctors and hospitals who get on the EHR bandwagon are supposed to be paid only to health care providers that show they are actually using their EHR systems to change the way they do business. In other words, doctors and hospitals can’t just digitize patient records and get a check from<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=82904&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/29/waste-or-haste-electronic-health-record-payments-under-scrutiny/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Health Care</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/health-care/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/hhs.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/hhs.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/hhs.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">hhs</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>For Republican Governors, Obamacare Exchanges Force an Unenviable Choice</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/16/for-republican-governors-obamacare-exchanges-force-an-unenviable-choice/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/16/for-republican-governors-obamacare-exchanges-force-an-unenviable-choice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:02:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=82556</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are countless unknowns still swirling around the Affordable Care Act. Its ultimate price tag is anyone’s guess. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision to make the ACA’s Medicaid expansion optional, there’s no way to predict how many uninsured people will gain new coverage. But one of the biggest mysteries shrouding the law is whether state or federal authorities are better suited to manage the insurance exchanges that will regulate and organize individual and small group health insurance policies once the law is fully in effect in 2014.  In a move that boxed in Republican governors who rail against federal intrusion, the authors of the ACA left the crucial job of exchange management to the states. At the same time, the ACA says the federal government will run exchanges for states which don’t set up their own. This clever gambit left red-state governors with a Sophie’s choice of sorts. They could set up insurance exchanges and participate in the implementation of one of the most divisive laws in modern American politics. Or they could refuse, and invite the federal government into their insurance regulatory apparatus, which has historically been governed at the state level. The Democrats in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services would be happy either way. Controlling more exchanges would be beneficial to advancing their regulatory priorities; ceding control to states would probably save money on IT costs over the long run. (The exchanges will be run through web sites, on which individuals and small groups will be able to compare plans and buy insurance policies.) Either way, the ACA insurance regulations written by the feds would have to be followed. So which undesirable path have Republican governors taken? Well, some opted to run their own exchanges, concluding it would be better retain some power over how Obamacare plays out in their states. Others have said they can’t in good conscience endorse, even implicitly, any element of the controversial health care law. And in the wake of Barack Obama’s re-election and the high likelihood Obamacare<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=82556&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/16/for-republican-governors-obamacare-exchanges-force-an-unenviable-choice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Health Care</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/health-care/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Obama&#8217;s Re-election Means for Health Care</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/08/what-obamas-re-election-means-for-health-care/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/08/what-obamas-re-election-means-for-health-care/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:45:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2012 Election]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=81954</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Liberals feared that a Mitt Romney presidency could mean the end of the most significant piece of social legislation in half a century. Conservatives feared a second Obama term would allow implementation of another massive entitlement program. But for hospital administrators and businesses like health insurance companies and drug makers, the biggest fear on election night was that they would be left with an enormous mess to clean up. Although the Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, won’t be fully in place until 2014, billions of dollars have already been distributed and the wheels of reform have begun to turn. Seniors with Medicare prescription drug coverage are getting cash rebates. Young adults have joined their parents’ insurance policies. Uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions are getting health coverage through Obamacare programs. Some states are setting up health insurance consumer assistance bureaus and drawing up the architecture for new exchanges where private health insurance will be sold and regulated. Stopping all of that, which Romney vowed to do if not by edict then by throwing truckloads of sand in the government’s regulatory gears, would have created chaos. (VIDEO: TIME Explains: Obamacare&#8217;s &#8216;Health Panel&#8217;) The ability of critics to challenge the law’s legitimacy was drastically reduced with the Supreme Court upholding its constitutionality earlier this year. But it is also important that Obama Administration officials will be in charge during the law&#8217;s full implementation. Hospitals, insurers, drug companies and patients can now expect a more orderly rollout of the Affordable Care Act over the next few years. As Jennifer Haberkorn reported in Politico last week, the Obama Administration recently reduced the flow of new regulations defining precisely how the legislative language of Obamacare would work in practice. The purpose of holding back new rules was to avoid controversy close to the election. As Haberkorn reported, there’s now a backlog of new regulations that are expected to be unveiled soon, including some that could affect wide swaths of the population. We still don&#8217;t know, for example, what health services and expenses insurers will be required<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=81954&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/08/what-obamas-re-election-means-for-health-care/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>2012 Election</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/2012-election/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Romney-Ryan Plan for Medicare: What It Means for Seniors</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/16/the-romney-ryan-plan-for-medicare-what-it-means-for-seniors/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/16/the-romney-ryan-plan-for-medicare-what-it-means-for-seniors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:00:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=80047</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) has come out with a new report showing that an overhaul of Medicare, of the sort the Romney-Ryan campaign favors, might increase costs for seniors. The Obama campaign wasted no time in seizing on the report as proof that the GOP candidate’s “irresponsible” plan to turn Medicare into a voucher system would have “devastating consequences” for seniors. A spokeswoman for the Romney campaign fired back a statement saying the plan would include “no increase in out-of-pocket costs from today’s Medicare.” The Romney camp also cited a disclaimer in the report that said it should not be taken as an analysis of any particular proposal, including the Romney-Ryan plan for how to reform Medicare. So what to believe? First, it’s worth noting that KFF and the authors of the report are top notch when it comes to analyzing health care policy in a nonpartisan way. Beyond that, here’s what you need to know. For the Romney campaign to imply that the KFF analysis isn’t based on Medicare-reform ideas put forth by the GOP ticket isn’t honest. One basis for the report is Paul Ryan’s 2013 federal budget proposal and the plan to reform Medicare that Ryan put out with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. Romney has endorsed this approach, and here’s how it works: seniors would receive premium support — vouchers to buy private health insurance — from the federal government based on the cost of Medicare in their particular community or the second lowest private health insurance plan available that is actuarially equivalent to Medicare, whichever is cheaper. Seniors who choose to sign up for one of these options would pay the same premiums for Medicare they pay now. Seniors who choose more expensive plans, including traditional Medicare in some markets, would pay higher premiums. (PHOTOS: Political Pictures of the Week, Oct. 5–11) According to KFF, 59% of seniors would have to pay higher premiums in order to receive the same Medicare plans they now enjoy, with the average premium increase coming in at $107 per<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=80047&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/16/the-romney-ryan-plan-for-medicare-what-it-means-for-seniors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Health Care</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/health-care/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/romney-2012.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/romney-2012.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/romney-2012.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Republican vice presidential candidate, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., points at a power point presentation</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mitt Romney’s Pre-Existing Conditions</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/11/mitt-romneys-pre-existing-conditions/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/11/mitt-romneys-pre-existing-conditions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:03:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2012 Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=79832</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It’s hard to tell what Mitt Romney would do to solve the problem of sick uninsured Americans. Right now, these people often can&#8217;t find insurers willing to sell them policies or, if they can, the costs are prohibitive. Under Obama&#8217;s Affordable Care Act, insurance companies will be required, beginning in 2014, to sell policies to anyone who wants one and to ignore customers’ health status when setting prices. This is possible because the ACA also requires nearly everyone to buy health insurance, flooding the market with millions of new customers, including healthy people, whose premiums will subsidize the cost of covering the sick. Covering people with pre-existing conditions is one of the most popular pieces of Obamacare, and Mitt Romney is doing his best to imply that his health care plan would accomplish this lofty goal as well. But there are a few problems. Romney wants to repeal Obamacare and he doesn’t really have a comprehensive plan to replace it, at least not one that he’s made publicly available. In the absence of this, voters can look at his runningmate Paul Ryan’s budget proposals that include health care policy or they can look at Massachusetts, which essentially has a state version of Obamacare championed by Romney when he was governor. He’s at the top of the ticket, so it’s not fair to judge him by Ryan’s past proposals, he says. And the Massachusetts health care reform was right for Massachusetts, but not the nation, he says, so it’s not fair to judge his presidential plans based on that. That&#8217;s fine. But surely it must be fair to judge what Romney said about the problem of the uninsured last time he was running for president, right? Here’s what Romney said in January 2008, explaining why, prior to reform in Massachusetts, uninsured people who could afford insurance nonetheless didn&#8217;t buy it: They said why should we buy it? If we get sick, we can go to the hospital and get care for free&#8230;They shouldn’t be allowed just to show up at the<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=79832&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/11/mitt-romneys-pre-existing-conditions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Mitt Romney</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/2012-election/mitt-romney-2012-election/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mitt Romney&#8217;s Confusing Health Care Comments</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/09/10/mitt-romneys-confusing-health-care-comments/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/09/10/mitt-romneys-confusing-health-care-comments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:41:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2012 Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=78169</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now that Barack Obama is enthusiastically campaigning on the Affordable Care Act — even proudly referring to it as Obamacare — Mitt Romney is trying to blunt criticism that his plan to scrap health care reform is bad news for young adults and sick people. Responding to a question from David Gregory on Meet the Press, Romney said on Sunday: I&#8217;m not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like. The Romney-Ryan campaign has been, as Paul Krugman points out, twisting itself in knots trying to clarify the GOP presidential candidate’s surprising and seemingly confusing comments. But is there really anything new here? As Katrina Trinko writes, back in June, Romney said he was in favor of health reform guaranteeing that people with pre-existing conditions have access to new insurance if they change or lose their job. This isn’t the same as Obamacare’s pre-existing-conditions policy. Romney’s plan refers to only people who already have coverage and, as far as I can tell, makes no allowance for people with a pre-existing condition who are currently uninsured and therefore sicker overall and receiving expensive care in emergency departments across the country. But still, this is not the first time Romney has said that if he were in the White House, his health care policy would help cover folks with pre-existing conditions. What is new is that Romney used the word like in reference to how he feels about Obamacare, and the press is forcing him to defend his promise to &#8220;repeal Obamacare&#8221; on Day One. (PHOTOS: Political Pictures of the Week, Sept. 7-14) &#160; Let’s start with the like comment. Remember when Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said the move from a primary to a<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=78169&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/09/10/mitt-romneys-confusing-health-care-comments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Mitt Romney</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/2012-election/mitt-romney-2012-election/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/2100_romneyhealthcar_0910.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/2100_romneyhealthcar_0910.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/2100_romneyhealthcar_0910.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Mitt Romney</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fact Check: Obamacare’s Medicare Cuts</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/16/fact-check-obamacares-medicare-cuts/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/16/fact-check-obamacares-medicare-cuts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affordable care act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medicare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obamacare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=75963</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Since the Romney-Ryan campaign is hammering the Obama-Biden ticket on the Affordable Care Act’s $716 billion in cuts to Medicare, it seems useful to put this figure in context and explain exactly what programs within Medicare lose funding under the health care law. First, the context. The Congressional Budget Office estimates Medicare spending over the next 10 years will be about $7.5 trillion. This means the ACA’s Medicare cuts account for less than 10% of overall Medicare spending. The program is not being gutted. Even with the ACA cuts, the CBO says the cost of Medicare is expected to grow from about $500 billion in 2012 to nearly $900 billion by 2022. As for the cuts, they come from eliminating a massive subsidy to private insurers and gradually reducing the rate of growth in payments to some providers. These changes, while not catastrophic for Medicare, are important. Under the ACA, the federal government will substantially reduce the amount it spends funding Medicare Advantage, which is privately administered insurance offered to Medicare beneficiaries. About one-quarter of Medicare recipients are enrolled in private Medicare Advantage. In theory, these plans are supposed to manage health care spending better than fee-for-service Medicare. But they don’t actually save the federal government any money. They cost, per patient, 14% more than traditional Medicare. (See Figure 3 of this fact sheet from the Kaiser Family Foundation. And see here for more.) The ACA eliminates this subsidy and pegs Medicare Advantage payments to quality metrics. The second bunch of money that gets cut from Medicare under Obamacare comes from providers. Hospitals, home health agencies and others will see Medicare payments grow more slowly than they have in the past. Medicare benefits will not change – in theory. However, providers who get paid less from Medicare in the future may be less inclined to accept Medicare patients, thereby reducing access. The frequently criticized Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the ACA, could cut provider payments even more to keep the growth in Medicare spending under a benchmark. If Medicare per capita spending grows faster<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=75963&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/16/fact-check-obamacares-medicare-cuts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Health Care</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/health-care/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ryan vs. Obama on Medicare: Why We Won’t Have an Actual Debate Over Where They Differ</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/14/ryan-vs-obama-on-medicare-why-we-wont-have-an-actual-debate-over-where-they-differ/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/14/ryan-vs-obama-on-medicare-why-we-wont-have-an-actual-debate-over-where-they-differ/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:40:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=75819</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the brief period since Paul Ryan was chosen to be Mitt Romney’s running mate, health policy experts have been spending a lot of time explaining what Ryan’s budget plan means for Medicare. There’s no doubt that the contrasts between Ryan’s ideas and Obama&#8217;s on Medicare are significant. But as Ezra Klein pointed out Monday, the two approaches to reforming the most popular government program in history are not diametrically opposed. Both Ryan’s most recent plan and Obama’s most recent budget strive to contain the growth of Medicare expenses to the same rate—GDP +0.5%. The difference is in how those costs are contained. This is incredibly important—Klein frames the debate as being over an effort to save money by improving quality (via the Affordable Care Act on the Democratic side) versus trusting the free market to reduce prices (on the Republican side). Neither of these approaches have been proven to lower costs, as noted by Klein. (MORE: The Ryan Budget: A Primer on What’s Now the Hottest Topic in 2012) It’s safe to say there are problems with both paths. The ACA relies on some guess work: hoping that pilot programs might reveal a way to make Medicare cost less; Ryan&#8217;s Medicare plans have left many key details out, but critics say it&#8217;s clear that seniors will be on the hook for much more out of pocket spending. Sadly, despite these substantive points, we shouldn’t expect the 2012 presidential campaign to feature a robust debate over how to fix Medicare. While Republicans have been hailing the Ryan VP pick as a bold choice—House Speaker John Boehner says it means Romney is “playing offense”—it already seems clear that the GOP ticket does not intend to staunchly stand behind the idea that Medicare needs to be largely privatized in order to function in the future. Here’s what Romney said on 60 Minutes over the weekend: What Paul Ryan and I have talked about is saving Medicare, is providing people greater choice in Medicare, making sure it&#8217;s there for current seniors. No changes,<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=75819&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/14/ryan-vs-obama-on-medicare-why-we-wont-have-an-actual-debate-over-where-they-differ/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Health Care</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/health-care/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/ryan_budget_0814.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/ryan_budget_0814.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/ryan_budget_0814.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Paul Ryan</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What We Don&#8217;t Know About the Future of Medicaid</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/25/what-we-dont-know-about-the-future-of-medicaid/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/25/what-we-dont-know-about-the-future-of-medicaid/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 13:23:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affordable care act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional budget office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medicaid]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=74352</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Health-care wonks and political spinmeisters eagerly awaited a new government analysis Tuesday of how the Supreme Court&#8216;s ruling on the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s Medicaid expansion will affect the law. But the Congressional Budget Office&#8217;s report doesn&#8217;t provide much clarity. By definition, CBO number-crunching is an attempt to predict an uncertain future. Yet Tuesday’s report was particularly murky. That&#8217;s because implementation of the Affordable Care Act is not in the hands of one entity. The law was deliberately written to cede much of this responsibility to the states. With the Medicaid expansion now optional, states could react in all sorts of ways. Predicting how governors and legislatures might act in a tough political environment, let alone years into the future, is an impossible task. But CBO (and the Joint Committee on Taxation) took a shot. Here’s how they describe the challenge: …CBO and JCT’s estimates reflect an assessment of the probabilities of difference outcomes (without any explicit prediction of which states make which choices) and are, in their judgment, in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes. Future legal or administrative actions will certainly affect those outcomes; CBO and JCT’s assessment in this analysis should not be viewed as representing a single definitive interpretation of how the ACA should or will be implemented in light of the Court’s decision. With that enormous caveat in mind, here’s the CBO’s best guess for how the newly optional Medicaid program will affect the ACA. The parts of the law that pertain to expanding health insurance coverage will cost $84 billion less over the next 10 years than if the Medicaid expansion, which was to extend insurance coverage to 16 million Americans, has been compulsory for every state. Some states will expand their Medicaid programs as the ACA originally intended; some will expand their Medicaid programs less; others will expand their programs later than the initial timetable of 2014; and some states will forgo an expansion and maintain their current Medicaid programs. According to the CBO, this means about 6 million fewer Americans will be able to get<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=74352&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/25/what-we-dont-know-about-the-future-of-medicaid/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Health Care</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/health-care/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/600_congresstaxes_0725.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/600_congresstaxes_0725.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/600_congresstaxes_0725.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">tax proposals</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Future of the Affordable Care Act: Uncertain, At Best</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/09/the-future-of-the-affordable-care-act-uncertain-at-best/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/09/the-future-of-the-affordable-care-act-uncertain-at-best/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aca]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[repeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=73706</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If Mitt Romney is elected President and Republicans emerge from this year’s elections with majorities in both houses of Congress, most experts agree that they could repeal huge swaths of the health care law. But even if Democrats hold onto their majority in the Senate, there's no guarantee the law will remain untouched. <img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=73706&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/09/the-future-of-the-affordable-care-act-uncertain-at-best/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Health Care</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/health-care/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/600_aptopix-health-care-romney.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/600_aptopix-health-care-romney.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/600_aptopix-health-care-romney.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Mitt Romney</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the Supreme Court&#8217;s Medicaid Ruling Endangers Universal Coverage</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/02/how-the-supreme-courts-medicaid-ruling-could-hinder-unviseral-coverage/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/02/how-the-supreme-courts-medicaid-ruling-could-hinder-unviseral-coverage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:45:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=73420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Of all the ways President Obama&#8217;s health care law is poised to alter the U.S. medical system, the extension of new health insurance coverage to some 32 million people has been billed as its most important. A lack of coverage forces this population to flock to emergency rooms, driving up medical costs for everyone. Studies indicate that thousands die every year purely because they don’t have insurance. (A 2009 Harvard paper put the number of unnecessary deaths annually at 45,000.) Pulling these uninsured people into the health insurance pool, Democrats said, would save lives and money, and bring justice and organization to a system that’s rife with inequality and waste. (MORE: Why the Supreme Court Left Us Hanging on Healthcare) But thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) last week, which upheld the law’s basic architecture and the controversial individual mandate, fixing the problem of the uninsured could be a lot more difficult that Democrats were hoping. In a move that surprised court watchers and progressive advocates, the Supreme Court, by a 7-2 vote, ruled that states don&#8217;t have to participate in a huge expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor, called for in the ACA. (The ACA was written so that states that decided not to expand their Medicaid programs would lose their existing Medicaid funding, but the court said funding already in place should not be affected by states’ decisions on the ACA changes.) This expansion, which would allow everyone earning less than 133% of the federal poverty level to become eligible for the program, had been projected to extend health insurance to some 16 million Americans, about half of the total number expected to get new coverage under the ACA. (The federal poverty level this year is $11,170.) The High Court ruling last week left this expansion vulnerable, and along with it the law’s promise to bring the national insured rate to over 90%. The existing Medicaid program covers about 48 millions Americans, or 16% of the population, according<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=73420&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/02/how-the-supreme-courts-medicaid-ruling-could-hinder-unviseral-coverage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Supreme Court</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/supreme-court/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/healthcare_act_0702.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/healthcare_act_0702.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/healthcare_act_0702.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Affordable Healthcare Act</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Upholds Health Reform Law in Landmark Decision</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-obamacare-in-landmark-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-obamacare-in-landmark-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=73193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld President Obama&#8217;s health reform law, affirming the centerpiece of the sweeping 2010 overhaul of the nation&#8217;s medical industries in a landmark 5-4 vote. The deciding opinion, written by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the requirement that almost all Americans buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty, does not violate the Constitution. The Court limited a massive expansion of Medicaid, the federal program that provides health care to the poor, but did not strike it down. That outcome validates the legacy achievement of Obama&#8217;s tenure, and puts the U.S. closer to near-universal health coverage than at any time in its history. Here are the likely winners and losers in the ruling&#8217;s aftermath. (Read the decision here.) Winners The Obama Administration. Beyond the obvious matter of being able to move forward with a major set of policies the Democratic party has wanted for decades, the Supreme Court’s stamp of approval on the Affordable Care Act legitimizes Obama’s most visible and far-reaching domestic achievement. It also undercuts Republicans’ charge that the Obama Administration has consistently overreached its authority. The Supreme Court’s decision says the government’s insurance requirement is a tax with precedent. In addition, a vote from right-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts further seals the argument that the law, while politically explosive, is nonetheless constitutional. The sick and the uninsured. The Affordable Care Act will extend health insurance to some 30 million Americans who currently lack coverage. It will also guarantee the availability of insurance for those with pre-existing conditions and ensure those people don’t pay more than healthy people. Anyone earning up to 133% of the federal poverty level will get free coverage through Medicaid and those earning 133% to 400% (but without access to employer or government insurance) will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them buy policies. Congressional Democrats. While health care reform will remain a potent political issue – just because it’s constitutional doesn’t mean everyone has to like it – Democratic Senators and House members who voted for the<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=73193&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-obamacare-in-landmark-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Supreme Court</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/supreme-court/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/sl_healthcare_0628_001.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/sl_healthcare_0628_001.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/sl_healthcare_0628_001.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Supporters of US President Barack Obama&#039;</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trying to Read Anthony Kennedy&#8217;s Mind: Health Care and the Supreme Court Revisited</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/06/07/trying-to-read-anthony-kennedys-mind-health-care-and-the-supreme-court-revisited/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/06/07/trying-to-read-anthony-kennedys-mind-health-care-and-the-supreme-court-revisited/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2012 12:05:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=71944</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As Massimo Calabresi and David Von Drehle write in their cover story this week, Justice Anthony Kennedy is often the decider when it comes to Supreme Court cases of great import. He toggles between the conservative and liberal sides of the bench and predicting where he will land on a particular matter is impossible. This is true with one of the most consequential cases to ever come before the High Court&#8211;whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. The court is expected to issue its decision on the health care law later this month. Whether the justices uphold Obama&#8217;s health care law in full, strike down part of it or cancel it out entirely will have a huge impact on the 2012 presidential election, not to mention the health care of millions of Americans. When supporters and opponents of the law argued the case back in March, most watchers focused on Kennedy to see if they could decipher how he feels about the matter. A look back at what he said during the hearings provides more confusion than insight, especially when one considers that, as Calabresi and Von Drehle report, Kennedy sometimes makes his decisions at the last minute. Still, the temptation to try and decode Kennedy&#8217;s comments is too strong to resist. Below is a healthy sampling of his comments and questions on the health care case. (MORE: Why Obamacare May Stand: Reading Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s Swing Vote) The central question in the health care case is whether the individual mandate, the requirement that by 2014 all Americans have health insurance, is constitutional. Everyone agrees that the federal government has the constitutional power to regulate “commerce.” Obama Administration lawyers argue the health insurance market is commerce and therefore within bounds for regulation. Challengers say that the commerce the feds want to regulate doesn’t exist now and that the government is trying to regulate “inactivity,” i.e. a lack of insurance, which is an overreach. Kennedy cut straight to this matter, asking a question that seemed to take the challengers argument at<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=71944&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/06/07/trying-to-read-anthony-kennedys-mind-health-care-and-the-supreme-court-revisited/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Supreme Court</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/supreme-court/</primary_category_link>
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="https://timeswampland.wordpress.com/wp-includes/js/tinymce/plugins/wordpress/img/trans.gif" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">More...</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>If the Court Repeals Obamacare, Republicans Don&#8217;t Need to Worry Too Much About Replacing It</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/18/if-the-court-repeals-obamacare-republicans-dont-need-to-worry-too-much-about-replacing-it/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/18/if-the-court-repeals-obamacare-republicans-dont-need-to-worry-too-much-about-replacing-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 10:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2012 Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=71063</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A rash of news stories have been published this week examining how the GOP will handle things if the Supreme Court votes next month to overturn the Affordable Care Act. Amazingly, they all leave out the single most important and obvious impact a court rebuke would have. Hint: It&#8217;s not about Republicans. In two separate posts for New York magazine, Jonathan Chait calls out the GOP for having no real intention of offering anything of substance or consequence in place of Obamacare, should it be struck down by the court. Chait reminds readers that this runs counter to the “repeal and replace” rhetoric Republicans have been using for the past several years. (PHOTOS: Supreme Court Health Care Protests in Pictures) Brian Beutler of TPM says that if the Supreme Court rules against the health care law, the GOP could be on the losing end: House Republicans will find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They will be implicitly responsible not just for the demise of the individual insurance mandate and other unpopular parts of the Affordable Care Act, but also its popular provisions and the return of some of the insurance industry’s harshest practices, like discriminating against people with pre-existing medical conditions. In the New York Times, Robert Pear and Jonathan Weisman report on some Republicans&#8217; plans to mitigate political risks they might face if the problem of the uninsured takes center stage again. If the law is struck down, Pear and Weisman report, Republicans say they&#8217;ll resurrect a lot of old ideas. The GOPers quoted in the article offer vague concepts like “If you get the costs down, then you get more people with coverage” and “The status quo is unacceptable.” One House Republican leader tells the Times, “Our wheels are beginning to turn.” In Politico, Jennifer Haberkorn and Jake Sherman say the GOP strategy on how to react to a Supreme Court rejection of the Affordable Care Act &#8220;represents an aggressive posture from House Republicans. It seeks to shelter them from criticism from the left that they’re<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=71063&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/18/if-the-court-repeals-obamacare-republicans-dont-need-to-worry-too-much-about-replacing-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Health Care</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/health-care/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/sl_obamagay_0509_blog.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/sl_obamagay_0509_blog.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/sl_obamagay_0509_blog.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">sl_obamagay_0509_blog</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ann Romney and Hilary Rosen Debate Motherhood: What American Women Really Think</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/12/ann-romney-and-hilary-rosen-debate-motherhood-what-american-women-really-think/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/12/ann-romney-and-hilary-rosen-debate-motherhood-what-american-women-really-think/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:22:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Controversies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ann romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CNN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hilary rosen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=69459</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It really is sad to see the challenge of modern motherhood reduced to a partisan battle over which political party cares more about women and the American family. Some of us might expect a little more from the campaigns of two presidential candidates with seemingly solid, faithful, even enviable marriages and happy, well-adjusted children. But alas, we are living in a cynical, live-Tweeted world where every comment is another opportunity for immediate condemnation. Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen went on CNN Wednesday night and said that Mitt Romney’s wife is a terrible adviser to her husband on women’s economic issues because Ann Romney, who stayed at home to raise five sons, “has never worked a day in her life.” Within moments, the comment—which was certainly offensive—ignited a predictable storm among Republicans. Ann Romney herself went on Fox News Thursday morning to say, “We need to respect choices that women make.” In this latest kerfuffle, Democratic and Republican operatives are each trying to wound the other party enough to make a statistically significant change in how a small percentage of women might vote in November. But we don’t need to wait for poll numbers to get some insight into what mothers think about these issues. There are truckloads of existing surveys about how mothers view themselves and each other. Rosen’s comment was controversial because it dripped with judgment—she implied that being a mother is not “work&#8221; and that Ann Romney can never understand the plight of working women because she’s never had a career. Rosen herself is a mother, who quit a high-powered job as a Washington lobbyist in order to spend more time at home with her twins. But her comment channeled a degree of resentment that exists between working and stay-at-home mothers. This isn&#8217;t just about partisanship or even privilege: the data on mothers dropping out of the labor force show race is a far more important factor than income or education. And at-home moms are often just as judgey as Rosen was on CNN. According to Pew: 44% of stay-at-home moms say<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=69459&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/12/ann-romney-and-hilary-rosen-debate-motherhood-what-american-women-really-think/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Controversies</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/2012-election/controversies/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/sl_aromney_0412_blog.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/sl_aromney_0412_blog.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/sl_aromney_0412_blog.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">sl_aromney_0412_blog</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Health Care After the Court: If the Individual Mandate Falls, What Next?</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/29/if-the-individual-mandate-falls-what-could-replace-it/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/29/if-the-individual-mandate-falls-what-could-replace-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:41:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obamacare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=68496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual health insurance mandate, but leaves most or all of the rest of the Affordable Care Act intact, Congress will have some work to do. Without some way to push uninsured healthy Americans into the marketplace, insurance prices could creep upward until they become unaffordable for everyone. There’s no guarantee such a specter would motivate a divided Congress to work together to find a solution, of course. But if Congress was able to operate effectively, there are a number of ways the Affordable Care Act could be patched to function without an individual mandate. One is to change the tax code. The individual mandate as it now exists in health reform would be enforced by fining Americans who choose not to have health insurance. This would happen through their income tax returns. The same goal could be accomplished by levying a new health insurance tax on everyone and giving an equally sized credit to those who purchase coverage. (PHOTOS: Supreme Court Health Care Protests) Another alternative would be to create a rule that Americans can buy affordable new health insurance policies in the individual market only during strictly enforced open enrollment periods. During these times, consumers would be guaranteed to get policies and those policies would not be priced on risk&#8211;in other words, health status. Anyone who missed this window and decided to buy a policy only once he or she gets sick would face rates charged based purely on risk, which could mean paying astronomically high prices. In February 2011, the Government Accountability Office published a report offering a list of nine alternatives to the individual mandate: Modify open enrollment periods and impose late enrollment penalties. Expand employers’ roles in auto-enrolling and facilitating employees’ health insurance enrollment. Conduct a public education and outreach campaign. Provide broad access to personalized assistance for health coverage enrollment. Impose a tax to pay for uncompensated care. Allow greater variation in premium rates based on enrollee age. Condition the receipt of certain government services upon proof of health<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=68496&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/29/if-the-individual-mandate-falls-what-could-replace-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Supreme Court</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/supreme-court/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sl_health_0329_blog.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sl_health_0329_blog.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sl_health_0329_blog.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">sl_health_0329_blog</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The &#8216;Heart&#8217; of Health Care Reform: Can the Law Stand Without a Mandate?</title>
		<link>http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/29/the-heart-of-health-care-reform-can-the-law-stand-without-a-mandate/</link>
		<comments>http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/29/the-heart-of-health-care-reform-can-the-law-stand-without-a-mandate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:20:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kate Pickert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alito]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[individual mandate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obamacare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roberts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scalia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scotus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sotomayor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://swampland.time.com/?p=68460</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although the Supreme Court won’t rule until June and predicting its decision is impossible for even the most seasoned experts, Tuesday hearings on the health insurance mandate's constitutionality left its supporters worried it might not survive. If the requirement falls and the rest of the law remains, chaos could follow, along with a host of unintended consequences like rising premiums and even less access to coverage than exists today.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=swampland.time.com&#038;blog=5284847&#038;post=68460&#038;subd=timeswampland&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://swampland.time.com/2012/03/29/the-heart-of-health-care-reform-can-the-law-stand-without-a-mandate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Supreme Court</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://swampland.time.com/category/domestic-policy-2/supreme-court/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sl_scoutsdaythree_0328_blog.jpg?w=200</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sl_scoutsdaythree_0328_blog.jpg?w=200" />
		<media:content url="http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/sl_scoutsdaythree_0328_blog.jpg?w=200" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">sl_scoutsdaythree_0328_blog</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/d40234a6843419b1a17b2c08b6848561?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D96&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">katepickert</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
