Two Top NYC Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare - page 3
ObamaCare was supposed to offer more choices-but New Yorkers shopping for medical coverage stand to be shut out of two of the city's most prestigious hospitals.... Read More
Oct 21, '13Quote from JolieUnfortunately, nothing in the ACA requires doctors or hospitals to participate, the same way they are not required to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients.So as Obama was promising that we could keep our doctors, his administration was writing rules that allow insurers to narrow networks and reduce choice of providers on existing plans once they enter the exchange.
Oct 22, '13Quote from JolieI think I've been pretty clear that I don't like the ACA, I don't think the principles of healthcare and unrestrained greed can coexist. The ACA also left pretty much everything I like about our system in place, what I don't understand is why you wouldn't like it.Your assumptions are way off base, but I suspect you already know that. I have not engaged your line of questioning because I refuse to participate in an attempt to hijack this thread and take it off the topic of how Obamacare limits access to providers. I understand your desire to gloss over that. It's never easy to acknowledge flaws in a program one so enthusiastically supported.
The "What do you propose as an alternative to Obamacare" discussion has not been timely or relevant in over 3 years, since Nancy cajoled her colleagues to pass it in order to find out what was in it. I'm a pragmatic kind of girl. Nothing to be gained by crying over passage of Obamacare, when time is better spent arming myself with information to navigate a seriously flawed system as smoothly as possible now that we are learning its contents.
And besides, you already know my thoughts on effective measures to control health care costs and empower individuals and families to plan, budget, save and pay for healthcare. We've discussed and debated ad nauseum. Doing so again has all the appeal of reading a decades old copy of National Geographic in my doctor's office. Probably even less so. At least the NatGeo has pretty pictures. If you're looking for a distraction while you eat your unappealing kid meal, scan the archives.
I really don't know your specific views on this and can't find anything using the search function, but based on what I do know of your general views I can't imagine that this isn't the insurance structure you would most prefer, which is why I asked.
But you're right, I should stick to topic, so on to the next post:
Quote from JolieFrom Yahoo Finance, "10 Things Obamacare Won't Tell You"
9. “You might not be able to keep your doctor.”
When the health law was being debated in Congress in 2009 and 2010, President Obama said that people buying insurance through exchanges would be able to keep their doctor. It turns out, though, that many plans strictly limit the network of doctors they pay for. Consumers can try to stay on their same plan or look for one that covers their doctor, but this might not be possible in some marketplaces, especially if their current insurer is not participating there....
Some people who currently have individual insurance and stick with their current policy may find that it becomes more restrictive after the insurer enters the exchange. Wellpoint’s Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield has been criticized by state senators and consumers in New Hampshire, Indiana and Maine for excluding major hospitals from coverage, but a spokesman says the “narrower network” products, available on exchanges in 14 states, meet or exceed the ACA’s standards for “convenient access,” while also being affordable....
So as Obama was promising that we could keep our doctors, his administration was writing rules that allow insurers to narrow networks and reduce choice of providers on existing plans once they enter the exchange.
Deliberate misleading of the American people. No surprise there.
10 Things Obamacare Won’t Tell You - Yahoo Finance
That's actually false. Obama did not write any new rules to allow insurers to narrow networks, it's something they've always been allowed to do and have always done. Obamacare only sets some groundrules and general boundaries, but it still allows free-market forces to affect prices and availability within those boundaries.
There are other options, neither of which I can imagine you supporting.
Currently, insurers bargain with providers to get the best prices, part of that bargaining is the possibility that if a Hospital doesn't offer a good enough price, insurers won't include them in their network, which is how limited narrow plans come about, as your article put it: "Gary Cohen says that many insurers are taking this tack because the limited-network plans can lower costs — and are a “positive development” for health care." So to get rid of limited networks, we'd have to require that insurers agree to include all providers in their networks regardless of price, which would raise prices significantly, and you've made it clear these plans are already too expensive.
The other option would be for the government, either State or Federal, to step in and regulate the costs of services, making healthcare no longer a free market but socialized medicine instead, which I assume you're also against.