About the author  ⁄ 

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) — The anticipated report from the Congressional Budget Office has shed new light on how the Republicans’ American Health Care Act could affect premiums for many in the U.S.

The report was released just weeks after Republicans narrowly passed a health bill through the House of Representatives. But Senate Republicans will have to pass their version of the bill and will likely face more questions about its effects after this report.

The CBO analyzed the bill as currently written and found it would drastically change health care in the U.S. They estimate the law would reduce the federal deficit by $119 billion oven ten years, but also leave 23 million more Americans without health insurance compared to current law.

Additionally the bill would have huge effects on premiums for older Americans and those with health conditions. Here’s a break down on how premiums could change:

Pre-Existing Conditions

Under the new law, people with pre-existing conditions cannot be barred from insurance coverage. However, some states could apply for waivers that would allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums for those individuals. States that apply for the waiver would have to implement high-risk insurance pools to accommodate them. But some health care experts are skeptical that high-risk pools would have enough money to fully cover people in need.

The CBO found that people with pre-existing conditions could face insurance premiums so high they would be unable to afford coverage.

“Community-rated premiums would rise over time, and people who are less healthy (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive non group health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all,” reads the report.

The community rating provision is a way of setting premiums designed to ensure risk is spread evenly across a larger pool. This means that people are charged the same rate regardless of factors like health status. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies may charge different rates for identical plans only on the basis of age, geographic location, the number of people covered and tobacco use, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told ABC News in an earlier interview that without protection from higher premiums, people with pre-existing conditions would likely be priced out of coverage. In the 1990s, she added, people with pre-existing conditions who recently lost their jobs were supposed to be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act from losing or being prevented from obtaining insurance coverage. However, insurance companies charged far higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions.

“To actually protect someone with pre-existing condition … they need full protection,” Pollitz said. “Otherwise, it’s like giving someone half a bulletproof vest.”

Older People vs. Younger People

The CBO also estimated that older people could see premiums drastically increase; some could face premiums nine times higher than under the current law. This is due in part to the proposed changes to the age ratio and tax credits.

Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies may charge an older person no more than three times its premium for a younger person with an identical plan. The new bill would increase the maximum allowable ratio to five to one, which could significantly increase older people’s premiums for comparable plans.

Additionally, tax credits to help pay for healthcare would change dramatically. While the ACA offers a scale of credits that take into account several factors, including family income, cost of insurance and age, the Trumpcare plan would offer flat tax credits per individual, according to age. The bill outlines tax credits of $2,000 to $14,000 a year for individuals who don’t get insurance coverage from an employer or the government. The credits would be based on age instead of income and would be capped for higher earners.

“Under the act, premiums for older people could be five times larger than those for younger people in many states, but the size of the tax credits for older people would be only twice the size of the credits for younger people,” the report says.

The CBO estimated that in 2026 the net premiums for a 64-year-old earning $28,500 would rise from $1,700 per year to as much as $13,600 to $16,100 under the current bill, depending on whether the person lives in a waiver state. At an income of $68,200, the same person’s out-of-pocket cost for premiums could go down slightly from $15,300 to as low as $13,600, if state had a waiver, or increase slightly to $16,100 without a waiver.

But, younger people under the AHCA may not see their premiums change greatly, or they may decrease due in part to the age ratio change.

The CBO estimated that a 21-year-old making $26,500 would have premiums between $1,750 and $1,250 depending on if their state applied for waivers. The same person’s premiums are estimated at $1,700 under the ACA.

At an income of $68,200, out-of-pocket cost for premiums may decrease from $5,100 to between $1,750 and $1,250.

Officials at the CBO acknowledge that these estimates “are inherently uncertain because the ways in which federal agencies, states, insurers, employers, individuals, doctors, hospitals, and other affected parties would respond to the changes made by the legislation are all difficult to predict.”

Medical and patient groups have pointed to the CBO score as further evidence the bill could harm those who need care the most, older Americans who have low incomes and do not yet qualify for Medicare.

AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond, said in a statement that the bill would have a “devastating impact” on older Americans.

“The CBO analysis found that premiums would go up to unaffordable levels by inflicting an Age Tax and removing current protections for people with common conditions including diabetes and weight gain. Putting a greater financial burden on older Americans is not the way to solve the problems in our health care system,” LeaMond said.

An American Medical Association statement urged the Senate to take action to keep people from losing affordable health coverage.

“Today’s estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office show that last-minute changes to the AHCA made by the House offered no real improvements. Millions of Americans will become uninsured–with low-income families on Medicaid being hit the hardest,” the statement said.

Copyright © 2017, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

Read More →

ABC News(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump isn’t afraid to mix it up in the boardroom, and today in Brussels he showed he could throw some proverbial elbows.

One of the more surprising moments caught on camera today at the NATO summit in Belgium came when Trump pushed aside Prime Minister Dusko Markovic of Montenegro to get to the front of the group of leaders.

Markovic appeared to smile and turn toward Trump as if for a conversation, but none ensued.

The moment may have been fleeting, but the internet seemed to enjoy it Thursday.

“I have not seen the video,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

Trump is set to head back to the U.S. on Saturday, May 27.

Copyright © 2017, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

Read More →

iStock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) — These eight moms are all celebrating their little “miracles” that came out of destruction.

They each got pregnant around the time of Hurricane Matthew, which hit South Carolina’s Lowcountry region last October. Residents either evacuated or sheltered in place while trees, homes and property were destroyed.

Cassie Clayshulte, the official newborn photographer for Coastal Carolina Hospital in Hardeeville, said she knew there would be a surge of pregnancies after the storm.

“About nine months from a big storm or a big power outage, even nine months from Valentine’s Day or the holidays, I’ll always see a surge in births at the hospital. We were all sequestered in places with no power or evacuated for a week or longer and so I thought I might have a surge in business,” Clayshulte told ABC News. “I got this vision of all these moms lined up celebrating these little miracles that may not have happened if it weren’t for the hurricane.”

She posted the idea for the creative photo shoot on her Facebook page, explaining she was “looking for moms who made babies during the hurricane and are willing to talk about it.”

“I wanted to show everyone that the storm gave some Bluffton, Beaufort, and Hilton Head couples a special miracle,” said Clayshulte. “If it weren’t for Matthew, these eight couples wouldn’t be expecting these little miracles. Some of these couples had trouble conceiving, experienced difficult previous pregnancies, and even had to undergo several rounds of fertility treatments to become pregnant. This storm destroyed trees and property and our area’s tourism industry took a big hit, but the storm helped these couples create something even more beautiful and these stunning mommies-to-be are living proof.”

One of the moms, Lindsey Gullett, said the military forced her to evacuate her Beaufort home.

“We chose to go to Chattanooga, Tennessee, for six nights,” she said. “Our apartment complex was completely under water.”

Another mom, Molly Spears of Bluffton said her family was very fortunate to not have any damage to their home.

“We lost power for about 72 hours and the worst to come of that was I lost my entire freezer stash of breast milk,” said Spears. “We evacuated to Cashiers, North Carolina, and stayed at my sister-in-law’s mountain cabin for the week.

“We decided to go ahead and try for another great kid. I call our first Hurricane Porter, so it will be interesting to see if little sister is just as wild, especially since she was conceived during an actual hurricane!” she quipped.

These moms are thrilled for their new bundles of joy whom they refer to as their “little miracles.”

“I feel babies always come at a time when they are most needed,” said mom Danielle Lewis of Bluffton. “When he is born, I feel he will fill a hole in our lives we didn’t even know was missing. I’m so eager and excited to meet him.”

Copyright © 2017, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

Read More →

ABC News(NEW YORK) — NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center has issued its annual Atlantic hurricane season outlook. The season runs from June 1 through Nov. 30.

This year, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) forecasts an above-normal hurricane season with a 70 percent likelihood of 11 to 17 named storms, five to nine hurricanes and two to four major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5; winds of 111 mph or higher). An average season produces 12 named storms, six hurricanes and three major hurricanes.

“The outlook reflects our expectation of a weak or nonexistent El Nino, near- or above-average sea surface temperatures across the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, and average or weaker-than-average vertical wind shear in that same region,” said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster with NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center.

Strong El Ninos and wind shear typically suppress the development of Atlantic hurricanes, so the prediction for weak conditions points to more hurricane activity this year. Also, warmer sea surface temperatures tend to fuel hurricanes as they move across the ocean. However, the climate models are showing considerable uncertainty, which is reflected in the comparable probabilities for an above-normal and near-normal season.

Even though Atlantic hurricane season does not start until June 1, there’s already been one tropical storm, Arlene, a rare pre-season storm that formed over the eastern Atlantic in April. This storm is already included in the 2017 season forecast.

But having tropical activity before the official start of the hurricane season does not necessarily mean it will be a busy hurricane season. Also, having a busy hurricane season does not mean there will be a lot of land-falling hurricanes or tropical storms in the United States.

For example, in 1992, the first named storm did not form until August, and it was Hurricane Andrew, which devastated South Florida. In another example, the 2010 hurricane season was above average with 19 named storms and 12 hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin. Despite the busy season, not a single hurricane and only one tropical storm made landfall in the United States.

Copyright © 2017, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

Read More →

ABC Radio(NEW YORK) — How good are your song recognition skills? Jamie Foxx wants to find out. He’s hosting the new game show, Beat Shazam, which premieres tonight on Fox.

The show pits contestants against the song recognition app, Shazam, to see who can identify a tune the fastest. Contestants have the chance to win up to one million dollars.

“What was interesting about all of the contestants, nobody was playing for themselves,” Jamie tells ABC Radio. “’I’m playing for my mom, she lost her house in a fire.’ ‘I’m playing for a friend of mine who doesn’t have medical benefits.’ And you know what the common theme was? Student loans.”

Jamie admits some of the contestants’ stories actually brought him to tears. But it wasn’t all heavy — Jamie’s hosting style made sure of that. In addition to bringing out celebrity guests includingMariah Carey and Snoop Dogg, Jamie says he was determined to make the set as dynamic and spontaneous as possible.”

“At one point they were like, ‘Well, we need you here, we need you there, you need to stand right here,’” he recalls. “I said I’m not going to do that. I’m gonna be all over the set.”

Beat Shazam premieres tonight at 8 p.m. ET on Fox.

Copyright © 2017, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

Read More →

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) — A federal appeals court upheld Thursday a lower court’s temporary block of key provisions of President Donald Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from some Middle East and African countries.

In the decision, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Roger Gregory writes that the executive order “in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” The opinion continues that while the president has power to limit entry to the country, “that power is not absolute.”

“It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation,” Gregory writes.

Trump’s order was his second attempt to limit immigration and travel to the United States. In February, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a bid for an emergency stay from the Department of Justice in response to a Washington state federal judge’s temporary restraining order blocking the president’s original order.

In March, Trump issued the revised order which he would later call a “watered-down” version of the first. Trump’s and his associates’ comments about their desire to prevent Muslims from entering the country during the presidential campaign were highlighted in rulings by federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocking the latest attempt. The government argued that the order was not intended to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Both the White House and Department of Justice released statements critical of the decision Thursday, with Attorney General Jeff Sessions pledging that his department “will seek review of this case in the United States Supreme Court.”

“This Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the power and duty of the Executive Branch to protect the people of this country from danger,” read the department’s statement.

The White House wrote that the country needs “every available tool at our disposal to prevent terrorists from entering the United States and committing acts of bloodshed and violence.”

“As Judge Shedd’s dissent notes, ‘the real losers in this case are the millions of individual Americans whose security is threatened on a daily basis by those who seek to do us harm,'” the White House statement continued. “We are confident the President’s executive order to protect the country is fully lawful and ultimately will be upheld by the Judiciary.”

The appellate court took the deepest dive yet into the issue of whether statements made by candidate Trump should be considered in evaluating the executive order he issued after he became president.

“The campaign statements here are probative of purpose because they are closely related in time, attributable to the primary decision maker, and specific and easily connected to the challenged action,” read the majority opinion.

“In this highly unique set of circumstances, there is a direct link between the President’s numerous campaign statements promising a Muslim ban that targets territories, the discrete action he took only one week into office executing that exact plan,” the opinion added.

“These statements, taken together, provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated both [the original and revised travel bans]: President Trump’s desire to exclude Muslims from the United States,” wrote Gregory. “We need not probe anyone’s heart of hearts to discover the purpose of [the order], for President Trump and his aides have explained it on numerous occasions and in no uncertain terms.”

The judges found that the Trump administration’s alleged intent to discriminate against Muslims could violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another.

The court’s opinion additionally found that the government’s national security justifications for parts of the ban inadequate. The travel ban’s “text does little to bolster any national security rationale: the only examples it provides of immigrants born abroad and convicted of terrorism-related crimes in the United States include two Iraqis,” even though Iraq is no longer a designated country under the ban, and “a Somalian refugee who entered the United States as a child and was radicalized here as an adult,” Gregory wrote.

The panel further examined the travel ban’s impact on plaintiffs who are Muslim Americans or permanent U.S. residents. An unnamed “John Doe” plaintiff has applied for a spousal immigration visa for his wife, an Iranian national. He is “feeling the direct, painful effects of the Second Executive Order—both its alleged message of religious condemnation and the prolonged separation it causes between him and his wife—in his everyday life,” the decision stated.

Copyright © 2017, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

Read More →

Arkansas State Parks(NEW YORK) — One man found the perfect last minute Mother’s Day gift for his wife when he spotted a small rock that turned out to be a diamond.

“When I told her I was going to find her a diamond for Mother’s Day I didn’t know I would actually find one,” Wendell Fox told ABC News about his find at the Crater of Diamonds State Park in Murfreesboro, Arkansas, on May 13. “I sort of pre-committed so I had to follow through,” he said.

Fox, 70, and his wife Jennifer, 68, live in Joliet, Montana, most of the year, but as Arkansas natives, the pair knew the storied history behind the state park. “The diamond mine is part of Arkansas history and it’s the only one in the U.S.” he explained, unaware that the park had been a hot bed for other diamond-seekers in recent months.

Fox said he and his wife were walking around the grounds for about an hour and a half “looking for a glimmer” when he noticed the gem.

“I was surface looking, walking very slowly and looking very slowly and I saw it,” Fox said. “I got down for a closer inspection because I wasn’t quite sure what to look for, but as soon as I saw it I thought, ‘that’s probably a diamond.'”

Fox showed the peanut-sized stone to his wife who told him to take it to the Diamond Discovery Center. When Fox pulled it from his pocket to show the employees, “one of the ladies sort of gasped and I just saw this big smile,” he said.

The staff confirmed that Fox discovered a 2.78-carat champagne colored diamond, the second-largest one registered at the park this year.

Earlier in May Victoria Brodski of Tulsa, Oklahoma, found a 2.65-carat brown gem that she dubbed the Michelangelo Diamond. On March 11, Centerton, Arkansas, resident Kalel Langford found a 7.44-carat brown gem that he named Superman’s Diamond.

Fox named his gem “Way Out Yonder” as a tribute to their home in Montana. The gemstone will be made into a pendant for his wife, Jennifer.

“We still can’t believe that we found it. It was just by the grace of God and love,” Fox said.

Copyright © 2017, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

Read More →

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) — House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, is renewing his request for documents pertaining to former FBI Director James Comey.

The FBI responded to Chaffetz in a letter Thursday citing Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel in the bureau’s investigation of Russia as justification to delay fulfilling the committee’s request.

“In light of this development and other considerations, we are undertaking appropriate consultation to ensure all relevant interests implicated by your request are properly evaluated,” wrote Gregory Brower, assistant director of the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs.

Chaffetz responded to Brower’s letter, emphasizing his panel “has its own, Constitutionally-based prerogative to conduct investigations” and that it’s not his intent to “impede or interfere” with Mueller’s investigation.

“In fact, the Committee’s investigation will complement the work of the Special Counsel. Whereas the Special Counsel is conducting a criminal or counterintelligence investigation that will occur largely behind closed doors, the Committee’s work will shed light on matters of high public interest, regardless of whether there is evidence of criminal conduct,” Chaffetz wrote.

“In this case, the focus of the Committee’s investigation is the independence of the FBI, including conversations between the President and Comey and the process by which Comey was removed from his role as director,” he continued. “The records being withheld are central to those questions, even more so in light of Comey’s decision not to testify before the Committee at this time.”

Chaffetz makes a new request for documents “outside the scope” of Mueller’s investigation “as soon as possible, but no later than June 8, 2017.”

Those documents include all memoranda, notes, summaries, and recordings referring or relating to any communication between Comey and any White House employee, including the president and the vice president, ranging back to Comey’s first day in September 2013, as well as between Comey and the attorney general or deputy attorney general.

Chaffetz further requests that the FBI identify all responsive documents, regardless of whether the document is within the scope of the special counsel’s investigation.

Copyright © 2017, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

Read More →

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) — A federal appeals court upheld Thursday a lower court’s temporary block of key provisions of President Donald Trump’s revised executive order banning travel from some Middle East and African countries.

In the decision, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Roger Gregory writes that the executive order “in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” The opinion continues that while the president has power to limit entry to the country, “that power is not absolute.”

“It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the President wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation,” Gregory writes.

Trump’s order was his second attempt to limit immigration and travel to the United States. In February, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a bid for an emergency stay from the Department of Justice in response to a Washington state federal judge’s temporary restraining order blocking the president’s original order.

In March, Trump issued the revised order which he would later call a “watered-down” version of the first. Trump’s and his associates’ comments about their desire to prevent Muslims from entering the country during the presidential campaign were highlighted in rulings by federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland blocking the latest attempt. The government argued that the order was not intended to discriminate on the basis of religion.

The appellate court took the deepest dive yet into the issue of whether statements made by candidate Trump should be considered in evaluating the executive order he issued after he became president.

“The campaign statements here are probative of purpose because they are closely related in time, attributable to the primary decision maker, and specific and easily connected to the challenged action,” reads the majority opinion.

“In this highly unique set of circumstances, there is a direct link between the President’s numerous campaign statements promising a Muslim ban that targets territories, the discrete action he took only one week into office executing that exact plan,” the opinion adds.

The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement Thursday in response to the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, saying, “President Trump’s Muslim ban violates the Constitution, as this decision strongly reaffirms. The Constitution’s prohibition on actions disfavoring or condemning any religion is a fundamental protection for all of us, and we can all be glad that the court today rejected the government’s request to set that principle aside.”

Copyright © 2017, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

Read More →

iStock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) — Journalists and politicians are speaking out about the treatment of the press following the alleged assault of a political reporter at the hands of the Republican candidate in Montana’s congressional special election — though not all are in agreement and some appeared split along partisan lines.

Greg Gianforte was charged with misdemeanor assault Wednesday after Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs said the GOP candidate body slammed him to the ground. Jacobs said he was attempting to ask the congressional candidate a question about his response to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the American Health Care Act.

The Radio Television Digital News Association released a statement condemning the incident on Thursday morning.

“If the criminal charges are proven true, this would be an outrageous escalation of the recent trend toward elected officials and those seeking elected office obstructing and even, now, assaulting reporters who are merely trying to do their jobs,” said Dan Shelley, the incoming executive director of the RTDNA in the statement.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, an organization that advocates for press freedom around the world, said that the incident “sends an unacceptable signal that physical assault is an appropriate response to unwanted questioning by a journalist,” in a release.

The U.S. editor of Jacob’s employer, The Guardian, put out a statement Wednesday evening expressing support Jacobs.

“The Guardian is deeply appalled by how our reporter, Ben Jacobs, was treated in the course of doing his job as a journalist while reporting on the Montana special election,” said the editor, Lee Glendinning. “We are committed to holding power to account and we stand by Ben Jacobs and our team of reporters for the questions they ask and the reporting that is produced.”

Vice News, which works with The Guardian on segments for its television program, “Vice News Tonight,” also released a statement.

“Vice News joins our partners at The Guardian in condemning the attack on journalist Ben Jacobs. It’s controversial, we know, to oppose violence against a person asking a question of a candidate for public office, but apparently that’s where we are. For any public official who wishes to live in a scrutiny free society we have one word of advice: move.”

Conservative media personalities and some Republican politicians downplayed the incident.

Laura Ingraham, a conservative commentator and the editor-in-chief of the website LifeZette, wrote on Twitter, “Did anyone get his lunch money stolen today and then run to tell the recess monitor?”

Derek Hunter, a radio host in Baltimore and contributing editor to the Daily Caller downplayed the incident at first before later tweeting that “it sounds bad” after reading the accounts of witnesses.

“What kind of a wuss files charges over broken glasses? Someone who wants to influence an outcome, that’s who,” tweeted Hunter in the aftermath

On Capitol Hill, a number of representatives condemned Gianforte’s behavior while still backing the candidate.

“I believe that we should all treat the press with respect and I try to lead by example,” said Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J. “I, of course, hope the Republican is successful today because I think his views are the views of the people of Montana.”

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. offered a mixed response on the incident to an Associated Press reporter.

“It’s not appropriate behavior,” said Hunter. “Unless the reporter deserved it.”

Copyright © 2017, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

Read More →