REAL COST of OBAMACARE given to me by the Insurance Company!

originally posted by: Xeven
I am not for or against Obama care but after reading this it is obvious a majority of you did not and still do not understand Obama care and how it works or what it is suppose to do cost wise.

First, it was never intended to lower health care premium costs for wealthier Americans. Wealthier Americans are to subsidize poor Americans by paying more than the poor Americans. So if your a wealthier American, (generaly anyone with a job and not taking food stamps, disability, Early Social security, Unemployment etc..) you are to subsidize those who are.

True - it was *designed* that way -- but it was never advertised or sold that way.

The goal of Obama Care in part is to get those poor people some form health care, and to stop those poor from going to Emergency Rooms for a cold, where a trip there for a cold might cost thousands versus going to a normal doctor for their cold might cost 120.00.
...

Unfortunately, this is where you and so many go wrong - you've bought into a rather reasonable-sounding story which has no basis in reality. Time and time again, studies show that the people who abuse the ER, who go there for a cold *isn't* the uninsured - it's the *insured*, primarily Medicaid and Medicare users, followed by private insured. Medicaid card-holders, especially, abuse the ER, because it's "free" - they have a $1 co-pay, (or none at all), so why wait a week to see a Primary Care doctor, when they can be seen more or less immediately?

The uninsured only show up at the ER when they have an actual emergency - which raises the other part of the argument - that the previously-uninsured will now seek out routine medical care and prevent those emergent situations from occurring. There's no actual basis for this supposition, more of a hopeful bit of logic.

The flip-side to that is, for those previously-insured who have to pay for their insurance, now with higher premiums, and higher deductibles, will probably be less likely to get routine care, since they have less money in their pockets to actually pay for routine visits. On the other hand, those who benefit from the Medicaid expansion, again, with very low/no co-pays might be more likely now to get routine care, since it costs them nothing but time to have a routine visit.

It's not unreasonable to think those two factors will cancel each other out - ER visits will continue to rise (those that "go there for a cold" since there are more Medicaid card holders, possibly fewer poor will show up with conditions that could have been prevented had they sought preventative care, but it's just as likely that more insured will now show up with late-state illnesses because they couldn't afford to pay for both higher premiums, and higher-deductibles.

So, it's way too early to tell - but imo, the logical conclusions are:

1. Hospital ER visits will continue to go *up*, especially for non-emergency cases - since history shows the greatest abusers of ER's to be Medicaid users, as the number of Medicaid users goes up, so do ER visits, and costs. THe indicator here will be to compare the rates of increase in non-emergent visits in states which implemented the Medicaid expansion, and compare them to the states that didn't.

2. In the long-run, it's possible for some of the newly-entitled Medicaid users to have a decline in ER visits with actual emergencies, as preventative care catches their conditions earlier, and treatment begins earlier. No guarantees, as those who were previously on Medicaid didn't show a lot of interest in preventative care, but it's possible.

3. Any positive effects gained by the Medicaid expansion will probably be lost in those who actually pay for their insurance, with little or no subsidies - with less free income, they're less likely to spend it on medical care which comes with high-deductibles and high-copays.

So, the net effect seems to be robbing the middle-class to pay for increased medical insurance for the poor. And, oh, making some IT companies rich, and some insurance companies richer. At a cost of how many trillions of dollars?

Yeah, this was a terrible mistake - McCain's plan, (the refundable tax credits for everyone to purchase health insurance with) would've been much better - far less bureaucracy and government "tinkering" that inevitably drives the costs up.

The problems with healthcare before were related to complexity in the system, high fraud/waste rates in government-administered programs (with few internal controls and non-existent utilization review), and the cost of torts, (including malpractice insurance costs, defensive medicine, legal costs, and the payouts themselves - the Trial Lawyers like to cite the cost of "defensive medicine" as "only" being 5 or 6% of the total cost of healthcare, ignoring the other costs.)

So, we've addressed the worst of the problems by either doubling down (more complexity, more bureaucracy, more beneficiaries of inefficient government-administered insurance), or ignoring them completely (torts) and in the process, robbed the middle-class of their health-care dollars to pay for the poor.

That about sums it up the "Affordable Care Act" for me - Orwell would be proud of that name ...

originally posted by: Orygun
I saw the chart in the first post and laughed. It is so obviously different than my experience. My wife's insurance costs dropped from $1100 to $472 per month with the almost the same exact coverage thanks to Obamacare. I have other care. I couldn't read the whole thread with all the overblown rhetoric. Those who trash the ACA for the most part don't understand it and haven't had to deal with insurance before. It has been a good deal for everyone I have talked to. Some could not keep their previous insurance, not because of Obamacare, but because the insurance companies cancelled. Many insurance companies just raised prices and forgot to mention that if a person signed up for Obaamcare the price would go down by about half. There are way too many lies floating around. Obamacare isn't going away anymore than Medicare is going away. It perhaps should be tweaked, but that is a good thing.

I'd have to say you were in the minority. Without subsidies (which aren't available to everyone), most plans now have more actuarial costs baked-in - no pre-existing coverage issues, no lifetime caps, contraception/natal care, etc - as the saying goes, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You're getting more, and paying less - and the only way this can happen, absent improved efficiency (I take it you're part of Cover Oregon? Yeah, that's a model for efficiency), the only way your costs went down is someone else is paying for you, or you were in a particularly strange situation that caused you to overpay - $1100/month should've covered your entire family with a very good plan - that's near "Cadillac Plan" thresholds - so why do you have "other care"?

a reply to: spirit_horse

Sad part is 80% of the drugs and technologies are useless and often times makes health worse.

Probably some kind of quantum financial social anthropology supply and demand equation a brilliant ashkeNAZI or Khazarian came up with.

REAL COST-REALITY and SANITY...has nothing to do with any one of the presidents passing through..

I am not saying ACA is perfect or even good but is everyone going to ignore what SaturnFX pointed out about how those two plans are quite different that OP showed us?

The two statements I have are

1. I am so happy I have VA care

2. I really wish we'd get it over with and have socialized healthcare already

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

and this is my same response to that.

Different times, different conditions.

When our founding fathers wrote that most people couldnt even read a bible since it was frowned upon still to an extent ....back from when it was outright illegal to do so.

That is wrong, people then were highly educated and literate. Thomas Jefferson had built Thomas Jefferson's College that is now University of Virginia and it was the first non-sectarian university that admitted Jews and women.

It was illegal after some time for slaves to not be literate, however, Frederick Douglass was very literate and educated even if he was born on the plantation. So to think that people then were illiterate, no. King James had the Bible translated for the purpose of every house having a Bible in the common language.

Our Founding Fathers believed in the principle of literacy and education and felt that even to vote, one must be literate and intelligent enough to understand the issues. Voting was a solemn act back then. Reading the Bible for yourself was not frowned upon at all by our Founding Fathers, they believed and promoted education and literacy.

Here is a good source of the literacy of the Founding Fathers

We are an ever increasingly educated people. So what, when we reach a 100% literacy, 80% math comprehension, 70% knowledge of natural sciences, and general complete understanding of psychology and world politics...we still entrust our world to people who may or may not try as hard being that they were born to the right class with access.

May I remind you of Frederick Douglass?

Thats when the real revolutions start and society REALLY faces disintegration or adaptation.

Adapt to what? We are already being asked to adapt to things that go against our conscience, and some of us refuse to --why? Because we are educated, even if we do come from a "lower class" but we are told to adapt to this current state of affairs -- why?

Because the state of the average person is the same as it was then and the same concerns are still valid....RIGHT. Why then do we worry to educate and improve our citizens...just to have ever increasing numbers of increasingly angry free men who by their minds discovery face the same fiscal and political slavery as their illiterate peasant ancestors?

No, we are not the same as our peasant ancestors. If you feel that you are, then perhaps that's your own self-deprecation that believes that you have no power. You do, but what do you waste your power on? Exposing an Illuminati? Exposing the NWO? Exposing a "Zionist Conspiracy"?

Let me explain to you about Jews, ok. They have so many doctors and lawyers because they believe in education and they are supportive of each other, they have strong family support. They encourage their children to become a mensch, or a person of good quality. They lived in stetls in Europe, not allowed to become part of the greater society, they were peasant farmers, tailors, usual middle-class blue collar people, then one day, after pogrom after pogrom, heard about a country that they can live in without fear, bought the American dream and succeeded.

That's what it takes, a belief in education, that no matter what we are going through now, there is always hope for the future. Educating people begins with us supporting, but it seems that the only support we are giving now is go to college so you can go to spring break and get your beads. Wealthy kids are as redneck as the rednecks.

And again, either its a purist slave mentality or just pathetic.

Or don't become a slave to the system, overturn it by becoming educated, no matter the cost.

To bad they didnt leave a valid road to gain that expertise for people not born to a certain class with access and not routed in the very tyrannical nature to power that they fought against...and then quietly overthrew after a banking collapse in the new nation (gasp! how original)...to then write the new contract for government behind closed doors.

Harvard University is offering free tuition to students who make less than $65,000. CoursEra is free, look that up.

But why do you suppose all of this happened? Because people who played the "Education isn't for my class, therefore I'm not going to be educated" then vote for anything that they think is going to get them something free.

Yeah I am convinced...nothing more to do here...moving along. The "end all be all" is at work here...I´ll just go lay down and die now.

You gave up? Why? Freedom doesn't come free. Are you so saddened by today that you can't see there is a future where things can change? Come on, Obama only has two more years, this law will change. We have to just suffer through it or become involved in politics ourselves and quit thinking that one can only be a politician if they are wealthy.

You know, thinking about this, it reminds me of the Bible lesson of when the Israelites wanted a king like their neighbors did, so they kept complaining to Samuel, and then God says "Tell them I will grant what they want, but they aren't going to like it" So he gave them Saul, then David and Solomon, a few good years there, until Jeroboam and Rehoboam split the kingdom up. Israel was in the north and Judah was in the south. The northern kingdom was lost first. Then Judah lasted a little longer but eventually became a vassal state by Rome.

So you see, when a people want something that they haven't really thought through and it is granted to them, then they have to live with the consequences. But this isn't just about you, and if you think it about you, then that is selfish. We have a nation that wanted what their neighbors have, some man came along and told them that they could. Were they listening to the substance or the swagger?

We have to suffer through this long enough for people to learn by it, but we can do what we can to make sure it does change. Think about your age now, when you are 90 years-old, how do you want the world to be then?

originally posted by: spirit_horse
I had signed up for a policy with an insurance provider in Florida. I canceled it, but not before they sent me the contract and documents in the mail. They sent it on a USB drive. Anyway, I was looking through them and there was a section on the impact of the ACA on Health Insurance Plans issued by this insurance company. I had to grab a screen shot and bring it here because it was shocking to me what lies have been told to the American people about the ACA going to reduce premiums by $2,500 per family.

Here is the companies claim on what the cost of plans were before and now that the federal law past"

There isn't much to say after seeing this chart. It was an absolute lie what was said about this massive and hated law.
And it was put out right there in the policy documents the insurance company sent. They aren't even trying to hide it!

Quite a jump considering the claim was "normal" increases.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: spirit_horse

That's about the size of it OP... The link below will let you search any state or county by age, plan level or company of issue for those same base rates.

QHP Individual Medical Landscape

That will also allow you to download it in Excel and I believe straight CSV format. So you can get it to display in different and more meaningful ways for the patterns between states and around the nation. The patterns themselves are telling in some ways.

You're right though...The idea this would be cheap is absurd and those are just base rates on the figures above. It can and does go up based on some other factors and before whatever credits may be granted by qualification requirements.

Quite a bill of goods we got sold...but we didn't get it with a way back, either. We have to fix what we have or go with nothing for a period if it's somehow destroyed. I wouldn't mind that, as I'm fairly healthy. There are a good % of people I know who may not fare well with any interruption of care though.

So.....We got ourselves into a fine mess this time, didn't we?

you got a mouse in your pocket?????

Im a union rep in a Michigan UAW plant.. Our HC plan is BCBS and supposably met the ACA criteria.. Not only am i now having difficulties getting BCBS to pay for what was once acceptable. Many of my members are having difficulties. I contacted our rep at BCBS and asked why the unilateral policy changes (not suppose to happen).. The head of billing contacted me and explained that the new rules set forth new payment approval.. When i asked WTF does that mean.. He used a person who uses say suboxone, its perscribed by a MD with special addiction training.. The new rules doesnt allow them to pay a MD it has that class under mental and is perscribed by a shrink.. Problem is no shrink is qualified to perscribe that medication, so the patient is on the hook for the entire bill.. I have an employee who is battling cancer, they asked for an mri to make sure it hasnt spread.. In 2013 it wouldnt have been a problem, but now it is.. They are making him jump through hoops and "requalify" for the MRI.. I can go on and on. Dont get me started on my poor retirees..

The ACA is a POS policy and those who are for it just havent had enough experience with it to see the damage.. Dont worry time will reveal its true agenda.

originally posted by: spirit_horse
a reply to: Flatfish

They didn't expand Medicaid because after 3 years the Federal Government won't pay for it anymore and the state has to pick up that tab. They CAN'T AFFORD IT! That is why the state did that. Same thing here in Florida.

Now, that's a premium load of bull# right there if I ever saw one!

The federal government will pay for 100% of the cost for the first 3 yrs. and 90% of the cost thereafter. On top of that, states have the right to discontinue the expansion at the end of the 3 yr. period without penalty.

www.cnbc.com...

For the first three years of expansion, the federal government picks up 100 percent of the costs of covering the newly covered, and 90 percent of those related costs thereafter.

The LA Times column also noted that an estimated 5 million people who could be covered by expanded Medicaid eligibility are being denied that coverage because of their home states' refusal to authorize it. The non-expansion states tend to be controlled by Republican governors, legislatures, or both.

"What's most curious about states with Republican leaders ostensibly devoted to fiscal responsibility is that shunning Medicaid expansion makes no budgetary sense, given the huge federal financing commitment and the potential for reducing other state costs, including the public cost of treating uninsured patients," Hiltzik wrote.

This argument comes as new data is released on the cost of caring for those who recently signed up for Medicaid. A story published Friday on Marketplace.org said new Medicaid-related costs for all states are going to be about one-third less than had originally been estimated.

The Marketplace report also quoted Dr. Randy Cebul, who operates the Center for Health Care Research and Policy, as saying that a pilot project in Cleveland, Ohio, has led to lower emergency room use, increased visits to primary care doctors and lower-than-projected spending after Medicaid was expanded in Ohio.

"We improved care. We improved outcomes, and we reduced costs," Cebul told Marketplace.org. Referring to the non-expansion states, Cebul said, "I think this should be a reason they want to reconsider their decision."

So at the very least, the states could provide coverage for their poor at no cost for 3 yrs., reducing the state's current cost of treating the uninsured and indigent in emergency rooms. Not to mention the fact that the savings realized will probably be substantial enough to continue funding the Medicaid expansion at the 90% level well into the future if the state chooses to do so.

The Republican controlled states that are opting out of Medicaid expansion are doing so because it violates their tribal mentality to do otherwise and not only are they punishing the poor in the process, they're punishing the rest of the taxpayers in the state as well.

What they're doing makes absolutely no sense at all and the only reason they're doing it is because they've decided that whatever President Obama and the Democrats want, they will oppose. The same thing is true when it comes to climate change and green energy.

Problem is, this type of ignorant obstructionism will only come back to bite them in the ass. People are already waking up and protesting in state houses across the nation.

originally posted by: Orygun
Those who trash the ACA for the most part don't understand it and haven't had to deal with insurance before. It has been a good deal for everyone I have talked to. Some could not keep their previous insurance, not because of Obamacare, but because the insurance companies cancelled. Many insurance companies just raised prices and forgot to mention that if a person signed up for Obaamcare the price would go down by about half.

I understand ACA all too well.
I was forced onto it when my employer dropped all healthcare for retirees.
I had quality, reasonably priced BCBS for over thirty years.
It is horrible coverage....in fact, I cannot AFFORD to go to the doctor.....for pretty much any reason.
Between premiums and deductibles.....it's really a shame.

Nothing has been done to contain costs or make medical coverage more reasonable.

The bureaucracy got worse...LOL the federal government and BIG business together.... and needing to make changes or corrections is an almost impossible task....taking weeks/months rather than a few days. This is from experience.

Those who got "cancelled" had policies that were not ACA complaint...and their new coverage is more expensive.
Not the other way around.

originally posted by: HooHaa

The ACA is a POS policy and those who are for it just havent had enough experience with it to see the damage.. Dont worry time will reveal its true agenda.

I see that you obviously found out the truth of the ACA, but wasn't it UAW who endorsed Obama over this very thing?

This is what your UAW when endorsing him..

"On every issue that counts, we can count on Barack Obama to stand with our members, our families and our communities. He has pledged to rebuild America's manufacturing base and to assist the auto industry as we re-tool toward a cleaner, more modern transportation system. "Sen. Obama supports free choice in the workplace; he will fight to deliver quality, affordable health care to every American; and he understands the need to change our trade policies so that U.S. workers and U.S. companies can compete fairly in the global economy.

Perhaps Mr. Gettlefinger would like to issue the apology now to his members?

And how did he pledge to rebuild the manufacturing base when he said he would bankrupt the coal industry? I'm sorry, but doesn't steel require coal? Here's Joe Manchin on the effect on UCW...

“The regulations the President wants to force on coal are not feasible. And if it’s not feasible, it’s not reasonable,” Senator Manchin said. “It’s clear now that the President has declared a war on coal. It’s simply unacceptable that one of the key elements of his climate change proposal places regulations on coal that are completely impossible to meet with existing technology.

When the man said he would bankrupt the coal industry, the unions turned their heads away until it became such a reality, that now, people like you are having to deal with. I am sure you are a caring individual, you believe in your union and you strive to make the union good for the members. However, the rest of us rely on the manufacturing sector. You guys do try to do the best job you can, but really, how does endorsing the Democratic party for the sake of just endorsing the Democratic party help the country?

I think your leadership needs to give an apology for this mess that they endorsed. Now you are stuck with the problem but did you also vote unanimous with the union or did you use your conscience and vote what you believe?

Don't get me wrong, there is a lot of beneficial things about unions, they make working conditions safe for employees, they make sure their members get a good wage and all of that, but do unions do this for the union members only or for the entire country? I get it, I know why and how unions were formed but I have known a great many people who were in unions and some of things I have heard them say are outrageous.

I see your problem, I fully understand and sympathize with you. But as a union rep, you just might have to think about why your union voted unanimously for this man, after he said he would destroy an industry that another union depended on. No coal = no steel, no steel = no manufacturing, no manufacturing = no retail, no retail = nobody buying your product.

Coal does more than keep the lights on. Your union threw the coal industry under the bus for Obama. Mr. Gettlefinger and everyone who voted unanimously for Obama, need to redress the situation and apologize. I'm not attacking you personally, you probably are a very nice person. But when you sat in those meetings while the members were endorsing Obama, did you believe them or did you listen to what the man was saying himself?

Were you not allowed to not vote for Obama? From your own leadership, the vote was unanimous.

This makes no sense,

Between out of pocket premium and deductible expense at $18,000+ a year for the family I could see no benefit to having it at all.

I'd of been fairly happy to pay for seperate catastrophic coverage but they've ruined that option too!

King O will have his wish if something catastrophic happens as we will then be the leeches he so desires to have and make of us all.

Recently broke wrist in bicycling accident and received maybe a total of 90 minutes of actual health care between emergency room and follow-up doctor visits. Cost is going past $3000 which is outrageous on its own.

At the ortho office when asked upfront "how much is this going to cost" they stammered and hem hawed then said "we don't know" I said "how can't you know" they said "it depends" I said "depends on what" they said "depends on coverage" I said no no I'm a cash paying customer and need to know billing upfront.

I think what was really meant was "it depends on what we can soak your insurer for" not having one confused them.

It took nearly an hour to get these folks to state a number for a simple x-ray, diagnosis and cast on forearm. All along this process I was treated as if I was radioactive or something.

The vicious triangle formed by providers, insurers and government should have the RICO act thrown at then as its a triangle that is self serving and pricing medical care out of reach to many Americans.

a reply to: superluminal11

Wow, that was an interesting video. Thanks for that. I think once you get to that 1% there is another problem. They can afford to lobby for laws and make deals, probably even manipulate markets with their wealth. It reinforces their position and makes even more money.

I also believe the change happened once the internet and personal computing allowed these people to do more analysis and purchasing of commodities, stocks, bonds, etc. They also could afford this technology before the majority of Americans. I am sure there is a way to make work more profitable for those that want to move up. However, I have a problem with just taking other people's money and giving it to others. That is what the PPACA is all about. It is wealth redistribution, mainly from the middle class to the poor and not only that, it has priced a majority of the middle class out of health care. People could barely afford their insurance before, unless they were covered by their employer. Now with the higher premiums (double and triple) and high deductibles, the poor get health care, but the problem is you have now put the middle class hardest working Americans in the boat that the poor were in. This is going to cause its own problems.

Another problem which is not the topic here is that the Federal Government has grown so large, with redundancy, waste, fraud, and bureaucratic crime that it is wasting a lot of America's wealth itself. And imposing itself on 20% of the US economy by the PPACA has only made the matter much worse. There is nothing the government does that isn't a much larger waste of money that if it was done in the private sector. It is a slow motion train wreck. And Obama has slowed the wreck out on a much longer track than it would have been by single-handedly making changes to laws he has no authority to make. He is nothing but a criminal, and I will not even start on his and his administrations list of crimes.

originally posted by: StoutBroux

you got a mouse in your pocket?????

LOL! When I look at your Avatar and that question it was perfect! The owl looked like what? Where's the mouse?

a reply to: Orygun

That is nice that your monthly premium was more than cut in half.

Has your deductible changed? Do you have to pay more out of pocket every time you see a doctor? What about lab work, does you co-pay change? What about prescription meds?

A friend of mine has his premium cut by over 66% and if he never visits a doctor or never needs medicine he will end up saving a good chunk of change. However his deductible is now much higher, his co-pays are higher, he now has to pay more out of pocket for prescription meds. Even though his monthly premium was slashed, that savings is lost to the other increases in health care prices.

a reply to: HooHaa

I posted before about Pain Management. I got a policy with my doctors in the network. Then they sent the contract and it said Pain Management and Weight Loss is NOT COVERED.

I called the insurance company and asked them and they told me NONE of their plans cover pain management or weight loss.

So much for Pre-Existing Conditions are now covered! Everything was a huge lie sold to the American people to take what little they had left. F that, I am so ticked off right now it isn't funny. I think this plan will cause a lot of pain management doctors to close up shop. Then what are we supposed to do? Unions were all behind the PPACA though. Obviously you aren't happy now. But, you will probably be able to get the unions special privilege somehow under the ACA. The individuals out there are just on their own until something happens to change that. And not covering Pain Management is going to lead to a new set of problems when people have nowhere to turn but to illicit drugs. Unless the psychiatrists start running pain management which will be a huge debacle in itself. They don't have the background and experience an Anesthesiologist or Physical Medicine Specialist has.

We are screwed for at least the next few years. If they don't ax the whole law, they need to force the insurance companies to cover Pain Management. And Obama even said overweight people is a major medical concern that needs to have access to treatment. Well, that is not covered either. We should start a list of lies about the PPACA that they used to push it down our throats.

originally posted by: Phoenix
This makes no sense,

Between out of pocket premium and deductible expense at $18,000+ a year for the family I could see no benefit to having it at all.

I'd of been fairly happy to pay for seperate catastrophic coverage but they've ruined that option too!

King O will have his wish if something catastrophic happens as we will then be the leeches he so desires to have and make of us all.

Recently broke wrist in bicycling accident and received maybe a total of 90 minutes of actual health care between emergency room and follow-up doctor visits. Cost is going past $3000 which is outrageous on its own.

At the ortho office when asked upfront "how much is this going to cost" they stammered and hem hawed then said "we don't know" I said "how can't you know" they said "it depends" I said "depends on what" they said "depends on coverage" I said no no I'm a cash paying customer and need to know billing upfront.

I think what was really meant was "it depends on what we can soak your insurer for" not having one confused them.

It took nearly an hour to get these folks to state a number for a simple x-ray, diagnosis and cast on forearm. All along this process I was treated as if I was radioactive or something.

The vicious triangle formed by providers, insurers and government should have the RICO act thrown at then as its a triangle that is self serving and pricing medical care out of reach to many Americans.

I have MS and will always have MS and will get worse with MS. There is no cure. I am a patient for life. Therefore I need insurance that will cover my medication and treatments for the tertiary effects of MS on various problems arising from it. There's no way an MS patient can go without insurance.

But here's the problem, recently I tore my rotator cuff ligaments, which means now I can't raise my arm, which means that I cannot do anymore the things I was doing independently. So my primary doctor calls the orthopedic surgeon (it hasn't even been determined that I do need surgery) and for three months I have this problem and I will see the orthopedic in another two weeks.

That's how those of us with Medicare are treated. People think it is just easy for those with Medicare to be seen and treated. When I see a neurologist, for them to treat me, I have to make sure I go to the appointment or they will drop me, but they can move offices to other cities and never inform me.

When I had BCBS through my husband's company, I was treated better. But still the costs for a neurologist visit, 15 minutes costs $300 to for you to sit in the exam room and wait for them to come in and ask how you have been getting along since the last visit, and then set up the next appointment for six months later.

Last night I had to go to the ER because I couldn't breathe, turns out I had Asthmatic Bronchitis, which required two breathing treatments. But at this point with my MS, any immune problem has an effect on the MS. This is why it has to be treated right away. But get this, knowing that I have MS and a high fever and difficulty breathing, they didn't take blood samples, they didn't give me an IV for dehydration, but they did give me an Xray to see if I have pneumonia.

I am a patient for life and treated that way. I have to take a handful of medication every day to address the tertiary problems, which I could not afford otherwise. But from my experience, Medicare doesn't foster quality treatment for those of us who have chronic illnesses. They are always telling us "better quality of life" but never really bringing it to fruition.

I know that I am not the only one affected, but no longer having private insurance, and without the ability to work, I have to rely on this or suffer until I die, which will probably be by the time I am 65. But here is my idea, if we should all work (which I did before diagnosed with MS), then there needs to be a restructure of the employment system where we are not competing with able bodied people or those with children.

Americans With Disabilities Act started out good, it got us wheelchair ramps, but when it comes to that Reasonable Accommodation, many places can just say why it is not reasonable so therefore not have to accommodate.

If the ACA is worse than Medicare, then I feel so sorry for those who are now forced into it.

But believe me, I am appreciative to all the people currently working and paying the Social Security tax for me to be treated for MS. I assure you that I did nothing to get MS, it just happened. I worked also and paid my money in like everyone else. I didn't play the system, I didn't abuse it like I know other people do. And I didn't even take the Obamaphone just because it was free. I chose to pay for my phone myself, because that's what responsible people should do. We can't just keep getting things for free, because it costs someone else.

But if any of you are willing to hire a stay at home disabled person to do something on the internet (no scams please), then I would be willing to work for you. That way I won't be dependent on Social Security and can pay back into the system.

originally posted by: spirit_horse
a reply to: HooHaa

I posted before about Pain Management. I got a policy with my doctors in the network. Then they sent the contract and it said Pain Management and Weight Loss is NOT COVERED.

I called the insurance company and asked them and they told me NONE of their plans cover pain management or weight loss.

So much for Pre-Existing Conditions are now covered! Everything was a huge lie sold to the American people to take what little they had left. F that, I am so ticked off right now it isn't funny. I think this plan will cause a lot of pain management doctors to close up shop. Then what are we supposed to do? Unions were all behind the PPACA though. Obviously you aren't happy now. But, you will probably be able to get the unions special privilege somehow under the ACA. The individuals out there are just on their own until something happens to change that. And not covering Pain Management is going to lead to a new set of problems when people have nowhere to turn but to illicit drugs. Unless the psychiatrists start running pain management which will be a huge debacle in itself. They don't have the background and experience an Anesthesiologist or Physical Medicine Specialist has.

We are screwed for at least the next few years. If they don't ax the whole law, they need to force the insurance companies to cover Pain Management. And Obama even said overweight people is a major medical concern that needs to have access to treatment. Well, that is not covered either. We should start a list of lies about the PPACA that they used to push it down our throats.

They don't cover pain management? That's terrifying. I know a lot of people who have Fibromyalgia and I see how they suffer with that.

I see it now, we are just useless bread eaters, they can't send us to concentration camps for now, so they just quietly let us suffer until we die. That's about the size of it.

So now that a very large amount of people are forced to have health insurance, healthcare costs will finally go down. It's just a matter of time. Just wait.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Just like car insurance prices went down after it was mandated by law......