Michigan Disability Resistance

Forced Intimacy is a term I have been using for years to refer to the common, daily experience of disabled people being expected to share personal parts of ourselves to survive in an ableist world.

This often takes the form of being expected to share (very) personal information with able bodied people to get basic access, but it also includes forced physical intimacy, especially for those of us who need physical help that often requires touching of our bodies.

Forced intimacy can also include the ways that disabled people have to build and sustain emotional intimacy and relationships with someone in order to get access — to get safe, appropriate and good access.

Making Good on an IOU…

One of the most important provisions in the bill would appropriate the money to pay for so-called cost-sharing reductions (CSRs). These federal payments reimburse insurance companies for lowering deductibles and copayments for lower-income people with marketplace plans. The Trump administration ended those payments two weeks ago, calling them a bailout for insurers. But because insurers are required to offer the discounts to consumers and the federal government is required to pay for them, in its analysis, CBO assumed the payments were already an obligation of the federal government. This means the bill’s formal appropriation for the money won’t increase the deficit; it simply makes good on an IOU.

After the Vegas shooting, these tweets contained condolences, thoughts, and prayers for the victims and their families. Like many, I was overcome with sadness and horror, devastated that over 50 people would not be able to wake up to welcome a new day.

Emergency situations — be they relatively minor, like fire alarms going off at a mall, or serious, like terrorist attacks — are inevitably anxiety-inducing. But at least most people can take comfort in knowing that there are existing protocols in place to keep them safe. Exits are labeled. Fire stairs are obvious. Locations of fire extinguishers are a conspicuous bright red. Emergency phones in cities are clearly marked in blue, and include easy-to-understand instructions. Emergency maps make it easy to find help.

Imagine what would happen, though, if these protocols failed you. Imagine if you were trapped in a mall surrounded by frantic masses, or seeking assistance after a shooting, and you were unable to see or hear your surroundings.

With the number of households struggling to pay rent near historic highs, and federal rent aid reaching only 1 in 4 eligible households, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) 2018 budget should provide federal rent aid to at least the same number of households next year as it’s providing this year. The Senate and House 2018 HUD funding bills, however, would fall short, our updated analysis of Housing Choice Voucher program costs shows — the Senate bill would leave vouchers for an estimated 40,000 households without renewal funds next year, while the House bill would leave an estimated 120,000 without the funds.

Housing vouchers help 2.2 million households — including seniors, peoples with disabilities, and families with children in nearly every community — afford a decent home of their choice, lift families out of poverty, and reduce homelessness and housing insecurity. Vouchers can also improve children’s chances of becoming successful, productive adults: one rigorous study shows that children in families that use vouchers to move to safe, lower-poverty communities are likelier to attend college and earn more as young adults, and are less likely to become single parents, than their peers in families that don’t receive vouchers.

Insurers setting rates for health coverage options on the 2018 individual market have faced substantial uncertainty regarding whether or not the federal government would continue to make payments for cost-sharing reduction subsidies to insurers, as well as whether or not the administration would continue to enforce the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Following the September 27th deadline for insurers planning to offer coverage on the ACA’s federal marketplace to finalize premiums and sign contracts, the federal government announced on October 12th that cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments would end, effective immediately, unless Congress appropriated the funds. In some cases insurers also increased rates due to concerns that the individual mandate might not be enforced, although no formal change in enforcement has been announced.Insurers – often under the guidance or direction of state regulators – have taken one of four general approaches to the end of CSR payments:

1. Not adjust rates at all in response to the termination of CSR payments. Only two states (North Dakota and Vermont) are known to have prevented insurers from adjusting rates.
2. Increase premiums for all ACA-compliant individual market policies across-the-board, both inside and outside the marketplace.
3. Increase premiums for silver-level plans inside and outside the marketplace. Silver plans are relevant because cost-sharing reductions for low-income marketplace enrollees are only available in those plans.
4. Increase premiums only for silver-level plans inside the marketplace, under the logic that cost-sharing reductions are only available in marketplace silver plans.

Michigan Plans Increases: