Vance’s Vision For Health Care Calls For Experimenting With Risk Pools
The Republican vice presidential candidate's suggestion to tinker with the ACA raises fear that folks with chronic health conditions would pay more. Policy experts note his contradicting statements. “Anything that separates out pre-existing conditions is doomed to utter failure,” one said.
Forbes:
Vance Suggests Health Insurance Changes Could Raise Premiums For Those With Pre-Existing Conditions
J.D. Vance is proposing substantial changes to ACA health insurance coverage that could lead to the elimination of the ACA’s protection against insurers levying higher premiums on individuals in poor health. Vance has spoken of deregulating the insurance market so that “people can choose a plan that actually makes sense for them,” as reported in The Hill. On the campaign trail in North Carolina last month, for instance, Vance suggested getting rid of the ACA’s single-risk pool which enables community rating and introducing separate risk pools for people with chronic health conditions. This would disrupt one of the ACA’s guiding principles which states that health insurers may not charge people higher premiums based on their health status. (Cohen, 10/2)
NBC News:
Vance's High-Risk Pool Health Insurance Plan: Would It Help Or Harm Sick Patients?
During Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, the Republican nominee, vowed to protect health insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions while also doubling down on a proposal to place them in a so-called high-risk pool, separating them out from healthier individuals. To many policy experts watching the debate, the two statements seemed irreconcilable — and harked back to a time before the Affordable Care Act, which guaranteed coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, became law. (Lovelace Jr., 10/2)
KFF Health News:
Vance-Walz Debate Highlighted Clear Health Policy Differences
Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance and Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz met in an Oct. 1 vice presidential debate hosted by CBS News that was cordial and heavy on policy discussion — a striking change from the Sept. 10 debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Vance and Walz acknowledged occasional agreement on policy points and respectfully addressed each other throughout the debate. (10/2)
On the candidates' medical records —
The Washington Post:
Vance, Walz Medical Records Improperly Accessed By VA Employees, Probe Finds
At least a dozen employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs improperly accessed the medical records of vice-presidential nominees JD Vance and Tim Walz this summer, VA investigators found, in a violation of federal health privacy laws that is under criminal investigation. VA officials notified the Vance and Walz campaigns about the breaches after discovering the unauthorized viewing by employees at the agency’s massive health-care arm, the Veterans Health Administration, according to people familiar with the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the ongoing investigation. (Rein and Barrett, 9/30)
The New York Times:
Trump Promised To Release His Medical Records. He Still Won’t Do It.
If elected again, he would become the oldest president by the end of his term. Yet he is refusing to disclose even basic health information. (Baumgaertner and Haberman, 10/3)
On the issue of abortion —
Politico:
Dems Dismiss Trump-Vance Abortion Messaging As ‘Lip Service,’ But It Might Be Working
Trump and Vance’s efforts on the debate stage and on social media Tuesday night were the latest examples of the GOP ticket’s months-long effort to neutralize one of Democrats’ most effective lines of attack and rebrand as moderate on abortion, and there are signs it might be working. Recent polling in several battleground states shows that many who support abortion rights — and plan to vote for state-level protections for the procedure — also plan to cast their vote for Trump despite his self-professed leading role in overturning Roe v. Wade. (Ollstein, 10/2)
Los Angeles Times:
Melania Trump Defends Abortion Rights In New Memoir
Former First Lady Melania Trump offered a passionate defense of a woman’s right to abortion, including in the late stages of pregnancy — a direct contradiction of the views of her husband, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, according to excerpts of her memoir that is scheduled to be released next week. “It is imperative to guarantee that women have autonomy in deciding their preference of having children, based on their own convictions, free from any intervention or pressure from the government,” the former president’s wife writes in “Melania,” according to a report published by the Guardian on Wednesday. (Mehta and Jarvie, 10/2)
KFF Health News:
Doctors Urging Conference Boycotts Over Abortion Bans Face Uphill Battle
Soon after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Roe v. Wade abortion ruling in 1973, Laura Esserman used her high school graduation speech to urge her classmates to vote for the Equal Rights Amendment to expand women’s access to property, divorce, and abortion. Five decades later, with 14 states banning abortion in almost all circumstances, the University of California-San Francisco breast cancer surgeon has once again taken up the fight for women’s reproductive rights. (Cohen, 10/3)
In related news about the Supreme Court —
Reuters:
Gun, Transgender Rights, Porn Cases Loom As US Supreme Court Returns
The U.S. Supreme Court launches its new nine-month term on Monday with several major cases already on its schedule - involving guns, transgender rights, online pornography and more - and with the possibility of confronting legal disputes that may arise from the Nov. 5 presidential election. The first big case before the court comes on Tuesday, when it hears arguments involving largely untraceable, home-assembled firearms called "ghost guns." (Chung, 10/2)
The Hill:
Trust In Supreme Court Drops To Record Low In New Poll
Public trust in the Supreme Court is at a record low, with more than half of Americans disapproving of the nation’s highest court since its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, a new survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania showed. The survey, conducted from July 12 to August 12, found that 56 percent of Americans disapprove somewhat of the court, saying they either trust it “a little” or “not at all.” (Ventura, 10/2)
