Another 3.169 million Americans file for unemployment benefits

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jobless-claims-another-3-million-americans-expected-to-have-filed-for-unemployment-benefits-170914685.html

Jobless claims: Another 3.169 million Americans file for ...

Market participants got another pulse check on the U.S. labor market Thursday, as the world continues to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic and ahead of the highly-anticipated April jobs report.

Another 3.169 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits in the week ending May 2, exceeding economists expectations for 3 million initial jobless claims. The prior week’s figure was revised higher to 3.846 million from the previously reported 3.839 million. So far over the past seven weeks, more than 33 million Americans have filed unemployment insurance claims.

Continuing claims, which lags initial jobless claims data by one week, totaled a record 22.65 million in the week ending April 25. The prior week’s 17.99 million continuing claims was revised higher to 18.01 million.

The weekly number of jobless claims has been steadily declining even as the cumulative number remains high.

“Jobless claims in the U.S. slowed again last week, but not as much as hoped. As the economy re-opens more broadly this process should accelerate, but the economic pain resulting from mass unemployment will restrain the recovery process,” ING economist James Knightley said in a note Thursday.

“This report tells us nothing about hiring though, which is likely to remain weak for some time to come given the economically depressing effects of social distancing, consumer caution relating to Covid-19 fears, travel restrictions and the legacy of tens of millions of people being out of work,” Knightley added.

map

Certain states got hit harder than others last week, as backlogs continue to get processed. California saw the highest number of initial jobless claims at an estimated 318,000 on an unadjusted basis, down from 325,000 in the prior week. Texas reported 247,000, down from 254,000 in the previous week. Georgia had an estimated 227,000 and New York reported 195,000. Florida, which had the highest number of claims in the prior week, reported 173,000 in the week ending May 2, down considerably from 433,000.

Thursday’s weekly claims report comes ahead of the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s April jobs report and on the heels of the ADP employment report. Wednesday morning, the U.S. private sector lost 20.23 million jobs in April and was the worst loss in the report’s history, according to ADP.

“Job losses of this scale are unprecedented. The total number of job losses for the month of April alone was more than double the total jobs lost during the Great Recession,” ADP Research Institute Co-Head Ahu Yildirmaz said in a statement.

“Additionally, it is important to note that the report is based on the total number of payroll records for employees who were active on a company’s payroll through the 12th of the month. This is the same time period the Bureau of Labor and Statistics uses for their survey,” Yildirmaz added.

Though the ADP report is not always a reliable indicator of what the BLS report will illustrate, it does provide a bit of insight into the health of employment in the U.S.

“The report is a bit light on details of any potential methodological problems this month. The ADP counts anyone on the active payroll rather than just people who were paid during the month, which is the official non-farm payroll definition. Within many people put on temporary layoff, that could have created a discrepancy, with those people still on the active payroll, but not counted in the official non-farm payroll figures and also qualifying as unemployed in the other official household survey,” Capital Economics said in a note Wednesday.

Economists polled by Bloomberg expect 21.3 million jobs losses in April when the BLS releases its report Friday morning, down significantly from 701,000 job losses in March. The unemployment rate is estimated to have surged to 16% from 4.4% in the prior month.

“April jobs report should go down in infamy,” Bank of America economists said in a note Wednesday. “The April employment report will reveal unprecedented job losses as the economy has been shutdown to control the spread of COVID-19.” The firm projects 22 million job losses during the month amid the global pandemic.  

One important thing to note with April’s jobs report is that there might be some discrepancies in the two surveys. A furloughed person, who is not working but has not been laid off, will be classified as unemployed or temporarily laid off in the household survey. However, if they were paid at any point during the establishment survey period, they will be classified as employed.

As of Thursday morning, there were 3.7 million confirmed coronavirus cases and 264,000 deaths globally, according to Johns Hopkins University data. In the U.S., there were 1.2 million cases and 73,000 deaths.

 

 

 

9 health systems with strong finances

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/9-health-systems-with-strong-finances-050620.html?utm_medium=email

Here are nine health systems with strong operational metrics and solid financial positions, according to reports from Fitch Ratings, Moody’s Investors Service and S&P Global Ratings.

1. Advocate Aurora Health, which has dual headquarters in Milwaukee and Downers Grove, Ill., has an “Aa3” rating and positive outlook with Moody’s and an “AA” rating and stable outlook with S&P. Moody’s said it expects Advocate Aurora to maintain low leverage, a favorable liquidity position and healthy long-term margins, despite the near-term impact from COVID-19.

2. Phoenix-based Banner Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch and an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with S&P. The health system has a strong financial profile and growing financial stability in its insurance division, Fitch said. Notwithstanding the impact from the COVID-19 pandemic, Fitch expects Banner’s improvement to operating margins will resume and continue to support spending levels and liquidity growth.

3. Clearwater, Fla.-based BayCare Health System has an “Aa2” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has strong operating performance and favorable balance sheet metrics, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects the health system to maintain strong liquidity and to move quickly with capital expansion.

4. Cincinnati-based Bon Secours Mercy Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has a broad geographic footprint, a good payer mix and a strong financial profile, Fitch said. The credit rating agency anticipates that Bon Secours Mercy Health will increase capital spending over the next three years due to strategic investments in its expanded markets.

5. Omaha, Neb.-based Children’s Hospital and Medical Center has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The hospital has a dominant market position as the only comprehensive pediatric provider in Nebraska, and its operating cash flow levels are robust enough to absorb any short-term pressure related to the COVID-19 pandemic, Fitch said.

6. Naples, Fla.-based NCH Healthcare System has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has a strong financial profile, robust operating performance and a leading market position in a favorable service area, Fitch said.

7. Stanford (Calif.) Health Care has an “Aa3” rating and stable outlook with Moody’s. The health system has unique clinical offerings and a strong reputation for patient care and research, Moody’s said. The credit rating agency expects Stanford Health Care to maintain strong patient demand and grow absolute cash flow over the next several years.

8. West Des Moines, Iowa-based UnityPoint Health has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The health system has strong leverage metrics and regional diversification, Fitch said. The credit rating agency expects the system’s cash flow margins to return to levels of at least 7 percent beyond early 2021 after declining in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

9. Arlington-based Virginia Hospital Center has an “AA-” rating and stable outlook with Fitch. The credit rating agency expects Virginia Hospital Center’s strong operating performance to continue after the market recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Trump will urge Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/trump-supreme-court-obamacare-240366?utm_source=The+Fiscal+Times&utm_campaign=f343554e9c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_06_09_42&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_714147a9cf-f343554e9c-390702969

Trump will urge Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare - YouTube

Attorney General Bill Barr had urged the White House to soften its attack on the law during the pandemic.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday said his administration will urge the Supreme Court to overturn Obamacare, maintaining its all-out legal assault on the health care law amid a pandemic that will drive millions of more Americans to depend on its coverage.

The administration appears to be doubling down on its legal strategy, even after Attorney General William Barr this week warned top Trump officials about the political ramifications of undermining the health care safety net during the coronavirus emergency.

Democrats two years ago took back the House of Representatives and statehouses across the country by promising to defend Obamacare, in particular its insurance protections that prevent sick people from being denied coverage or charged more because of a health condition. The issue may prove to be even more salient in November amid the Covid-19 outbreak that health experts believe will persist through the fall.

The Justice Department had a Wednesday deadline to change its position in a case brought by Republican-led states, but Trump told reporters Wednesday afternoon his administration would stand firm. DOJ declined to comment.

“Obamacare is a disaster, but we’ve made it barely acceptable,” Trump said.

The Supreme Court later this fall will hear a lawsuit from the GOP-led states that argue the Affordable Care Act was rendered invalid after Congress eliminated its tax penalty for not having health insurance. A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general and the Democratic-led House of Representatives are defending the law in court.

The Trump administration had previously shifted its legal position in this case, but appears to have decided against doing so again. DOJ originally argued the courts should throw out just Obamacare’s preexisting condition protections, before last year urging that the entire law be struck down.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case during its next term starting in October, but it hasn’t scheduled arguments yet. A decision is unlikely before the Nov. 3 election. The court has previously upheld Obamacare in two major challenges that threatened the law’s survival.

About 20 million people have been covered by Obamacare, and the law is expected to provide a major safety net during the economic freefall brought on by the coronavirus. Millions more are expected to join the Medicaid rolls, especially in states that joined Obamacare’s expansion to poor adults. Others who lost workplace health insurance can sign up on the law’s health insurance marketplaces, though the Trump administration isn’t doing much to advertise coverage options.

House Democrats in a filing to the Supreme Court on Wednesday said the pandemic showcased why justices should preserve the law.

“Although Congress may not have enacted the ACA with the specific purpose of combatting a pandemic, the nation’s current public-health emergency has made it impossible to deny that broad access to affordable health care is not just a life-or death matter for millions of Americans, but an indispensable precondition to the social intercourse on which our security, welfare, and liberty ultimately depend,” their brief read.

Obamacare has grown more popular since the GOP’s failed repeal bid during Trump’s first year in office, though the law is still broadly disliked by Republicans. Many Democrats are eager to again run on their defense of Obamacare this fall. That includes presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden, who has advocated for building on the health care law rather than pursuing a comprehensive progressive overhaul like “Medicare for All.”

Top Trump officials have long been split on the legal strategy in the Obamacare lawsuit. Barr and Alex Azar, the Health and Human Services secretary, both opposed a broader attack on the law, but White House officials have been more supportive, seeing it as a chance to fulfill Trump’s pledge to repeal Obamacare. Barr, in a Monday meeting with Vice President Mike Pence and other White House officials, made an eleventh-hour plea for the administration to soften its legal stance ahead of the Supreme Court’s briefing deadline.

 

 

 

States cut Medicaid as millions of jobless workers look to safety net

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/05/states-cut-medicaid-programs-239208?utm_source=The+Fiscal+Times&utm_campaign=f343554e9c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_06_09_42&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_714147a9cf-f343554e9c-390702969

Medicaid Cuts Could Hurt Seniors Most | Muskegon Tribune

Three states have cut back state spending on the program since the pandemic hit, and more are warning of painful cuts to benefits and services.

States facing sudden drops in tax revenue amid the pandemic are announcing deep cuts to their Medicaid programs just as millions of newly jobless Americans are surging onto the rolls.

And state officials are worried that they’ll have to slash benefits for patients and payments to health providers in the safety net insurance program for the poor unless they get more federal aid.

State Medicaid programs in the previous economic crisis cut everything from dental services to podiatry care — and reduced payments to hospitals and doctors in order to balance out spending on other needs like roads, schools and prisons. Medicaid officials warn the gutting could be far worse this time, because program enrollment has swelled in recent years largely because of Obamacare’s expansion.

The looming crisis facing Medicaid programs “is going to be the ’09 recession on steroids,” said Matt Salo, head of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “It’s going to hit hard, and it’s going to hit fast.”

Medicaid programs, among the largest budget items in most states, provide health insurance to roughly 70 million poor adults, children, the disabled and pregnant women. The federal government on average pays roughly 60 percent of program costs, with poorer states receiving a higher share. States have the latitude to adjust benefits, payments to health care providers and eligibility requirements with oversight by the federal government.

Now, governors are turning to Congress for help as it weighs a new package to rescue state budgets battered by the pandemic. They’re asking lawmakers to provide a bigger boost to Medicaid payments and provide hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to shore up state budgets.

Medicaid naturally faces heightened demand as economic conditions worsen. But that leaves states facing more need at the same time that they have less money.

“The cruel nature of the economic downturn is that at a time when you need a social safety net is also the time when government revenues shrink,” Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, said Tuesday as he announced $210 million in cuts to his state’s Medicaid program in the next two months.

The vast majority of a $229 million spending cut made by Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis last week came from Medicaid, though new federal funds will forestall an immediate reduction in benefits or payments to health providers. State legislative committee staff have warned Medicaid enrollment there could spike by 500,000 by the end of the year.

In Georgia, where Medicaid enrollment is projected to rise by as much as 567,000, Republican Gov. Brian Kemp and legislative leaders have instructed every state agency to prepare for 14 percent reductions across the board.

House Democrats are pushing to deliver a $1 trillion-plus package in aid to state and local governments and to support safety net programs, which could alleviate pressure on states to make deep cuts to health care during a pandemic. Some Republican lawmakers have questioned the need for more aid, after Congress has shoveled out trillions of dollars in rescue funding.

Congress already gave states a temporary 6 percent increase in the federal portion of Medicaid spending in an earlier coronavirus package. That prompted Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a Republican, to cut state Medicaid spending $31 million last month, saying the temporary federal boost would make up the difference.

State officials largely agreed the increase was helpful but said it likely will be washed out by an expected enrollment surge. The nation’s governors say Congress — in addition to providing at least $500 billion in direct support to states — must double the Medicaid funding boost to 12 percent as it did in the previous recession. At least one Republican senator facing a tough reelection fight, Cory Gardner of Colorado, said his state sorely needs extra Medicaid funding to avoid “harmful budget cuts.”

Anywhere from 11 million to 23 million more people could sign up for Medicaid over the next several months. The demand will be even greater in roughly three-quarters of states that expanded Medicaid enrollment to poor adults under the Affordable Care Act.

The portion of state budgets devoted to Medicaid spending has grown quickly since the previous recession, making it a riper target for cuts. Medicaid spending on average accounted for 15.7 percent of state budgets in fiscal 2009, a number that jumped to 19.7 percent in fiscal 2019.

Medicaid enrollment data in some states often lags, making it difficult to determine how much national sign-ups have climbed since jobless claims began surging two months ago. Some states have begun to report notable surges, however, and larger increases are expected in the coming months.

Arizona in the past two months saw 78,000 people enroll in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which receives more generous funding from the federal government. Virginia has seen a 20 percent increase in enrollment applications since mid-March.

In New Mexico, where 42 percent of the population was already enrolled in Medicaid, sign-ups in the first two weeks of April surged by about 10,000 more people than were expected before the pandemic.

New Mexico’s top Medicaid official said the budget is a significant concern for a state heavily reliant on oil and natural gas. She worries a prolonged economic downturn could force the state to roll back pay increases to Medicaid providers enacted last year, and another planned pay raise for next year is almost certainly off the table.

States that accepted the temporary Medicaid payment increase from Congress are barred from cutting back enrollment while they’re receiving the enhanced funds. That leaves states with the option of cutting benefits or provider payments to find Medicaid savings, which could ignite fierce brawls in state capitals.

Michigan state Rep. Mary Whiteford, the Republican chairwoman of a health care appropriations panel, said the state’s Medicaid enrollment could increase from 2.4 million to 2.8 million by the end of the year.

“We are just planning for major cuts moving forward,” Whiteford said.

Before the pandemic, states had socked away $72 billion in rainy day funds — an all-time high, said Brian Sigritz of the National Association of State Budget Officers. But that figure was easily dwarfed by the $150 billion Congress provided to state and local governments in an earlier package, and it’s far short of what states are demanding.

“Now, we’re looking at greater declines than what we saw during the Great Recession and increased spending,” Sigritz said. “If there aren’t more federal funds, states will have to look at cutting funding for key services: public safety, education, health care. That’s where the money is.”

 

 

9 states seek $36B in federal advances for unemployment claims

https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/05/05/9-states-seek-36b-in-federal-advances-for-unemployment-claims-1282530?utm_source=The+Fiscal+Times&utm_campaign=f343554e9c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_06_09_42&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_714147a9cf-f343554e9c-390702969

9 states seek $36B in federal advances for unemployment claims

Nine states have told the Department of Labor they plan to ask for $36 billion in federal advances to cover the astronomical cost of unemployment payouts amid the coronavirus pandemic, according to new information provided to POLITICO Tuesday night by federal officials.

Illinois, which had fiscal problems before the coronavirus, tops the list with an $11 billion request in May and June.

California, the first state to borrow, plans to seek the next-highest amount over the same two months: $8 billion.

Texas will ask for advances totaling $6.4 billion in May, June and July and New York will ask for $4.4 billion in the same three months.

Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Ohio and West Virginia have also signaled an intent to borrow between May and July to fund their unemployment systems. Some of the states, like Illinois and California, only requested advances for May and June.

There is no approval process for the advances, a department spokesperson said. States notify the Departments of Labor and Treasury of their needs, the spokesperson said, and the Department of Labor certifies those amounts to the Treasury Department.

States are able to draw down advances as they need them, but won’t necessarily end up using the full amounts.

California took out its first $348 million unemployment insurance loan last week, slipping into the red just two years after repaying the $65 billion it borrowed from the federal government during and after the Great Recession. It was one of about three dozen states that took out federal loans to weather the last downturn, a scenario likely to repeat itself in the coming weeks and months as unemployment numbers soar nationwide.

The latest national figures last week showed that more than 30 million had filed jobless claims since mid-March.

California’s unemployment insurance system, funded by payroll taxes, was barely solvent before the pandemic blindsided the economy, with less of a cushion than any other state or territory except for the U.S. Virgin Islands, according to the Department of Labor’s Trust Fund Solvency Report.

Besides Hawaii, all of the states requesting advances also fell well below the department’s recommended solvency level.

Since mid-March, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday, the state has issued $7.8 billion in unemployment relief, and more than 4.1 million people have filed claims — about 21 percent of the state’s pre-pandemic workforce.

Newsom stressed that the state was “good for our word,” but called for direct federal aid. “This pandemic is bigger than even the state of California,” he said. “The economic consequences of this pandemic are such that we can balance our budgets without substantial cuts, unless we get additional federal support.”

States won’t accrue interest on these federal loans through Dec. 31, under the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act. But the last round of unemployment fund borrowing cost California $1.4 billion in interest payments, according to the state’s Department of Finance.

 

 

 

 

ADP National Employment Report

https://adpemploymentreport.com/2020/April/NER/NER-April-2020.aspx?utm_source=The+Fiscal+Times&utm_campaign=f343554e9c-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_06_09_42&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_714147a9cf-f343554e9c-390702969

Private-sector employment decreased by 20,236,000 from March to April, on a seasonally adjusted basis.

 

 

 

COVID-19 and the End of Individualism

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/covid19-economic-interdependence-waning-individualism-by-diane-coyle-2020-05?utm_source=Project+Syndicate+Newsletter&utm_campaign=1cfd702284-covid_newsletter_07_05_2020&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_73bad5b7d8-1cfd702284-105592221&mc_cid=1cfd702284&mc_eid=5f214075f8

Daniel Innerarity - Project Syndicate

The pandemic has shown that it is not existential dangers, but rather everyday economic activities, that reveal the collective, connected character of modern life. Just as a spider’s web crumples when a few strands are broken, so the coronavirus has highlighted the risks arising from our economic interdependence.

CAMBRIDGE – Aristotle was right. Humans have never been atomized individuals, but rather social beings whose every decision affects other people. And now the COVID-19 pandemic is driving home this fundamental point: each of us is morally responsible for the infection risks we pose to others through our own behavior.

In fact, this pandemic is just one of many collective-action problems facing humankind, including climate change, catastrophic biodiversity loss, antimicrobial resistance, nuclear tensions fueled by escalating geopolitical uncertainty, and even potential threats such as a collision with an asteroid.

As the pandemic has demonstrated, however, it is not these existential dangers, but rather everyday economic activities, that reveal the collective, connected character of modern life beneath the individualist façade of rights and contracts.

Those of us in white-collar jobs who are able to work from home and swap sourdough tips are more dependent than we perhaps realized on previously invisible essential workers, such as hospital cleaners and medics, supermarket staff, parcel couriers, and telecoms technicians who maintain our connectivity.

Similarly, manufacturers of new essentials such as face masks and chemical reagents depend on imports from the other side of the world. And many people who are ill, self-isolating, or suddenly unemployed depend on the kindness of neighbors, friends, and strangers to get by.

The sudden stop to economic activity underscores a truth about the modern, interconnected economy: what affects some parts substantially affects the whole. This web of linkages is therefore a vulnerability when disrupted. But it is also a strength, because it shows once again how the division of labor makes everyone better off, exactly as Adam Smith pointed out over two centuries ago.

Today’s transformative digital technologies are dramatically increasing such social spillovers, and not only because they underpin sophisticated logistics networks and just-in-time supply chains. The very nature of the digital economy means that each of our individual choices will affect many other people.

Consider the question of data, which has become even more salient today because of the policy debate about whether digital contact-tracing apps can help the economy to emerge from lockdown faster.

This approach will be effective only if a high enough proportion of the population uses the same app and shares the data it gathers. And, as the Ada Lovelace Institute points out in a thoughtful report, that will depend on whether people regard the app as trustworthy and are sure that using it will help them. No app will be effective if people are unwilling to provide “their” data to governments rolling out the system. If I decide to withhold information about my movements and contacts, this would adversely affect everyone.

Yet, while much information certainly should remain private, data about individuals is only rarely “personal,” in the sense that it is only about them. Indeed, very little data with useful information content concerns a single individual; it is the context – whether population data, location, or the activities of others – that gives it value.

Most commentators recognize that privacy and trust must be balanced with the need to fill the huge gaps in our knowledge about COVID-19. But the balance is tipping toward the latter. In the current circumstances, the collective goal outweighs individual preferences.

But the current emergency is only an acute symptom of increasing interdependence. Underlying it is the steady shift from an economy in which the classical assumptions of diminishing or constant returns to scale hold true to one in which there are increasing returns to scale almost everywhere.

In the conventional framework, adding a unit of input (capital and labor) produces a smaller or (at best) the same increment to output. For an economy based on agriculture and manufacturing, this was a reasonable assumption.

But much of today’s economy is characterized by increasing returns, with bigger firms doing ever better. The network effects that drive the growth of digital platforms are one example of this. And because most sectors of the economy have high upfront costs, bigger producers face lower unit costs.

One important source of increasing returns is the extensive experience-based know-how needed in high-value activities such as software design, architecture, and advanced manufacturing. Such returns not only favor incumbents, but also mean that choices by individual producers and consumers have spillover effects on others.

The pervasiveness of increasing returns to scale, and spillovers more generally, has been surprisingly slow to influence policy choices, even though economists have been focusing on the phenomenon for many years now. The COVID-19 pandemic may make it harder to ignore.

Just as a spider’s web crumples when a few strands are broken, so the pandemic has highlighted the risks arising from our economic interdependence. And now California and Georgia, Germany and Italy, and China and the United States need each other to recover and rebuild. No one should waste time yearning for an unsustainable fantasy.

 

 

 

The U.S. coronavirus recovery is way behind Europe

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-a8ccd48c-549e-4b89-957d-eee60dc3490c.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Nathan Newman 🧭 (@nathansnewman) | Twitter

Other countries — even some hit hard by the coronavirus — are beating back their outbreaks more successfully than the U.S., Axios’ Dave Lawler and I report.

Why it matters: The number of new cases every day is holding steady in the U.S., but it’s not going down — a key benchmark many other countries achieved before loosening their lockdowns and social distancing measures.

In some of Europe’s hardest-hit countries, case counts seemed to skyrocket uncontrollably even amid some of the world’s strictest lockdowns.

  • Italy and Spain followed a similar pattern. New cases climbed over about a month from under 100 per day to terrifying peaks of roughly 8,000 per day in Spain and 6,000 per day in Italy.
  • The fall was nearly as sharp. Within two weeks of the peak, the rates of daily recorded cases had been halved. They’ve continued to fall since.

America’s daily rate climbed faster and higher (due in part to its larger population), but appears to have peaked at around 30,000 new cases per day in the first week of April.

  • But rather than falling, the rate stagnated. Outside of New York (which has bent its curve) the rate is actually continuing to climb.

Between the lines: The U.S. didn’t lock down as tightly as some of those countries, and made a host of mistakes early in the response.

  • Italy and Spain issued strict nationwide lockdowns that forced most people to remain inside except to shop for necessities. Spain didn’t allow children outside at all.
  • “Our economic shutdown … wasn’t as broad as some of the other countries’, so there was more opportunity for the virus to spread,” said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the John Hopkins Center for Health Security.

The big picture: “It seems that this is a controllable pandemic without it having to run its natural course,” says Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs.

 

 

 

Home of the Brave

Image may contain: 8 peopleImage may contain: 8 people

Barr urges Trump administration to back off call to fully strike down Obamacare

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/05/politics/william-barr-obamacare-supreme-court/index.html?fbclid=IwAR0H0M_pTi9V9W4iEAqWTWKJzopzznh6202z0FgsMbthJS7oS-pDowVGc3M

Barr urges Trump administration to back off call to fully strike ...

Attorney General William Barr made a last-minute push Monday to persuade the administration to modify its position in the Obamacare dispute that will be heard at the Supreme Court this fall, arguing that the administration should pull back from its insistence that the entire law be struck down.

With a Wednesday deadline to make any alterations to its argument looming, Barr made his case in a room with Vice President Mike Pence, White House counsel Pat Cipollone, members of the Domestic Policy Council, press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and several other officials. The meeting ended without a decision and it was not immediately not clear if any shift in the Trump administration’s position will emerge.
Barr and other top advisers have argued against the hard-line position for some time, warning it could have major political implications if the comprehensive health care law appears in jeopardy as voters head to the polls in November.
According to four sources familiar with the meeting, Barr argued for modifying the administration’s current stance to preserve parts of the law, rather than fully back the lawsuit filed by a group of Republican states. As it stands now, the Trump administration’s position seeks to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act, signed by President Barack Obama in 2010 and commonly known as Obamacare.
Barr and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar have argued against supporting invalidating the law in full, engaging in a heated debate on this point with then-acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and policy officials allied with him, CNN reported last year. But Barr and others have recently brought an additional dimension to their efforts, highlighting the coronavirus pandemic that has swept the nation. If the justices were to accept the Trump administration position, its decision could cause substantial disruptions to the health care of millions of Americans and cause the uninsured rate to spike.
The Affordable Care Act is expected to serve as an important safety net for the millions of people who lose their jobs and work-based health insurance amid the pandemic. If the unemployment rate hits 15%, nearly 17.7 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored policies, according to a recent Urban Institute report. More than 8 million people could enroll in Medicaid, particularly in states that expanded the program to more low-income adults under the sweeping health care law. Also, more than 4 million people could obtain coverage through the Affordable Care Act exchanges or other private policies, leaving just over 5 million uninsured, the report found.
Even before the pandemic, more than 11.4 million people signed up for Obamacare coverage for 2020 and roughly 12.5 million were enrolled in Medicaid expansion.
Trump’s domestic policy aides have resisted any change in the Trump administration’s legal arguments at this point, contending that the legal position should move forward without changes because Republicans have campaigned on repealing Obamacare for a decade. Those aides have brushed off the possibility of any new political repercussions, and pushed back on Barr in the meeting Monday.
The Justice Department declined to comment.
The divide has been a long-running battle inside the administration, but it has a new sense of urgency because the administration is up against a deadline on Wednesday if it wants to modify its argument.
The administration currently contends that the individual insurance requirement is unconstitutional, and because that mandate is tied to other provisions of the law, the entire Affordable Care Act must fall. If the administration is going to back off that absolute position, it would likely submit a filing to the Supreme Court within the next 48 hours, based on the court’s current briefing schedule for the dueling parties. Otherwise, the administration’s brief would not be due to the high court until June.
Barr has long favored tempering the administration’s position, which has shifted multiple times since the lawsuit began in early 2018. The administration argued that only two key provisions that protect Americans with pre-existing conditions should fall, but the rest of the law could remain. In a dramatic reversal soon after Barr became attorney general in early 2019, the Justice Department said the entire Affordable Care Act should be invalidated. Several months later, the administration argued before a federal appeals court that the law should only be struck as it applies to the coalition of Republican-led states that brought the challenge.
The argument that the entire law should be struck down already might have been a tough one to make to a Supreme Court majority that has twice rejected broad-scale challenges.
After a decade, the Affordable Care Act has affected nearly every aspect of the health care system. It required all Americans obtain coverage and created a marketplace for purchasing insurance. It also expanded Medicaid for poor people and protected diabetics, cancer patients and other individuals with pre-existing conditions from being denied coverage or charged higher premiums.
The current Supreme Court dispute began when Texas and other Republican-led states sued after the Republican-led Congress in 2017 cut the tax penalty for those who failed to obtain insurance to zero. Because the individual mandate is no longer tied to a specific tax penalty, the states argue, it is unconstitutional. They also say that because the individual mandate is intertwined with a multitude of ACA provisions, invalidating it should bring down the entire law, including protections for people with preexisting conditions.
On the other side are California and other Democratic-led states and the now Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives. The Affordable Care Act has remained in effect through the litigation.
The Supreme Court agreed earlier this year to take up the ACA dispute. The case is likely to be heard in the fall, but a decision would not be expected until 2021, after the November presidential election.
The case will mark the third time that the Supreme Court takes up a major ACA dispute. In 2012, the justices upheld the law, by a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the deciding vote with the four liberal justices over the dissent of four conservatives. Roberts grounded his opinion in Congress’ taxing power.