<p>Calmom, I don’t think you understand daily journalism. Their job is to tell the stories of the people in their communities and their experiences with the new health care program. Their job is not to solve the problems. If a reporter has talked to the insurance company, the hospital, doctor, and patient they have it covered. That is who, what, where, why, and when. The creative suggestions on this thread about moving money around or calling everyone’s billing office before buying a plan are beyond the job description of a daily reporter. It sounds like you are looking for advocacy journalism which exists but it’s a safe bet you will only approve of half of it. </p>
<p>Journalists’ job is not to be stenographers for people who tell them untruths.Their job is to ferret out the truth, and to provide the background that allows us to evaluate the veracity of the people they interview. </p>
<p>There is such a thing as objective truth. Uncritical repetition of untruths is a dereliction of their duty. </p>
<p>Well, now we’re back to “If you like your plan…” </p>
<p>There really is no objective truth in this mess until things happen. I don’t know who you think is lying to reporters but the stories of Obamacare problems are just as real as those of Obamacare success. There have been both. And, I do agree there is a lot of stenography. But they cannot be expected to write ACA survival guides, either.</p>
<p>GP, Group Health is a nonprofit coop which runs its own medical centers and health clinics in multiple locations in Seattle. My son & grandson were on Group Health before grandson was shifted to Molina. The network includes Virginia Mason hospital which is a teaching hospital and quite near my son is among the top 5 hospitals in Washington, including to US News rankings. (Which I’m sure have as much validity for hospitals as it does for colleges, but that’s another issue) The point is that he was happy with Group Health before and I’m sure he will be happy with it in the future if he chooses that plan. </p>
<p>The point is that if someone in Washington wants a plan that includes Children’s, they can get it, and they do not have to choose a more expensive exchange option to get it. </p>
<p>If a family wants to choose different plans for different family members, because of differing provider preferences, they can do that. They have plenty of choices. </p>
<p>Flossy, do you think journalists pick people by the nature of their "stories?’
Fear sells, common marketing tactic. What’s going to grab attention? A mom with a sick child. Or Calmom’s son’s success story? Some interviewee may tell the truth- but the point is what his perspective is.</p>
<p>And then, the writer can craft it as he/she wants, as long as no one is libeled, quotes are accurate.
But the choices of whom to interview and how to present it, can be misleading, overall.</p>
<p>Eg, I can accurately quote that someone said, “Medicaid is bogus.” But that’s not what the full line was, nor the intent.</p>
<p>And, eg, someone can say they were denied and it can be true. It helps to know what was up. Denied because paperwork was incomplete? Approved when that was resolved? That’s what “whole truth” is about. And yes, maybe the insurer was just cruel. But we need more than the first words. </p>
<p>“They have plenty of choices.”</p>
<p>Not plenty or good choices (except for Virginia Mason and Children’s).</p>
<p>On another note did anyone know that you can’t cancel your plan on the federal exchange before March 31 and choose another plan with a different insurance company or different tier of coverage because of dissatisfaction with the network?</p>
<p>"In other instances, federal officials have rethought some of the marketplace’s rules, as it has become clear that some of the customers who have used HealthCare.gov purchased a health plan without fully understanding its benefits — or which doctors and other health-care practitioners were part of its network.</p>
<p>Specifically, the new policy says consumers may make changes before March 31, the end of an open enrollment period that began in October, if they want to “move to a plan with a more inclusive provider network” or fit within “other isolated circumstances” according to the memo, which does not define what the other circumstances might be. People who switch must stay with the same insurer and tier of coverage."</p>
<p>This doesn’t make sense because if you can’t change insurance companies, it is unlikely you will be able to find another more inclusive network. I doubt the same insurance company has different networks for exchange plans. More inscrutable Obamacare regulation.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/administration-will-allow-people-to-switch-obamacare-plans-to-a-limited-degree/2014/02/07/56c8bfd2-9015-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/administration-will-allow-people-to-switch-obamacare-plans-to-a-limited-degree/2014/02/07/56c8bfd2-9015-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html</a></p>
<p>Big example, those auto shop guys. Omg his new quote is (what was it?) twenty four hundred a month! Outrage! True? YES. Whole truth? NO. It represented a roughly 10% jump from his prior charges.</p>
<p>An this principle is supposed to hold for all sides of an issue. </p>
<p>deleted</p>
<p>Oh yes, the auto shop. Poor Judy.</p>
<p>There is a distinction I think some of you may be missing between local reporters and the national press corps. Neither are perfect but they have different jobs.</p>
<p>Then why local links? Anyway, all of them are subject to error or misrepresentation. How 'bout the scandals at NYT? There’s even something called “retraction.” For a reason. </p>
<p>Local links are on the ground fall-out from the national stories that were largely a lot of promises. </p>
<p>Of course, there are sometimes errors and retractions but that wouldn’t apply to a lying source necessarily. People are allowed to lie. That’s politics. Sometimes local sources are wrong or misunderstand things unintentionally. Nationally, they spin. Again, the local press is not intended to be an ACA survival guide. They cover local issues, who shot who, and the weather, basically…</p>
<p>People are allowed to lie, but journalists aren’t supposed to blindly accept and print their lies. </p>
<p>Competent local reporters uncover all sorts of scandals and root out other stories. I bet the reporters in West Virginia have learned not to accept the governments’ and local water company’s stories about water any longer.</p>
<p>Challenging authority is good. I’d like to see a lot more of it, locally and nationally. Sometimes printing the lie is very revealing and that they told it matters. There’s not always a need to state the obvious and be accused of taking sides. Time will tell.</p>
<p>Challenging a local mother who’s crying because her kid can’t get in to see a doctor is different. That’s her reality. And, if you also have the hospital, the insurer, and the doctor I really don’t know what else they are supposed to do. Most of the criticisms I’m seeing are “Well, they could have done this or that…” Well, they didn’t. There are cancer patients who can’t see their doctors. And, some stories have errors. But, some don’t. Not every report is going to include a how-to guide. That would get repetitive. And very long. A local TV spot is roughly 2 minutes.</p>
<p>Flossy, no one said challenge the mom or that she lied. You are compounding this by suggesting it. We want to know more about the story. But the reporter stopped at one small set of details, for this and other tales of its sort. </p>
<p>We don’t know that they “could have done this or that.” Nor do you and GP know any more relevant details. But from “her reality,” some are extrapolating to the nation, the whole program (or close to it.) How?. </p>
<p>And why do we want more info? So we can consider, think, assess. Maybe even get mad. On our own, not spoon fed a few lines. Think about it. It doesn’t make us cheerleaders.</p>
<p>“Some stories have errors [or omissions] and some don’t” is one of the reasons we try to vet which are which.
. </p>
<p>LF - Yes, It’s all getting compounded. We agree completely. The same way every time someone posts an ACA gripe, someone else counters with pre-existing conditions being ended. These are not mutually exclusive. Simply, if a local reporter is standing in front of a burning house her job is not to throw water on it. Rather, her job is to say. “Wow, look at these flames.” No, this doesn’t apply to every situation. Now, back to ACA…</p>
<p>Because of some problems with people getting their ins. cards and long wait times on answering phone calls Empire BC/BS in NY has to refund people a portion of the January premium who bought a policy on the NY exchange. <a href=“Empire agrees to reimburse health insurers”>http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Empire-agrees-to-reimburse-health-insurers-5218944.php</a></p>
<p>^^ Good. There ought to be some consequence for making it so difficult for people to get their cards and make their payments. These are private for-profit companies who made profit-oriented decisions to understaff during what they knew would be a massively busy enrollment period.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the dis to ‘local links’. The L. A. Times is no more or less a local paper than the NY Times or the Washington Post. People will believe what they want to believe and for some no amount of news reporting on the various problems is going to mean a whit.</p>
<p>Tatin - That dis was probably my fault as I was trying to explain that local press and national press have different roles. Both are useful imho. But, yeah, on any side of this if you are looking for issues you will find them. </p>
<p>Many of these exchange issues are local, since the exchanges operated on a state by state basis, the insurance is different depending on location and the networks differ based on location. I give the same credence to the Riverside Press Enterprise as to the NY Times. </p>