Two Top NYC Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare - page 3

by DoGoodThenGo 6,237 Views | 27 Comments

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


  1. 2
    Quote from Jolie
    Your arguments of who wrote Obamacare are tired, old and ineffective, and your assertion of the inclusion of "Republican or Conservative" principles, silly.
    You forgot "factual" in addition to tired, old, and ineffective.

    The ACA grew out of the Healthy Americans Act, a bill with 10 Republican sponsors, 8 Democrat sponsors, and 2 Independents.

    The Healthy Americans Act stalled in committee, but some of it's basic structure continued to form the ACA, which was written by the Senate Finance Committee's subcommittee on health care, which was made up of 8 Democrats and 7 republicans.

    The two primary sources of the Republican health care platform were the Heritage foundation and Newt Gingrich's think tank "the center for healthcare transformation". Both advocated a mandate, the continuation of privatized, free market insurance plans, competitive marketplaces, and the continuation of employer sponsored plans as the primary basis for health coverage. All of which makes up the basic structure of Obamacare, while the basic principles of liberal healthcare reform; single payer, non-employer based healthcare, cost controls, cross state competition, were all left out of Obamacare. What you seem to be arguing is that Obamacare is based on liberal ideas, even though it's clearly not.

    Either way, conservatives seem to strongly oppose the alternatives to these principles, so it appears conservatives including yourself don't want to do things any differently, they just want to criticize the ideas they agree with but associate with someone they disagree with, pretty much the definition of hypocritical.

    Quote from Jolie
    Many ideas that are now part of Obamacare were presented, debated and found unworkable or without merit, but never passed under Republican or Conservative leadership. Obamacare passed on Democrat votes. It is not a bi-partisan law. It's Obama's and the Democrats. Give them the credit they deserve! It's quite telling that you don't disprove the validity of my points, just try to pass off responsibility for them.
    They passed a law they saw as being viewed favorably by Conservatives (a reform law based on liberal principles would of course be more 'socialist', Obamacare is essentially the opposite of that). How would you make it more conservative than it is already is while still improving access and reducing health cost inflation?

    Quote from Jolie
    Under our current system of 3rd party payment, individuals and families are free to choose any provider of health care or any health plan they wish, as long as they can afford to pay for it. That was deemed unacceptable by the framers of Obamacare, who stated that lack of affordability was the same as lack of access.

    Now you argue that Obamacare doesn't limit choice of providers, because as long as one is willing and able to pay exorbitant prices, one can purchase any plan and use any provider one chooses. You are directly contradicting the lack of affordability = lack of access argument that you supported when it was convenient to your position. That's hypocrisy.
    I thought I was pretty clear but I'll try that again. You are correct that under our 3rd party system, choices are limited based on what you can pay, we decided to keep that system so that problem still exists, just to a lesser degree, are you saying you'd prefer single payor and/or cost controls?
    While the problem still exists, it is less severe, for people without employer provided coverage, insurance is significantly more affordable than before. It could be even more affordable to get equal access, but as far as I can tell you don't support any of the methods that could provide that.
    elkpark and Susie2310 like this.
  2. 0
    Muno, your attempts to defend this indefensible debacle and give the Republicans and Conservatives credit for it are admirable, although completely without merit.

    Bills that stall in committee do not become law. Hence, the Republicans and Conseratives did not enact the ideas that you so desperately try to give them credit for.

    Bills that are viewed favorably by Senators and Representaties receive the votes of same. Once again, the Republicans and Conservaties did not did not support the ideas that you so desperately try to give them credit for.

    Obamacare is a Democrat achievement. Celebrate it and give credit where it's due.

    Your desperate attempts to pass responsibility to others lead me to believe that you see thru this mess just as well as I do.

    Enough repetition. It's family time. Good night.
  3. 1
    I have to assume, since I've asked multiple times in previous posts, that you don't have any better ideas since you've avoided every question that's been asked. Is it really that you think there are better ways to do it, or are you just intent on being critical of things you don't seem to actually disagree with, given your lack of preferred alternatives.

    I think you're falsely assume that because Republicans don't vote for something that they don't agree with it, these are the same Republicans that vote against their own motions.

    As I've pointed out, getting rid of the things you seem not to like would mean there would be things you don't like even more, so what you actually change?
    Last edit by MunoRN on Oct 20, '13
    elkpark likes this.
  4. 2
    Quote from Jolie
    Muno, your attempts to defend this indefensible debacle and give the Republicans and Conservatives credit for it are admirable, although completely without merit.

    Bills that stall in committee do not become law. Hence, the Republicans and Conseratives did not enact the ideas that you so desperately try to give them credit for.

    Bills that are viewed favorably by Senators and Representaties receive the votes of same. Once again, the Republicans and Conservaties did not did not support the ideas that you so desperately try to give them credit for.

    Obamacare is a Democrat achievement. Celebrate it and give credit where it's due.

    Your desperate attempts to pass responsibility to others lead me to believe that you see thru this mess just as well as I do.

    Enough repetition. It's family time. Good night.
    This reminds of trying to cook dinner for my two kids. Initially, the only thing we agree on that we need to eat, it's what we're going to eat that we need to figure out. My kids won't offer any suggestions, but shoot down every idea I suggest for what I want, so because my desire to eat exceeds my desire to eat something I want, I start suggesting things I think my kids will like, and even then they just say "no" to every idea, continuing to not offer any suggestions of their own. So I finally just make what I know to be their favorite meals, only to have them say "I'm not hungry" in the end, leaving me to eat food I don't even like.
    elkpark and Susie2310 like this.
  5. 0
    Quote from MunoRN
    I have to assume, since I've asked multiple times in previous posts, that you don't have any better ideas since you've avoided every question that's been asked. Is it really that you think there are better ways to do it, or are you just intent on being critical of things you don't seem to actually disagree with, given your lack of preferred alternatives.
    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.
  6. 0
    From 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.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-thi...122450204.html
  7. 0
    Quote from Jolie
    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.
    Unfortunately, nothing in the ACA requires doctors or hospitals to participate, the same way they are not required to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients.
  8. 1
    Quote from Jolie
    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 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.

    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 Jolie
    From 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.
    elkpark likes this.


Top