USA: Health Insurance -What it's like living without health insurance in America - by John Tozzi and Emma Ockerman

Last week, Bloomberg News told the story of three families without health insurance. We also asked readers to share their own stories as we spend the next year following people who are “risking it.”

The response was overwhelming. More than 3,000 people from across the U.S. filled out our questionnaire and shared their challenges, and how their decisions have affected their health and financial well-being.

Some can’t afford to insure their children. Others are seeking cheaper care abroad. Some older adults are counting down the years until they qualify for Medicare.

While these people are among the 27 million Americans who remain uncovered despite the large expansion of health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, their stories transcend politics, reflecting tough kitchen-table decisions about health care faced by many families

Read more: What it's like living without health insurance in America

USA - Health Care Disaster: Trump owns plenty of blame for health care defeat - by John Harwood

President Donald Trump's remarks conceding defeat on repealing and replacing Obamacare demonstrated why his first big effort failed in the first place.

To begin with, the president remains only loosely attached to his own team. He referred to his Republican allies in Congress as "they," while casting himself passively as "sitting in the Oval Office ... pen in hand, waiting to sign something."

"For seven years, I've been hearing 'repeal and replace' from Congress, and I've been hearing it loud and strong," Trump told reporters at a photo op. "And then when we finally get a chance to repeal and replace, they don't take advantage of it. So, that's disappointing."

Second, Trump continued to display no understanding of health-care issues themselves. He again touted an alternative to Obamacare "with much lower premiums, much lower costs, much better protections."

If such a plan existed, congressional Republicans would have figured it out over the last seven years and passed it this year. Trump's summary assessment — "something will happen, and it will be very good" — showed that he doesn't have one either.

Third, his thinly staffed administration lacks an effective team to develop, push through Congress and implement a new system. As Trump dined at the White House to plot strategy with Senate leaders, he and his aides had no idea that GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Jerry Moran of Kansas at that moment were sinking their plans.

Read more: Trump owns plenty of blame for health care defeat

Health Care: Solving surprise medical bills

Imagine you walk into a hospital for a planned procedure, for example a knee operation to be performed by an orthopedic surgeon. Before you scheduled the surgery, you did your due diligence and confirmed that the surgeon performing the procedure participated in your insurance plan, and that the hospital where you were having the surgery was also in-network.

You know that you will still owe hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars (depending on the details of your insurance coverage or any deductible you need to meet), but you’re certain the costs are manageable and you’re prepared to pay the final amount.

The surgery goes well, and you begin your recovery. Then, several weeks later, you get a bill for the surgery that’s much, much more than you expected to pay—maybe even ten or twenty times what you expected to pay. How did this happen?

A new paper, Solving Surprise Medical Bills from the Schaeffer Initiative at the Brookings Center on Health Policy, takes a closer look at surprise medical bills in America—and how policymakers can protect patients from them.

You might be shocked to receive the bill, but you wouldn’t be alone. Over the past several years, an increasing number of Americans have been hit with surprise bills for medical care. Surprise medical bills result from providers (physicians, hospitals, out-patient facilities, laboratories, etc.) that patients reasonably assumed would be in-network, but actually are out-of-network, or when patients have no real choice over the network status of their provider.

These bills are sometimes the result of emergency situations. None of us, in an emergency, place a call our insurance company to make sure the ambulance we need or the hospital we’re brought to is in-network. Yet you can still be liable for the astronomical bills that result.

Other times, patients are billed by out-of-network providers, such as an anesthesiologist, even though patients did everything they reasonably could to remain in-network for a planned medical procedure. As a result, patients incur much higher charges, which often exceed what insurance reimburses, sometimes are exorbitant, and can lead to financial distress.

There is bipartisan agreement that this problem exists, is increasing, and needs to be addressed. Important differences exist, however, on how the problem should be solved. Over a dozen states have enacted important protections and federal and state officials have proposed additional remedies, but these efforts are incomplete, and they pursue a variety of different strategies.

Read more: Solving surprise medical bills | Brookings Institution

Health Care - A Look Into The Crystal Ball - 2017 Editio

Regardless of the outcome of the November election, and by that I mean both the presidential and congressional elections, health care will once again be on the agenda.

At this point, the most likely scenario is a Clinton victory, a change in the Senate majority from GOP to Dem (though it could be very close) and a diminished, but still majority, GOP in the House. This scenario would set up an opportunity for some real progress on several nagging health care issues. To add to the analysis, there is an outside chance that the GOP could lose majority control of the House, but for this to happen, it would require an electoral landslide by Clinton preceded by a Trump implosion. No one is holding their breath on this but it is notable in that it is being discussed.

A Trump victory would obviously change the dynamic and the results of the Senate and House elections would be critical to what might happen. If Trump wins, it is probable that the GOP’s House majority would hold close to its current level with just a few losses, and the outcome of Senate control would be extraordinarily close. Some have even predicted a Trump win could result in a 50/50 split, resulting in the Vice President acting as the tiebreaker. Under this scenario, continued gridlock would be the result.

But under any scenario, neither party is likely to control all branches and chambers, and importantly, no one party will have the 60 votes necessary in the Senate to move any truly controversial legislation.

However, if an opportunity for progress emerges, it would be based less on the raw numbers and more on the message that voters send. The big unknown is will the newly elected and reelected actually hear the message or will they filter it through their own political lens and go forward with business as usual? Arguably, this is what they have done over the last several elections, going forward with their own personal agenda and ignoring what the voters want, which seems to be governance and compromise.

The most important person in a scenario of progress is Speaker Paul Ryan. While a strong conservative, it seems clear that Ryan wants to govern and legislate. He wants to address some of the big challenges facing the U.S. To do this under any scenario requires compromise. In our current political climate, compromise will require will and courage. So the question is does he have both and will he be willing to exercise them if he does?

Read complete report: Health Care - A Look Into The Crystal Ball - 2017 Edition