<p>Rememeber when the exchanges opened and it was such a disaster, and we were worried that we might end up with more people uninsured in 2014 than in 2013? I admit, I was worried it would be a debacle. I’ve stopped worrying:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“Thrive Blog | Gallup Topic”>Thrive Blog | Gallup Topic;
<p>That’s fantastic.</p>
<p>Yeah…</p>
<p>I forgot about this too…</p>
<p>This is also awesome…</p>
<p>“The newly insured skew slightly younger, but not healthier. Young and healthy Americans are an important target in public outreach efforts for enrollment, because they essentially subsidize the cost of insurance for those who are older and less healthy. Frank Newport’s analysis of Gallup Daily tracking data shows that newly insured Americans are fairly evenly distributed across 18- to 64-year-olds, with a slight to moderate skew toward younger Americans aged 18 to 29 years. Using a measure of self-reported health status, Gallup found that the newly insured in 2014 mirror the health of the overall population, meaning they are neither sicker nor healthier.”</p>
<p>dstark, xpost :)</p>
<p>Two minds with but a single thought.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>ACA News is incredible today. :)</p>
<p>You’re back, ds :)</p>
<p>A link to today’s Gallup presentation, for people who are completely nerdy:
<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube;
It’s long, but it’s fascinating if you like that sort of thing.</p>
<p>Well, at least this Obama supporter, Susan Estrich, is a realist and doesn’t deny the very real problems with Obamacare, which I have been saying for months needs to be addressed by our do-nothing, slacker politicians.</p>
<p>“The business of what doctors you can see, what hospitals you can use — very big problem. The waiting lines for doctors who accept all kinds of plans — very big problem. The confusion and expense of having a “new” plan that costs more because it covers services you don’t need and at the same time forces you to leave the doctors who know you — not so good.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-part-two-070000490.html”>http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-part-two-070000490.html</a></p>
<p>Then you should be happy with the reports that insurance companies are planning to expand their plans next year, and that some insurers who sat on the sidelines want in next year. That will exert downward pressure on premiums and bring more providers in. </p>
<p>But unfortunately all the reports I’ve seen point to rising premiums. Do you have a link? Here’s the latest victim of the ACA.</p>
<p><a href=“Arden Heights woman with chronic illnesses says Obamacare left her without doctors and medication - silive.com”>Arden Heights woman with chronic illnesses says Obamacare left her without doctors and medication - silive.com;
<p>Glad it is turning out well. I am especially impressed with the speed they published the number of enrollment. The day after! How did they know so fast? Didn’t they emphasize since October how hard to tally up the number and that we should be patient?</p>
<p>I posted a link a couple of days ago and I’m not going to post it again. Go back and look. Re premiums, see the CBO numbers which several people posted yesterday. Or you can Google that on your own. </p>
<p>Before we assume rates will go up or how much, we should see if any 2015 rate requests have even been filed yet, by the actual insurers. </p>
<p>Btw, one expensive test I recently had was billed to me at less than the insurer’s allowable. Nice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some disillusionment setting in… well, not here but out there in the real world. The article’s worth a read just to see where the blame’s assessed.
<a href=“http://www.ebony.com/wellness-empowerment/when-doctors-slam-the-doors-on-the-newly-insured-304#axzz2z9CFAeip”>http://www.ebony.com/wellness-empowerment/when-doctors-slam-the-doors-on-the-newly-insured-304#axzz2z9CFAeip</a></p>
<p>Is Horizons health card supposed to be for medicaid or it happens to be for this opinion writer?</p>
<p>The card seem to be connected to medicaid and (possibly) to family plans. The context suggests medicaid, in the writer’s case.</p>
<p>There is a fair amount of opinion in that piece, Texas - opinion that a fair number here would probably agree with, though I think it’s kind of lacking in basis. The point of the post was her own dismal experience with medicaid provider networks and I haven’t reason to believe that’s anything but factual.</p>
<p>I agree it is factual. I am curious about whether the doctor availability is related to medicaid or an exchange based plan.</p>
<p>I find it hard to know what’s strictly factual versus just tilted enough to alter or serve another need. We found inconsistencies, after all, in some earlier anecdotes.</p>
<p>Inconsistencies are a problem for ACA supporters? Well, now that’s rather amusing given the promises…</p>
<p>Inconsistencies matter, no surprise here. Don’t you account for the possibility on both sides of any issue? So these anecdotes…?</p>
<p>Y’know, selling an insurance policy with a limited network doctors is legal, though many people might not like such a network. Maybe the policy holders won’t like it and maybe they will, but it’s legal. But selling an insurance policy with NO doctors, so that a policy holder can’t get a doctor’s appointment-- that’s illegal by most if not all state laws. It’d be better for insurance companies to remedy the problem themselves and not wait for the ambulance chasing lawyers to remedy it for them.</p>