Skip to main content

View Diary: Insurers widen profits by narrowing choice of doctors (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think this is exactly right. However, I think (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, Pi Li

    the Administration essentially sold the ACA by over-promising, and that is what its biggest political risk is.

    Essentially, the President sold the ACA by promising an upside for lots of people (those who could not afford, or get, insurance) while promising that there would be no downside for those who had insurance and liked it ("If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, Period.")  And, at the time (IIRC) 85% of the people who had health insurance were satisfied with it.  That was the fallacy of the sales pitch -- we could add all these people to the system, and nobody who liked their insurance would feel any pain or suffer any downside.  

    And at the time the Administration was making these promises, they knew that some people were going to have to pay more, or perhaps have narrower coverage/networks, or both, to allow insurers to add coverage for all the high-risk (i.e., more expensive) people and still remain profitable.

    I think that the political issue is more than the website.Certainly, there are a lot of people helped by the ACA because  they could not afford, or get, insurance before.  But I think the real question going forward is whether people who were satisfied with their insurance before the ACA now believe they are better off as a result of the ACA.  If they feel like the ACA made things better for them, the program will be politically a plus.  If they believe that they, personally, are not better off, or even if they are worse off (paying more, narrower networks, or both), the ACA is going to be a huge political liability.

    •  I've always thought the key word in this instance (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, coffeetalk, Pi Li

      is "personally".  Anyone with an ounce of sense and experience should have understood this endeavor was going to affect every American down to at least two degrees of separation. Not just the rich, not just the poor, not just farmers, not just the unions, etc.  But instead of marshaling all hands on deck with an admission of some redistribution for a better tomorrow, this crew buried buried that reality with BS.

      As an example of leadership, I find it disgusting, independent of policy merits and demerits.

         

    •  It was a necessary risk (0+ / 0-)

      It's like a doctor downplaying and saying it won't hurt before giving you a shot with a big needle that hurts like hell.

      No matter how you implement health care reform, even if you had a progressive wet dream of a plan, there was always going to be some people who were better off than before and some people who were going to be worse off than before.  The goal is to have the first group outweigh the second group.

    •  You obviously have not been buying your insurance (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Auriandra

      on the Individual market.  I have yet to meet anyone who likes their plan.

      When you have Individual coverage you are only 1 health status change away from bankruptcy.  Even a minor outpatient procedures will send your rates skyrocketing.

      I know it happen to me.  And I can't wait for Jan 1 when my plan kicks in and my rates go down.

      And I'm not worried about seeing any doctor I want.  I've got a PPO plan that pays 50% coinsurance.  So it will actually be less costly if my favorite specialist stays out of the network because the copay are rather high in my states plans.

      Congressional elections have consequences!

      by Cordyc on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 12:41:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site