Posted on 05/15/2016 5:31:53 AM PDT by reaganaut1
AMY MOSES and her circle of self-employed small-business owners were supporters of President Obama and the Affordable Care Act. They bought policies on the newly created New York State exchange. But when they called doctors and hospitals in Manhattan to schedule appointments, they were dismayed to be turned away again and again with a common refrain: “We don’t take Obamacare,” the umbrella epithet for the hundreds of plans offered through the president’s signature health legislation.
“Anyone who is on these plans knows it’s a two-tiered system,” said Ms. Moses, describing the emotional sting of those words to a successful entrepreneur.
“Anytime one of us needs a doctor,” she continued, “we send out an alert: ‘Does anyone have anyone on an exchange plan that does mammography or colonoscopy? Who takes our insurance?’ It’s really a problem.”
The goal of the Affordable Care Act, which took effect in 2013, was to provide insurance to tens of millions of uninsured or under-insured Americans, through online state and federal marketplaces offering an array of policies. By many measures, the law has been a success: The number of uninsured Americans has dropped by about half, with 20 million more people gaining coverage. It has also created a host of new policies for self-employed people like Ms. Moses, who previously had insurance but whose old plans were no longer offered.
Yet even as many beneficiaries acknowledge that they might not have insurance today without the law, there remains a strong undercurrent of discontent. Though their insurance cards look the same as everyone else’s — with names like Liberty and Freedom from insurers like Anthem or United Health — the plans are often very different from those provided to most Americans by their employers. Many say they feel as if they have become second-class patients.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You hit the nail on the head. Most cannot afford insurance coverage that doesn’t bankrupt them when it is used. Conversely, the insurance coverage they can afford to purchase will bankrupt them if they attempt to use it. All most people are paying for is access to the insurance company’s network of contracted providers. That in and of itself is not worth the $1K or more a month for bare bones ‘coverage’.
______________________
Well of course! The agenda is to bankrupt people and take their assets. This is the tap for healthcare-government-insurance industrial complex into middle class assets, primarily homes.
They are after locked up assets.
I’m really not worried about it.
Yeah but don’t you want to screw them out of your hard earned stuff? You can leave all to something else instead, if you have no children.
Six adult kids. There is very little the state could take, though. But I feel worrying about that is like a German in 1944 worrying about what Hitler is gonna take in 1946. If you get my drift...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.