There has never been any doubt that the healthcare reform pushed down the throats of America by Obama and his loyal sycophants in Congress would spark some backlash, but even the strongest opponents might be surprised at just how soon it is happening. Obamacare has not even taken effect yet, and already insurance companies, struggling to keep down premiums, are cutting off people's access to their own doctors.
A New York Times report details the happening. Apparently, big insurance companies (who remain nameless, as usual) are pushing 'affordable' plans with lower premiums but a significantly reduced list of doctors and hospitals available to clients of the plan.
Both big and small businesses are supportive of the scheme, which is designed to reduce the premiums they pay by as much as 15 per cent, in a time when, in the wake of the 'healthcare reform' they are looking at increases of as much as 35 per cent. Dr. Sam Ho, chief medical officer for UnitedHealth, is quoted saying, 'What we’re seeing is a definite uptick in interest because, quite frankly, affordability is the most pressing agenda item.'
One fact about all this did not escape the notice of even the New York Times, known for their love-affair with the left dating to the beginning of the Cold War. The principle issue with the new plans to keep businesses afloat is that they fly in the face of Obama and company's promises that healthcare reform would not result in any reduction to the variety of doctors and hospitals available to the American people.
Obama and his sycophants are, of course, hurrying to repeat these empty promises to save face. Nancy-Ann DeParle, Commandant of Obamacare, insisted that plans would have to allow patients 'enough choice' of doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. She and the New York Times both fail to specify what 'enough' means to the Obamacare pushers. DeParle then made an attempt to soften the blow that the her boss's promises are not going to be kept, saying that the goal of Obamacare wasn't so much to make sure people still has a choice as much as it was to make things cheaper; or, in her own words, 'to transform the marketplace by building on the existing system.'
Memphis residents had a lot to offer on the topic. One attitude seemed to prevail among those interviewed, however, summed up in the comments from a Midtown resident, who said, 'I was hoping that the whole thing could just be repealed when the Democrats are kicked out in November, I didn't think the ramifications would start so early.'
MCE promises to keep Memphians informed as the ramifications become greater.
Comments
I'm no fan of the Insurance Mandatory Act or what is being labled here as "Obamacare" either. That said, I find it difficult to side with conservatives, especially when written, amusing as it may be, in the tone of a Beckhead.
I'm honestly not sure what Independent-J means by the "Insurance Mandatory Act"; the laws referred to as causing problems in the article here are the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, both of which are part of the changes to healthcare and insurance in the US that have been titled 'Obamacare'.
While defense of insurance companies is by far a less than desirable course of action, I don't think it's difficult to see where they have been forced into a position that will ultimately harm the ordinary citizen by the provisions of the PPACA.
The key component of the article is that promises have been broken. Every politician, conservative, liberal, and socialist, breaks promises, and every politician deserves to be criticized and attacked for breaking those promises. This doesn't seem to me to be an especially 'Beckhead' line of thinking; it seems an intelligent and common sense line of thinking.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!