There you go conservatives: Obamacare is failing

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
But part of the whole promise of Obamacare was that you would get coverage for preexisting conditions. So now we tell an MS patient is the good news we are going to give you coverage, but the bad news is your still going to have to pay $1,980 a month out of pocket. And it is not just low end plans if you actually read the article it talks about how it doesn't matter if you're on a Bronze or a Gold plan your still going to have to pay $6,350 or $12,700 per-year out of pocket depending on if you have single or family coverage and that is if you lucky enough that your drugs are on the approved list. If you're not on the approved list you pay 100% out of pocket. The article mentions several cancer treating drugs that are simply not covered at all, and in those cases it wouldn't matter if they brought the bronze plan or platinum plan the drugs wouldn't be covered under the high end or low end plans.


Its a legitimate fault but it is not one that was caused by Obamacare. The Forbes article you cite blames Obamacare for a scenario that existed both before and after its implementation. That is fundamentally dishonest of them, dont ya think?

If you want to argue the new law does not go far enough then I'm right there with ya. But lets be honest about what causes problems and what doesn't
The obamacare implied message was that cheap insurance would be available to all care would be available to all and medical costs would go down.

People who said the math of this couldn't work were dismissed.

Now the reality has arrived, insurance is expensive, not all care is available and medical costs are going up.

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Another great article by Forbes magazine on how Obamacare screws you on prescription drug coverage.

you might not be able to keep your prescription drugs under Obamacare.
DonDiego Has discovered that links to Forbes articles usually do not work for his computer, . . . so he's found a different link that does: No You Can't Keep Your Drugs Either Under Obamacare

DonDiego concurs with malibber2 that this is a most informative article, . . . and he recommends anyone interested in Obamacare read it himself. Some of the standard superficial defenses of Obamacare offered within the LVA Fora don't address the particular issue surfaced.

Here is the bottom line:
i. The citizenry subject to Obamacare cannot necessarily keep an insurance plan they liked. [This is not news.]
ii. The citizenry subject to Obamacare cannot necessarily keep a doctor they liked. [This is not news.]
iii. The Obamacare Healthcare Plans are different and, as the referenced Forbes article indicates, the citizenry subject to Obamacare cannot necessarily keep the drugs they liked or relied on, . . . or even find out what drugs are offered by what plans. [This is what the Forbes article addresses.]

Here is the pertinent conclusion of the article:
"The formulary [i.e. the drugs offered within the Obamacare Plans-DD] you’ll get depends most of all on which state you live in . . .
Health plans are cheapening their drug formularies – just like they cheapened their networks of doctors. That’s how their paying for the benefits that President Obama promised, everything from free contraception to a leveling of premiums between older (and typically costlier) beneficiaries, and younger consumers [and pre-existing conditions-DD]."

So trade-offs were necessary, . . . and somebody's gonna end up on the short end.

And the formularies offered differ significantly State-by-State and Plan-by-Plan within each State:
"As another excellent analysis [ Digging for Drugs and Docs . . . Is Not Easy-DD] finds a lack of standardization and on-line tools makes it hard for consumers to compare between plans. Some of the published lists do not show all of the covered drugs. [Over 6 States] the numbers of drugs listed as available on formularies ranged from about 480 to nearly 1,110. Even if your drug makes it onto the Obamcare plan’s formulary, getting access to a medicine can still be a costly affair for patients."

So, . . . shoppers cannot even compare plans available within their States online, because the information just may not be there.

DonDiego pities those dependent on specific pharmaceuticals who must purchase a plan over the next two weeks or be subject to a penalty-tax.

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego

Here is the pertinent conclusion of the article:
"The formulary [i.e. the drugs offered within the Obamacare Plans-DD] you’ll get depends most of all on which state you live in...
News Flash! Insurance companies of all stripes change their formularies all the time. Both Obamacare insurance and non-Obamacare insurance. And so does Medicare. And the VA.

These make-believe scandals are getting weaker by the minute.


All 3 of Don Diego's bottom line points are also attributes of the "superior" system he wishes we go back to. So whats the difference? Aside from a bunch of faux outrage I cant tell.
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
News Flash! Insurance companies of all stripes change their formularies all the time. Both Obamacare insurance and non-Obamacare insurance. And so does Medicare. And the VA.

These make-believe scandals are getting weaker by the minute.

Of course insurance companies change their formularies.

But in this case the Obamacare Legislation forced the State Insurance Commisions to change the formularies in accordance with an Obamacare-approved methodology of their choice. As a result some citizens will no longer have the drugs they've been using available within their new, improved insurance plan.

And some unfortunate citizens who've had their insurance cancelled cannot even learn what drugs the new Obamacare plans offer, because the information is not available on the Obamacare website.

DonDiego would've thought forkushV would be more compassionate; apparently defense of Obamacare is a higher priority.

The Good News: Everyone in the State will have the same pharmaceuticals covered by their Obamacare Healthcare Plan.
The Bad News: Not everyone in the State has the same diseases or medical conditions.


Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
All 3 of Don Diego's bottom line points are also attributes of the "superior" system he wishes we go back to. So whats the difference? Aside from a bunch of faux outrage I cant tell.

The difference is a Government which thinks it knows what is best for everyone is forcing people to purchase new, improved healthcare plans which may be less suitable and more expensive than the plans they had and liked.
i. Many citizens would've been able to keep their health care plans. And the costs would not be required to meet the new coverage required by Obamacare.
ii. Many citizens would've been able to keep their preferred doctor. And access to the same hospitals. And access to the same drugs.
iii. Citizens who preferred their old plans would not be forced to choose new, improved plans which likely offer higher premiums, higher deductibles, and less choice in physicians, medical facilities, and pharmaceuticals.

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
...The Good News: Everyone in the State will have the same pharmaceuticals covered by their Obamacare Healthcare Plan.
The Bad News: Not everyone in the State has the same diseases or medical conditions.
Yup. The same criticism could be leveled against Medicare, couldn't it?

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
All 3 of Don Diego's bottom line points are also attributes of the "superior" system he wishes we go back to. So whats the difference? Aside from a bunch of faux outrage I cant tell.

The difference is a Government which thinks it knows what is best for everyone is forcing people to purchase new, improved healthcare plans which may be less suitable and more expensive than the plans they had and liked.
i. Many citizens would've been able to keep their health care plans. And the costs would not be required to meet the new coverage required by Obamacare.
ii. Many citizens would've been able to keep their preferred doctor. And access to the same hospitals. And access to the same drugs.
iii. Citizens who preferred their old plans would not be forced to choose new, improved plans which likely offer higher premiums, higher deductibles, and less choice in physicians, medical facilities, and pharmaceuticals.


I like how you keep using the word "forced". Perhaps you can show me in the law where Obamacare forces an insurance company to choose its network of doctors and hospitals...and drugs.

Insurance companies have a long history of changing all of these things prior to the new law. Your objection was mysteriously absent the million times insurance companies removed preferred doctors from their networks prior to the ACA. Payment agreements are in a constant state of negotiation between insurers and providers. Providers have the same freedom to raise/lower prices under the ACA as they had before....and insurers have the same freedom to include those doctors or not. What you will not find anywhere in the ACA is the government "forcing" private entities to do business with one another.

Luckily The market exchanges now give consumers a choice. if your preferred doctor is dropped by you current insurance company then can switch to a different insurer that includes that doctor.
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego

new, improved plans which likely offer higher premiums, higher deductibles, and less choice in physicians, medical facilities, and pharmaceuticals.


Today's LVA vocabulary lesson:

Likely (adj)
1. such as well might happen or be true; probable
2. belonging to 3% of the US populatuon

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now