If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   One brave doctor stands up to Obamacare. Specifically, the provision which allows an insurance company she does business with to sell plans to new customers which include her in their list of providers   (townhall.com) divider line 140
    More: Dumbass, obamacare, needs, Bill Ayers, Dinesh D'Souza, cost reduction, expediencies, State of the Union  
•       •       •

2078 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Feb 2014 at 8:16 AM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-04 08:20:18 AM
I don't have a completely satisfactory answer when people ask me what we can do to combat the tyranny we are witnessing in this country, but one brave and principled Texas physician is showing how people can stand up.
Dr. Kristin Held of San Antonio, whom I've befriended on Twitter and grown to deeply admire for her vocal advocacy against Obamacare, has taken the next step in her battle -- our battle.
Last week, she wrote a letter to Aetna insurance company terminating her participation in its program because of unilateral changes she said the company had made to its contract with her.
In her letter, Dr. Held informed Aetna that "Obamacare, the 'law of the land,' contains ever-changing-at-the-whim-of-HHS, politically expedient mandates, rewards, penalties, rules and regulations with which I cannot rationally or morally treat my patients and run a practice, much-less interpret, implement, or comply."
She continued with something that cannot be said often and strongly enough, if for no other reason than President Obama will simply not acknowledge it and callously glosses over it, whether in his self-serving State of the Union speech or in his painfully evasive interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. "Millions of Americans," wrote Dr. Held," have lost coverage because of the healthcare law and must now shop on a defective, insecure government website and sign up for more expensive policies through Federal and State exchanges."
Next, she described how she only accidentally found out that the insurance company with which she had enjoyed a contractual relationship for years had changed the contractual terms in the middle of the stream without her knowledge, much less with her consent.
"Only by logging in as a prospective patient," said Dr. Held, "did my office manager and I discover that Aetna was selling plans for which I am a provider -- effectively selling my services without even asking, much less informing me that my services would be sold on such a site, under the auspices of new terms with which I will not comply." Bravo!
She said that "after the fact," she received a "form letter" informing her of the company's "new allowables." She told the company in no uncertain terms that she would not be treated this way.
"I will not sell my services under such terms," she wrote. "While treated as such, patients and doctors are not commodities worthy of such impersonal, inconsiderate, and cavalier treatment. We choose dignity and personal service over disrespect and form letters."
She went on to scold the company for "getting new business offering health insurance plans featuring (her) services with (her) consent under terms which are unacceptable to (her)."
In closing, she wrote, "It saddens me to think of the decreased access to care from actual physicians and the shockingly increased costs Aetna patients will now experience because of your choice to collude with big government rather than collaborate with patients and physicians."
Dr. Held wrote in her blog on Dec. 21, 2013: "Obamacare empowers a few political elites, their operatives, and cronies to do whatever they want to the American people on the false promise of access to 'free', 'quality' 'medical care', AKA tyranny-through-medicine. They write and rewrite the deceitfully-passed law for political expediency, power, and money; patients are an afterthought, an annoying impediment to their ultimate goal -- socialized medicine, the keystone in the arch of Socialism. ... Our current Federal government is the antithesis of all that composes American medicine and the sacred patient-doctor relationship."
Dr. Held is exactly right. This law was deceitfully passed, and patients are the last thing Obamacare's designers and supporters are concerned about. In their obsession to continue with this law's implementation, they are obliterating the nation's health care system, forcing millions off their plans and apart from their chosen physicians, and then disgracefully pretending it hasn't happened. They are ensuring that patients will have less access to and fewer choices of care, despite promising more of both, and that their health care costs are increasing, despite explicitly guaranteeing cost reductions.
Please don't assume that Dr. Held is exaggerating when she says that the goal of these statists is to impose socialized medicine on America. It's not deniable. They can no longer credibly say they are pushing this system for the reasons they initially claimed, because every one of those has proved to be false -- and they knew it ahead of time.
I watched a debate between Obama's radical friend Bill Ayers and Obama critic Dinesh D'Souza over the greatness of America. Guess which one touted America's greatness and uniqueness? D'Souza, of course, credited America's founding, and Bill Ayers claimed, essentially, that any greatness America possesses comes from its radicals and activists against the government.
Well, let's take a page out of the Ayers-Obama-Alinsky community organizing playbook and, like Dr. Held, exercise our own form of activism to fight the lawless tyranny of the current federal government. Except that when we engage in activism, as it was with Dr. Held, it will be within the law.
God bless Dr. Held for standing up to tyranny and fighting for her patients, her profession and the unique protections of God-given liberty enshrined in our Constitution.

For anyone that didn't want to give ClownHall the clicks....
 
2014-02-04 08:23:53 AM
That is the most potato article I have read all day.
 
2014-02-04 08:25:02 AM

Silverstaff: That is the most potato article I have read all day.


The day is still young, padawan.
 
2014-02-04 08:25:50 AM
Thank you for the quote  HMS_Blinkin.

FTA: "forcing millions off their plans"

Does that include the ones that are being refused by ideological doctors? You know, the ones who would be funneled to their business via private insurance, but it's suddenly bad because a federal law is helping them now?

Good gravy that was painful to read.
 
2014-02-04 08:25:52 AM
"Only by logging in as a prospective patient," said Dr. Held, "did my office manager and I discover that Aetna was selling plans for which I am a provider -- effectively selling my services without even asking, much less informing me that my services would be sold on such a site, under the auspices of new terms with which I will not comply." Bravo!

You mean Aetna was selling plans that use the network of doctors that you agreed to participate in?!?

Shocking!

And by 'shocking', I mean *yawn*.
 
2014-02-04 08:26:21 AM
I clicked. I wanted to read the comments at the bottom of the page. Having an opposing viewpoint is one thing; not understanding the subject you are passionately screaming against is completely different.

"If everyone has insurance, there won't be enough doctors!"

Priceless entertainment.
 
2014-02-04 08:27:20 AM
Getting more Americans insured is called "tyranny-through-medicine", and she seems to have a belief that medicine is only for those that can afford to pay for it. Sounds like a great doctor to me! And then it ends with an appeal to the almighty. How can libs argue with such wholesome American values?
 
2014-02-04 08:28:00 AM
I THINk, she may have a issue with the "allowables", that is the amount of money the insurance company agrees to pay for services, it may have been more before, though they didn't go into much detail. I can imagine she possibly had a private practice before where she accepted or rejected new clients, which she can still do probably. Who knows, either way, the article is very waffle on head, potato in pants.
 
2014-02-04 08:29:26 AM

WinoRhino: I clicked. I wanted to read the comments at the bottom of the page. Having an opposing viewpoint is one thing; not understanding the subject you are passionately screaming against is completely different.

"If everyone has insurance, there won't be enough doctors!"

Priceless entertainment.


Won't you think of the doctors?! Why, they'll be inconvenienced, helping those damned inconsiderate poors become healthier.
 
2014-02-04 08:30:22 AM
Of course, not a single example of these "mandates, rewards, penalties, rules and regulations " or "new allowables" that effect the way her services are sold or how she operates her practice that is different than the way things were pre-ACA.
 
2014-02-04 08:30:37 AM
img.fark.net

If she wants to be able to charge her patients more for her services, that's fine.
 
2014-02-04 08:32:12 AM
This woman is a medical doctor and she's acting like a list of "in-network" doctors is some sort of new provision in Obamacare?
 
2014-02-04 08:32:54 AM
She should accept cash only (okay, also top-quality livestock - chickens, goats, etc...). No insurance, no checks, no credit cards. Anything less is pure communism.
 
2014-02-04 08:33:24 AM
If she keeps blowing that whistle in Texas, I may never see my dog again.
 
2014-02-04 08:34:29 AM

WinoRhino: I clicked. I wanted to read the comments at the bottom of the page. Having an opposing viewpoint is one thing; not understanding the subject you are passionately screaming against is completely different.

"If everyone has insurance, there won't be enough doctors!"

Priceless entertainment.


I would say whoever wrote that if everyone can afford to get sick, we won't have enough docs to get them all well again is just snarkily trying toy exploit Potato's Law.

And then I remember all the times I've seen otherwise reasonable and intelligent people make that claim as reason to oppose the ACA without a hint of irony and sarcasm, as if they truly believe it to be right and just that entire swathes of the citizenry of the greatest nation on earth go completely without health care at all because it means other citizens might have the amount of time they sit in a waiting room extended.
 
2014-02-04 08:36:07 AM
Yes, when you contractually contract your contracted services (some inspired writing in TFA), Aetna provides a list to it policy holders letting them know which doctors they have a contractual contract with. It's the way insurance has been done since always. But now it's wrong because Obama and tyranny, therefore, potato.

At least that's what I got out of the article.

/contract
 
2014-02-04 08:37:02 AM
*sigh* What am I supposed to be outraged about this time?
 
2014-02-04 08:37:28 AM
So...one unintended and potentially excellent benefit of ACA is that doctors who are REALLY CRAZY might "opt out" of treating people. Well good!
 
2014-02-04 08:37:31 AM
My brother-in-law says his doctor is retiring rather that deal with the new healthcare regulations. I suspect the problem is the requirement to use electronic medical records. There seems to be a lot of doctors who think that they were done learning when they got their medical license. I don't think they will be missed.
 
2014-02-04 08:38:01 AM

The Homer Tax: This woman is a medical doctor and she's acting like a list of "in-network" doctors is some sort of new provision in Obamacare?


Either that or that plans that utilize that network are being sold *GASP* "on such a site"!!!
 
2014-02-04 08:39:24 AM

MindStalker: I THINk, she may have a issue with the "allowables", that is the amount of money the insurance company agrees to pay for services, it may have been more before, though they didn't go into much detail. I can imagine she possibly had a private practice before where she accepted or rejected new clients, which she can still do probably. Who knows, either way, the article is very waffle on head, potato in pants.


The only problem she ha e anything close to q detail about (as opposed to just reciting a list of buzz words "Obama tyranny slavery freedom jerbs!) would seem to indicate some sort of contractual dispute with someone called "Aetna".

Which is certainly the stupidest abbreviation for N0bama I've yet to see.
 
2014-02-04 08:39:32 AM

keylock71: *sigh* What am I supposed to be outraged about this time?


Dr. who agreed to be in Aetna's network of doctors is shocked that Aetna is selling plans that utilize that network.
 
2014-02-04 08:39:59 AM
Nobody physician has to accept insurance. She can always drop out of all insurance plans and do cash only business.
 
2014-02-04 08:41:56 AM
For a doctor, she's aggressively stupid.
 
2014-02-04 08:42:47 AM
So brave.
 
2014-02-04 08:43:13 AM

Maturin: Nobody physician has to accept insurance. She can always drop out of all insurance plans and do cash only business.


Yes. We understand that. What is astounding is her inability to understand that her insurance plan naturally lists her as an in-network physician; and her ability to blame that on Obamacare even though it's been that way the entire time she has had a contract with Aetna.
 
2014-02-04 08:43:28 AM
Huh. I read the article and  got the impression she was upset that under the new order, insurance companies are now changing the rules and contractual relationship without considering or properly notifiying  the Doctors office. Thus she decided not to do business with a company that isn't going to keep her office informed of such changes.

Didn't see anything about a potato, or chickens, or dog whistles, but then again the Fark politcal scholars here usually know so much more than others.
 
2014-02-04 08:44:02 AM
In her letter, Dr. Held informed Aetna that "Obamacare, the 'law of the land,' contains ever-changing-at-the-whim-of-HHS, politically expedient mandates, rewards, penalties, rules and regulations with which I cannot rationally or morally treat my patients and run a practice, much-less interpret, implement, or comply."

So, she graduated medical school, runs a practice with a staff - but can't interpret a change involving her chosen profession?

I guess, if that is the case, it is entirely more moral to request to be removed from Aetna's list while predicting the loss of care available to patients.

I'm sorry but there are CPAs who mange to keep up with the changing mandates, penalties, rules and regulations that the IRS sets forth without breaking their pencils and going home in a snit.
 
2014-02-04 08:44:17 AM

theknuckler_33: keylock71: *sigh* What am I supposed to be outraged about this time?

Dr. who agreed to be in Aetna's network of doctors is shocked that Aetna is selling plans that utilize that network.


I see... So just the usual insanity from the usual suspects.

It must be exhausting being these people... Has their been one day since Jan 2009 that they haven't been outraged over something?
 
2014-02-04 08:45:26 AM

theknuckler_33: Of course, not a single example of these "mandates, rewards, penalties, rules and regulations " or "new allowables" that effect the way her services are sold or how she operates her practice that is different than the way things were pre-ACA.


I kept reading for an example of something outrageous.  The closest thing I could find was that an insurance company changed the terms of its agreement with her.  Shocking, I know, because insurance companies never did that before the ACA.
 
2014-02-04 08:45:32 AM

Danger Mouse: Huh. I read the article and  got the impression she was upset that under the new order, insurance companies are now changing the rules and contractual relationship without considering or properly notifiying  the Doctors office. Thus she decided not to do business with a company that isn't going to keep her office informed of such changes.

Didn't see anything about a potato, or chickens, or dog whistles, but then again the Fark politcal scholars here usually know so much more than others.


Also didn't see anything about the insurance company "now changing the rules and contractual relationship without considering or properly notifiying  the Doctors office ". Can you point out the examples she gave?

Difficulty: "new allowables" doesn't count.
 
2014-02-04 08:45:37 AM

keylock71: *sigh* What am I supposed to be outraged about this time?


The fact a Doctor who has been running her own practice for some time doesn't understand how "in-network" lists work is pretty outrageous.
 
2014-02-04 08:46:59 AM
If she can't "morally" treat her patients because of ACA, then fark her. Even if she is a good doctor, she's a shiatty person.
 
2014-02-04 08:47:10 AM
Thanks, HMS_Blinken. It's like Mike Lowell and the Pocket Ninja copulated and created a waterheaded spawn.
 
2014-02-04 08:47:43 AM

Danger Mouse: Didn't see anything about a potato


What, you don't see any potatos?

"Well, let's take a page out of the Ayers-Obama-Alinsky community organizing playbook",
One potato,
"God bless Dr. Held for standing up to tyranny and fighting for her patients "
Two potato.
Floor?
 
2014-02-04 08:48:39 AM

Danger Mouse: Huh. I read the article and  got the impression she was upset that under the new order, insurance companies are now changing the rules and contractual relationship without considering or properly notifiying  the Doctors office. Thus she decided not to do business with a company that isn't going to keep her office informed of such changes.

Didn't see anything about a potato, or chickens, or dog whistles, but then again the Fark politcal scholars here usually know so much more than others.


What provisions in Obamacare allow insurance companies to change rules and contractual relationships without properly notifying providers?

She's mad at Aetna for something doctors have been fighting insurance over for decades. She's blaming Obamacare because she's psychotic.
 
2014-02-04 08:51:38 AM
The very definition of "conservative" includes being suspicious of change.

There are some people that view any change at all as a very scary proposition.
 
2014-02-04 08:52:24 AM
Summary: ObamaCare is making every conservative's worst nightmare come true for our nation's doctors: having to actually work for a living.
 
2014-02-04 08:55:13 AM

GameSprocket: My brother-in-law says his doctor is retiring rather that deal with the new healthcare regulations. I suspect the problem is the requirement to use electronic medical records. There seems to be a lot of doctors who think that they were done learning when they got their medical license. I don't think they will be missed.


Yeah its not like the government would give you money back on an investment like that or anything either....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HITECH_Act
 
2014-02-04 08:55:18 AM

HMS_Blinkin: She went on to scold the company for "getting new business offering health insurance plans featuring (her) services with (her) consent under terms which are unacceptable to (her)."


I didn't realize health insurance plans specified individual doctors.  I thought it was more a network of PCPs?  Either way, had she just responded with "I've already got a full dance-card and can't take any more patients," she'd have looked less the retard.

/what did George Carlin once say about the world's worst doctor?
 
2014-02-04 08:55:28 AM
theknuckler_33:
Also didn't see anything about the insurance company "now changing the rules and contractual relationship without considering or properly notifiying  the Doctors office ". Can you point out the examples she gave?

Difficulty: "new allowables" doesn't count.


She doens't provide specifics.  She does state what her concern is.   What don't you understand?

"...In her letter, Dr. Held informed Aetna that "Obamacare, the 'law of the land,' contains ever-changing-at-the-whim-of-HHS, politically expedient mandates, rewards, penalties, rules and regulations with which I cannot rationally or morally treat my patients and run a practice, much-less interpret, implement, or comply."
"Only by logging in as a prospective patient," said Dr. Held, "did my office manager and I discover that Aetna was selling plans for which I am a provider -- effectively selling my services without even asking, much less informing me that my services would be sold on such a site, under the auspices of new terms with which I will not comply."


"I will not sell my services under such terms," she wrote. "While treated as such, patients and doctors are not commodities worthy of such impersonal, inconsiderate, and cavalier treatment."


I'm not asking you to aggree or disagree, I'm just clarifying what she states the issue is.
 
2014-02-04 08:56:45 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Summary: ObamaCare is making every conservative's worst nightmare come true for our nation's doctors: having to actually work for a living.


Well, if a network of PCPs are becoming over-saturated with new patients but no (or too few) new doctors, I can see how that would impact health care:  longer wait-times.

The question is...are these networks really becoming over-saturated?
 
2014-02-04 08:56:55 AM

The Homer Tax: This woman is a medical doctor and she's acting like a list of "in-network" doctors is some sort of new provision in Obamacare?


No, she's outraged that the insurance companies expect her to treat patients for the price she agreed to accept for members of that policy without notifying her that it will now include patients "with Obamacare" who she suddenly doesn't feel the price she established for her service is significant enough to be worth in those cases.

In other words, the most charitable reading is that she got in network agreements where she accepted virtually no profit from her work and made her money off jacking up rates for the uninsured, and now that the uninsured are more capable of getting insurance she is in danger of becoming unprofitable.
 
2014-02-04 08:57:58 AM

xanadian: Well, if a network of PCPs are becoming over-saturated with new patients but no (or too few) new doctors, I can see how that would impact health care:  longer wait-times.


Longer than the infinite wait-time someone without insurance had to sit through before ObamaCare?
 
2014-02-04 09:00:44 AM

The Homer Tax: This woman is a medical doctor and she's acting like a list of "in-network" doctors is some sort of new provision in Obamacare?


I think the concept of a 'network' is horse hockey, anyway.  What was the thinking behind that?
 
2014-02-04 09:01:42 AM

Solutare: Tomahawk513: For a doctor, she's aggressively stupid.

Many are, actually. There's a reason that engineers, doctors, and other applied scientists are more likely to believe in pseudoscience and right-wing nuttery than theoretical scientists: they tend to overestimate their judgment ability because their expertise in one minor area makes them think they're experts in everything.


Please don't lump me in with this woman.

/engineer
 
2014-02-04 09:02:12 AM

Zasteva: Maturin: Nobody physician has to accept insurance. She can always drop out of all insurance plans and do cash only business.

Yes. We understand that. What is astounding is her inability to understand that her insurance plan naturally lists her as an in-network physician; and her ability to blame that on Obamacare even though it's been that way the entire time she has had a contract with Aetna.


You miss my point. I know several physicians who are threatening to drop out of the insurance system and do a cash only business (including Medicare and Medicaid). It removes some of the regulations we find most difficult to adapt to, such as conversion to EHR and other services we are required to offer. What is not surprising is that most of the docs who are talking about this are surgeons (such as Dr. Held) who are some of the highest paid in the profession. If they want to go cash only and drop all insurance, good luck to them. Don't know many people who can pony up $45,000 for a new knee, no matter how bad you need it. If anyone can swing it, it would be a primary care physician, where you can drop costs to next to nothing and charge $25 for an office visit and 'go bare' without malpractice insurance. In my estimation an ophthalmologist isn't going to survive without insurance.
 
2014-02-04 09:02:37 AM

Danger Mouse: theknuckler_33:
Also didn't see anything about the insurance company "now changing the rules and contractual relationship without considering or properly notifiying  the Doctors office ". Can you point out the examples she gave?

Difficulty: "new allowables" doesn't count.

She doens't provide specifics.  She does state what her concern is.   What don't you understand?

"...In her letter, Dr. Held informed Aetna that "Obamacare, the 'law of the land,' contains ever-changing-at-the-whim-of-HHS, politically expedient mandates, rewards, penalties, rules and regulations with which I cannot rationally or morally treat my patients and run a practice, much-less interpret, implement, or comply."
"Only by logging in as a prospective patient," said Dr. Held, "did my office manager and I discover that Aetna was selling plans for which I am a provider -- effectively selling my services without even asking, much less informing me that my services would be sold on such a site, under the auspices of new terms with which I will not comply."


"I will not sell my services under such terms," she wrote. "While treated as such, patients and doctors are not commodities worthy of such impersonal, inconsiderate, and cavalier treatment."


I'm not asking you to aggree or disagree, I'm just clarifying what she states the issue is.


The only issue she states specifics on is that Aetna provides a list of in-network providers. something that every insurance company has done forever and has nothing to do with Obamacare.

This is why people are calling her out. Why are you pretending like that's unclear?
 
2014-02-04 09:02:47 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: xanadian: Well, if a network of PCPs are becoming over-saturated with new patients but no (or too few) new doctors, I can see how that would impact health care:  longer wait-times.

Longer than the infinite wait-time someone without insurance had to sit through before ObamaCare?


Or:  going to the ER instead.  Apparently, that's a thing.

No, you have a point--for the uninsured.  People with (or getting) insurance will (or may) have longer wait times.  Too much demand, not enough supply.  It's still better for people who couldn't get insurance before, no doubt.
 
2014-02-04 09:03:32 AM
Grungehamster:

In other words, the most charitable reading is that she got in network agreements where she accepted virtually no profit from her work and made her money off jacking up rates for the uninsured, and now that the uninsured are more capable of getting insurance she is in danger of becoming unprofitable.

I would hope nobody would base the profitability of their business on the assumption that uninsured people have lots of cash on hand.

It sounded more like the insurance company told her what their new allowable rates are, which insurance companies do all the time, coupled with new billing reporting requirements to comply with the ACA and she threw a fit.

Then she went off the rails with her rant about how the insurance company had the temerity to advertise the fact she was part of their 'in-network' provider list.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report