<p>I like it. Is it totally appropriate? No. But clever, yes.</p>
<p>This moronic drivel paid for with taxpayer dollars shows you how badly things must be going with signing up young people. They are obviously desperate otherwise they would resort to this ridiculous and absurd video. I am sure a young person will rush to their nearest Obamacare navigator after watching this video.</p>
<p>^Try to remember you said, “it is premature to draw any conclusions.” You’re annoyed, we get it. But we can each try to keep the thread productive, help each other with tips and clarifications. Your taxpayer dollars went into that one, as it was sponsored by, aiui, Covered CA. You are free to project it is desperate. But I’m more curious if you checked your doc list beyond the 5 mile radius. Or what new info you have uncovered.</p>
<p>Sorry but it’s one thing for a poster to gripe about a roadblock, another thing to repeatedly project the very worst. I know you disagree with me.</p>
<p>That video is hilarious 
I actually think insouciant rap satire is a legitimate outreach strategy for some segments of the demo. Younguns aren’t sitting around watching tv or “imbibing” traditional, passive forms of advertising. If you’re going to take your message to the people, then you take your message to where the people are :)</p>
<p>Thanks for posting the video. Does Enroll America get taxpayer money? The website suggests otherwise. Regardless, I like the video - very catchy.</p>
<p>Is that video real? By “real”, I mean an ad paid for by proponents of Obamacare actually designed to encourage people to enroll. Hard for me to believe.</p>
<p>Of course I was hearing radio spots encouraging people to go online and get their healthcare. These ads were running in late October long after it was apparent the website was not working, so all the ads could possibly hope to accomplish was to increase web traffic and increase frustration among people attempting to use the nonfunctioning website.</p>
<p>Is the video any more ridiculous than the two seniors in side-by-side bathtubs waiting for an erectile disfunction drug to kick in?</p>
<p>I’m not particularly a rap fan, but I don’t see any reason why ads targeted at a certain demographic wouldn’t use music/approaches that appeal to that demographic.</p>
<p>NJres- you are not the demographic the add is meant to reach</p>
<p>The video seems to have been produced by Tell A Friend- Get Covered, which is funded by state exchanges.</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.tellafriendgetcovered.com/about-us/]About”>http://www.tellafriendgetcovered.com/about-us/]About</a> Us<a href=“information%20about%20Tell%20A%20Friend-%20Get%20Covered”>/url</a></p>
<p>I don’t trust anyone here, including myself, to evaluate whether this ad will be successful. None of us are the target audience. </p>
<p>Also, I haven’t seen one person in this thread who would be happy having their own adult child uncovered by health insurance. We may talk about young adults not getting covered, but our own children will be covered.</p>
<p>The ads are a pittance compared to website costs. It looks like all the separate sites together spent billions and if they don’t have enough enrollees because it is not advertised, that is billions wasted.</p>
<p>I have lots of complaints about the current admin but reaching out to younger demographic is definitely something they seem to know how to do and do it well.</p>
<p>Notice they never use a smarmy, ugly guy in the erectile ads, never use a pick-up scenario. </p>
<p>I shared the video with some smart friends and they are equally entertained. No, I’m not the demographic- nor do I eat pistachios, but I love the Psy ads, too. You can love them for what they are.</p>
<p>I couldn’t find anything that clarifies how 2014 insurance would cover the OON doc at the Tier 2 hospital (just a few older things.) But it’s pretty clear the intent, the dollars-and-cents, is to steer us to preferred hospitals and docs-- because those facilities and providers have agreed to the price limits.</p>
<p>Some info does make it clear that, if you use a doc who charges more than “negotiated rates,” the insurer doesn’t have to go to bat for you. Logical question: why should they? We’re talking about excesses. We have the older example of UCLA not agreeing to the rate scheme. I haven’t confirmed this, but wonder how many docs dropped off the list have also hedged on “negotiated rates.” It seems hard to point fingers without knowing more. It seems to easy to pick the convenient target- Obama, ACA, one insurance co or another- when we aren’t privy to more info.</p>
<p>Btw, Kimmel has a funny clip where they ask people which they like better, Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act.</p>
<p>Narrow networks, stepped formularies: This is what cost control looks like. </p>
<p>Higher deductibles: this is what “skin in the game” looks like.</p>
<p>The info that IS out there about this OON issue, (who attends you in a hospital,) makes it clear that, when you have scheduled surgery, you should let the doc know your pref for covered docs/service providers. That if he/she prefers, say, an assist or service from someone OON, a pre-authorization call needs to be made. Ime, for anything I’ve scheduled, the pre-op visit is usually a week ahead, leaving time for that. (Ideally, you talk even sooner.)</p>
<p>Re: ER, you need to clarify- emergency is its own context. Anyone can ask this question now, not wait. And then let us know what’s learned. [It doesn’t surprise me that a sales director wouldn’t know. His end of the business is sales-related; another team is charged with expertise in the minute details of the medical scenario, itself.]</p>
<p>ps. CF, as a parent, I exercised narrowed choices, trying stepped options first, etc, with my kids. Now that they are older, yup, I ask for skin in the game. Many times, I step back and say, here’s what I can offer, now you make your choice and- if it is the more expensive option- you are responsible for the excess.</p>
<p>Was sitting around with a couple of docs/admins this morning where the admin of a practice was complaining to the docs that BCTX sent a notice to them saying one of the big hospitals locally is not being covered. The docs said BCTX does it every year and prolong until the last minute when they bargain down to the last penny.</p>
<p>^That’s exactly what both sides said about UCLA- and about Seattle Children’s.</p>
<p>Another discussion point among us lay people on why there is a huge difference between billing and payments…</p>
<p>The doctor charges everyone 250 for the visit. Some groups pay 50, some pay 125, some lower etc. So they don’t want to get paid less by saying 100 when a group has a 125 rate available and thus short change themselves which is the reason the billing rates are too high and no reimbursement would ever cover it in full.</p>
<p>‘But I’m more curious if you checked your doc list beyond the 5 mile radius. Or what new info you have uncovered.’</p>
<p>LF, no matter what I uncover it doesn’t seem to faze the supporters of this law. If I said that no doctors are covered by my plan, I would probably be told not to get sick. :)</p>
<p>^^ Or that it was already happening before… or that you just had it so good before this, it wasn’t fair… suck it up, pooch!</p>
<p>Nah. The way I see it, some look at every hiccup as a point of total failure. And, these rate jumps, hassles or denials DID happen before. Btw, when I lived in S.CA, my docs WERE 9 miles away.</p>
<p>Some of us you label “supporters” DO have some complaints- some have even written them here, BUT resisted seeing it all as gloom. That’s all. You can look for a way to make this work for you. Or you can endlessly debate, take glee at each new pothole.</p>
<p>It is an interesting perspective that suggests that someone who has a problem with law is gloating with aspects of law that aren’t working well, or trying to be negative. </p>
<p>Most everyone I know thought our healthcare system had flaws that should be fixed.</p>
<p>The jury is out whether this new system is an improvement over the old one.</p>
<p>I am thankful to everyone here who has posted their story, because it has been helpful. Even the “negative” comments are helpful - someone will have that particular concern or need, and it is always nice to not have to reinvent the wheel on your own. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen something that was not clear in news reports or when I tried out the website for Covered Calif. </p>
<p>This year, I am lucky we don’t have to shop for insurance at least until we change employers or move out of state. It will impact all of us, and everyone’s concerns should be taken with same merit, since we all are touched by this law.</p>