Cruz is a pimp. But until this day, I didn’t know it was lawyers all along.
Perhaps relevant: A new report from HHS finds that premiums in the exchanges will be lower than previously thought in 95% of cases.
It does acknowledge that young healthy folks that buy super-cheap insurance now are the demo most likely negatively impacted.
Lower than estimated is not as useful a metric as whether they are lower than what people currently pay.
Secondly, we already know now why these plans are cheaper: you can’t keep your doctor. Promise broken.
I like Ezra Klein though, he’s an honest broker. He acknowledges the tradeoffs. I wish some of his older, supposedly wiser competitors in the blogosphere had as much maturity.
Here’s the kicker though: “And everyone may encounter long waits to see a doctor.”
I think it’s high time Democratic leaders apologized for characterizing such criticism as “lies” during the debate.
If you edit fast, you can fit three more misleading talking points into your post.
Every single one is in the cite. And not from a right-wing source. So tell me how I misled.
I wouldn’t mind seeing something that actually confirms that his premium will be going up. Say, a copy of the full document that Mr. Mangione received in the mail. In the interests of preserving his privacy, I would not object to him redacting certain details, even including what his current and proposed premiums are, according to the document. I’d be willing to take his word on that front.
As for the rest of it, well, taking anything from Fox News at face value seems like [del]casting my fate to the wind[/del]* it would not make me feel so good.
*wait, that’s Vince Guaraldi, isn’t it?
I have no doubt that you think so, which is why I think it fruitless to explain the difference between what the Post is saying and your spin of it—you don’t even realize when you’re spinning.
Everyone remember the talk of how everyone in Canada and the UK had to wait six months to see their GP? And does everyone remember how well that line of argument worked out?
That said, it’s probably true that if there is more demand for medical services there may be longer waits. The current alternative, of course, is to exclude people, so you get to see a doctor sooner and that other guy gets to die.
The guy with the money gets to see the doctor, the guy without dies. As God intended! Or Darwin, take your pick.
How many people here personally know somebody who has been royally sca-rewed by their health insurance “provider”. I do, do you? Suppose you do pay more, but what you get is actual insurance, rather than buying a chance to play Wheel of Coverage?
As far as losing your doc, that’s not unusual.
My company changes plans just about every year and I often have to switch docs and clinics every year or two or three if the old docs won’t accept the new plans or I switch from PPO to HMO. But, for folks who have no doctor, I’m pretty sure they will be happy to have the option of choosing any doc at all.
I just saw that the cheapest plan in Texas will allow a family of 4 with an income of $50,000 to buy in for as little as $52.00 a month and in Dallas, $26.00. It’s the cheapest Bronze plans, but that’s far better than going bare.
Those are some pretty impressive rates.
Ah, a secret rebuttal. Second one on this page.
Agreed.
On the other hand, it could be that the medical-industrial-complex is planning (counting) on more demand.
If I drive either a mile north or south of me I see new, multistory health clinics under construction. Another 2-3 miles in each direction there are major hospitals which have been expanding.
This Republican briefing paper (PDF) shows great intent to screw with the debt ceiling. Quite appalling…
Be fair! Addy doesn’t support the Insane Clown Posse Republicans, he supports the reasonable and moderate Republicans. Like…uh, like…hmmmm…well, them!
That seems to be a part of the whole health care debate that never gets reported or analyzed. There are a certain number of people in the country, and some portion of them are going to be sick at any given time. There is also some number of doctors available to treat them. The passage of the ACA doesn’t change the numbers of supply and demand. When people predict long wait times, rationing of care, or death panels, isn’t it a tacit admission that there are people who need care but currently can’t get it? Unless they think that all these newly insured people will go to the doctor on a lark, taking their time away from the truly sick.
Actually, I meant my little two new clinic anecdote as admission that the ACA is increasing both supply and demand. (Supply of MDs will lag, but NP and PAs in clinics can handle quite a lot of increase in routine medical needs)
I support smart conservative policies, not necessarily Republicans. Given how many liberals there are on this board who do not necessarily support the Democratic Party, that should not be hard to wrap one’s head around.
Oh, I know. It’s just that all the talk of waiting times and rationing of care carry certain implications that never seem to be discussed.
One thing that would help would be to entice states to allow NPs to practice without the supervision of a doctor, which some states do and others don’t. That would increase supply at very little reduction in quality for basic care.
Just to be clear, do you mean “set up shop on their own to provide certain basic services with a referral method” or “do stuff (in an office with an MD available) without having to have the MD counter-sign/double-check for standard care”?