mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Feb 18, 2020 11:54:57 GMT -5
What about them? I'm not sure what the question specifically is. Beyond that, it isn't necessary to pass specific laws "protecting" things necessarily as long as you don't have laws banning things. For example, there was a ridiculous article I saw online the other day about countries which do not have laws banning slavery. And then a ton of those countries are clearly countries that don't have slavery. We don't need laws that list every possible thing that is ok to do, that's not how laws really work. I agree with you that there should not be laws to protect people from every possible thing. You are correct, there are no blatant laws against women't reproductive rights like the Jim Crow laws on segregation. However, I hope that you know that women do not feel "equal" regarding reproduction. There are numerous natural and societal pressures around reproduction for women, yet not men. Women are chastised, yet men are celebrated for the amount of sex they have. A woman can be raped by a man or have severe medical complications, yet she has to incubate a fetus for nine months. Yes, those are extreme circumstances, but the proposed AL legislation for male vasectomies was presented as a tit-for-tat for those circumstances.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Feb 18, 2020 12:29:14 GMT -5
What about them? I'm not sure what the question specifically is. Beyond that, it isn't necessary to pass specific laws "protecting" things necessarily as long as you don't have laws banning things. For example, there was a ridiculous article I saw online the other day about countries which do not have laws banning slavery. And then a ton of those countries are clearly countries that don't have slavery. We don't need laws that list every possible thing that is ok to do, that's not how laws really work. I agree with you that there should not be laws to protect people from every possible thing. You are correct, there are no blatant laws against women't reproductive rights like the Jim Crow laws on segregation. However, I hope that you know that women do not feel "equal" regarding reproduction. There are numerous natural and societal pressures around reproduction for women, yet not men. Women are chastised, yet men are celebrated for the amount of sex they have. A woman can be raped by a man or have severe medical complications, yet she has to incubate a fetus for nine months. Yes, those are extreme circumstances, but the proposed AL legislation for male vasectomies was presented as a tit-for-tat for those circumstances. Men don't either. It's not ideal but it's certainly not relegated to women.
|
|
mary2029
Familiar Member
Joined: Oct 14, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
Posts: 759
|
Post by mary2029 on Feb 18, 2020 13:26:03 GMT -5
That's fair. Instead of an adversarial position, I would prefer that governments would work with and for others. The OP's legislation was a reactive, rather than a proactive, measure. I fear that this will occur more and more.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,055
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2020 14:11:14 GMT -5
That's fair. Instead of an adversarial position, I would prefer that governments would work with and for others. The OP's legislation was a reactive, rather than a proactive, measure. I fear that this will occur more and more. what is the POINT of a representative government that is not working for the benefit of the represented?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,380
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 18, 2020 14:59:29 GMT -5
That's fair. Instead of an adversarial position, I would prefer that governments would work with and for others. The OP's legislation was a reactive, rather than a proactive, measure. I fear that this will occur more and more. what is the POINT of a representative government that is not working for the benefit of the represented? Apparently to force one religion's beliefs on many people.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2020 15:42:07 GMT -5
wll it's like everything else everyone has an opinion, and in such will vote to what they line up with. Nothing is perfect but weighing out what one likes from something to what they dislike. Personally planned parenthood with abortions take it over the top period nothing else matters because you can get those services elsewhere if you have the money. If you are poor, you are screwed.Btw...there are democrats who are against abortion so it's not just political issue... Fixed it for you well not everything can be free
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 18, 2020 15:44:37 GMT -5
well not everything can be free Says the self described "pro-lifer" who wants to see people lose access to life saving healthcare.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 18, 2020 15:55:59 GMT -5
"Everything" means a whole Hell of a different animal than something for our poorest and most destitute citizens based on the Judeo Christian ethics those opposed to helping the poor spout when it suits them.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2020 15:56:00 GMT -5
well not everything can be free Says the self described "pro-lifer" who wants to see people lose access to life saving healthcare. no i don't just repeal the aca
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 18, 2020 16:16:33 GMT -5
Says the self described "pro-lifer" who wants to see people lose access to life saving healthcare. no i don't just repeal the aca Repealing the ACA WOULD take away healthcare from millions if people. Why is that so hard to understand?
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 18, 2020 16:18:35 GMT -5
Says the self described "pro-lifer" who wants to see people lose access to life saving healthcare. no i don't just repeal the aca So a missing 'want' would indicate your support of a death based outcome. Got it. Again.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2020 16:23:19 GMT -5
Millions really, you mean when the aca was implemented poof millions of people suddenly had healthcare. Or maybe the truth is millions were forced to have health care, millions more would have to endure the rising cost because of it. Many more would lose their health care, lose their dr's. Yea that is a real winner of a law. No wonder the democrats are a shit show.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2020 16:24:34 GMT -5
no i don't just repeal the aca So a missing 'want' would indicate your support of a death based outcome. Got it. Again. what is with you and death?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,055
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2020 17:08:27 GMT -5
Says the self described "pro-lifer" who wants to see people lose access to life saving healthcare. no i don't just repeal the aca 50M uninsured is OK with you?
if not, what is your alternative.
if you have none, repealing the ACA is just words.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,055
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 18, 2020 17:12:56 GMT -5
Millions really, you mean when the aca was implemented poof millions of people suddenly had healthcare. Or maybe the truth is millions were forced to have health care, millions more would have to endure the rising cost because of it.
first of all, the ACA is about insurance, not healthcare. having dispensed with that, your questions can be answered:
1) yes, about 20M had access to insurance that they would not have had without the ACA. 2) the truth is that they were not forced to do so. they WERE forced to pay for that choice, however. candidly, I like that system. if I want to opt out for a public system, I should be able to pay to opt out of it. that is pretty cool. I would love to opt out of paying for congresspeople, for example. 3) the costs have risen less than they did before the ACA, so this is a red herring argument.
in short, you are doing a lot of typing, but nothing you ask can't be answered- and not in a way that supports your positions.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 18, 2020 17:22:00 GMT -5
So a missing 'want' would indicate your support of a death based outcome. Got it. Again. what is with you and death? Sorry ednkris, but I’m not the one that has anything about death. That would be you and your anti-ACA pro death stance. Prior to the ACA 47,000 died do to lack of health insurance. I cited the peer reviewed study for and you said it was “old”. Maybe that was because it was done just before the implementation of the ACA. Now the death numbers have plummeted as have the medical bankruptcies. Those that lost insurance lost POS policies that didn’t even have hospitalization coverage. They caused thousands of bancos. As for losing a doctor? A complete non issue but a great talking point for those that don’t get it. I even listed for you once the different providers I’ve had for eyes, teeth, GP, and others and changing was a complete yawner. You have yet to propose ANY alternative nor has the Impeached One, although he has lied to you many times in that arena.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,871
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 18, 2020 20:48:37 GMT -5
yes but abortion is not pregnancy control since it already happened Planned Parenthood works very hard to prevent unwanted pregnancies - which prevents the need for abortion. Anyone opposed to abortion should support PP for that reason alone. Instead they vote for politicians who vote to cut funding for prevention, for actual sex education, for low cost birth control; all the things that can prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. So don't give me the "I'm opposed to PP because..." if you vote Republican. Plus, if there's no access to BC and kids are borne, Republicans are highly resistant to providing a social safety net to help keep them fed. time.com/5771169/food-stamp-rule-work-requirements/
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 18, 2020 22:16:47 GMT -5
Millions really, you mean when the aca was implemented poof millions of people suddenly had healthcare. Or maybe the truth is millions were forced to have health care, millions more would have to endure the rising cost because of it.
first of all, the ACA is about insurance, not healthcare. having dispensed with that, your questions can be answered:
1) yes, about 20M had access to insurance that they would not have had without the ACA. 2) the truth is that they were not forced to do so. they WERE forced to pay for that choice, however. candidly, I like that system. if I want to opt out for a public system, I should be able to pay to opt out of it. that is pretty cool. I would love to opt out of paying for congresspeople, for example. 3) the costs have risen less than they did before the ACA, so this is a red herring argument.
in short, you are doing a lot of typing, but nothing you ask can't be answered- and not in a way that supports your positions.
Yes forced to pay for a choice that they shouldn't have had to pay for total bullshit. My cost rose dramatically after the aca....a year after Trump was in office they started to come down And which is it 20m or 50m you used 2 different numbers in different posts. I don't care if it's a 100m as long as I don't have to foot the bill
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,055
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 19, 2020 0:14:06 GMT -5
well not everything can be free nor everyone, apparently.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,055
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 19, 2020 0:17:33 GMT -5
first of all, the ACA is about insurance, not healthcare. having dispensed with that, your questions can be answered:
1) yes, about 20M had access to insurance that they would not have had without the ACA. 2) the truth is that they were not forced to do so. they WERE forced to pay for that choice, however. candidly, I like that system. if I want to opt out for a public system, I should be able to pay to opt out of it. that is pretty cool. I would love to opt out of paying for congresspeople, for example. 3) the costs have risen less than they did before the ACA, so this is a red herring argument.
in short, you are doing a lot of typing, but nothing you ask can't be answered- and not in a way that supports your positions.
Yes forced to pay for a choice that they shouldn't have had to pay for total bullshit.My cost rose dramatically after the aca....a year after Trump was in office they started to come down And which is it 20m or 50m you used 2 different numbers in different posts. I don't care if it's a 100m as long as I don't have to foot the bill i have yet to see any evidence this is true, unless the plans that existed before were ALSO total bullshit (possible).
now, you can say that you didn't have to pay for those plans, and that is true. you can run to the ER and have other people who are insured pay for your emergency care. that has been the law since 1986. Obama did a GOOD thing by fixing that.
or are you some kind of socialist, and think that people should pay nothing for their care?
in short, if you are insured, you are footing the bill, with or without the ACA. the ACA didn't change anything except insurance ACCESS. and i get that you don't like that. but i don't get why.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by tbop77 on Feb 19, 2020 6:38:21 GMT -5
first of all, the ACA is about insurance, not healthcare. having dispensed with that, your questions can be answered:
1) yes, about 20M had access to insurance that they would not have had without the ACA. 2) the truth is that they were not forced to do so. they WERE forced to pay for that choice, however. candidly, I like that system. if I want to opt out for a public system, I should be able to pay to opt out of it. that is pretty cool. I would love to opt out of paying for congresspeople, for example. 3) the costs have risen less than they did before the ACA, so this is a red herring argument.
in short, you are doing a lot of typing, but nothing you ask can't be answered- and not in a way that supports your positions.
Yes forced to pay for a choice that they shouldn't have had to pay for total bullshit. My cost rose dramatically after the aca....a year after Trump was in office they started to come down And which is it 20m or 50m you used 2 different numbers in different posts. I don't care if it's a 100m as long as I don't have to foot the bill You've been paying for it for years.....don't know if Republicans can't do math or are just plain stupid.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,380
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 19, 2020 9:13:16 GMT -5
As soon as the GOP comes up with anything to fix healthcare, I am all ears. The fact that they have no plan, except repeal ACA is a sign that it doesn't have anything to do with the problems of the ACA and is just purely partisan.
I would love to hear ANY ideas that would give healthcare to the most vulnerable people in our system. Importing Canadian drugs isn't enough.
There are bills trying to protect people with pre-existing conditions - the GOP is fighting them, and haven't offered an alternative solution.
There are bills trying to eliminate 'surprise billing' and the GOP is fighting them without offering an alternative solution.
There are bills trying to change patent laws where if the drug was developed using federal grant money, the patent expires after a shorter period of time. The GOP is fighting it, and offering zero alternative solutions.
I'm sure there are a dozen other bills in that stack of 400-something that Mitch McConnel refuses to even discuss, but I don't know what they are. I just know that the GOP is doing absolutely NOTHING about healthcare, and expecting everyone to get super excited about their position.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,920
Member is Online
|
Post by bean29 on Feb 19, 2020 9:56:09 GMT -5
ednkris I don't get why you are stuck on the if you like your Doctor you can keep them thing anyways. I have had Dr's leave the area several times of late - they did not move to a different clinic - they quit practicing or they left the state. In the last several years:
My OBGYN retired My GP/Internal medicine Dr retired A Internal Medicine Dr I saw either quit practicing or left the state - she was young, I think she left the state, but I think she had a disabled child so either is possible. The Dr. My DH and In-laws used to see retired, The Gastroenterologist I saw recently is no longer covered by my insurance (it may be he retired, or it could be he is not associated with a facility in the plan. I don't anticipate seeing that type of Dr for another 5-10 years. The Dr. DD sees in her College town will no longer be covered by our insurance at certain locations. She is almost done with school anyways. The Dr. at the vein clinic I saw is no longer covered by the insurance - but I think he sold the practice to someone else. I am pretty much done there I think so no big deal to me.
For my OBGYN and the Internal Medicine Dr's we just stayed with the group the Dr was apart of, and chose a Different Dr. If I need a different Dr., I just go on the insurance website and see who is in-network close to where I live or work, and seek referrals from people we know.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 19, 2020 10:11:24 GMT -5
ednkris I don't get why you are stuck on the if you like your Doctor you can keep them thing anyways. I have had Dr's leave the area several times of late - they did not move to a different clinic - they quit practicing or they left the state. In the last several years:
My OBGYN retired My GP/Internal medicine Dr retired A Internal Medicine Dr I saw either quit practicing or left the state - she was young, I think she left the state, but I think she had a disabled child so either is possible. The Dr. My DH and In-laws used to see retired, The Gastroenterologist I saw recently is no longer covered by my insurance (it may be he retired, or it could be he is not associated with a facility in the plan. I don't anticipate seeing that type of Dr for another 5-10 years. The Dr. DD sees in her College town will no longer be covered by our insurance at certain locations. She is almost done with school anyways. The Dr. at the vein clinic I saw is no longer covered by the insurance - but I think he sold the practice to someone else. I am pretty much done there I think so no big deal to me.
For my OBGYN and the Internal Medicine Dr's we just stayed with the group the Dr was apart of, and chose a Different Dr. If I need a different Dr., I just go on the insurance website and see who is in-network close to where I live or work, and seek referrals from people we know. It’s just a bogus little talking point which they think if they say it often enough will acquire some significance other than to make them appear moronic. In the meantime they ignore the death toll from their pro life white tower.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,380
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 19, 2020 10:53:20 GMT -5
In my 30 years as an adult, every time I have changed insurance plans - due to the company changing plans, or me changing jobs - I have had to change doctors. So, the "keep your doctor" thing doesn't really apply to anyone who has a job where a company change is useful every few years. As noted by John Oliver, if we went Medicare for all, with no private insurance - you would be able to keep your doctor because every doctor would be on your plan, because we all have the same plan. I guess some doctors could do that concierge thing - which is another way I have lost a couple of doctors. But, repealing the ACA and letting the market go feral isn't going change the concierge thing either.
There is no perfect solution. So, we are down to a few groups:
1. People (on both sides) who are just repeating whatever their party says.
2. People who have good insurance and don't give a shit if others are suffering because they've got theirs.
3. People who are suffering without care or adequate coverage, who don't give a shit if other people's lives/health will get worse as long as they get theirs.
4. People who wrongly believe that whatever their thing is will be a panacea and fix everything.
5. People searching for balance and compromise, and have 50 different ideas of where the best place is to start.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,055
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 19, 2020 11:03:08 GMT -5
Yes forced to pay for a choice that they shouldn't have had to pay for total bullshit. My cost rose dramatically after the aca....a year after Trump was in office they started to come down And which is it 20m or 50m you used 2 different numbers in different posts. I don't care if it's a 100m as long as I don't have to foot the bill You've been paying for it for years.....don't know if Republicans can't do math or are just plain stupid. they have been paying for an entire generation. it is WHY HC COSTS KEPT RISING. we were subsidizing freeloaders.
I thought that the GOP was against freeloaders. I thought wrong.
so, I guess the welfare queen stuff was just pure racism.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by tbop77 on Feb 19, 2020 12:25:12 GMT -5
You've been paying for it for years.....don't know if Republicans can't do math or are just plain stupid. they have been paying for an entire generation. it is WHY HC COSTS KEPT RISING. we were subsidizing freeloaders.
I thought that the GOP was against freeloaders. I thought wrong.
so, I guess the welfare queen stuff was just pure racism.
All in the world it is, plain and simple, OBAMA Most of the ACA was built around the GOP's ideas from earlier plans. See Rommeycare. They spout the same ole, same ole day in and day out. They can't come up with a plan because OBAMA already used their ideas. They don't care about this issue except to spout: OBAMACARE Again, they are too stupid to realized they are paying for it in the most expensive way due to a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,332
|
Post by NastyWoman on Feb 19, 2020 14:42:55 GMT -5
You've been paying for it for years.....don't know if Republicans can't do math or are just plain stupid. they have been paying for an entire generation. it is WHY HC COSTS KEPT RISING. we were subsidizing freeloaders.
I thought that the GOP was against freeloaders. I thought wrong.
so, I guess the welfare queen stuff was just pure racism.
You forgot to add sexism since I have yet to hear complaints about welfare kings/dudes/whatever. But is those same dudes that protest the loudest about being forced to pay for birth control, pre/post natal care, etc. because they (I) don't get pregnant, (ii) are done having kids, or (iii) they opted not to have kids. However free Viagra is a necessity (medical condition after all). *#$% &%$*#
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Feb 19, 2020 21:33:14 GMT -5
ednkris I don't get why you are stuck on the if you like your Doctor you can keep them thing anyways. I have had Dr's leave the area several times of late - they did not move to a different clinic - they quit practicing or they left the state. In the last several years:
My OBGYN retired My GP/Internal medicine Dr retired A Internal Medicine Dr I saw either quit practicing or left the state - she was young, I think she left the state, but I think she had a disabled child so either is possible. The Dr. My DH and In-laws used to see retired, The Gastroenterologist I saw recently is no longer covered by my insurance (it may be he retired, or it could be he is not associated with a facility in the plan. I don't anticipate seeing that type of Dr for another 5-10 years. The Dr. DD sees in her College town will no longer be covered by our insurance at certain locations. She is almost done with school anyways. The Dr. at the vein clinic I saw is no longer covered by the insurance - but I think he sold the practice to someone else. I am pretty much done there I think so no big deal to me.
For my OBGYN and the Internal Medicine Dr's we just stayed with the group the Dr was apart of, and chose a Different Dr. If I need a different Dr., I just go on the insurance website and see who is in-network close to where I live or work, and seek referrals from people we know. Your post sums it up....can't keep your dr if they are no longer covered by your ins, ever wondered why they retired now or left the state. My Dr retired said he would have practiced another ten years had enough of the crazy red tape of obamacare. In the past 38 yrs I had only 2 general practioners well now 3, 3 dentist, 2 optometrist.,...th main reason for this many is I moved from ny to sc.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 19, 2020 22:00:52 GMT -5
ednkris I don't get why you are stuck on the if you like your Doctor you can keep them thing anyways. I have had Dr's leave the area several times of late - they did not move to a different clinic - they quit practicing or they left the state. In the last several years:
My OBGYN retired My GP/Internal medicine Dr retired A Internal Medicine Dr I saw either quit practicing or left the state - she was young, I think she left the state, but I think she had a disabled child so either is possible. The Dr. My DH and In-laws used to see retired, The Gastroenterologist I saw recently is no longer covered by my insurance (it may be he retired, or it could be he is not associated with a facility in the plan. I don't anticipate seeing that type of Dr for another 5-10 years. The Dr. DD sees in her College town will no longer be covered by our insurance at certain locations. She is almost done with school anyways. The Dr. at the vein clinic I saw is no longer covered by the insurance - but I think he sold the practice to someone else. I am pretty much done there I think so no big deal to me.
For my OBGYN and the Internal Medicine Dr's we just stayed with the group the Dr was apart of, and chose a Different Dr. If I need a different Dr., I just go on the insurance website and see who is in-network close to where I live or work, and seek referrals from people we know. Your post sums it up....can't keep your dr if they are no longer covered by your ins, ever wondered why they retired now or left the state. My Dr retired said he would have practiced another ten years had enough of the crazy red tape of obamacare. In the past 38 yrs I had only 2 general practioners well now 3, 3 dentist, 2 optometrist.,...th main reason for this many is I moved from ny to sc. No big deal at all no matter how many molehills you’ve got. In fact it’s getting a bit silly that you are still obsessing about it.
|
|