<p>Why would I believe something from the opinion page of the New York Post, a tabloid, written by some stooge at a big-pharma funded “research group” that’s a corporate front for drug companies? Maybe it’s true, but if it’s true you can find me something not published in a tabloid.</p>
<p>Romani - I am under the impression your last year’s income has no bearing on whether you want to enroll on an exchange or not.</p>
<p>texas, I already explained this a few times (but I know the thread is fast moving and I’m not all that relevant lol). Nutshell: my income this year is going to be lower than last years’. My last years’ income was Medicaid eligible. If you are Medicaid eligible, you do not qualify for a subsidy. I can’t even pretend that I’m going to make enough this year to get past the Medicaid threshold. I’ll have to prove income and I can’t. </p>
<p>This is just easier. </p>
<p>You may not have the expected 100-138% (?) income but if you predict you will and enroll in the exchange, I suspect it is not considered a crime if you want to pay more rather than less.</p>
<p>Perhaps, texas. I’m really not worried about it being a crime, I’m just worried about income verification headaches. I work multiple jobs (I’m looking at you, my 4 W-2s and a 1099 that are sitting in front of me) and I’ve had to do the verification for other programs. I’m paying about the same in my off-exchange, grandfathered in crappy plan as I would in the exchange plan but with much, much fewer benefits. If I can just avoid getting sick for a while, it won’t be any big deal as I won’t be using it anyway. </p>
<p>CF, just what I thought, you can’t refute the article. While the NY Post may not be as august and pretentious as the NY Times, it doesn’t mean it can’t be right. While the national media was asleep at the switch, it was the National Enquirer uncovering the facts about erstwhile Presidential candidate, John Edwards, marital infidelities and having a child with his mistress while his wife was dying from cancer. I didn’t see the NY Times or Washington Post breaking that story.</p>
<p>Shooting the messenger (it didn’t help Cleopatra in Henry IV) is not a substitute for debating the issues.</p>
<p>The NY Post article is scary. And, yeah the Enquirer was awesome on Edwards. So obviously slimy and no-one wanted to notice. That was just bizarre.</p>
<p>Medicaid is no panacea.</p>
<p><a href=“How Obamacare will hurt doctors”>Opinion - New York Daily News;
<p>Here is the other story about Covered California which is being swept under the rug.</p>
<p><a href=“Covered California clients have trouble finding doctors”>http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Covered-California-clients-have-trouble-finding-5169944.php</a></p>
<p>Goldenpooch, just for the fun of it, please tell us one good thing about ACA.</p>
<p>As far as I am concerned, NYT is as susceptible to crap as other papers. Same for WSJ. We’ve been through that. Also, afaiak, CF and others don’t have to keep refuting the crap. The links should be vetted first, rather than throw them out there, then asking someone else to vet and explain.</p>
<p>C’mon, Pooch, we’ve discussed this ad infinitum. </p>
<p>We know you think that you are horribly deprived if you can’t go to a hospital that costs a fortune and has Cezannes on the wall. </p>
<p>We know you think that the most expensive hospitals are the best hospitals-- but that turns out not to be true. </p>
<p>Moreover, the idea that everyone should get Cadillac (no, Tesla) health care instead of plain vanilla health care is preposterous. Your fire insurance doesn’t pay for you to build a Taj Mahal if your house burns down. Your car insurance doesn’t buy you a Rolls Royce if you crash your car. The reason health insurers are not offering super-expensive health policies is that there is not enough market for them-- people aren’t willing to pay for them (except you, of course).</p>
<p>If those incredibly expensive cancer hospitals want to be included in health plans, they’re going to have to stop being so expensive. It’s called the free market.</p>
<p>Do we really have to have this discussion AGAIN?</p>
<p>I thought tabloid links weren’t even allowed. Meh </p>
<p>Fang, in addition to the hyper-expensive art, Cedars also has a 5-star chef and $4K-per-day birthing suites. None of which I want to pay for through my insurance premiums. But I suspect the real attraction of Cedars and similar hospitals isn’t so much the food, but rather the fact that one needn’t rub elbows with the hoi polloi. Goldenpooch has spoken in horrified tones about “community hospitals” where ANYONE can go! Can you just imagine!</p>
<p>Okay LasMa, here is one: As John Roberts said in his opinion as to why he didn’t rule ACA unconstitutional, it is healthier for our democracy for the people to experience the laws their elected representatives pass without knowing or understanding its content.</p>
<p>LOL nice try, Goldenpooch. No but seriously, can you think of one single good thing about people being able to get insurance they can afford?</p>
<p>The community hospital problem is related to it’s capability to treat serious disease. It’s a real problem Show up with a rare condition and you will be transferred to a research center. That’s just a reality… </p>
<p>I don’t really see that as a “problem” personally. I want my local community hospital to be able to deal with the routine (even serious) ailments rather than driving up costs by placing specialists in every single hospital. </p>
<p>Well, romani, it’s a problem if they can’t… And, they can’t. If you have a serious condition a family doctor is about as useless as a car salesman. No offense to family docs, but, that’s not what they do. They refer. In a serious situation you need a specialist and then some to have any hope of recovery. </p>
<p>People have family doctors at community hospitals? Maybe we just use different words but I call those “clinics”. A hospital is where you go for surgeries, the ER, urgent care, etc. Not a family doctor… </p>