It's not scare tactics when that is a reality for health care for some people. If we knew for sure what our future would bring it would make it easier to know which to choose (MAP vs OM+ supp) when it comes to this issue. If you have a lot of money likely it doesn't matter as you can afford the $12-14K for the out of network copay (presuming you have a MAP that covers out of network). Or if you live in a metro area that has top notch health care that accepts MAP's then the issue is likely far less important (presuming networks don't change) because you already have outstanding choices.Y'all just have that one scare tactic and repeat it ad nauseum it's pretty insane.
But if you live in some of the states with the worst health care in the nation where there are no in state choices that are good, this is a big problem for people who have or develop serious health conditions. Half the cancers develop in people 65+, women's heart attack risk becomes the same as men after menopause, strokes are far more common in the elderly. In this state not one MAP allows stroke victims (or, for that matter, hip replacement patients or for anything else) to be discharged to a residential rehab program even if they need it. They deny it so people have to go home with one hour a couple of times a week of in home health care and limited in home physical therapy just a couple of days a week rather than initially daily in rehab along with whatever help they need (which helps with recovery and a more complete recovery). By the time the denial is overturned - if it is overturned (most of the time it is not) it already is weeks later and so that recovery window as closed.
Those of you who are younger - you too will become old someday and likely have far more health issues than you have now. And some of those health problems in some of you will cause you to fail medical underwriting. And then, if you don't live where there are good options in network, you will be trapped with inferior heath care (because you can't go to the outstanding places, or at least places that are better than what they have access to with their MAP in one of these states) that may well kill you younger than you'd otherwise die or cause you to have more complications, be more handicapped that you otherwise would be were you able to access top notch health care.
That is not a scare tactic, that is a reality for some people. People can still make whatever choices they want and take whatever risks they want to take, but in my opinion we need to factually, in an unbiased way, lay out the pros and cons of each choice. Yes we get paid more if they chose a MAP's but I think it is unethical to try to talk people into an MAP when we get paid more if they sign up for one when it may not be an appropriate choice for them. We need to let them decide what they will choose without trying to push them in one direction or the other. Of course we can not afford to work for free or close to it, but that doesn't mean we should push them into one choice or the other when it might be not in their best interests to do so.
Last edited: