Posted on 03/20/2014 11:18:40 PM PDT by lowbridge
Obamacare patients are discovering that many doctors, hospitals, and top cancer centers do not accept the plans they purchased.
"It's so frustrating," Terri Durheim of Enid, Okla.,told CNN. "It's not doing me a lot of good."
Durheim is not alone. Obamacare's so-called "narrow networks" are designed to limit customer choices to push patients into cheaper choices in an effort to control costs. Earlier this year Washington Post health writer Sarah Kliffwarned that "Obamacare's narrow networks are going to make people furious – but they might control costs." A McKinsey and Co. study finds that more than one in three (38%) Obamacare plans permit patients to select from just 30% of the largest 20 hospitals in their geographic region.
For patients like Durheim, the reality of Obamacare's slender options is forcing hard choices. Her son's serious heart condition means she needs a pediatric cardiologist nearby. However, the nearest doctor her Obamacare plan covers is over an hour away.
"Obviously we'd have to pay out of pocket and go here in town, but that defeats the purpose of insurance," says Durheim.
Cancer patients are also waking up to the realities of Obamacare's narrow networks. According to an Associated Press analysis, only four of 19 nationally recognized comprehensive cancer centers offer Obamacare patients access to their facilities through all insurance plans in their state Obamacare exchanges.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Oh ... one more thing ... I should say that the quoted statement you have from me is speaking — is the “generic we” — as a population as a whole. It’s just a literary technique ... as I already have health insurance and it’s not from Obamacare.
If someone will “buy it” (either group plan or individual plan) — believe me, the insurance company WILL SELL IT.
Not just people on Obamacare, those of us with insurance through our employers are seeing the same wild price hikes and sky high deductibles when our policies renew too.
It's effing insane.
For those of us not affected to this extent yet, it's only a matter of time. The clock is clicking.
It only took 15 years for Venezuela to crash under socialism. Obama has been dictator for some 6 years now.
Yeah, that was the worst of it - to genuinely point out the points of failure in the plan, then to be called names because of it.
Makes us really a lot less sympathetic to their plight.
And, lefties, I’m going to twist the knife a bit here, because I know how important this is to you.
NO, WE’RE NOT “ALL IN THE SAME BOAT NOW”.
Those of us who knew better took steps to avoid being in your boat.
I already noted up above, in another comment that “in the past” if you got a job where health insurance was part of the benefits, then you did get coverage without any pre-existing condition clause and without being priced higher than anyone else (individually). And I also noted that this lasted only for as long as you had the job or as long as the employer decided to cover it.
And, I should add to that ... that the employer would “monkey with the policy” many times to lower his costs, which would also lower your coverage ... and/or ... start to charge you (out of your paycheck) part of the premiums for what he originally supplied as included benefits with the job.
What the heck are you doing at FR?
The same thing you’re doing ... doncha think ... :-) ...
There’s really nothing “unconservative” about his post.
Our very Constitution “collectivizes” certain functions - national defense, post roads, etc.
We’re not totally “anti-collectivist” in that each of us has to build our own roads to get to work.
We ARE conservative in the strict definition and application of what the government can be allowed to do.
Sure sounds to me like you’re in favor of socializing 14% of our economy—presumably because you or someone close to you has a preexisting condition that at some point made it difficult for you or them to get insurance.
Let’s hope you never had difficulty finding a meal, a bed to sleep in, a great car or an affordable exotic vacation.
OK, you’re correct, but you’ve oversimplified the situation (or it might be better to say the government has overcomplicated the situation).
From the medicare.gov website:
“Your Medigap open enrollment period begins when you enroll in Part B and can’t be changed or repeated.”
And this:
“If you have group health coverage through an employer or union because either you or your spouse is currently working, you may want to wait to enroll in Part B. Employer plans often provide coverage similar to Medigap, so you don’t need a Medigap policy.”
“When your employer coverage ends, you’ll get a chance to enroll in Part B without a late enrollment penalty which means your Medigap open enrollment period will start when you’re ready to take advantage of it. If you enrolled in Part B while you still had the employer coverage, your Medigap open enrollment period would start, and unless you bought a Medigap policy before you needed it, you would miss your open enrollment period entirely.”
So, if you don’t sign up for Medicare B, the Medigap open enrollment period doesn’t happen. If you have other insurance options, you can delay signing up for Medicare B and Medigap, but the rates will probably be higher then because of the Part B penalty, and the fact that you are older.
There are also what they call “guaranteed issue rights” which enter into the picture in certain situations, most notably cases in which employer plans for retirees and older workers end (the dreaded employer mandate), or if you’re in an existing Medicare Advantage Part C plan that is dropped. In these cases, you effectively get a second chance at a Medigap open enrollment.
I believe you’re right on Plan F-that’s definitely the way to go once you do go with Medicare A and B.
I didn’t want to get that complicated in my post, but yes, I knew that and you’re right. What I posted “erred” in favor of the Medicare recipient so that they would definitely look into it BEFORE they would potentially lose out. I don’t think the majority of people will fit into that particular technicality.
I want to warn people here that they should not think that they understand this technicality here and bypass their Open Enrollment. They need to check, check again and check one more time (all with different sources) and make sure they understand it PERFECTLY because you don’t want this one to slip by you!
I’ll go back to Post #45 where I said ...
I’m not advocating for any kind of healthcare. What I’m saying is that the insurance companies are going to price their product right and “stay in business” at the same time.
Absolutely!
It is getting there: Stay healthy or die. Good luck all.
Sandra Fluck gets free birth control.
Priorities people
One note about the pre-existing condition issue. For about 15 years now, HIPAA has mandated that employees coming off of group plans, and who have maxed out their COBRA coverage, be issued insurance without a pre-existing condition exclusion by any insurer writing individual coverage in their state. Further, many states have had high risk pools that have provided access to such coverage. In both cases, insurance companies have already been able to construct a solution to that need. I actually carried one of those policies for several years, and it cost me about 20 percent more than my COBRA had.
In many cases where pre-existing condition exclusions were given as the reason for being unable to obtain coverage, you’ll discover that the individual experienced sticker shock at the COBRA stage, produced by having to pay the true cost of his insurance, and voluntarily discontinued coverage. The issue there isn’t access, it’s financial, and it’d probably be a heck of a lot cheaper to provide a subsidy for covering folks in that circumstance than to try to socialize those costs.
At any rate, I’d like to see a true accounting of the increased costs associated with the elimination of the pre-existing condition exclusion, compared to things like the “free” preventive care, “free” birth control, pediatric dental coverage, no lifetime maximum, and the rest of the mandates in Obiecare. I suspect they’re a bigger factor in cost increases than patients with pre-existing conditions are. You can buy a lot of blood pressure bills for the cost of maintaining a patient in a permanent vegetative state who would otherwise have maxed out.
Right... and that claim was largely a lie.
They sold their system on the basis of false claims about the current situation, then set about creating a system that solved some other issues that they “felt” we all needed their “help” with.
I would like to see the breakdown of associated costs for different parts of the policy, too. That would truly be informative. It would also enable a more intelligent conversation between political groups in determining what type of coverage should be included or maybe limited.
The bottom line to this is that this information being given to people can only help people understand what is going on and would not be detrimental.
Yep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.