

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The New York Times offers yet another example of the ongoing problem of consumer protection whac-a-mole. While the Affordable Care Act was meant to offer at least some limits on what people pay for preventive care and out-of-pocket spending, the health care industry is finding clever new fees that might not be cover. From the NYT:
The New York Times offers yet another example of the ongoing problem of consumer protection whac-a-mole. While the Affordable Care Act was meant to offer at least some limits on what people pay for preventive care and out-of-pocket spending, the health care industry is finding clever new fees that might not be cover. From the NYT:
As insurers ratchet down payments to physicians and hospitals, these providers are pushing back with a host of new charges: Ophthalmologists are increasingly levying separate "refraction fees" to assess vision acuity. Orthopedic clinics impose fees to put an arm in a cast or provide a splint, in addition to the usual bill for the office visit. On maternity wards, new mothers pay for a lactation consultant. An emergency room charges an "activation fee" in addition to its facility charges. Psychologists who have agreed to an insurer's negotiated rate for neuropsychological testing bill patients an additional $2,000 for an "administration charge."
Some of these fees may or may not end up being covered by your insurance, may or may not count as part of the in-network care, and may or may not apply to your out-of-pocket limit. This means individuals on the exchanges who often face huge deductibles can see their total spending on an unexpected illness exceed what they calculated even if they tried to be diligent health care consumers.
This is classic whac-a-mole. As soon as one specific problem is banned the industry quickly moves to find a slightly different new loophole to exploit. What is really needed is a broad solution, not a series of popular mallet whacks. There is no way our political system is set up to whack these problems as quickly as they are created.
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
The New York Times offers yet another example of the ongoing problem of consumer protection whac-a-mole. While the Affordable Care Act was meant to offer at least some limits on what people pay for preventive care and out-of-pocket spending, the health care industry is finding clever new fees that might not be cover. From the NYT:
As insurers ratchet down payments to physicians and hospitals, these providers are pushing back with a host of new charges: Ophthalmologists are increasingly levying separate "refraction fees" to assess vision acuity. Orthopedic clinics impose fees to put an arm in a cast or provide a splint, in addition to the usual bill for the office visit. On maternity wards, new mothers pay for a lactation consultant. An emergency room charges an "activation fee" in addition to its facility charges. Psychologists who have agreed to an insurer's negotiated rate for neuropsychological testing bill patients an additional $2,000 for an "administration charge."
Some of these fees may or may not end up being covered by your insurance, may or may not count as part of the in-network care, and may or may not apply to your out-of-pocket limit. This means individuals on the exchanges who often face huge deductibles can see their total spending on an unexpected illness exceed what they calculated even if they tried to be diligent health care consumers.
This is classic whac-a-mole. As soon as one specific problem is banned the industry quickly moves to find a slightly different new loophole to exploit. What is really needed is a broad solution, not a series of popular mallet whacks. There is no way our political system is set up to whack these problems as quickly as they are created.
The New York Times offers yet another example of the ongoing problem of consumer protection whac-a-mole. While the Affordable Care Act was meant to offer at least some limits on what people pay for preventive care and out-of-pocket spending, the health care industry is finding clever new fees that might not be cover. From the NYT:
As insurers ratchet down payments to physicians and hospitals, these providers are pushing back with a host of new charges: Ophthalmologists are increasingly levying separate "refraction fees" to assess vision acuity. Orthopedic clinics impose fees to put an arm in a cast or provide a splint, in addition to the usual bill for the office visit. On maternity wards, new mothers pay for a lactation consultant. An emergency room charges an "activation fee" in addition to its facility charges. Psychologists who have agreed to an insurer's negotiated rate for neuropsychological testing bill patients an additional $2,000 for an "administration charge."
Some of these fees may or may not end up being covered by your insurance, may or may not count as part of the in-network care, and may or may not apply to your out-of-pocket limit. This means individuals on the exchanges who often face huge deductibles can see their total spending on an unexpected illness exceed what they calculated even if they tried to be diligent health care consumers.
This is classic whac-a-mole. As soon as one specific problem is banned the industry quickly moves to find a slightly different new loophole to exploit. What is really needed is a broad solution, not a series of popular mallet whacks. There is no way our political system is set up to whack these problems as quickly as they are created.