My insurance which I get through my work has a limited pool of participating specialists. It’s not a feature of Obamacare, per se, but a feature of private insurance in general. And yeah, it’s not the best aspect of my plan, but if I really wanted to go to a specific doc that’s not in my network I’d pay a higher share of the cost.
One of many reasons single payer is best- all docs are in network.
The feature of Obamacare per se, as was described in the articles I cited, is that Obamacare policies, in order to be as cheap as possible, have networks that are much, much narrower than the regular networks for the companies providing the policies.
I understand that. My point is that many private insurances, like I get through work, already do that. It’s not an Obamacare specific characteristic but an inexpensive policy characteristic.
And my point (and the point of the articles I cited) is that Obamacare policies’ networks are much more narrow that the ones that the same companies give to those who “get it through work”.
Does it not at least somewhat weaken your argument that the articles you cited were a pack of lies? Or is that a feature?
Except for one, they were correct. Does it not at least somewhat weaken your argument that you didn’t read them?
The broad networks aren’t free. Prestigious hospitals charge Blue Cross much more, and that cost gets passed down to workers responsible for a large portion of their premiums. If I could choose a narrower network at lower cost, I might do so, but I don’t have that option.
You might then ask why I don’t sign up for an exchange plan. Well, then I would lose the sixty percent of my premiums paid by my employer, and thus would be shooting myself in the foot.
One reason for the sky high US health care costs is that dominant insurers (Blue Cross in my area) don’t dare cut off the highest priced hospitals, because the executives at local companies (and government agency executives, and perhaps including union executives as well) insist on including the prestigious hospitals – because that’s where executives go. The prestigious hospitals and their associated physician group know this, and thus can charge far more for the same procedure. Since there are no customer company executives to worry about, Blue Cross can drive a harder bargain with exchange plans, or walk away.
If enough people sign up for the exchanges, the prestigious hospitals will have empty beds. This could allow Blue Cross to drive a harder bargain during price negotiations, while getting more plans included.
Misinformation. Yeah, right.
She jumped at the chance in early January to visit a primary-care doctor for long-running numbness in her arm and shoulder as a result of bone spurs on her spine. The doctor referred her to a specialist, and problems ensued. At least four doctors wouldn’t accept her health plan — even though the state exchange website and her insurer, Health Net Inc., list them as part of her HMO network.
“It’s a phantom network,” Berumen said.
How does that support the completely false article you posted originally that the vast majority of California doctors were boycotting the ACA?
Oh right, you ran away and changed your argument after I showed you were citing an article that was full of shit.
Your current argument is what again? Oh, right, that narrow networks are shitty. Well, narrow networks are the cost of having a for-profit system. And narrow networks aren’t caused by the ACA, they’re caused by insurance companies that want to save money.
And I forgot, you know so little about how insurance in this country works, that you think you just call any doctor in the phone book at random. Sorry bro, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
This lady, if my skimming of the article is clear, had an insurance plan that had a jumbled list of doctors. It’s a clerical error.
So, you’re so utterly bereft of hope that you can reasonably argue your case, that this is the drivel you post?
Listen, I detest the ACA and I would have preferred they passed something that wasn’t an onerous War-and-Peace treatise on how to mangle health care, but this was warned about for at least two years before Healthcare.gov even went live: “Provider networks will be confusing!”
Instead of having the Republicans do nothing but hold 12,000 useless votes on repealing it, they could have actually worked to make it better. There has been THREE YEARS between passage and implementation and the Rs didn’t step up and try to help out in any way and only served to keep the flaws as part and parcel to the law from day one.
You don’t get to come down now and go “Oh, the problem we all knew was going to happen happened, IT BLOWZ.” The Democrats may be woefully misguided as to what is actually useful for people but they at least pretend to care about their fellow citizens.
While I realize that there was a lot of back and forth about coverages and all of that within the insurance companies…they had four months to get their coverage lists properly prepared and submitted to the state and federal exchanges. At this point, i think it crosses from “simple clerical error” to “they are either lazy or dumb.”
Why would you “work to make better” something you detest?
So that…perhaps…one day…I will have no reason to.
My insurance went from 660/month to 253/month, and the coverage is slightly better. And I’m not eligible for subsidies.
I might finally start on some of those repairs around the house I’ve been putting off.
Suck it, Obamacare detractors!
BTW: The billing still seems to be screwed up here in CA (I haven’t received my February bill yet). That’s annoying and is something to rightfully criticize about the implementation. But, other than that, suck it, Obamacare haterz.
PS: I did and still do want single payer.
“Now I have to drive 50 miles for blood work when there’s a hospital three miles from my house,” said Petro, who finds wintertime driving perilous, given that it is difficult to reach even her mailbox because of the sheet of ice coating her driveway. “It’s going to be harder to get there and get this done.”
…
The difficulty in accessing care has sparked outrage and legal action against state insurance regulators that approved Anthem’s plan, as well as electoral volatility with new political ads targeting health reform supporters in Congress.
…
Republicans are gleefully capitalizing on the network adequacy issue and other struggles with implementing health reform in New Hampshire. Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group, released a television ad targeting Senator Jeanne Shaheen by showing footage of the New Hampshire Democrat on the Senate floor quoting Obama: “You can keep your insurance if you like it.”
Obamacare’s narrow networks are going to make people furious — but they might control costs
============================
I am sure those “furious” people will forget about being furious when they vote.
So? That’s the case under the “free market” program already, for millions of Kaiser Permanente clients, just for instance. Ask “Rick” my brother-in-law. Hospital four miles away…but he has to drive 45 miles to go to a network hospital instead.
And this was true before the ACA was even a proposal.
My anecdotal evidence is as weighty as yours is!
From that article:
So, she didn’t have insurance before, and she was free-riding off the rest of us taxpayers in the most expensive way possible. Now, she gets insurance for $26 a month, and unfortunately, the in-network hospital she has to use is 50 miles away. New Hampshire probably needs to join a multi-state exchange. But, just when I’m starting to feel sympathy for her, this appears in the article:
Bullshit. Nobody’s stopping her from using the local hospital. She can still use it, and pay for it out-of-pocket. How else was she doing it before, since she didn’t have insurance? She’s not getting worse coverage, since she had no coverage before. She is a liar.
She was free-riding before, and she is free-riding now. That’s the goal of Obamacare - hook millions more people on government handouts.
But under the Free Market (blessings and peace be upon it!) you have individual choice! You could say “Fuck it, ain’t worth it, get sick and die, sure, why not?” Under Obamacare, people will come to your house and make you well! Why should you have to pay for somebody’s compulsary death control, even if it offends your true religious devotion, the Dollar Almighty! Sure, everybody loves Jesus, but you don’t see them busting their ass to get more!
Oh, please. Unless you’re going to get rid of the requirement that ERs have to treat critical cases (a requirement which was put in by the Reagan administration), then everyone without insurance or with shitty insurance was going to free-ride sooner or later.
Obamacare is designed to bend the cost curve on government spending. I don’t mind paying for poor people’s insurance, but I am sick and tired of people telling me that I have to pay for it in the most expensive way possible.
Now, if you are willing to deny people critical health care because they can’t afford it, then you should come out and say that you’re quite happy to send them home to die. Otherwise, talking about “government handouts” is beside the point, since a poor person isn’t getting critical health care coverage without some type of government handout.