Besides, if you write a story in which Obamacare gives perfect coverage and service to all, then there is no threat of characters actually being harmed. After all, the Obamacare doctor will simply patch them up again for free!
The issue about United Health Care is worth pursuing.
The headline is somewhat misleading. United Health Care did not employ these doctors, so it could not literally fire them.
What it did was to tell the docs that they were no longer considered ‘in network.’ A senior can still go see them any day of the week, but they may have to pay more to do so.
I noticed this somewhat careless use of headlines during the HMO debates 15 years ago. People were complaining that their HMO was banning them from seeing their regular doctor. What in fact was happening was that the HMO and the doctor could not agree on a fee, so therefore the patient had to pay out of pocket for an office visit.
I find this overall somewhat harmless. There can be a problem regarding emergency care in hospitals, when non-network care can cost thousands, but this can be cured by rather small regulations such as exist in Colorado and California already.
$500K grant to help script writers embed positive ObamaCare messages into TV shows.
I can just see it now, ” Now, dancing the Obamacare, I mean Samba, Derek and Amber”!!
“Why try to get your public health message into fictional story lines?”
Because nonfiction would be a horror story.
Besides, if you write a story in which Obamacare gives perfect coverage and service to all, then there is no threat of characters actually being harmed. After all, the Obamacare doctor will simply patch them up again for free!
How boring is that!
do you get the 2pm uninsured feeling? Try Obamacare!
Obamacare! Apply directly to the forehead!Obamacare! Apply directly to the forehead!Obamacare! Apply directly to the forehead!
But wait there’s more..
It must be worse than we thought if the Obama Administration is copying Joe Camel.
This is an old trick the tobacco industry used to play to convince people to use a product that kills 400,000 customers a year.
Sounds like propaganda to me.
“White House gift shop goes bankrupt.”
From the examples of products they give in the story, I’m not surprised. It’s a lot of crap.
“The price of more than 140 Democratic and Republican mouse pads is listed as ‘???'”
I would love to see my accountants face if I put ??? in my books.
My accounting professor would throw me out a window if I did that.
Fear, disappointment, and confusion.
“9 insurers leave Nebraska; only 4 left in the exchange.”
Soon there will only be one and we’ll have a good, old-fashioned government monopoly.
There should have only been one (the government) to begin with.
More is better.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/chart-of-the-day-a-first-look-at-competition-in-the-exchanges/
If all of us are part of one system, then more people are paying in, which lowers the cost of insurance. One (government) is better.
So goes the theory
one gov’t doesn’t seem to lower anything. One system doesn’t lower cost, it’s harder to manage a large system, more fraud, more abuse, etc.
The issue about United Health Care is worth pursuing.
The headline is somewhat misleading. United Health Care did not employ these doctors, so it could not literally fire them.
What it did was to tell the docs that they were no longer considered ‘in network.’ A senior can still go see them any day of the week, but they may have to pay more to do so.
I noticed this somewhat careless use of headlines during the HMO debates 15 years ago. People were complaining that their HMO was banning them from seeing their regular doctor. What in fact was happening was that the HMO and the doctor could not agree on a fee, so therefore the patient had to pay out of pocket for an office visit.
I find this overall somewhat harmless. There can be a problem regarding emergency care in hospitals, when non-network care can cost thousands, but this can be cured by rather small regulations such as exist in Colorado and California already.