Also remember Obama's press conference in May 2010----"If you already have insurance, this law does not affect you" and "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor". It actually was sold to the public as exactly what you suggested---a fix to an existing system that needed some tweeks to cover those without insurance---and of course the suggestion to many, although not expressed explicitly, that it was "free"--which he never disabused the gullible from believing. Now look what we got---so typical of big government that it was entirely predictable

Whose supplement do you have?

I am truly a student. I have received so much valuable information on TOTV. The give & take of information helps many others I'm sure.
I worked like a fool one or two jobs my whole life and now find myself disabled. I have had my family saved by this unpopular medical coverage that was available just one month after we needed it the most. I hope it never happens to anyone else but do you know how tough it is to be a responsible family guy with no income, no health benefits during the first time in your life that you need them the most and the bills are just flying in relentlessly. Unrelated but important that during this time our youngest son is deployed, bringing the anxiety level between everything to the breaking point. Our family doctor forgave every penny we owed him for 16 office visits and his care for me during a five day hospitalization while we were in the waiting month of ACA. We will be paying our other doctor & hospital bills forever.
It's not fun circling the drain and feeling like your going down the drain but truthfully my opinion would be the same as the people who are the most harsh with their opinions and very hard words. For them I hope they never have to walk in our families shoes or the shoes of the people who worked their butts off during their entire lives and have a catastrophic health event. Its a real eye opener.

Your story illustrates the 'why can't we go back to the way it was, it worked for me' isn't the answer for a great country like ours.

That's what medicaid is for.

No, we shouldn't go back to "the way it was", exactly. There were definitely about 12-15% of the population that fell between the cracks, and that needed to be addressed. I think the point some of us are trying to make is that it was not necessary to mess with the other 85-88%, which is what the president himself originally said (even though he knew better) As far as Medicaid goes, it really is 2nd rate care, you would not want it for yourself.

Aren't you an MD?

"They could have done 'something' to address those areas... For me the old system worked just fine. A fix was MAYBE needed for those who had no insurance or lack of coverage or could not get insurance."

I would like to see a very specific alternative to the health care bill. So far the people who are against it speak in generalities, if they even think everyone deserves health care. If the legislators who were so against it could have come up with a working alternative, why didn't they lay it out in specifics? Vague alternatives were bantered about, but no real plan.

Clearly something needed to be done for the millions who had no health care, or couldn't afford it (and I have a personal example of someone who is going to die because of it), and nobody who is against affordable health care has or had come up with a fix.

And this should be in the political forum.

yes, which is why I know a little something about this subject.

And why do people on Medicaid get 2nd rate care?

Are we saying those that pay better are getting better care?

Do those providing the care check to see who's paying and adjust their services accordingly?

Would that not be illegal or at least unethical for those on Medicaid to get substandard care??

KeepingItReal, they are denying some forms of treatment that others not on Medicaid receive. Here is one example for Hep C drugs. Might be considered substandard care? I haven't read further about it; just offering it as a possibility.
"Medicaid Denial for Hep C Drugs Nearing 50% in Some States"

Medscape: Medscape Access

Every once & a while when I need a laugh I go into the political forum. If you want to turn this seriously great give and take of ideas over there and turn it into a clown show then I'm out. Yea I know alert the media. Aren't we all just trying to live our lives with as little drama as possible? I must admit that the new ACA does awaken a person to care for their health a little more because of the financial incentive to stay away from the doctor. Oh one other thing...the political forum...if your name isn't on it and you can't be held accountable for what you type when you have "beer muscles" then is a waste of time typing it. I rest my case.

It is well documented, and has been for years, that Medicaid recipients do not receive the same level/quality of care as those having insurance and Medicare. The reasons would fill a week long seminar, but include:
1) a very few hospitals do not accept Medicaid
2) some physicians do not accept Medicaid
3) Medicaid is primarily a program for the poor:
a) the poor may have difficulty getting transportation to appointments
b) the poor may not have the ability to receive post procedural care from family members or
Their social network.
c) etc, etc, etc
4) many Medicaid plans require a minimal co-payment ($1-2)
5) many recipients prefer to use a hospital ER for their care since hospitals
MUST treat virtually any patient that shows up at its door. And ERs are open
24/7.
6) hospitals and physicians can wait for 6+ months to be paid
7) when a state believes it has paid enough for its Medicaid program in a year,
It simply stops paying. But the providers must continue caring for the patients.
8) Medicaid programs typically pay far less for care than it costs a physician or hospital
To provide it
6) etc, etc, etc

Your premises are not necessarily accurate and imply a negative connotation, while simplistically understating the issue. I worked in healthcare, hospitals specifically, for decades. 8 of those years were as CEO of a 3 hospital system which included the largest hospital in the state of Mississippi. We provided many services not available anywhere else in the state, and lost 10s of millions of dollars taking care of Medicaid patients. We didn't turn a patient away if they were in an emergent or urgent situation, or if we were the only system that could provide that service. We had transfer agreements with every other hospital in the state to be sure no patient was ever denied care.

And most other hospitals act the same way. I'll let GE discuss physicians in greater detail if he wishes.

Staying on topic
 

I suggest that you look into the AARP insurance. It looks to me that your current carrier is ripping you off. We have the N plan. We do pay the Medicare deductible and 20% with a max of $20 per doctor’s visit. Also $50 for the ER if we are not admitted. We chose this plan because it was $50 per month cheaper for each of us. We have not come close to spending the $1,200 per year savings.

Every year I use the medicare.gov website to select our Medicare part D coverage. I have changed carriers every year for our coverage. This is the first year that my wife and I will have the same carrier.

You said that this in Medicare Supplement insurance. Therefore the increase has nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act.

Now CF raises another very appropriate issue. The government (Feds and States) establish the rules for the Medicaid program. These include drugs, procedures, hospitalizations, and other regulations for care that are, and are NOT, covered. For example, my wife takes 2 expensive drugs for a chronic condition. Medicare partially pays for them. Medicaid would pay nothing for them.

We are fortunate that her out of pocket drug expense is limited by Medicare to approx $8000 per year. The two drugs retail for more than $76,000 per year. (That is 76 followed by 000.) Were she on Medicaid she would be responsible for the full cost - because neither drug is covered by Medicaid. Luckily there are some private programs that assist those who use expensive "orphan drugs."

My point is that docs and hospitals may not be the bad guys you think they are. Frequently their hands are tied by government regulations.