It gets even worse. In New York:
"ObamaCare is making seniors sick.
Elderly New Yorkers are in a panic after getting notices that insurance companies are booting their doctors from the Medicare Advantage program as a result of the shifting medical landscape under ObamaCare.
That leaves patients with unenviable choices: keep the same insurance plan and find another doctor, pay out of pocket or look for another plan where their physician is a member.
New York State Medical Society President Sam Unterricht is demanding a congressional probe after learning that one health carrier alone, UnitedHealthcare, is terminating contracts with up to 2,100 doctors serving 8,000 Medicare Advantage patients in the New York metro region.
The are 2.6 million elderly New Yorkers who receive Medicare, the public heath-insurance program for the elderly.
But one in three patients — nearly 900,000 — are enrolled in Advantage, Medicare HMOs run by private insurers.
Dr. Jonathan Leibowitz, who serves 30 patients under Medicare Advantage at his Brooklyn practice, said he was blindsided by UnitedHealthcare’s decision to give him the boot.
“A patient can’t see his doctor? What are they doing!” he asked.
UnitedHealthcare told Leibowitz that because of “significant changes and pressures in the health-care environment,” he’d be getting the ax on Jan. 1.
Leibowitz’s patients are furious. Alfred Gargiulio, who has cerebral palsy with a seizure disorder, has been seeing Leibowitz since 1993. “Obama had said I could keep my doctor. Now they’re doing away with my doctor. They kicked him out! After 20 years, that’s not right. We love Dr. Leibowitz,” said Gargiulio.
Another patient, Wilma Streicher, 76, was equally baffled. “Of course I want to keep Dr. Leibowitz. I don’t see why they want to push him out,” she said.
Patients of other doctors faced the same dire situation. Lung-cancer patient Jeannette Campregon, 79, received a letter from EmblemHealth saying that her internist, George Ruggiero, was terminated from her VIP High Option Medicare Advantage network.
Emblem notified her she could stay in her current plan and choose another doctor, pick a different plan to keep her doctor or call a customer-service rep for help.
“I’m going absolutely nuts,” said Campregon, who got conflicting information from three different service reps. “I don’t want to change my doctor!”
Dr. Ruggiero said, “The people who lose out are the patients.”
Federal funding to Medicare Advantage is being pared back by billions of dollars in coming years under the national Affordable Care Act. Obama said spending on the program was higher than regular Medicare and unsustainable."
For the rest of the above story, see:
Then - in Indiana:
"Obamacare Costs One Indiana School District $6 Million
But they opt to cut school workers' hours instead"
WTHI in Indiana reports the following:
"In the past, we've told you about the new federal healthcare law and how small business and local governments have been hit," said the anchor. "The next area affected by the law could be education."
The reporter adds, "The affordable care act has had its proponents as much as it's had its opponents. In the last few months we've heard different stories from private and government employers on the cuts, they've had to make. However, in Vigo county some of those cuts will come at the cost of education."
"So what we had to do the other evening at the board meeting was to cut worker's hours to below 30 because we cannot afford to offer health care to every employee," says the superintendent
It would cost $6 million a year to provide health care to every employee who works more than 30 hours, says the superintendent."
Finally - according to the MacIver Intitute Think Tank:
"Health-care premiums in Wisconsin will almost DOUBLE under Obamacare, compared with their current rates, according to a report from the MacIver Institute.
The state’s free-market think tank figured the average premiums of the insurance plans the Obamacare exchange offers for several categories of Wisconsinites: 27-year-olds, 50-year-olds, and a family of four from data found on a federal database. The institute then compared those rates with the average premiums on the private market, using figures from eHealthInsurance.com.
MacIver found that rates will jump significantly, especially for the young: A 27-year-old will see premiums more than double in one county in 2014, and see his rates go up by 93.6 percent in Madison, 91.2 percent in Milwaukee, and 72.6 percent in Eau Claire.
Fifty-year-olds will be paying more overall, too, but their premiums won’t go up quite as much, jumping by about half. Families will see their premiums rise at similar rates to young people: A family of four will see a spike of 97.2 percent in Brown County, and increases of just below 90 percent in Milwaukee and Dane counties."
Is it reasonable under ANY circumstances to allow ACA time to prove or disprove its value to Americans the same length of time we allowed W., The Younger, a similar amount of time to prove or disprove the evidence of Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction? Or is all this an equally wrongful cost to tax paying Americans to prove TWO wrongs do not make a right?
I think it prudent to allow ACA the same amount of time to prove itself. You all may be right and ACA will go down in history as a costly mistake inflicted upon Americans just as was the search for WMDs.
I'm giving it time to "prove itself." But by the same token, we are evaluating whether the President "proves himself." No matter who is President, I believe they shouldn't be let off the hook on their campaign "promises" or "vows." And they shouldn't be given a pass when it turns out that they either lied or failed to take into account circumstances which would make it impossible (or even improbable) that their promises or vows would ever be kept.
So this blog is about the "you can keep your health plan" promise when Obama was selling ObamaCare. It's not about whether the ACA "proves itself" (whatever that might mean). It's very simple: Did the President keep his promise? I am chronicling the evidence here in this blog that he did NOT.
Here's more clarification on the situation in California, where the projections are that 500,000 will LOSE their current health plans BECAUSE OF OBAMACARE:
"500,000 Californians Lose Health Policies
By Wesley J. Smith
October 25, 2013 8:16 PM
My wife, the syndicated San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra J. Saunders, has learned that at least 500,000 Californians may lose their health insurance next year — and that’s a conservative estimate. From her Token Conservative blog:
According to this link as of December 2012, there were 491,977 covered lives in individual health care plans regulated by the state Department Insurance that are not grandfathered under the Affordable Care Act. (If they bought a plan after March 2010, their coverage is not grandfathered.) This is a 2012 number, but if the number of people with private coverage hasn’t changed much in the last ten months, that’s half a million Californians who will lose their coverage.
Those canceled policies will have to be replaced with Obamacare-approved insurance:
California Association of Health Plans president Pat Johnston told me that by law providers must cancel non-grandfathered individual policies. (It is my understanding some folks will lose their coverage at year’s end, others might be able to extend into 2014 through the end of a covered year.) This probably means premiums hikes for people who “not only were they healthy, they also probably were very savvy shoppers.” This is a small corner of the insurance market; others may well save money under the Affordable Care Act. But for the people kicked off their individual California plans, Johnston said, it may well be that ”if you’re outside that subsidy range, you’re on your own.”
So much for, “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.” The train wreck continues."
It does indeed.
That's what I'm hoping for - term limits for Democrats. They have driven the legislation in this country for five years. All they have done is make things worse for the majority of Americans. That's not how it is supposed to work. The people were fed up with Bush and "we" gave us Obama. I submit that it's time for some change we can really believe in by giving "us" ANYONE other than Democrats.
Aw Sebe. It would not be fair to just hold Democrat's feet to the fire of term limits. I mean, Brother Bill gave us all 8 great years of growth and economic prosperity. And he got us in and out of Bosnia very effectively with a very low cost in money and American lives. We can't just ignore that some Democrats have potential to fix things, can we?
However, there does exist a group of folks that lay claim to CERTAINTY for Americans in this time of chaos. They are an uncompromising bunch and all they are asking for is to give them the reins of power and they will Lead us all out of the mess we are now in. Heck fire, these boys and girls don't even trust Conservative REPUBLICANS like Mitch McConnell whose mission in life was to make Obama a one term President!
They are even putting up a candidate to run against the 'not conservative enough' Mitch in the forthcoming Republican Kentucky Senatorial Primary.
They claim to offer the real change we can really believe in by giving them the power of elective office. With absolute authority they promise to bust unions, welfare, all entitlement programs and straighten every thing else out too. Including who people can legally marry.
They are called the Tea Party. And they soon will be coming to a neighborhood near you if they are not there already. All they want is the power to effect the draconian change, that American's really can believe in.
I'm not sure how they feel about term limits for themselves, though.
Limit them all. But since the Democrats now hold the WH and Senate, I'd vote to limit THEM if I could. The stark reality is that congressional districts have been so gerrymandered that relatively few seats are subject to turnover each election - except for those where the incumbent throws in the towel or has a scandal that the people don't like. (I phrase it that way because in Illinois they knew Jesse Jackson Jr. was a crook and 72% of the district STILL voted for him anyway. His political party - need you ask?)