The Washington Post’s Sandhya Somashekhar and Sarah Kliff spend a long, long time telling us just how super great awesome the new Obamacare premiums will be, based on a DHS report released Wednesday (which is interesting, since the article was posted at 12:01 am on Wednesday)
The report, released Wednesday by the Department of Health and Human Services, showed significant variation in the insurance premiums that Americans shopping on the individual market could pay under the president’s health-care overhaul. Across the 48 states for which data were available, the unsubsidized monthly premiums could be as low as $70 for an individual and as high as $1,200 for a moderate plan for a family of four.
Um, OK. Then we have this buried at the end of the article
But they warn that premiums don’t tell the whole story.
The low rates are possible in part because insurance companies created special plans that include fewer in-network doctors and hospitals than many current plans.
This may not be a problem for healthy people who currently lack insurance. But those with illnesses may discover that their specialists are not covered by an exchange insurance plan. Low-income people accustomed to a certain community clinic may find that going there is no longer an option. And everyone may encounter long waits to see a doctor.
In addition, many of the lowest-cost plans may carry high deductibles, despite a cap imposed by the law that limits out-of-pocket costs to $6,350 per person per year.
Rationing. Limited choice of doctors. And, more importantly, a limited choice of in-network specialists, the people who deal with healing people when some Bad happens. Which is the major point of having health insurance, not having to pay out thousands and thousands when something Bad happens.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
As a doctor, all I can tell you is that you ain’t seen nothing yet. Your life is going to be fine tuned, not for the better.
I picked up on an issue from another site that makes me understand how they are going to ration care. It is “quality” of care. What they will do, and they ran a pilot of this in the 90’s, is to monitor doctors results. You will be penalized for being outside of various arbitrary parameters. Now that might sound like a good idea, but what is does is to make doctors screen patients to get good results. Lets say you need heart surgery. The best results in heart surgery occur in those that have the highest risk of death from the procedure. In the old system, you explained the risk and the patient could chose to go with it after being educated. Now, the doctor will not offer the procedure as it would show up on his list of mortalities without explanation. This cuts down on the cost of medical care as the patient is not racking up a bill and his long term prognosis will be very poor and thus he will not be a burden on the system as he will die early. This is the English system. So, doctors will have pressure on them from the government, but the patients will not know or sense the fact that they are being under cut in care.
Now, ask yourself, why do we have the government in the system at all? Why is it necessary for us to get a prescription for medication when we should be able to buy any drug just like eggs or milk? We could then treat ourselves or get guidance from a doctor. This would almost eliminate the concept of malpractice as you would now be the one responsible for yourself. Many doctors favor this. And, NO, it would not result in increased use of narcotics or assist in the emergence of super bacteria. The reason, most countries allow this now.