WASHINGTON — Federal officials often say that health insurance will cost consumers less than expected under President Obama’s health care law. But they rarely mention one big reason: many insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.
From California to Illinois to New Hampshire, and in many states in between, insurers are driving down premiums by restricting the number of providers who will treat patients in their new health plans.
What the NYT is loathe to admit is that these "lower premiums" are not based on what they are now, but on the astronomical increase in cost imposed by Obamacare itself. Despite limiting choice, the final cost of insurance for the consumer will still be much higher because of Obamacare alone:
Only in bspace world is the ability to go without health care at all considered to be having more freedom of choice than having access to a network of doctors that may be smaller than someone else's network of doctors.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Brad Hudson wrote:Only in bspace world is the ability to go without health care at all considered to be having more freedom of choice than having access to a network of doctors that may be smaller than someone else's network of doctors.
typical Liberal logic, equating Health Insurance with Health Care which has been Obama's greatest success with the ACA, duping liberal rubes into thinking the two are the same, yet only meddling with the former while the latter still spins out of control.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
WASHINGTON — Federal officials often say that health insurance will cost consumers less than expected under President Obama’s health care law. But they rarely mention one big reason: many insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.
From California to Illinois to New Hampshire, and in many states in between, insurers are driving down premiums by restricting the number of providers who will treat patients in their new health plans.
What the NYT is loathe to admit is that these "lower premiums" are not based on what they are now, but on the astronomical increase in cost imposed by Obamacare itself. Despite limiting choice, the final cost of insurance for the consumer will still be much higher because of Obamacare alone:
A couple of points. First, the low costs this article talks about are low compared to individual insurance prices before the ACA. Second, this article is talking about how insurance companies are choosing to keep down costs in some of the products they are offering in the competitive market the ACA establishes.
Only in the bizzaro world of bcspace is insurance companies keeping prices down something to be upset about and blame the government foe.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
First, the low costs this article talks about are low compared to individual insurance prices before the ACA.
Nope. They're having to keep costs down relative to the "bright" new Obamacare world. Thus your whole argument fails like all your others.
Your level of ignorance is stunning.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.