<p>Busdriver, nothing is his second link contradicts what I said about the number of hospitals covered by Group Health or what is considered to be the best hospitals by US News & World Report and Healthgrades. The only plan I saw in the article you linked which I would consider is the Community Health Plan of Wa. That network is far superior to Group Plan. Group Health network is the worst of the bunch.</p>
<p>Didn’t the California exchange which is touted as one of the best just shut down the network lists on the website due to it’s total and complete inaccuracy? Some people have paid for these policies. It’s really unbelievable. imho. </p>
<p>Flossy, so true!!!</p>
<p>I will say it again, if you choose the Group Heath Plan, you only get 3 adult hospitals within 10 miles of Seattle. Only one of them is listed on the best hospitals list by US News and Healthgrades. Not having the University Of Washington Medical Center is a deal-breaker.</p>
<p>Actually, GP, busdriver11 liked that network. </p>
<p>Flossy, “Total and Complete inaccuracy.” Lol. That statement is false.
There were inaccuracies and that is why the provider list was removed. But that statement you made flossy is ridiculous and unnecessary. </p>
<p>I am just shaking my head. I could say a lot but I can’t. Lol</p>
<p>As I posted above, Group Health runs its own hospitals and medical centers – there are multiple locations in Seattle. My son was very happy when he was on Group Health & never reported any problems with getting medical appointments for my grandson. It seems to me to be the functional equivalent of Kaiser in California – that is, just as I would go to the nearest Kaiser facility for routine care if I were to opt for the lower premiums that Kaiser offers, my impression was that when my grandson needed to see a doctor while on Group Health, they went to one of the Group Health facilities. One nice thing was that they made a lot of medical records available online; that was particularly helpful because of communication issues with his ex-wife over medical issues. </p>
<p>By “functional equivalent” I am not offering an opinion one way or another as to the quality of services. I never used Kaiser but my friends who have Kaiser swear by it. My son just wants to have affordable coverage for himself and for his own son. </p>
<p>I have enough experience on the legal front with medical malpractice to know that the name of the facility has very little bearing on the quality of care at the individual level. Mistakes get made at community hospitals, and mistakes get made at Cedars Sinai and Sloan Kettering and the Mayo Clinic and whatever other facility is destined to make the US News top hospital list. </p>
<p>One of many factors that drives medical costs up and makes medical care less accessible is the same as a driving force for college tuition. It is the creeping elitism – the idea that only “the best” (and most expensive) will do. Community hospital? Not good enough. Managed health care group? Not good enough. Community college? Not good enough. State college? Not good enough.</p>
<p>End result? A college education and medical care are now commodities that are increasingly out-of-reach for the non-affluent. And, of course, on the medical front – premiums that are increasingly unaffordable.</p>
<p>From a public policy standpoint, the solution is not to exalt the high-cost facilities above all others, but rather for the research and teaching hospitals to do a better job of outreach and education to the community facilities. </p>
<p>So why don’t you pass a law outlawing access to private colleges for the affluent. Isn’t that what we just did in California for health insurance.</p>
<p>“Now, If I go to Health Group’s web site I dont see the differentiation between individual exchange plans and non individual exchange plans. I dont see it in the article either. Or the chart. Where is it stated that there is a differentiation?”</p>
<p>All I can tell is the difference between the description of the providers that you linked, which look like a pretty long list, and what is listed in the article. I can’t tell from the Washington state ACA website, they don’t talk about providers. Apparently that requires some digging. The article I linked showed only the ACA plan hospitals, of which there were only four. I never said there was only one hospital.</p>
<p>But at this point, I’ve actually forgotten the original point. I do agree with GP, Group Health is definitely the worst of the bunch. I doubt many people in the area would disagree, but if cheap is the goal, it may be the way to go.</p>
<p>We passed a law disallowing access to expensive hospitals for private insurance subscribers in California? How did I miss that? Hmm. If I bought a Silver plan from Blue Shield on the exchange, I’d have access to Stanford Hospital, and all the other hospitals I know of in my general area.</p>
<p>GP, you are allowed to spend your own money on any health care provider you want, just as any parent on this board can choose to pay full tuition to any private school their child can get into. Those who want financial aid, on the other hand, may find their choices more limited. </p>
<p>Maybe Stanford, but there are a ton of hospitals you would not be able to go to (as well as doctors).</p>
<p>“Those who want financial aid, on the other hand, may find their choices more limited.”</p>
<p>I certainly agree with that. Those who want a big discount, or even free, ought to have less choices since others are paying. If you aren’t paying for it, you shouldn’t get Cadillac services. Good services, adequate services, but not the best and most expensive services.</p>
<p>Why don’t we write a law saying that if you’re affluent, your child can go to Stanford, but not UCLA, Berkeley, Pomona, Claremont McKenna, Santa Clara, etc.</p>
<p>I agree with that, too. But, that’s not what was advertised is it. Maybe, I misunderstood. So now we have full pay, exchange, and Medicaid. Got it.</p>
<p>That is a disingenuous argument, Calmom. Unless you are super rich, if the hospital is not in the network, you cannot go there. In California, there are NO insurance plans on the individual market which cover all these hospitals even if you are willing to pay a lot for your insurance.</p>
<p>“I looked at Healthgrades and of the 10 hospitals receiving 5 stars in any category within 10 miles of Seattle only one is in the network of Group Heath. As a matter of fact, Group Heath only has one hospital for adults within 10 miles of Seattle. The best hospitals in US News & World Report line up almost perfectly with Healthgrades’ best hospitals.”</p>
<p>GP wrote this. I was interested in this. The matter of fact is false.</p>
<p>Busdriver11, you wrote this.
“dstark, it looks like they have a decent network if you buy their insurance off exchange (unless there are some caveats that you can only use those hospitals with permission, or something like that). But on exchange, it’s terrible, unless that data listed was incorrect. Since supposedly the prices were about the same on/off exchange, I can’t imagine anyone using the exchange unless they were getting a huge subsidy. It also would make me wonder why such a difference, unless it was merely disorganization and perhaps those providers would be added.”</p>
<p>I am interested in this but not only do you have no proof, you have an opinion based on no proof. </p>
<p>I am not being an a@@. I was a trader. I like to read lots of information. Positive or negative. I prefer positive but if there are negatives…that is the way it goes. I will read the negatives too. As long as they are true. I would be broke if I read all this false information and acted on it. </p>
<p>Come on…be negative… But can we be truthful? I am going to take it that busdriver11 misread that article. That happens.</p>
<p>GP, I can understand you not liking Health Groups network. It is similar to Kaiser and you dont like Kaiser.</p>
<p>This is my question. I hope I get a factual answer. 
Can somebody buy a plan from Blue Shield and Anthem so he is covered by two plans?</p>
<p>That’s funny, dstark. If you want a better network, buy two heath plans, one from Anthem and the other from Blue Shield. This is what we are reduced to with Obamacare. BTW, many doctors refuse both plans.</p>
<p>So I took a better look at the network that you listed for Group Health, dstark, and that is not much of a network. I didn’t look at it closely before, just saw the large list and a couple of hospitals that I liked. But on second look, I realize that the vast majority of them aren’t even close to Seattle. People in Seattle would never use them if they had a choice, some are several hours away. It has three good local hospitals, VM, Children’s and Overlake. But it doesn’t even have my local hospital, and some of the specialty hospitals that I’d want access to. Very unimpressive. It says you MAY have access to Cancer Care Alliance. What, is that if you beg and plead, get your doctor to write letters? You might be dead by the time they approved.</p>
<p>I still don’t remember the point, but this is not a good network. Very limited, halfway decent, but not good. The only way I’d choose it is if I was really hard up for money.</p>
<p>I agree with calmom, it is probably much like Kaiser. Having been through the minimal service, poor quality care that I had in the Air Force, I wouldn’t voluntarily choose that again. Especially now that I’m older.</p>
<p>Busdriver11, I know you said. You were talking about networks and exchange and off exchange plans. If you dont know what you said, and I even highlighted some of what you said, I feel bad for you. :)</p>
<p>GP, what is your definition of affluent?</p>
<p>I like Kaiser’s service. You do see a lot of middle class people in a Kaiser. :)</p>
<p>Affluent is being able to afford to purchase an insurance plan with the network of hospitals and doctors I had in 2013.</p>