Only The New York Times thinks it’s news.
Anyone who bothered to inform himself about Obamacare knew
that it was not about affordable care. It was about forcing people to be
insured.
But, having insurance does not mean that you will be
receiving medical care. If physicians refuse to take your insurance, as often
happens with Medicaid, your insurance card will gain you access to the
Emergency Room you were previously using for your health care needs.
When the government controls insurance, as in Medicaid and
Medicare, reimbursement rates decline. The more they decline the fewer
physicians accept them.
You thought it was about “affordable care.” It was really
about worsening the already existing doctor shortage.
The New York Times reports:
In the
Inland Empire, an economically depressed region in Southern California,
President Obama’s health care law is
expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 300,000 people by 2014. But
coverage will not necessarily translate into care: Local health experts doubt
there will be enough doctors to meet the area’s needs. There are not enough
now.
As the Times points out with this chart, Obamacare will make
a bad problem worse.
What does it mean to have a doctor shortage? The Times
explains:
Experts
describe a doctor shortage as an “invisible problem.” Patients still get care,
but the process is often slow and difficult. In Riverside, it has left
residents driving long distances to doctors, languishing on waiting lists,
overusing emergency rooms and even forgoing care.
When it comes to Medicaid, don’t take my word for it. Read what
the Times says:
Moreover,
across the country, fewer than half of primary care clinicians were accepting new Medicaid
patients as of 2008, making it hard for the poor to find care even
when they are eligible for Medicaid. The expansion of Medicaid accounts for
more than one-third of the overall growth in coverage in President Obama’s
health care law.
Providers
say they are bracing for the surge of the newly insured into an already
strained system.
Ask yourself this: if the debate about Obamacare had focused
on the doctor shortage instead of affordable care, would public
opinion have been even more opposed than it was? Would the people who have been duped into thinking that they would gain affordable care have been so happy if they had known
that there would not be enough physicians to care for them?
It isn’t an accident that the Times did not report on the
doctor shortage in a timelier manner. It was simply following the Democratic playbook and using deceptive messaging.
For now it has worked.
1 comment:
And they didn't even wait until mid-November! RAAAAAACISTS!
Post a Comment