Keep reading for a fascinating personal account of how the Obamacare trainwreck is playing out at the granular level, courtesy of a benefits professional tasked with unpacking and complying with the labyrinth of new mandates and regulations buried within the law. But first, more "anecdotal evidence" of a decidedly non-anecdotal phenomenon, this time in New Jersey. Thanks,Obamacare:
Meanwhile, patients in New Hampshire are seeing their hospital options slashedas a direct result of the new law:
Not only will New Hampshire residents enrolled in the Obamacare exchange see their hospital choices limited, so will Anthem's individual policy holders at large, just as soon as current policies expire. So the rationing of options is bleeding over and affecting people in the private market. Democrats said people would be free to keep their preferred plans. That's not true. They promised individuals and families could keep their preferred doctor. They now admit that the firm pledge doesn't necessarily apply anymore. And now, private policy holders covered by the only Obamacare-approved insurance company in the state of New Hampshire will see their hospital options trimmed down, even if they're not on the exchanges. Why? Cost containment by Anthem, as the company prepares for the Obamacare deluge. Higher premiums and fewer options. Welcome to Obamacare, America. I'll leave you with a portion of an email I received from a human resources professional located in Arizona. She is the benefits specialist at a large manufacturing company with over 1,000 employees, where she administers health insurance plans. It seems as thoughwidespread concerns about the qualifications and trustworthiness of Obamacare's so-called "navigators" are very well founded:
Readers may recall that the Obamacare overlords just recently cut down the mandatory training regimen for these navigators by 33 percent. Is another desperate reduction in the offing? Back to the correspondence I received:
Except...the way the law is written, employees who are offered "affordable" care at work are not eligible for subsidies, leading to anti-worker conundrums like this. Is that rule being rewritten on the fly, as well? If this verbiage isn't simply an error, one wonders how many additional Americans might receive subsidies from the government thanks to this potential loophole; remember, the anti-fraud eligibility verification process has also been delayed by a year. How the administration would justify this move (including the inflated price tag) is beyond me, although they've been overtly uninterested in explaining their extra-legal actions in the past. They just do what they want to do. The more Americans dependent on the law, no matter how dysfunctional, the harder it becomes to uproot.
No comments:
Post a Comment