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 ...
It did that.
What? What?
You wanted to USE that insurance?
You should have said that.
This lie is repeated ad nauseum.
The reality is that millions of people had plans that they liked, but were told by the government that they had to scrap those plans in favor of the administration's one-size-fits-all plan.
So; a single man with a low premium, high deductible major medical plan is told that his plan is invalid because it doesn't cover pediatric dental, mammograms, or pre-natal care. It doesn't matter that the single guy doesn't need this coverage. Our government overlords have decreed that every plan must have these things.
This individual (and millions like him) have to cancel their plans and reapply for new "acceptable" plans on the exchanges. The government and their water-carriers in the media then go on a PR campaign telling us what a success obamacare is because these individuals now have coverage when they didn't previously. This is obviously a lie, because they did have coverage that worked for them. They just didn't have the new, government-mandated coverage.
Unfortunately; the sheeple are lapping it up and regurgitating this spoon-fed misinformation.
"Health care" in this country has almost nothing do with health care ... and it has everything to do with insurance. Almost every problem anyone has ever identified with "health care" in the U.S. is directly tied to a third-party payment system that completely distorts the economics of health care.
I had a conversation last week with a business owner who runs an auto body shop, and he had the exact same complaints about getting paid for his work that you often hear from doctors ... because he's dealing almost entirely with insurance companies, not real customers.
ping
MA had an escape clause in the law - if you didn’t accept Federal or State payments AT ALL, you could see patients outside the “system”.
I think Romneycare made this illegal.
Any national system has to break the doctors first. My reaction since graduation in 1976 to all the plans and all the planners has been consistent - “Who’s gonna fly it, kid? You?”
But the planners are gaining strength and increasing the scope of the pain they can inflict. Turning residents and fellows into hourly workers in the 1990s was a triumph, because those shift workers are now mid-career.
When I was a clinical clerk, we used to say, “what’s the only bad thing about being on every other night?” (36 on, 12 off, for several years). The answer: “You miss half the good cases”. They’ve killed that, they’ve killed solo practice except in cash businesses like boob jobs, they’ve basically destroyed psychiatry, they’re engaging in mop-up operations in pediatrics and so-called “primary care”.
They’re going to win in the end.
As I said, this is all information that we found out when going for our plan renewal, and I like to pass any useful information that I can on to FReepers, who might be able to use it.
As I said, this is all information that we found out when going for our plan renewal, and I like to pass any useful information that I can on to FReepers, who might be able to use it.
The question is - Did she learn something and start listening to other conservative ideas?
My guess is sadly no, it will be put on some other people’s fault by her.
“They’re going to win in the end.”
-
As far as my generation goes they have already won.
I go back to house calls and doctors that had office hours daily,in their homes.
The last time I went to my PCP he spent more time looking at the laptop than he did looking at me.
Last year my longtime doctor retired so I switched to one closer to where I now live-—this involved changing hospitals,both in MA and about 15 miles apart.
I found out that my records went from one hospital,on to a company in Alpharetta,Georgia, and then on to the new hospital.
To say that I was horrified would be a gross understatement.
.
Yes, if a “two-tiered” system is unjust, then the solution is to get rid of one of the two tiers. Which one do you thnk they’ll choose: Obamacare or the free market?
+1
I use a medicated shampoo from time to time. The last time I got it, I paid $7.50 or so.
Just went to refill yesterday. The clerk typed in a number off by one digit, so the "insurance" was rejected (how absurd for "insurance" to pay for shampoo, anyway, eh?).
The tab? $331.00. I kid you not.
Of course, the error was corrected, the insurance company paid whatever (presumably not $300+), and I paid the $7.50.
Whatever cannot continue, won't.
Phew! Just a five thousand dollar deductible.
Obamacare: a monopoly that can’t deliver its lone product to the end-users and can’t enrich the provider.
It may replace ‘failure’ in the dictionary one day.
FTA: “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.”
There is only one problem...doctors and hospitals won’t accept it. That doesn’t seem to faze the author. To her and her ilk, having the policy is sufficient enough to declare victory.
So again, please remind me the usefulness of an insurance policy that is both expensive and worthless? Don’t you just love liberal logic! God save us from these fools!
It is not a failure if it increases the power and size of the Federal government and makes the people more desperate, sickly, and dependent.
You are quite wrong, on both counts.
Obamacare's "lone product" is the demolition of what existed before March 2010. Result: success.
Obamacare's "enrichment of the provider"? I suppose it depends on what you mean. The budget for HHS is already through the roof. Thousands upon thousands of communists have been given permanent, non-revocable employment with gold-plated pensions. And after 2018, when PPACA is in full effect, there will be many more hires and many more dollars for the ruling class. Result: I score it as a win, as well for "enriching the provider".
Absolutely agree. Socialism/Communism attract narcissistic ‘leaders’, because it allows them to be the great ‘saviors’ and essentially deify their existence. They get the credit for ‘saving’ the people. When people make the free will decisions to help others, it takes the credit away from the narcissistic ‘leaders’. They’re definitely not going to be happy with that.
Case in point, my kids both use an acne medication called Epiduo. It is a mixture of benzyl peroxide and a retinol product. Hardly ground breaking stuff. I was using retinols for acne 25 years ago.
Long story short, you get some sort of card from the drug company, go get the RX filled and you pay somewhere between $15-$25.
At least that was how it worked for years up until this year.
This year, I go to get it filled and they tell me it's just shy of $500. After much calling, pecking around in his computer and time, he tells me the best he can do is about $125 with the card because they aren't "really using the cards anymore".
So, I try one of those send the RX to the east coast and they ship it to you pharmacies. They can get it to me for $115.
So, after much teeth gnashing, I order it. But, I tell my son to use it sparingly and alternate with the OTC crap because I am only buying one this year.
But, I tell, ya if it were for me, I wouldn't have paid it. I am half tempted to make a list and drive down to Mexico one day (very easy for me to do).
But, get this, I went the birth control route to help control my daughters skin and that is FREE all day long.
Also, my migraine RX, usually $10-15 (generic version of one of the big ones) is now about $100 for nine pills.
Funny thing is---I don't hear anyone else complaining about this.
Correct. My deductible is $6,500. Everything is out of pocket.
All of life is filled with “what if’s”.
I’m starving the beast and trusting in the Lord. We already have one genuine miraculous healing in our family. We don’t do hospitals and consider them dangerous places.
I’ve gotten to the point where I “feel” that if I were to start getting health insurance it would show a lack of faith in the Lord.
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.