How I pray we don't get so numb to the endless nightmarish stories of Obamacare that we become fatalistic and resigned to its continued existence. As an antidote to that, I submit another update.
First, Unite Here -- a major union for the hotel, gaming, food service, manufacturing, textile, distribution, laundry and airport industries -- has issued a report concluding that Obamacare will result in wages being reduced by up to $5 an hour, reduce worker hours and exacerbate income inequality. The report, titled "The Irony of ObamaCare: Making Inequality Worse," states: "Ironically, the Administration's own signature healthcare victory poses one of the most immediate challenges to redressing inequality. ... We take seriously the promise that 'if you like your health plan, you can keep it. Period.' UNITE HERE members like their health plans."
Next, let's look at some very interesting -- and compelling -- "hard data" from Forbes on the difficulties people will have finding doctors under this exasperating law. Forbes obtained its data from Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield "because it is regarded to offer higher quality plans in both the commercial market and on the exchanges."
The report looks at nine states and compares the number of specialists in the various fields of practice -- cardiology, oncology, orthopedics, dermatology, gastroenterology, obstetrics and gynecology -- who are available in private health plans with those in the Obamacare plans in the same markets. The numbers are astounding and cannot be dismissed by cynics as anecdotal.
Let's look at the cardiologists. In Connecticut, there are 400 practitioners in private plans and 177 fewer (223) in the Obamacare plans. In Kentucky, 376 are in private plans, and there are 182 fewer in Obama plans. In New Hampshire, it's 84 and 13 fewer. Colorado, 71 and 34 fewer. Indiana, 1,055 and 981 fewer. Maine, 71 and 23 fewer. Nevada, 324 and 225 fewer. Ohio, 511 and 244 fewer. Wisconsin, 286 and 187 fewer. Just running through these quickly, it looks as though the available choices under the Obamacare plans in many of these specialties are less than half or worse.
The comparative numbers for the remainder of the specialties look to be about as dismal for the Obamacare plans. How could anyone argue that this is not a significant blow to access and quality of care?