I do hope they get to the bottom of it…
on the face of the matter, they have 300 hospitals and about 30,000 physicians in-network…
So you really have to wonder what the issue is.
You’re describing a system where the government employs the doctors and runs the hospitals, like the UK. That’s different from a single-payer system where the government pays private providers.
Apparently you aren’t very up on current medical malpractice laws.
For instance, here in Nevada, your life is worth $350,000, excluding economic damages. [
](NRS: CHAPTER 41A - ACTIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE)
Nevada isn’t the only state with a cap on medical malpractice awards, either. AFAIK, today they are the norm. The days of million dollar settlements, if they ever existed, are gone the way of the Dodo thanks to lobbying efforts by doctors and their insurance cxompanies.
Thanks. Now that I think of it, it is kinda funny hearing a conservative like Adaher bemoan the potential loss of big settlements.
The Pubbies haven’t been bashing the trial lawyers lately, have they?
I doubt that the individual mandate will actually be that much of problem - not that the opponents of it won’t try. At the end of the day, the individual mandate affects vey few people. This (PDF) analysis says 1-2%.
Also, eliminating the mandate would effectively eliminate the gains the ACA has made in the individual insurance market. Several tries were made in the 1990’s and failed. Take your pick of articles in this search. Few good stories about reform without a mandate.
I lived through one example of a Republican legislature eliminating the Washington State individual mandate in 1994. By 1999, the three largest insurers had withdrawn from the market and it was almost impossible to buy a policy.
I hope someone learns from the past…
It affects very few people if you assume people sign up at the expected rates. If 5 million sign up as opposed to 7 million, then that’s 2 million more subject to the mandate.
Sure, the employer mandate is more disruptive, but this administration will not allow ACA to mess with Democrats’ political fortunes any more than is necessary. They will alter the law as needed to protect vulnerable Democrats to the greatest extent possible.
Looks like some of the losses aren’t coming by employees’ choices, but by the public sector reducing their hours to keep them under 30:
From the first sentence of your link (bolding mine):
Oh no! Part time employees aren’t going to get 40 hours per week! The horror! :mad:
Sorry, but I have a hard time getting upset that a “part-time job” won’t provide quite 75% or even 87.5% of the pay of a full-time job. Or are you suggesting that all part-time jobs be banished from the land, and employers be forced to only employ people for 40 hours per week or more?
I’m sure that the people who are having their hours reduced by 1 or 2 hours per week will miss the $20 from their paycheck, but really, this is all just so much bullshit. But really, this is getting rid of employers ability to call a job “part-time” even tho it requires full-time hours.
In other words, the article amounts to little more than scare-mongering.
You’re not getting it.
These are former FULL-TIME employees getting cut to part time.
That means not only are they out of luck for health insurance, but possibly for some or all other benefits they already got! That’s on top of the pay cut for going to part time.
Do you think we’re better off when full-timers are being pushed into part-time jobs, or worse, or the same?
It depends on whether it’s really just 1 or 2 hours, and whether they lose other benefits too. Read the story - there are many cases where the lost work is a good chunk more than “1 or 2 hours.” Also, you’ll see in the article that some workers have two jobs with the same employer that make up more than a full-time job, but had to give up one of them. That’s a significant reduction in pay.
Just denying the unintended, yet real, effects of this law helps nobody.
… and more wonderful narrow network news:
One viewer said she did months of research before picking the plan that Blue Cross recommended. But it’s still been a nightmare.
Katherine Cadman says her emails and calls aren’t getting anywhere. She says she signed up for an Anthem Blue Cross Plan, but doctors keep refusing to see her.
“It’s just not right,” she said. “It does make you feel like you’re a second-class citizen.”
…
We went in search of answers and learned some doctors won’t accept patients with insurance through Covered California—the state-run implementation of the Affordable Care Act. In some cases, doctors say they reimbursement rates are lower.
Anthem tells CBS13 it can’t force an in-network doctor to give care, and that the doctor can terminate its contract.
This leaves the Dunns and Cadman feeling like they’re left with few options.
“Anthem’s a big umbrella, but we’re standing at the edge of the umbrella and we’re getting wet, because we’re not getting what regular subscribers are getting,” Cadman said.
“What are we left with as far as being Covered California subscribers?” Cadman asked. “The bottom of the barrel?”
… and some more “narrow networks” stories. Obamacare is a roaring success!
Julia Turner is surprised that she even has to search for a doctor. When she signed up for a policy through Covered California late last year, her long-time physician was listed as participating in her Blue Shield plan. When she tried to make an appointment last week, however, he told her he was not accepting patients with her Blue Shield policy, purchased on the Covered California exchange.
…
When KPIX 5 contacted all of the 41 doctors on the list Blue Shield provided to Julia, it found only four of the doctors were actually accepting new adult patients, and only one of them was board certified.
…
The California Department of Managed Health Care said there is no law that requires the insurer’s provider list to be accurate. However, state law does require insurers to have an “adequate” network of doctors. That means there must be at least one doctor for every 1,200 enrollees within 15 miles of their home.
But many enrollees, in both Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans purchased on the exchange said they are struggling to find even one doctor willing to take new patients due to what are now being call “narrow networks.”
…
“This is not what we were promised. I see those (Covered California) commercials now and I want to scream,” Turner said.
You could have posted this article BEFORE ACA was passed, and it would sound just as timely. Dealing with health insurance has always been a nightmare for some people. The difference is, lots of people avoided the nightmare by simply going without it, because they had no access or were excluded for pre-existing conditions.
I already posted studies that are showing that Obamacare policies’ networks are much narrower than before. And if you read the articles, you will see that the people profiled in the articles had insurance before Obamacare but were forced off it and into Obamacare policies.
My point was that overall, we have more people with insurance though.
Before ACA, people could lose their jobs and then be forced into narrower, or no, coverage too. And anyone who was forced out by ACA likely had a crappy policy anyway, which is why it didn’t qualify.
Would you describe a policy where you cannot find a doctor to treat you as “crappy”?
Sure.
Are you saying the policy they had before was teeming with doctors waiting to treat them, and benefits that made it financially possible to obtain the treatment?
Did you read the article I posted? The answer is yes.
But it’s nice that at least one proponent admits that Obamacare policies are “crappy”.
I didn’t not say Obamacare polices are crappy. I said some are. Just like some non-Obamacare policies are, or were, crappy. And some Obamacare polices are excellent.
I remember what it was like having a daughter with a pre-existing condition and not being able to get insurance, and dealing with the insurance company when I got it later (for an outrageous price) and all their denials and appeals and in-network vs. out-of-network and having zero specialists in-network crap before ACA. I’m just saying that overall, it’s not ACA that caused this all, it’s just how insurance works sometimes.