Numerous doctors are on record saying they won't accept obamacare coverage for payment (e.g., as many as 70% in NY will not). Now many hospitals may not accept it.
Also, you should make sure when you have a medical procedure done, that EVERYONE involved accepts this coverage. The surgeon may but others like the anesthesiologist, etc., may not and you'll receive a (large) bill in the mail for that portion. This can happen under private plans too, it happened to me once, but it's rare. It sounds like it may be much more common going forward. But hey, it's the law based on lies and deceit and time will tell...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362757/top-hospitals-opt-out-obamacare-wesley-j-smith
I read this earlier. Thanks for posting it.
Here is the link to the original US News and World Report story, referenced in the opening post.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare
The result of our investigation: Many top hospitals are simply opting out of Obamacare.
Chances are the individual plan you purchased outside Obamacare would allow you to go to these facilities. For example, fourth-ranked Cleveland Clinic accepts dozens of insurance plans if you buy one on your own. But go through Obamacare and you have just one choice: Medical Mutual of Ohio.
Of course, how many hospitals do you need when only 6 people signed up for Obamacare? LOL
EDIT:
In support of my "6 people" comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgWdCWz6Xhs
I find the health care situation in the US to be so abysmal. It's bad enough that you don't know who is going to accept what, but that you have to make sure EACH professional involved will accept it on top of that! People shouldn't have to calculate all of that and figure all that out when they are sick.
Will see if the wishful thinking and the bad press makes a dent on the program....lets give them a few moths before we write the orbituary
Wattchdog.org (the source of that article) gets its funding from the right wing tea party supporting Koch Industries
and Watchdog.org:
"They're certainly not legitimate journalists, but they've established their "bureaus" in state capitals across the country, and some state capital correspondents' associations grant them press credentials. Unfortunately that includes our very own Virginia Capital Correspondents Association, of which Watchdog's Kenric Ward -- unlike any other blogger or lobbyist -- is allowed to be a member.
Thanks to some investigative journalism done about them, here's what we do know about the shadowy Watchdog.org:"
http://bluevirginia.us/diary/9949/rightwardfacing-dog-who-is-watchdogorg
They spend lots of money to spread propaganda and support de-regulation all the while supporting their agenda so they can continue to pollute our environment!
This thread is in the wrong place IMHO since the OP cited an article from a right wing propaganda machine such as Koch Industies.
Can you knock off the propaganda talk, please? This is a support forum and you're creating a hostile environment. Thank you, hugs, Devlyn
Update: 51,000 people made "applications" in the first week (not enrolled for coverage, just got far enough along to see the subsidized prices). According to the targets, the program needs 39,000 enrollees per day to hit the goal, and in the correct categories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa9gmEItPSA
It does not appear that this program that promises to take over 1/6th of the domestic economy, will support much of anybody in the community. We are still excluded, and not covered for many essential TG services.
Propaganda is the opposite of truth and facts.
Sure as long as the article mentioned is rightly attributed to who funds Watchdog.org.
That is not legitimate news and has no business here.
Koch is aginst O'Bamacare so go figure?
If its not REAL news what would you call it?
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 01, 2013, 08:22:10 PM
Update: 51,000 people made "applications" in the first week (not enrolled for coverage, just got far enough along to see the subsidized prices). According to the targets, the program needs 39,000 enrollees per day to hit the goal, and in the correct categories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa9gmEItPSA
Beck is about as biased as one can get!
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 01, 2013, 08:22:10 PM
Update: 51,000 people made "applications" in the first week (not enrolled for coverage, just got far enough along to see the subsidized prices). According to the targets, the program needs 39,000 enrollees per day to hit the goal, and in the correct categories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa9gmEItPSA
It does not appear that this program that promises to take over 1/6th of the domestic economy, will support much of anybody in the community. We are still excluded, and not covered for many essential TG services.
Propaganda is the opposite of truth and facts.
Well then try posting some REAL facts from real unbiased sources!
Quote from: michelle gee on November 01, 2013, 08:22:22 PM
Sure as long as the article mentioned is rightly attributed to who funds Watchdog.org.
That is not legitimate news and has no business here.
Koch is aginst O'Bamacare so go figure?
If its not REAL news what would you call it?
These things don't matter to me. I only wish for a respectful conversation in a healthy, helpful setting. Hugs, Devlyn
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on November 01, 2013, 08:38:07 PM
These things don't matter to me. I only wish for a respectful conversation in a healthy, helpful setting. Hugs, Devlyn
The is the Science & Medical forum one would expect to see some worthy news articles in posts instead of opinions from the right and even the OP says:
" it's the law based on lies and deceit"
This does not make for a healthy thread starting off.
Lies and deceit is the same as propaganda.
Wiki: : ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.
Why am I the only one being asked to stop saying this?
/hugs Michelle Gee
Quote from: michelle gee on November 01, 2013, 08:34:28 PM
Well then try posting some REAL facts from real unbiased sources!
Just for you, because you asked:
EXCLUSIVE: Just 51,000 people completed Obamacare applications during the website's first week, out of tens of millions of Americans in 36 states (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2452537/Administration-sources-Obamacare-website-received-just-51-000-completed-insurance-applications.html)
Daily Mail (UK) Online | David Martosko, U.S. Political Editor
Just 51,000 people completed Obamacare applications during the first week the Healthcare.gov website was online, according to two sources inside the Department of Health and Human Services who gave MailOnline an exclusive look at the earliest enrollment numbers....
The career civil servants, who process data inside the agency, confirmed independently that just 6,200 Americans applied for health insurance through the problem-plagued website on October 1, the day it first opened to the public....
'I don't have any hard numbers beyond what HHS and the state-based exchanges have released,' said spokesman Justin Nisly, who insisted that Americans have been 'enthusiastic' and 'grateful' for Obamacare.
The White House did not respond to emails seeking comment.
But several administration officials have claimed this month that they didn't have access to the kinds of raw figures MailOnline obtained from the people who work for them. And the anemic totals suggest a far lower level of interest in coverage through the Affordable Care Act than the Obama administration has hoped to see....
CNN host Wolf Blitzer agreed on Wednesday that the White House should consider granting Republicans' demands for a one-year delay of the rule requiring individual taxpayers to buy insurance, given the failings of the glitch-prone enrollment website that has produced more headaches than new customers.Gosh, when you lose CNN, I think you've lost the argument.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2013%2F10%2F10%2Farticle-2452537-18A6FC8400000578-654_308x425.jpg&hash=a3ebc6743e492707ad3895fd8e6b0717d82942a4)
They've lost Wolf: CNN personality Wolf Blitzer, who seldom aligns
himself with Republicans, said Wednesday that the White House
should give Republicans the Obamacare delay they seek, if only
to give tech issues time to sort themselves out
There is an Obamacare navigator in Colorado that hasn't signed up anyone, and it's not because of a lack of interest. People come in, see what the rates are, and then they leave - they can't afford it.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-navigator-hasnt-signed-anyone-because-its-too-expensive_765629.html
I also read a story that said that people ARE using the website - but they are using it to sign up for Medicare. Only a very small percentage of the sign ups are for the actual health insurance. Unfortunately I don't have a link to that story handy at the moment or I would post it here.
Edit: found it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/31/in-first-month-the-vast-majority-of-obamacare-sign-ups-are-in-medicaid/
It's sad to me that the politicians took this great opportunity to improve our existing healthcare system and gave us something that has so many issues.
"MailOnline's sources are two Health and Human Services workers who have access to the data as it's crunched"
There you go again.
How convenient that these people are anonymous.
Once again no real facts!
Which Top Hospitals Take Your Health Insurance Under Obamacare? (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/which-top-hospitals-take-your-health-insurance-under-obamacare?s_cid=rss:which-top-hospitals-take-your-health-insurance-under-obamacare)
U.S. News and World Report | By Watchdog.org
Americans who sign up for Obamacare will be getting a big surprise if they expect to access premium health care that may have been previously covered under their personal policies. Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare, Watchdog.org reports. The organization looked at the top 18 hospitals nationwide as ranked by U.S. News and World Report for 2013-2014, contacting each hospital to determine their contracts and talking to several insurance companies as well.
List at the link.
(Provided as a service to the community)
Quote from: Eva Marie on November 01, 2013, 08:58:01 PM
There is an Obamacare navigator in Colorado that hasn't signed up anyone, and it's not because of a lack of interest. People come in, see what the rates are, and then they leave - they can't afford it.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-navigator-hasnt-signed-anyone-because-its-too-expensive_765629.html
I also read a story that said that people ARE using the website - but they are using it to sign up for Medicare. Only a very small percentage of the sign ups are for the actual health insurance. Unfortunately I don't have a link to that story handy at the moment or I would post it here.
It's sad to me that the politicians took this great opportunity to improve our existing healthcare system and gave us something that has so many issues.
Wiki:The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative opinion magazine published 48 times per year. Its founding publisher, News Corporation, debuted the title September 18, 1995. Currently edited by founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes
I don't trust that as fact either I am sorry.
Quote from: michelle gee on November 01, 2013, 09:01:35 PM
"MailOnline's sources are two Health and Human Services workers who have access to the data as it's crunched"
There you go again.
How convenient that these people are anonymous.
Once again no real facts!
Please provide a list of your "approved" sources. I will try to oblige.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 01, 2013, 09:09:18 PM
Please provide a list of your "approved" sources. I will try to oblige.
The unbiased ones just a little research will tell you.
Quote from: michelle gee on November 01, 2013, 09:06:28 PM
Wiki:The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative opinion magazine published 48 times per year. Its founding publisher, News Corporation, debuted the title September 18, 1995. Currently edited by founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes
I don't trust that as fact either I am sorry.
How about youtube with an interview of the navigator?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p62BtJwYdE#t=25
Some food for thought... the constant conservative bashing of liberals is one of the things that turns me off to this site. I'm fine with people having different opinions and love a good debate, but it gets tiresome to see endless bickering on topics that are totally unrelated to the mission of the site. We do have sub-forums and welcome various conversations; however, sometimes people should take a look at whether or not they are contributing to a support site or creating walls. Personally, I have avoided this forum sometimes because I see how close minded and biased some people can really be (including myself at times which bothers me when I recognize it). Is that what we want here? Does this accomplish anything other than stroking our egos? Shouldn't conservatives, liberals, dems, republicans, socialists, iibertarians or any other group be welcome here? Again, conversation is fine and sometimes helpful, but it really hasn't been too productive on this topic and is only creating walls. Shouldn't we be grown up to recognize this and move on? I may be a naive 24 year old, but I know enough to see this is going nowhere good.
Quote from: michelle gee on November 01, 2013, 09:11:45 PM
The unbiased ones just a little research will tell you.
The White House? MSNBC? Democratic Underground? Pravda?
Please, I'd like to know which you consider "unbiased."
Are "facts" in the eyes of the beholder?
Quote from: michelle gee on November 01, 2013, 09:18:21 PM
I am sorry but anyone could put that on youtube and pretend to be anyone.
It may be true but how can you be for sure?
Quote from: michelle gee on November 01, 2013, 09:06:28 PM
Wiki:The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative opinion magazine published 48 times per year. Its founding publisher, News Corporation, debuted the title September 18, 1995. Currently edited by founder William Kristol and Fred Barnes
But you consider wikipedia to be a trusted resource? Many don't.
Quote from: Eva Marie on November 01, 2013, 09:12:32 PM
How about youtube with an interview of the navigator?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p62BtJwYdE#t=25
Anyone can put up a Youtube video.
I am looking at Colorado news for this and have yet to find it.
Quote from: Eva Marie on November 01, 2013, 09:24:27 PM
But you consider wikipedia to be a trusted resource? Many don't.
The Weekly Standard made its debut on September 18, 1995. Edited by William Kristol and Fred Barnes, the magazine is published 48 times a year by Clarity Media Group. The Weekly Standard is available by subscription. The price of a single copy is $4.95.
This is from their own website.
Correction Michelle: The video report was from Al Jazeera! It has a direct quote from someone whose job it is to sign people up. The eyewitness testimony, acceptable in a court of law.
Al Jazeera reporter question: "How many people have you enrolled here through the exchange?"
Jennifer Abbot, Family and Intercultural Resource Center: "So far no one... Thus far everybody has taken a look at the rates and they've walked out the door... It's sticker shock. They just can't afford it."
Great, just great, now since my insurance has dumped me I'm not going to be able to get inexpensive insurance.
Time to move to Canada.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 01, 2013, 09:31:34 PM
The video report was from Al Jazeera! It has a direct quote from someone whose job it is to sign people up. The eyewitness testimony, acceptable in a court of law.
It could be anybody and do you have proof they are in fact a real navigator?
The psychological term for that is "denial."
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jennifer-abbott/7a/aab/98a
http://www.summitfirc.org/FIRC/ContactUs
Jennifer, Health Coverage Guide, cell 970-368-0906 jennifera@summitfirc.org jennifera@summitfirc.org
Feel free to message her.
Oh dear the ACA thread is revived. How about a hard fact for once. My "Cadillac plan" through my employer is "unchanged" for next year, with a $8 per month increase in premiums (to $42 for myself.)
Quote from: Missy~rmdlm on November 01, 2013, 09:44:52 PM
Oh dear the ACA thread is revived. How about a hard fact for once. My "Cadillac plan" through my employer is "unchanged" for next year, with a $8 per month increase in premiums (to $42 for myself.)
Nice!
Just a reminder, as is usual on a busy night at a support site, we have people in need. Elsewhere on the site are people with their heads in their hands looking for a kind word. While kind words are at a bare minimum in this thread, I will ask each of you to please leave this thread for a moment and help fulfill the mission of this site. Go make a supportive post, and if it then feels right to return to this bickering, feel free to do so. Thank you, hugs, Devlyn
In order clarify my previous statement to someone, I want to elaborate a bit.
Consistent put downs on democratic policies and values on a support site may very well make some liberals feel unwelcome. Even if the tone isn't always hostile, it doesn't contribute to a positive atmosphere or do anything productive. We should talk about what comes to our mind, but it's almost everyday. And I'm aware it happens to conservatives as well which is why you will usually see me defend people for both sides. It wouldn't be cool for that to happen unless there was something trans specific going on. It's a matter of principal at the end of the day. Making everything a debate and isn't always a good thing and this site has beaten this topic to death. Is it really doing anything good? Bashing was the wrong word for it and sorry for using the wrong phrase. What I intended to say maybe we should consider whether what we are saying is conducive to a support site and welcoming everyone. Isn't there a better place for these things? And are we really going to change the minds of others here? It's clear some are stuck so far on one side or the other that they will purposefully spin whatever is said for political purposes. Let's not do that here; after all, there are more appropriate forums for such a thing. Anyway, just my opinion.
By the way, even though I am a lefty, I work in a conservative medical practice with doctors who despise the legislation and understand the concerns of both sides very well. It's not a black and white issue and just wish people would actually consider different perspectives; instead, we get biased conversations that border on ranting and bickering. For a group of open minded people, we can still be stubborn and myopic. And there is no reason to make character assessments based solely on the political views of other posters. In any event, I will leave you to your discussion.
I see no "bickering." I see the exchange of ideas on a topic important to the TG/TS community.
And I have about 10,000 "supportive" posts, so I think I will look out for myself in this topic, before I get lubed and tubed by the Federal Government.
Well, feel free to stay and bicker then.
Quote from: learningtolive on November 01, 2013, 09:55:55 PM
In order clarify my previous statement to someone, I want to elaborate a bit.
Consistent put downs on democratic policies and values on a support site may very well make some liberals feel unwelcome. Even if the tone isn't always hostile, it doesn't contribute to a positive atmosphere or do anything productive. We should talk about what comes to our mind, but it's almost everyday. And I'm aware it happens to conservatives as well which is why you will usually see me defend people for both sides. It wouldn't be cool for that to happen unless there was something trans specific going on. It's a matter of principal at the end of the day. Making everything a debate and isn't always a good thing and this site has beaten this topic to death. Is it really doing anything good? Bashing was the wrong word for it and sorry for using the wrong phrase. What I intended to say maybe we should consider whether what we are saying is conducive to a support site and welcoming everyone. Isn't there a better place for these things? And are we really going to change the minds of others here? It's clear some are stuck so far on one side or the other that they will purposefully spin whatever is said for political purposes. Let's not do that here; after all, there are more appropriate forums for such a thing. Anyway, just my opinion.
By the way, even though I am a lefty, I work in a conservative medical practice with doctors who despise the legislation and understand the concerns of both sides very well. It's not a black and white issue and just wish people would actually consider different perspectives; instead, we get biased conversations that border on ranting and bickering. For a group of open minded people, we can still be stubborn and myopic. And there is no reason to make character assessments based solely on the political views of other posters. In any event, I will leave you to your discussion.
Well stated. I think then, you will agree that "debate is an essential tool for developing and maintaining democracy and open societies."
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on November 01, 2013, 10:00:54 PM
Well, feel free to stay and bicker then.
I am not bickering. I am providing a factual basis for decision making.
Are too
Am not
Are too
Am not...... :laugh:
bicker n. - 1. to engage in petulant or peevish argument
I see no "petulance" or "peevishness" on my part. I am not being unreasonable, ill-tempered, or contemptuous. I am just providing facts and resources.
"Just the facts Ma'am." - Sgt. Joe Friday
Quote from: Willow on November 01, 2013, 09:31:55 PM
Great, just great, now since my insurance has dumped me I'm not going to be able to get inexpensive insurance.
Time to move to Canada.
Sorry to hear that, the POTUS deceived you and others and it's outrageous. This is not settle law, this is blatant fraud.
There, I killed two birds with one stone.... I was supportive (per Devlyn) and 'bickered' at the same time.
But seriously, the young especially are getting over burdened with subsidizing older sicker people during a time that good jobs are hard for them to come by. Hard working families are now trying to figure out how to survive as well. This infuriates me.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 01, 2013, 10:02:10 PM
Well stated. I think then, you will agree that "debate is an essential tool for developing and maintaining democracy and open societies."
Perhaps but there is a time, place and manner for these things. You can see this isn't doing much good for anyone involved. We have gotten to a point where this has become counter productive. And debate is different than ranting and bickering. An open debate is where people try to exchange ideas and learn from one another. Does anyone think that's been occurring in these healthcare threads? There is much passive aggressive behavior and character insinuations in these posts that are simply disappointing. We all could use reflection in our life, myself included. Let's reflect on our bias and consider whether it is helping us reach our goals and intentions for being a member of a support group.
In any case, I'm done with this topic. I said my piece and that is all. I'm hoping everyone can consider and do some reflection. While it sucks to do, sometimes it's needed (I include myself in this category).
To the op, forgive me if you feel I targeted you. That was totally unintentional. I think there is nothing wrong with you holding your views and sharing them. I'm just concerned about these numerous threads and where they are leading the site and how it effects other members. Nothing to do with you or the content of your post. Though, I do respect your view and thank you for sharing your concerns.
Quote from: amZo on November 01, 2013, 10:18:54 PM
Sorry to hear that, the POTUS deceived you and others and it's outrageous. This is not settle law, this is blatant fraud.
There, I killed two birds with one stone.... I was supportive (per Devlyn) and 'bickered' at the same time.
But seriously, the young especially are getting over burdened with subsidizing older sicker people during a time that good jobs are hard for them to come by. Hard working families are now trying to figure out how to survive as well. This infuriates me.
I am in my 50s now. I have always paid my way, by paying my premiums to the health insurance companies I chose in a free market. Even when my employer gave me a limited number of choices, I often carried supplementary policies of my choice, to cover items such as dental or vision.
In some places, there will just be one company providing the Obamacare coverage. That is not a "choice." That is un-American.
QuoteTo the op, forgive me if you feel I targeted you. That was totally unintentional. I think there is nothing wrong with you holding your views and sharing them. I'm just concerned about these numerous threads and where they are leading the site and how it effects other members. Nothing to do with you or the content of your post. Though, I do respect your view and thank you for sharing your concerns.
But you feel I may not be good for this forum? Nah, I don't feel targeted. ;)
LearningToLive, I live in a world where people who aren't trans tend to reject me if they knew me AND in a world where people who ARE trans tend to reject me once they know me. In other words, I live between a rock and a hard place (actually I don't, life is still very good!).
I think diversity is a good thing, I'm not changing.
You are always welcome here. "This web site exists to offer constructive input and support." Susan said that herself.
Temporarily locked. Lets calm down folks.