[001sky]

The whole "I'm going to pay less ...

That's the fallacy right there. Nobody is paying 'less'. The system is absorbing new risk, so service is being cut. I'm not so sure why that's hard to understand. Read the article, and its quite clear the reportage is about incremental exclusions, required to offset "new costs"...

When the Obama administration was asked whether the new healthcare exchanges were offering adequate network options to new consumers, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) emphasised that the new exchanges would “vastly increase” the access to medical providers to millions of uninsured Americans.

So, part of the deal is belt-tightening.

[HelloMcFly]

The one area where I wonder about this is Children's hospitals. There's been some stories in Seattle because most of the Washington Health Exchange plans excluded Seattle Children's, which may be a problem for families given that Seattle Children's provides services that other hospitals in the area can't and/or don't.

At least one insurance company in the area has responded by electing to cover unique services provided by Seattle Children's, so that's at least a middle ground.