"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Aside from the roll out problems, here is an example of a more serious result of the Affordable Care Act: A woman scheduled for cancer surgery has it postponed because she has lost her doctors under the new plan.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/01/19/cancer-patients-treatment-put-on-hold-over-obamacare/?intcmp=latestnews
7 comments:
That's the insurance companies' fault. If there is a fault in the Affordable Care Act, it is reliance on the private sector, instead of offering a straight-up public option.
Siarlys,
Maybe the article wasn't clear enough. The lady had (private) health insurance and doctors who were treating her and preparing for surgery. She lost them because of the ACA. What didn't you get in the article?
@Siarlys,
My son's insurance was cancelled by a private insurance company because it did not comply with the new ACA regulations. He was offered a new policy at higher cost and a deductible that is four times as much as his old policy. This hits home!
As for your socialist one-payer solution, you can keep it.
Squid.
I admittedly do not know just how accurate and credible FactCheck is. I understand it to be a sufficiently left-leaning organization such that when it reports some fault with Obamacare, you can probably bet your bippy it will be understated.
FactCheck recently reported that health care spending has increased (not decreased, as promised) by some 15.8 per cent under Obama, which is greater than the general inflation rate for that period but, thankfully, and most likely temporarily, less than it has grown at times in the past.
Point is, FactCheck also said there was "scant evidence" that Obamacare was causing the slowdown in the rise of healthcare costs, and quoted administration officials who said Obamacare's "impact was minimal". Where I come from, "minimal" is essentially synonomous with "negligible", which means that it is insignificant and can be effectively ignored.
Further, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported that the reasons for cost reductions were the economic slowdown/poor recovery, cheaper generic prescriptions due to expiration of some patents, and a one-time reduction in Medicare payments for skilled nursing facilities.
At least so far, then, looks like the claims that Obamacare will reduce/has reduced healthcare costs are, like a lot of other stuff out of this administration, pure tripe.
And just to top this off, I believe the capper is that the Congressional Budget Office has reported that as of Jan. 1, 2014, an estimated 55 million (roughly 17%) of us had no health insurance, and that as of Jan. 1, 2016, following the essentially complete implementation of Obamacare, some 24 million (7.5 %) STILL will not be insured.
Accordingly, Obamacare will have helped only slightly over 50% of the people at whom it was allegedly aimed and for whom it was initially allegedly intended. Is it really worth it?? As I have previously noted, it made MUCH more sense (simpler, cheaper, easier, etc.) to have gone after only the original 17% and leave the 83%, who were generally quite happy, alone.
Gotta be some ulterior motives/politics/agenda/ideology at work here, you think??
El,
Ulterior motives are socialism and income redistribution.
This is what happens when you turn the health industry and insurance industry in the hands of ideological bureaucrats who know nothing about either,
If you want to know what a public option looks like take a good look at the VA. A dog gets better medical care than us vets.
The claim "she lost them because of the ACA" is not well detailed. How did the ACA cause her policy to be cancelled? IF she was already diagnosed and scheduled for surgery, the policy in effect at the time of the diagnosis should be paying. Further, waivers were granted specifically so that she could continue the same policy. I hardly think that a requirement to cover contraception would bar proceeding with cancer surgery.
Findalis, I have talked to many veterans and gotten stories all over the map about the quality of care. I suspect that this variation is caused by (a) different qualities of administration and staff in different facilities, (b) different expectations and temperaments on the part of patients (I could imagine you might be a quite difficult patient), and (c) different levels of quality in different areas of medicine, which means some will have better experiences than others in different facilities.
But the VA is both funder and provider. I don't advocate one system of health care delivery. I favor a single payer insurance option, with multiple providers. Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools compete.
Squid is not distinguishing himself for rational thought and careful consideration of relevant facts today, he's merely venting spleen.
Since the ACA is an ungodly hybrid of government mandates and private insurance which profitable companies can offer or not on whatever terms they wish, the real reasons Squid's son's policy was cancelled are unsubstantiated. Its quite likely the insurance company wanted to do what they've just done, and found the ACA to be convenient cover.
elwood, thank you for highlighting that health care costs are inflating at a much lower rate than they have in recent years. Of course nobody can be sure of exactly what cause it.
I don't really want to be ensnared in health insurance at all. I'd rather have a local doctor in my neighborhood and a local hospital where my doctor has admitting privileges. But, given the state of health care delivery in America today, either we trash the ungodly bureaucracies delivering and funding health care, with all that that entails, or we get everyone covered with what it takes to get basic health care. At least Findalis has someone who will see her.
Post a Comment