Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Another Obamacare surprise: Major hospitals all across the country not included under new insurance

page: 1
13

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
This is yet another "surprise", which really wasn't a surprise to some of us, from the new changes being made by the so loved Obamacare healthcare.

It seems that now many major hospitals are not accessible "by the average person in the United States" under the new healthcare plans.


(NaturalNews) As if the millions of Americans set to lose their existing health insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare was not bad enough, a recent survey by Watchdog.org has found that many top hospitals across the nation will no longer be accessible to the average person with a new "eligible" plan. In fact, many major hospitals are being excluded from Obamacare coverage altogether, which means that millions of previously covered individuals will have to settle for subpar care at other "in-network" facilities.

Based on the results of the survey, most of the nation's top hospitals, including renowned facilities like Case Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, will only be accepting insurance from one or two companies included as part of Obamacare. This means that all the other insurance plans offered on the Obamacare exchanges will be ineligible, and many patients will be required to go to other facilities, even if their previous insurance plans were accepted by these same hospitals.
...

www.naturalnews.com...#

This is similar on how "socialized healthcare" is set up in countries like Cuba, despite the lies from Michael Moore. In those healthcare systems, like in Cuba and now apparently in the U.S., the average person cannot go to the best hospitals as they are reserved for the "top brass" and for rich tourists.

Many Americans, and other people around the world, in ignorance have been cheering for the socialized healthcare in countries like Cuba, and now because of that ignorance most Americans will experience part of what such "wonderful socialized healthcare" is like.

Now, lets hope that because of the spending cuts that hospitals will have to make thanks to Obamacare, that Americans don't have to experience also a lack of necessary items that most hospitals normally had before this whole fiasco. But, I am going to be bold here and make a prediction... We are going to start seeing slowly but surely that hospitals will not be stocking enough necessary items to treat patients thanks to Obamacare...

Hey, many Americans wanted this.




posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
The more I read the more this seems like a purposeful clusterF*&(

Like they want this to fail so badly we all cry for single payer...



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   

benrl
The more I read the more this seems like a purposeful clusterF*&(

Like they want this to fail so badly we all cry for single payer...


The "Fix" has been in from the beginning.

He picks the winners and losers. His friends are winners.

We are the losers.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   


Obamacare exchanges fail to explain which hospitals are included as 'in-network'



Looks like standard operating procedures are set up for the Left Wing/Corporatist agenda.

Now people will have to pay "Extra" or full cash prices for services out of the "Networks"....

Especially IF *YOUR* doctor is no longer networked !!

Where was PPACA on this issue anyway ?




posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Three things are going to force Obama to make concessions and detour the "train-wreck" eventhough its on his schedule so far.
1. The Virginia Governor's race and how close the Tea Party candidate came (despite third party candidate fraud was funded by an Obama/Clinton.)
2. The President poll numbers are tanking fast.
3. The 2014 election is one year away...thank God.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

ElectricUniverse
This is yet another "surprise", which really wasn't a surprise to some of us, from the new changes being made by the so loved Obamacare healthcare.

It seems that now many major hospitals are not accessible "by the average person in the United States" under the new healthcare plans.


(NaturalNews) As if the millions of Americans set to lose their existing health insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare was not bad enough, a recent survey by Watchdog.org has found that many top hospitals across the nation will no longer be accessible to the average person with a new "eligible" plan. In fact, many major hospitals are being excluded from Obamacare coverage altogether, which means that millions of previously covered individuals will have to settle for subpar care at other "in-network" facilities.

Based on the results of the survey, most of the nation's top hospitals, including renowned facilities like Case Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, will only be accepting insurance from one or two companies included as part of Obamacare. This means that all the other insurance plans offered on the Obamacare exchanges will be ineligible, and many patients will be required to go to other facilities, even if their previous insurance plans were accepted by these same hospitals.
...

www.naturalnews.com...#

This is similar on how "socialized healthcare" is set up in countries like Cuba, despite the lies from Michael Moore. In those healthcare systems, like in Cuba and now apparently in the U.S., the average person cannot go to the best hospitals as they are reserved for the "top brass" and for rich tourists.

Many Americans, and other people around the world, in ignorance have been cheering for the socialized healthcare in countries like Cuba, and now because of that ignorance most Americans will experience part of what such "wonderful socialized healthcare" is like.

Now, lets hope that because of the spending cuts that hospitals will have to make thanks to Obamacare, that Americans don't have to experience also a lack of necessary items that most hospitals normally had before this whole fiasco. But, I am going to be bold here and make a prediction... We are going to start seeing slowly but surely that hospitals will not be stocking enough necessary items to treat patients thanks to Obamacare...

Hey, many Americans wanted this.


Just like Cuba. Just like it. Of the 60 or so countries with universal healthcare, you pick Cuba for your comparison? Cuba doesn't have private hospitals. Cuba doesn't have private insurance. Cuba is a communist country run by an oppressive (and now hereditary) regime who have run it for 52 years with Fidel running it for the first 50.

You've already disqualified yourself to make any predictions about hospital shortages but I can assure you, that if hospitals don't have enough money coming in for supplies, they'll open their doors to more insurance plans.

Watchdog.org contacted the 18 hospitals in the "Honor Roll" from US News's poll and of them 3, including the top 2 are mandated by state law to take them all. Did anyone even read the list? Do you have any information about how many people in the communities served by these hospitals had carriers/plans that these hospitals accepted to begin with? Or how many people in these communities are expected to enroll in market plans?

Consider this: if in a given community, there are 2 insurance companies listed whose market plans are covered and they are the only two carriers with plans in the market then 100% of the market plans are covered.

There's simply not enough information to draw any meaningful conclusions.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 

"...mandated by state law to take them all."
Got a source?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

xuenchen


Obamacare exchanges fail to explain which hospitals are included as 'in-network'



Looks like standard operating procedures are set up for the Left Wing/Corporatist agenda.

Now people will have to pay "Extra" or full cash prices for services out of the "Networks"....

Especially IF *YOUR* doctor is no longer networked !!

Where was PPACA on this issue anyway ?




I'm sorry, when did conservatives become so anti-establishment? When did conservatives stop being so concerned with corporate interests? Seems like since Reagan, the conservative stance on the economy has centered around the following:

1. Pushing trickle-down economics (aka supply-side economics) the gist of which is if you cut taxes on the wealthiest people, the money they keep will be spent and thereby "trickle-down" to the bottom. Meanwhile the middle class has been in steady decline the enter time.

2. Removing government regulations and departments like the EPA because they impede businesses. I mean really, who cares about protecting citizens if it might cut into profits.

3. Privatizing everything under the sun because government run anything is bad and corporations can do anything better--despite the fact that the soul purpose of a corporation is to make (and maximize) profits for it's investors.

Of course now the agenda is just constant obstructionism and sabotaging anything the left supports even going so far as to bring back to the exact same propaganda they used in the 60s in an attempt to tank Medicare against a system that was modeled after their own presidential candidate's plan. Doesn't anyone think there's something a little off about that?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Granite
reply to post by theantediluvian
 

"...mandated by state law to take them all."
Got a source?


Yea, it's right in the story. watchdog.com source


1 Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore
All insurance companies due to state law
2 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
All insurance companies due to state law



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


So,

You say the PPACA and all the regulations coming from it are not examples of Lobbyist driven corporatism ?

And not a result of Left Wing politicians who passed the law and are generating the regulations ?

And out of curiosity, what is your definition of "Right Wing" and "Conservative" ?



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


Yes, the fact that Obamacare is making it so that most regular people will not be able to access major hospitals does make it similar to the healthcare in Cuba, and for your information, there are so called "privitized' hospitals in Cuba as well... Those hospitals fall under the so called "privitised" system that leftwingers love to claim "is the reason for all the evils in the world" because even when the government owns and controls those hospitals claiming it is for the workers, those hospitals are not accessible to regular Cubans.

Those "government privitised hospitals" are the ones that us, the regular Cubans could/can not get into, but the top brass in Cuba, and rich tourists could have access to those hospitals which are always full stocked and with the best equipment available.

The fact that Obamacare will/is making it so that many major hospitals will not be accessible to regular Americans makes it a similar healthcare to that of Cuba.

I hear a lot the word "privatized" when it has nothing to do with the right to private property. Fascist and socialist corporatists alongside governments are using the word "privatize" when it is nothing more than corporatist takeover.

I have to wonder why in the world so many leftwingers believe that "socialists and other leftwingers do not work for profit, and are not corporatist in nature" when there are so many examples of the contrary...

Nowadays many leftwingers try to use corporatist takeovers as examples of "the evil of the right to private property" when they have nothing in common... This is similar to the belief by many leftwingers that corporatist takeovers are an evil of the free market system, when a "free market system" is contrary to corporatist takeovers where corporations monopolize and take complete control of entire industries which in turn destroys small businesses.

In fact "corporatist takeovers" or "monopolization" are similar to socialist governments taking complete control of a nation's infrastructure and has nothing in common with either capitalism, or a free market system.





edit on 8-11-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   

theantediluvian

I'm sorry, when did conservatives become so anti-establishment?


I am sorry, since when "less government control" become so pro-establishment and pro corporatist takeoever of everything under the Sun?...




theantediluvian
When did conservatives stop being so concerned with corporate interests? Seems like since Reagan, the conservative stance on the economy has centered around the following:



There is a big difference between corporate monopolies/corporate interests, and the right to private property and being pro small business.

Unfortunately both political parties have been corrupted to the core but many still see the need for voting for "the lesser evil" by voting only Republican or conservative.

The root of the problem is the fact that the fascist Federal Reserve/the elites have control of not only the U.S. economy but have also corrupted the political system slowly but surely since 1913.

edit on 8-11-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   

xuenchen
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


So,

You say the PPACA and all the regulations coming from it are not examples of Lobbyist driven corporatism ?

And not a result of Left Wing politicians who passed the law and are generating the regulations ?

And out of curiosity, what is your definition of "Right Wing" and "Conservative" ?



Oh boy. Are there tumbleweeds rolling down K street? No? Yeah, I guess corporatism is alive and well then. Are you seriously going to try to frame the argument as one of corporatism vs individualism? That's not what it's about for 99% of the people I've come across. I'm personally disgusted by the exponential rise in self-described libertarians since 2008. In actuality most of these people are only concerned with a return to neoconservative control, they selectively invoke individualist ideals when it suits them which is usually when they're afraid that their tax dollars could be used to fund anything that might not directly benefit them. Anyone calling for an end to Social Security? How about Medicare? Yet for the last 5 years it's been all "entitlements!" and "Obama phones!"

Do these people not understand that every social welfare/insurance program is by definition a part of the welfare state? How often have we heard the words "Reagan Republican" come out of some TP leader's mouth? They're not interested in ending lobbying, the whole thing is the ground force of a massive indirect lobbying campaign! How else can you explain the Tea Party?

I don't "like" the PPACA and if you gave me a choice between Obamacare and a single-payer system, it would be a no brainer but my personal hope is that the PPACA is only a transitional step. I assume you're of the belief that the health insurers influenced the development of the PPACA to force people to buy more expensive plans?



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Ask yourselves, is it any wonder that Rome fell?

The exact thing that brought down Rome, is bringing down the USA.

Public Assistance program dependance, rampant illegal immigration, devaluation of the currency, and the ever widening gap of rich vs poor.

BTW if yo have never read up on the fall of Rome I strongly recommend it. It is history in the process of lather rinse and repeat. Do you know what happened after Rome fell? Well, that's the fun part and I wont spoil it for you. Yet I find it very poetic and novel that stupid humans would try the same thing a different way and expect different results.

Although he has yet to declare himself Cesar, Obammy has much to worry about and for good reason.

You guys don't think that this healthcare misadventure was falling from the table on accident do you? If you do I would suggest looking deeper into the agenda that is the Obama administration. Theres more here than you think.

Here's the what, it was designed that way for a reason. We just have to figure out the why.

Waiting to take action after the fact is the same as taking no action at all.

Oh and to add, anyone who clings to a political affiliation for the sake of personal values so that they may vote in someone who is supposed to reflect that can QFT. When you allow a person to speak on your behalf in regard to decisions you have no say or information put in, you give all of your power to that body of representation and are stuck with what you get. And since most of you don't have the money to win an election like a company would, I'd say your voice went to the highest bidder. The person you voted for does not carry your motives or values because they are not you. They are paid for plain and simple.

democrat, republican, tea party, libertarian...all the same mix of poop in the punch, And all of the people that cling are just buying into the grandiose lie that is American politics.

Here's a clue if you haven't got it yet, they don't care about you, at all.....period.
edit on 9-11-2013 by GrandHerecy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   

ElectricUniverse
reply to post by theantediluvian
 


Yes, the fact that Obamacare is making it so that most regular people will not be able to access major hospitals does make it similar to the healthcare in Cuba, and for your information, there are so called "privitized' hospitals in Cuba as well... Those hospitals fall under the so called "privitised" system that leftwingers love to claim "is the reason for all the evils in the world" because even when the government owns and controls those hospitals claiming it is for the workers, those hospitals are not accessible to regular Cubans.

Those "government privitised hospitals" are the ones that us, the regular Cubans could/can not get into, but the top brass in Cuba, and rich tourists could have access to those hospitals which are always full stocked and with the best equipment available.

The fact that Obamacare will/is making it so that many major hospitals will not be accessible to regular Americans makes it a similar healthcare to that of Cuba.

I hear a lot the word "privatized" when it has nothing to do with the right to private property. Fascist and socialist corporatists alongside governments are using the word "privatize" when it is nothing more than corporatist takeover.

I have to wonder why in the world so many leftwingers believe that "socialists and other leftwingers do not work for profit, and are not corporatist in nature" when there are so many examples of the contrary...

Nowadays many leftwingers try to use corporatist takeovers as examples of "the evil of the right to private property" when they have nothing in common... This is similar to the belief by many leftwingers that corporatist takeovers are an evil of the free market system, when a "free market system" is contrary to corporatist takeovers where corporations monopolize and take complete control of entire industries which in turn destroys small businesses.

In fact "corporatist takeovers" or "monopolization" are similar to socialist governments taking complete control of a nation's infrastructure and has nothing in common with either capitalism, or a free market system.


Privatization refers to moving some function/agent of government to the private sector. Republicans have for years been pushing for the privatization of Social Security, prisons, schools.. hell in 2012 didn't Paul Ryan present a plan to privatize Medicare by having seniors shop for coverage on an insurance exchange?



Fascist and socialist corporatists alongside governments are using the word "privatize" when it is nothing more than corporatist takeover.




In fact "corporatist takeovers" or "monopolization" are similar to socialist governments taking complete control of a nation's infrastructure and has nothing in common with either capitalism, or a free market system.


I'm admittedly tired, but I think you have some unintentional equivocation in your statements and I'm having trouble following.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Talk about a Caste System....

The scams just keep getting better.

How many more surprises??



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

ElectricUniverse
and now because of that ignorance most Americans will experience part of what such "wonderful socialized healthcare" is like.


Luckily, REAL socialized med care is actually a great and evolved idea for a country that defines themselves in the "first world" category.

The problem here doesn't come from the poor, it comes from the rich and greedy which are offering medical services with the goal to make money and not to help the population.



posted on Nov, 9 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
They are purposefully poisoning the populace then charging for the cure.

Classic Cobra Command stuff...



posted on Nov, 10 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   

theantediluvian
Privatization refers to moving some function/agent of government to the private sector. Republicans have for years been pushing for the privatization of Social Security, prisons, schools.. hell in 2012 didn't Paul Ryan present a plan to privatize Medicare by having seniors shop for coverage on an insurance exchange?


It is a complex issue, but the fact is that the right to private property is being attacked by the elites on purpose by claiming corporatist takeovers/monopolizations are "privatization". By calling it "privatization/privatize" it is nothing more than an attack at the right to private property when government/corporatist takeovers are not the same thing as "the right of every person to private property."

The elitists know how to brainwash people into embracing "elitist/socialist ideals", and destroying individual rights and the sovereignty of nations like the U.S.

What is the difference between corporatist monopoly, or what they are calling now "to privatize" and government complete control or socialism/fascism? In both a group of individuals have complete control over certain industries.

When elitists/corporate moguls call for "privatization" they are in fact just calling for a "monopoly". They just call it "privatize" for 2 reasons. 1. To attack the right to property of every person, since eventually people realize that allowing for a government or corporation to take complete control is actually a bad thing. 2. For those who still believe in the right of every person for private property to believe that siding with their "monopolies" is the same as the right of every person to private property.

In a way it has been ingenious of them to do this, this is a classic example of "killing two birds with the same stone" by changing the meaning of certain words.

This is similar to the ongoing claim for example that the United States is a Democracy when it has never really been one, it is a Republic. But by the elites, with the help of the media claiming it is a Democracy, Americans have been brainwashed into thinking we are in a Democracy when Democracy is nothing more than "mob rule", and in the Republic of the U.S. every person has rights, or are supposed to.






theantediluvian
I'm admittedly tired, but I think you have some unintentional equivocation in your statements and I'm having trouble following.


It is simple, large corporations and big governments/socialism exist thanks to each other. All governments are favoritist towards certain large corporations, allowing them to thrive and grow through government regulations, which in fact only regulate small businesses to stop any competition against the large corporations. If you haven't learned this by now you need to take a closer look at what has been happening for the past 100 years.

The biggest corporations in the world are governments. Heck the Federal Reserve is the world's biggest corporation but most people have been brainwashed into thinking they are part of the government of the U.S.

edit on 10-11-2013 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
13

log in

join