�鶹Ů��

The Centers for Disease Control just announced new measures designed to stop international visitors from spreading Ebola in the U.S. Under the new system, anybody who has been recently to Guinea, Liberia, or Sierra Leone will be subject to what CDC officials call “active monitoring”—which will involve, among other things, mandatory temperature checks for 21 days after arrival in the U.S. It’s not the travel ban that Republican politicians, some Democrats, and most of the public seem to want. But, if the experts are right, that’s a good thing: The new proposal will make the public safer, at least at the margins, without imposing restrictions that would, indirectly, make the epidemic worse. (Jonathan Cohn, 10/22)

Voters are unhappy with both parties and there is no driving issue, so a play-all-the-angles approach takes whatever story is dominating the news cycle and tries to turn it into a wedge. Nowhere has this pattern been clearer than in the rise of public worries about Ebola and the effort by Republicans to turn fear into a closing argument. (E.J. Dionne Jr., 10/22)

With Ebola ravaging West Africa, an infected Liberian traveler dead in Dallas and confidence in government assurances shaken, it's no wonder people are grasping at anything that looks like it might provide a measure of safety. And what they're grasping at now are proposals to ban travel to the USA from the three West African countries hardest hit by Ebola. At first glance, a travel ban looks like a quick, easy answer. ... The problem is, much of the debate has been fought on glib generalities from both sides. (10/22)

The U.S. should implement an immediate temporary travel ban preventing entry by citizens of the West African countries afflicted by the Ebola virus, as I said in July. Had we done that, we wouldn't have Ebola in the U.S. right now. (Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., 10/22)

As an unchecked Ebola epidemic moves out of West Africa to touch the United States and the rest of the world, we should rightfully ask, “Where is the Surgeon General?” The answer is, quite simply, that we do not have one. We face a growing crisis of confidence in our ability to protect patients and health care workers, and the position of the chief public health officer of the United States remains unfilled. (Gregory D. Curfman, Stephen Morrissey and Jeffrey M. Drazen, 10/22)

Democrats assumed earlier this year that ObamaCare would be a political advantage by Election Day. ... It isn’t working out that way. As the election nears, ObamaCare is re-emerging as a major liability for the Democratic Senate that passed it. According to an Oct. 2 Gallup survey, 54% of Americans said the Affordable Care Act had hurt them and their families compared to 27% who said it had helped them. (Karl Rove, 10/22)

Democratic Senators Mark Warner and Mark Begich deserve credit for advancing specific legislation to change the law. The main change they're advocating, though, is unlikely to make people any happier with the law -- and could cause new problems. The senators want to give customers buying insurance on the Obamacare exchanges a new option with low premiums and high deductibles. ... A pro-copper plan study put out by the insurance industry assumes that some people who were uninsured will buy the new product: hence the coverage increase. And it assumes that some people who bought higher-premium plans will migrate: hence the lower average premium and taxpayer subsidy. That migration could, however, make the exchanges less stable by reducing the amount of money that healthy people are putting into them through their premiums. (Ramesh Ponnuru, 10/22)

High deductibles are causing patients to skip health care they really need. At the same time, there are no deductibles or copayments for a whole slew of services that people don’t need or could easily pay for out of pocket. What’s the common denominator here? Obamacare. (John C. Goodman, 10/22)

The plan Indiana originally submitted for federal approval is predicted to cost $18 billion through 2020, with the state paying $1.5 billion of that total. But according to recent analysis by the nonpartisan State Budget Solutions, the plan could actually cost the state an additional $2.9 billion. That is the equivalent of almost 177,000 Indiana jobs or $3,700 for every Indiana household for these costs. Even more troubling is the potential impact that an Indiana expansion would have on the incentives for able-bodied adults to seek work. (Naomi Lopez Bauman, 10/22)

In a meeting with The Times-Dispatch last month, Republican senatorial candidate Ed Gillespie would not disclose details about his plan to replace Obamacare. Evidently he wanted to keep the public in suspense. Last week he finally unveiled his plan. It hardly seems worth the wait. (10/22)

Michigan is one of five Republican-controlled states (along with Arizona, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) to expand Medicaid, and one of four states (along with Arkansas, Iowa, and Pennsylvania) that received a federal waiver to implement state-mandated modifications. Michigan's early experience with Medicaid expansion may provide useful insights as this new coverage option continues to be debated and implemented in other states. (John Z. Ayanian, Sarah J. Clark and Renuka Tipirneni, 10/22)