<p>Personally, I’m voting for the conversation message that: if it’s reported in the media or a reporter said it, it’s true. I looked for a ‘head smack’ icon and didn’t see an obvious choice.</p>
<p>"I assume that everyone thinks if we have health insurance that is supposed to pay for treatment for serious conditions, the treatment has to be offered by qualified professionals: the insurance company can’t send you to an auto body shop for chemotherapy, or something. But the issue is, do medical doctors licensed to practice in the state of California count as qualified professionals, or, for treatment that is normally offered by doctors, should only board-certified doctors count? If doctors who are not board-certified don’t count as doctors, why is the state of California issuing licenses to them? Should we accept only board-certified doctors (not other doctors) for oncology, but allow all doctors for broken arms and pneumonia? "</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang - I don’t think you’re understanding what board-certification is. It is not a fancy-schmancy premium extra for extra brownie points. It doesn’t require “special training” (beyond what already took place during med school / residency). It just requires the doctor to go take a test given by his or her specialty field (dermatology, oncology, etc.). It is the BASELINE to be qualified to do something. Not being board-certified is being BELOW baseline. Yeah, you’re still a doctor because you graduated medical school, but you’re a pretty lazy one if you have so little intellectual interest in your specialty you can’t bother to take the boards and get board-certified. Or, you know you’re not bright enough to pass. </p>
<p>Anyone can look up the info on the ABMS web site. “Medical specialty certification in the United States is a voluntary process. While medical licensure sets the minimum competency requirements to diagnose and treat patients, it is not specialty specific.”</p>
<p>Of course it is a higher level of certification. It does not say a non Board Cert doctor is incompetent. There’s a line in here. </p>
<p>I heart this thread. </p>
<p>I haven’t watched Fallon yet. I never watched Leno, I was a Letterman person. Now I only watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Cobert. </p>
<p>When I read the posts yesterday, I thought the post calmom mentioned was the second most absurd post of the day. Another link with important information left out. However, I can change the rules as time goes on, just like the current and former presidents have done. I want to improve “absurd post of the day” so it works better. We should be able to adjust our thinking as we gather more information, and because calmom’s explanation was so good, there are now two absurd posts of the day on our first day of absurd post of the day. So calmom is a winner. Calmom is on the committee to choose the absurd post of the day. </p>
<p>We are lucky to have calmom participating in the ACA thread.</p>
<p>The thing about the post that makes it a worthy winner is that the poster who posted it was advocating for people to pay the penalty, especially young healthy people, instead of pushing for healthy people to sign up for health insurance. If the opposite of that advocation occured, and more healthy people signed up for health insurance, there would be more money in the pot and the networks could expand profitably. Premiums could be lower. If somebody wanted wider networks, that somebody would be encouraging more healthy people to sign up. Since this is not the case, The argument is for healthy people to not sign up, the post is a winner.</p>
<p>I used to watch Letterman, but I also now prefer Stewart and Colbert. I am glad emilybee hearts this thread because she is a winner. Emilybee is on the committee. She understood what the other absurd post of the day was immediately. She knew the post was absurd post of the day before there even was an absurd post of the day. </p>
<p>An announcement of the other absurd post of the day will follow unless I am impeached. </p>
<p>"I have read so many horror stories. Maybe you have heard a few? I asked my daughter’s pediatrician if she was having any issues because of ACA?</p>
<p>She looked at me strangely. Like why am I asking this question. She said, “No”."</p>
<p>I asked my doctor (whom by the way, sees me on the same day as a matter of course, and answers emails that I send to her quickly). She grumbled, looked annoyed, and said, “I’m retiring in June.”</p>
<p>dstark, I am honored. 
</p>
<p>I think we could both be hired as writers on Daily Show and Colbert. 
</p>
<p>ps - had to edit because I mistakenly hit the 'period key after “dstark” instead of a comma. Showing “post was edited” 1 minute after is stupid. I wish they would change this! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Convoluted enough it could mean more than one thing but the one I’m getting is that it’s absurd to encourage some people to look to their own economic interests. I say ‘some’ because there’s a distinct group that has looked very hard to their own and are considered savvy consumers for it.</p>
<p>While they were lowering their premium costs, they raised it for others and the general consensus has been that 'there were bound to be winners and losers."</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or, with respect to Justice Potter, “you know it you see it” (even if you can’t describe it). lol</p>
<p>dstark: check out Target for scripts – they have many that are just a flat rate with no insurance card needed. Also, Walgreens offers a AAA discount, which is sometimes cheaper than the insurance discount.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This can be remedied by the state of California and if the current legislature won’t do it, the people can vote in people who will. </p>
<p>Bluebayou, that is great info. Thanks. I appreciate it.</p>
<p>Kmcmom13, i also like your quote very much.</p>
<p>Emilybee, :).</p>
<p>Like the article about the woman losing her doctor - when someone just does an itty bitty bit of digging - it turns out to be not quite what it purports. </p>
<p><a href=“Has Anyone in America Actually Been Harmed by Obamacare? – Mother Jones”>http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/02/has-anyone-america-actually-been-harmed-obamacare</a></p>
<p>“Medical tuurism” is an answer for me. Got to be prepared. Thought that have to travel to India. Happened to be much closer. Check out Costa Rica. Hospitals affiliated with some great American hospitals. Dental is fraction of the cost here. I bet that docs are American trained. Will continue checking details, here it is NOT going to be available, forget affordable. Availability of care is number one priority, cost is secondary, but dental is getting to be huge in my case… </p>
<p>Emily, she liked her old plan and wanted to keep it. It’s interesting how people want to tell this terminally ill woman that she is better off now, just doesn’t realize it. Anyway, the ad got 2 pinocchios. ACA promises have done worse. </p>
<p>Flossy, IOW she isn’t worse off regardless if she wanted to keep her old plan. </p>
<p>“Medical tuurism” is an answer for me."</p>
<p>So if you have a heart attack, a stroke or get in a car accident and need care you are going to travel to another country to get it?!? </p>
<p>I have just been diagnosed with a chronic illness (not life threatening) but definitely not something anyone can travel to another country for to get diagnosed and treated. It took 2 1/2 months just to get a proper diagnosis because many other illnesses needed to be eliminated first. So, if you feel lousy and don’t know why you are going to hop on a plane and go to another country to see doctors, get diagnosed and get care? My condition requires I see my doctor frequently - so every few months you are going to go out of the country to be monitored? And what happens if before your scheduled appointment there are complications which require being seen immediately? </p>
<p>“Check out Costa Rica. Hospitals affiliated with some great American hospitals.”</p>
<p>Is this the same Costa Rico that has Universal Heath Care for all it’s citizens and permanent residents? </p>
<p>Yeah, Wash Post is all over the inconsistencies.<br>
She does not say she wanted to keep it. She only deals with the fears a “great” plan was cancelled and she needs her meds. Does this ad not raise questions about its completeness? Remember, “fear sells.” Read the rebuttals.
Thanks for the link.</p>
<p>“Tens of millions” spent on these attack ads.</p>
<p>Actually, she was interviewed on television last night and she did say that she liked her old plan and wanted to keep it. She added that she has no money to pay for meds.and her old plan was a set monthly fee that she could afford. </p>
<p>I would expect no less from her - now that it’s been brought to attention that the ad was…to put it nicely - devoid of truthiness. </p>
<p>unfortunately for the authors of the ad, it was a waste; they need a new protagonist.</p>
<p>Under ACA, the women’s premium declined $500 per month, or $6000 per year. Under ACA she has an out of pocket max of $6k per year. No harm, no foul; “move along…”</p>
<p>I don’t know if the article about the woman in Alameda County who said her doctor, in Santa Clara County, wasn’t included in her plan, has been edited. But it now says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So according to the insurer, this doctor, who is on the other side of the San Francisco Bay from the patient and in a different county, has nevertheless been included in her plan all along.</p>