Cancer Patient Chooses Death After Obamacare

Submitted by: Bakcagain21 3 years ago in

Cancer patient chooses death after Obamacare causes his premium to increase by 833%
There are 115 comments:
Male 450
Please don`t read this wrong. I hate this whole thing and what they are doing with Obamacare. However, people want to poo on Obama so much as soon as we see one thing wrong everyone jumps on it. Almost NO ONE is going after the insurance companies or employers who are taking a stand against this change by ruining lives. The employers are cutting hours so they don`t have to pay a little more out of their pockets, insurance companies want Obamacare repealed so they will (as per their usual tactics) find any loophole to make it look as dismal as possible. Congratulations. You found you a cancer patient really quick. Good job. I hope it works out for you.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@5Cats

Hey thanks, I wanted an avatar that projected that I covered my angles, lol. No better emergency coverage than a raptor on a shark with dynamite and an uzi. :)

I do agree, some corners of the country are learning the get rich quick scheme of investing rather than the beat inflation long term investment ideology. Quick buck investing is dangerous and bigger fish play that market game, long term is better for the smaller fish, and who knows you might be Buffet many years later.
0
Reply
Male 40,277
@llaa: Nice avatar!
Yes, there`s long or short term investments, eh? I really think the "smart money" is in for the long haul, unless the ACA gets overturned? Then they`ll mostly bail out...
long/short term
low/high risk
low/high return

It`s a juggling act! There really is no "medium" for these either: luke-warm is not an option.

low risk + high return + short term = perfect! Good luck finding THAT eh? ;-) It`s like the `Holy Grail` of investment...

@Gerry1: OF COURSE the Insurance Companies are using the ACA as an EXCUSE! That`s how those draters make money! Take your money when you are healthy and cast you aside when you get sick.
Any excuse will do! Literally ANY excuse...
0
Reply
Male 39,524

And everyone just takes his word for this?
My hubby has really great insurance that paid for his cancer. Our premiums and co-pays have not gone up at all. Sounds like the insurance company is blaming Obamacare so they have an excuse to dump him.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
oh, oops. My bad. I checked out the link after I followed your fix.

I like this explanation better.


Link to same question - better answer imo
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]You posted a masked session link, ASP.[/quote]
Nah, I put a space in the URL after university. Opened a new inPrivate instance just to make sure.

[quote]Paid a lot of money too![/quote]
Oh I bet. I can only imagine.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
I couldn`t see the content of the investopedia link. You posted a masked session link, ASP.

I just found it funny when I read that they bought the investopedia company from forbes to legitimize themselves.. Paid a lot of money too!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]btw, valuclick ownes investopedia[/quote]
Just go and find a site you do like then. They will all tell you that`s it`s simply supply and demand.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]Which one is it 2007 or 2008?[/quote]
A case can be made for either. The real peak looks like Dec 3, 2007 but it holds reasonably steady until Jan 7, 2008 - at which point it drops off.

[quote]Is it Oct, 13th 2008 $30.98 or Sept. 22 at $38.49, or Nov. 3rd $23.48 the day before election or Nov. 17th at $17.68?[/quote]
Are you asking when it bottoms out? The dates I used are when the crash starts.

Bottoming out looks like Nov 17th. Start of crash looks like Jan 7th.

[quote]I see things differently than you do.[/quote]
Indeed, we do.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
btw, valuclick ownes investopedia

Remember them? They`d give you a free ps3 if you clicked their links and completed a survey. Anyone get a free ipod or laptop?

It looks like they made a lot of money and have been legitimizing themselves lately wiki link
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@5Cats

Yeah, I can totally see where one can be convinced to THINK its a safe bet. I just don`t see it happening in the immediate future based on historical realities. Not to say that big fish investors are not attempting to shape reality by poo-pooing the ACA in the media and getting larger concessions in future legislation.

@HumanAction

Which one is it 2007 or 2008? Is it Oct, 13th 2008 $30.98 or Sept. 22 at $38.49, or Nov. 3rd $23.48 the day before election or Nov. 17th at $17.68?

I will cop out, I see things differently than you do.
0
Reply
Male 40,277
@llaa: They put their money where they THINK it will:
#1 Gain & increase in value
#2 Not fall as fast as other places

Since the Insurance Companies WROTE the ACA for their OWN benefit? It`s pretty safe to bet on them making $$ out of it, and increasing share prices accordingly.

That`s what the "market forces" seem to say. To me at least. Of course if you ask 3 `Economists` the same question you`ll get 5 different answers...
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]Prices are based on historical gains and growth is my point. Not speculation.[/quote]
No... Prices are based on supply and demand for that stock.

Let`s do some quoting from Investopedia:

"the principal theory is that the price movement of a stock indicates what investors feel a company is worth"

Notice that they specify PRICE MOVEMENT instead of price; that`s important.

"Remember, it is investors` sentiments, attitudes and expectations that ultimately affect stock prices."

Hmm... I think Investopedia agrees with me on this one.

investopedia.com/university /stocks/stocks4.asp
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]Look at where the crash happened, not in 2007 but in Nov. 2008 after Obama`s election[/quote]
No. It clearly started to crash at end of 2007 or beginning of 2008.

Jan 7 2008 - 58.41
Nov 3 2008 - 23.48

That`s pretty solid evidence that it was crashing before Obama got into office. In case you forgot, the housing market collapse occurred around the same time; that is certainly the cause of this crash.

[quote]there is nothing to suggest that the exuberant gains in stock market value this year have any legs to stand on[/quote]
So this is your argument then?

Let me get this straight. I argue that the investors are pouring money into health insurance stocks. You argue that it doesn`t mean anything because we need to wait and see.

That`s a copout. What exactly are we waiting for? What`s the magical date where it`s suddenly conclusive?
0
Reply
Male 1,692
Prices are based on historical gains and growth is my point. Not speculation. And its too early to speculate and to do so is foolish.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@HumanAction

Look at where the crash happened, not in 2007 but in Nov. 2008 after Obama`s election. There have been small gains in the interim between Obama`s election and the ACA`s passage on March 2010, but there is nothing to suggest that the exuberant gains in stock market value this year have any legs to stand on much like you belief that you are correct.

Do you wanna buy some AAA derivatives just because they`re AAA?

link to elaborate again
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]I think this link will give you a better understanding on what I mean by short term and long term.[/quote]
Again, not sure what your link is supposed to suggest. Well, I`ll just segment it for you so you can expand upon your idea.

1977 - 2002 : Slow, expectable growth;
2003 - 2007 : Rapid growth;
2007 : Massive collapse;
2007 - Current : Rapid growth;

So, what were you trying to point out here?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]To answer your question, it looks like investors are hoping to get a payout by buying health insurance stocks.[/quote]
See, there you go again; it`s on the tip of your tongue but you just can`t bring yourself to say it. You clearly believe that the market (investors) believe health insurance companies are worthy investments right now. Why else would people be investing in them?

[quote]My gut feeling[/quote]
OK, this is where I was accusing you of speculating.

You`re saying that you`re smarter than all these investors, because well, you just are.

I`m saying that there are a ton of investors pouring money into health insurance stocks. This claim is backed by data. Sure, they`re speculating, but, it is not speculation that they`re investing - that`s the fact here.

Recap, the fact is that investors are pouring money into health insurance stocks.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
Hrm, link didnt seem to work.

Try this link - AET 1977 - 2013
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@HumanAction

No, My argument`s backup info is stating that originally you made the claim, "In my opinion, this strongly suggests that, if nothing else, the market believes that Obamacare is good for these companies." is much too early to call and the any data purporting to large profit increases in insurance profits is based on pre ACA profits during the 2010-mid 2013 any info towards expected future gains is relying on data that historically has passed since the ACA implementation and will not happen in the foreseeable future.

To answer your question, it looks like investors are hoping to get a payout by buying health insurance stocks. My gut feeling is that the misrepresentation of the new health care law is PR by large fish investors to create the idea of changes in the law to convince people to give them their money.

I think this link will give you a better understanding on what I mean by short term and long term.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

Since you seem to be doing everything you can to avoid the fundamental point here, maybe I should just ask you plainly.

Based on this information, do you suspect that the market (investors) anticipate health insurance groups to perform worse than, roughly equal to, or better than prior to the ACA becoming law?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]Speculation and a lot of capital being invested into those shares from mutual funds and larger investors.[/quote]
Now we are getting somewhere! So, why would these fund managers and investors choose to invest in these stocks?

[quote]How is it that the price goes up when profits go down? [/quote]
The trend in these graphs show an increase in profit. However, they`re fairly meaningless since the data only starts in 2009. Profits and stocks would already start reflecting market speculation regarding the ACA by then. In other words, there`s no baseline.

[quote]The stock value is not a good reading on market value.[/quote]
Oh of course - stock value alone doesn`t really indicate anything in particular. However, change in stock value is a great way to see what the market anticipates will happen in the future.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
The stock value is not a good reading on market value. And if a company only grosses 5% profit then how is it worth 19 times that value other than unqualified speculative exuberance of investors, i.e. follow the bubble investing good for those that got in earlier but terrible for common stock investors, i.e. regular non Mitt Romney investors.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
Speculation and a lot of capital being invested into those shares from mutual funds and larger investors.

Look at the gross profit margins for the stocks that you listed as rising. How is it that the price goes up when profits go down? Speculation

AET - Aetna
HUM - Humana
UNH - United Health Group

WLP - Wellpoint

Also, this is gross profit, not net profit!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

Also, this.

"Let`s try it this way: explain to me why health insurance stocks are rising at a rate far in excess of the average."
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]Its speculative casino style betting on the hope that companies go up (or go down if the investor is shorting).[/quote]
If you truly believe that investing is as risky as betting in a casino, I recommend you to do neither. I assure you that a large collective of investors are better able to predict the future than you or me.

While the market occasionally does get it wrong, for every mistake comes countless successes.
0
Reply
Male 554
...WHAAAAaaa !
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@humnaction

The stock market isnt my guide as to what is happening on the ground immediately. Its speculative casino style betting on the hope that companies go up (or go down if the investor is shorting). Its still much more speculative to suggest that the companies are going to make a buck ton of money in the coming years than it is for me to explain how they made so much profit between 2010 and 2013 and how those loopholes are losed or closing before 2014.

0
Reply
Male 4,098
Why so high, because there was lower enrollment and higher costs than originally projected because the population served is disproportionately older. More than 7/10 people enrolled are over 45 years old. Sound familiar?
And he will have access to medical devices, but the out of pocket expenses can be up to $7,000 per individual expense. So yea his $3,000 MRI, he would have to pay fully out of his own pocket.
Therefore, his insurance navigator may be giving him the real costs of what he`ll be paying if his insurance is dropped and he is still not able to be signed up in time.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@Keegan31:

As I said earlier, there are more plans to obamacare than simply the ones on the website. There are PCIP`s, Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans.
If he is not able to apply for Obamacare as he said, because the website is a failure. His insurance navigator probably is recommending the South Carolina High-risk insurance pool, a PCIP, which is a state run program that covers those who have been refused or can not apply to other forms of healthcare programs. People in the system are offered reduced coverage and it`s funded by premiums based on health assessments. And yes, the rates can be up to $1500 a month, infact its really $1669.30 if he is in his 55-59 years old.
0
Reply
Male 40,277
[quote]the Canadian system isn`t the one that Americans should be looking at...[/quote]
@Musuko42: I share that opinion!
Our system used to be MUCH better! 30-odd years ago. But it has been whittled down year after year, one step at a time, to more closely resemble the American system!

Sadly: "Catastrophic Coverage" is what ObamaCare FORBIDS people to have! That`s the part of Canada`s system that works properly, not perfect of course. People with `minor` problems get sent to the Emergency Ward because they cannot afford the fees a Doctor`s office applies (on TOP OF their subsidised billing the system gives them!).

That`s what Obama has spoken out against this several times & I agree with him! But HIS SYSTEM forces MORE people to do just that!

@keegan61: The ACA sets "minimum coverages" which make millions of current policies ILLEGAL. That`s how.
0
Reply
Male 228
I`m not exactly a fan of the ACA, but they never once actually explain how the ACA caused his insurance to be cancelled. Also the rates he`s talking about are way higher than any of the plans on healthcare.gov. Sounds like he`s a rube that his "insurance guy" trying to take in.
0
Reply
Male 8,410
OldOllie-"what was that guy`s name?"

Hey, seeing as Obamamites have deemed the 52-90 million people who are losing current insurance plans as a `small number` or `insignificant`, then the number who have `died becuase they couldn`t afford healthcare` must be so infinitesimally small as to not even be worth considering.

The only person I recall dying locally from lack of healthcare is a child who died from a seriously infected absessed tooth. And the reason he died is his mother refused to take him to the free dental clinic 1/2 mile from her home because he was `too scared`.

Of course, trying to get these idiots to admit that `No insurance` does not equate `No healthcare` is impossible.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
Also, if I wasn`t happy with the NHS, I am still able to get private medical insurance. There are a whole bunch of providers. My employer even offers it too.

So there`s no freedom loss. I can still get private healthcare if I want to.

And it`s not costing me a fortune either. Again: my income tax is 15% of my income. I am not at the extreme poor end of incomes. I`m on £16,400 ($26,215) a year, in the north of England, where that comfortably keeps me in a mortgaged house, driving my own car, living happily, with enough for savings and no worries about paying the bills or keeping the kitchen stocked. So I`m not getting an "easy ride" by being poor.

The kind of horror stories of waiting lists, high taxes, poor healthcare quality, death panels, etc...just don`t seem to feature at all in my own personal experience.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
In the UK, from my own personal experiences:

My total income tax (including NI) burden is 15%
Ambulance recovery after being knocked of my motorcycle: free.
Overnight observation for concussion in the hospital ward: free.
Stitching of wound on chin: free.
X-rays and various examinations: free.
Temporary and, the following day, full arm cast: free.
Removal of cast after healing, plus follow-on appointments: free.
Prescription for cocodamol: free.
The cocodamol itself: about £8 iirc.

I didn`t have a wait for any of that. Nor have I ever had to wait more than a day to see my doctor.

As for dentistry, I`m with an NHS dentist. Everything falls into three bands: £18, £49 or £214. My checkups have been £18. The fillings and teeth removal I`ve had have been £49.

For comparison: GTA 5 on the Xbox on Amazon is £42.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@5Cats

I guess, then, the Canadian system isn`t the one that Americans should be looking at if they want to see how taxpayer-funded universal free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare can operate, as there seems to be a lot of American-style parts to your system (paying for ambulances, etc).
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

This.

"Let`s try it this way: explain to me why health insurance stocks are rising at a rate far in excess of the average."
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]so how many death do the republicans have on their concious? no seriously. how many drating people died becuase they couldn`t afford healthcare.[/quote]
Wait, don`t tell me! I know this. Just give me a minute. Damn...what was that guy`s name? Somebody help me out here...you know, the guy who died because he couldn`t afford healthcare? I had the name right on the tip of my tongue. When was that, anyway? I think it was in New York, or was it Mississippi...
0
Reply
Male 1,692
Close, but actually I was talking about stock market speculations which is the crux of his argument versus my speculation based on real data that affected myself and others. He was saying that I was speculating and that his data based on market data speculation conjectured just a month past the start date of the healthcare.gov website`s implementation.
0
Reply
Male 3,619
@HumanAction, I believe what llaa is saying is that the investors are only speculating that Obamacare is good for the insurance groups, and that they don`t have any hard data to say that it actually is; they only believe that it is.

That being said, I completely agree with your point.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]sooo, your talking about speculation and speculators? I guess we aren`t talking about apples and oranges...[/quote]
I don`t even know what you mean by this.

Let`s try it this way: explain to me why health insurance stocks are rising at a rate far in excess of the average.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
sooo, your talking about speculation and speculators? I guess we aren`t talking about apples and oranges...
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]And with ACA passage a private insurer cannot change rates that quickly and charge that high again with the new criteria and rules for providing health insurance under ACA. [/quote]
I have data (<--- Key Word) that shows that investors believe that insurance companies will perform better in the future.

You have "your word" that this is not the case.

These are not equivalent things. I`ll say it again, data trumps your opinion.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

[quote]Well, private insurers would love to backup your point, but they have already been penalized for robbing consumers.[/quote]
None of this matters for the stock values I`ve shown. Again, stock values are a representation of investor speculation.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

That`s not what I mean. I don`t doubt that they hiked prices up but that doesn`t really affect stock values. Show me how the gouging you`ve cited has inflated stock prices; you can`t because that`s not what stock prices are representative of.

Stock values are an indication of investors expectations of a company`s future performance. If they`re rapidly rising right now (which they are), that means that investors expect the company to become more profitable in the future.

My last post was merely pointing out that I have data that shows that these companies are gaining investors. You do not have data that refutes this.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
Well, private insurers would love to backup your point, but they have already been penalized for robbing consumers.
And with ACA passage a private insurer cannot change rates that quickly and charge that high again with the new criteria and rules for providing health insurance under ACA.
0
Reply
Male 1,692
here yah go

article on hike #3 in one year after ACA passage

huffpo piece on beginning of state lawsuit

story on rebate

My figure of 500% is much higher than average since I have a chronic disease, but 500% is still to high when I can manage it with cheap meds and monthly checkups.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@llaa

That doesn`t hold much water if you look at the stocks. This year alone has seen the most dramatic gains.

2011 saw modest gains.
2012 held steady and/or dropped slightly.
2013 has seen the most dramatic gains.

[quote]I believe that the insurers sucked as much wealth as they could before the ACA came into effect. I dont think private insurers will see that much growth again...[/quote]
You`re trying to refute my evidence with your speculation; data is greater than non-data.

This is the same kind of reasoning that perpetuates the drug war. "If we didn`t spend those trillions, then drug use would have gotten worse!" That type of statement is untestable; we have no idea what would have happened because it didn`t happen. We are confined to the information available.

Do you have any data that supports what you say?
0
Reply
Male 1,692
@HumanAction - When the ACA was signed, I had my private insrance rates hike up 500% as well as others in my state. It got so bad with the rate hikes (3 in 2010) that our state attorney general sued the ins providors and I received a large rebate at the end of the year of 2011 (I paid more than I got back though).

I believe that the insurers sucked as much wealth as they could before the ACA came into effect. I dont think private insurers will see that much growth again...
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patch

Kind of a late entry so you might not see it, but here`s an interesting take on it.

Since Obamacare was signed (3/23/2010), using opening values, the largest insurance providers stock values have increased as follows:

AET - Aetna Group - 34.73 to 63.33 (+82.3%)
HUM - Humana Group - 49.21 to 95.90 (+94.9%)
UNH - United Health Group - 33.36 to 70.47 (+111.24%)
WLP - Wellpoint Group - 64.37 to 87.83 (+36.4%)

Now, that`s not really helpful without context so, during the same timespan, the S&P 500 index rose from +13.81%.

In my opinion, this strongly suggests that, if nothing else, the market believes that Obamacare is good for these companies.
0
Reply
Male 2,667
Goodness even Bill Clinton has turned on PBO and the ACA. Bill and Hill know this deal is political poison.

0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]But if you`re paying for insurance... how does that make Canada`s system any better than America? [/quote]
The money I spend for a policy is dwarfed by the money I can receive in return. For example, when I was with Blue Cross, I paid roughly $30/month for my plan. But with that, I get drastically reduced prescriptions (of which I have had many), $300/year of massage/physiotherapy/chiropractor with no deductible, ambulance 80 or 90% I can`t remember, and other bonuses too. So for someone like me who has a variety of health problems, it makes perfect sense. Now, you still have to get the coverage before you develop conditions (I had mine before I became diabetic), but really it`s not that much money in the grand scheme. My prescriptions alone have paid for it many times over.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
Also, a note about the Canadian healthcare. The Canadian Medical Association has said that the wait times are one of the most significant problems in their healthcare system. They found that over 27 days, 50 people will die who could have lived while on a wait list for cardiac catheterization in Ontario and that only 37% of procedures actually happened on time.


"access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare"

-Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, Canadian Supreme Court
0
Reply
Male 40,277
@patchy: I know a LOT about the "nurses overtime" scam: it`s because of part-time nurses.

Currently in Winnipeg there`s 200 (or more, I forget exactly) UNFILLED FULL TIME Nursing positions available. It`s been that way for DECADES.
Why? Because part-timers get paid the same (per hour) as full-timers, but can pick their own schedule! So they work 20 hours one week, 40 the next, or 60, as they like!

Works great for them!

But full-timers have to work regular shifts AND overtime too if shifts do not get filled! Have to! No choice.

The unions blame the Management (of course!), but it`s utter bullship! Management has BEGGED for part-timers to move to full-time: they refuse. Why should they? Honestly!

This is: Well documented locally. Has gone on for decades. I have first-hand knowledge of it.

Why would anyone switch to full time? Same money, worse hours, less flexibility. They`d have to be crazy.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@mesovortex:
"Why don`t you list them? "

1. Repeal Obamacare

2. Enact Medical Liability Reform

3. Ability to purchase Health Insurance across State Lines

4. Expanding Health Savings Accounts

5. Permanently Prohibit Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

6. Eliminating annual and lifetime spending caps

7. Ensuring Access for Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions

8. Incentivize states to develop innovative programs that lower premiums and reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
0
Reply
Male 40,277
@mesovortex: I just spent $500 on various dental work and examinations of a serious NEW problem. Yeah, FREE FREE FREE up here!

Luckily? As @patchy mentioned? >>The `catastrophic` part is covered! I don`t have to pay for my upcoming MRI or surgery :-)

I have consistently said: Canada`s healthcare is NOT FREE! But it DOES do great if there`s an emergency or catastrophic illness.

@patchy: Good thing you didn`t take the ambulance! $250+ "fee" in my city. Of course if you carry insurance? They cover it! Mostly.

But if you`re paying for insurance... how does that make Canada`s system any better than America?

Back To @mesovortex: No, go look them up. Lazy-arse!
Tort reform? The current Bill underway to Grandfather existing policies? The 7 amendments proposed before the ACA was passed? There`s three.

And the ACA was WRITTEN BY the Insurance Industry: they LOVE IT!
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Yeah, ours is by far the best single payer, but it definitely does a good job of ensuring as many people as possible are taken care of. Ultimately though I don`t see much traction for changing our system, because a big problem is at the service level, where too many nurses work outrageous amounts of overtime when they could hire new nurses to fill those hours instead.

And for your sake I hope you`re wrong about the litigation; if they can deny pre-existings again you`re really up $hit creek.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patch

[quote]I`m not so sure the insurance industry is jumping for joy because of the ACA.[/quote]
Give it some time and they`ll find ways to either get around it or balance it out; they always do. In the US, it is legal for government-sponsored auto insurance providers to discriminate (charge more) against young men because statistical evidence exists that they cost insurance companies more as a group. Cases regarding this have gone to court several times and the discrimination is always upheld. Apply that reasoning to healthcare insurance...

[quote]It`s sentences like these that make me love my single-payer.[/quote]
Eh, you`re system is really expensive too - definitely top ten per capita. I`ll never condone public healthcare, but there are still much better systems to emulate. The criminal thing here is that the US already spends more publicly per capita than Canada on healthcare.
0
Reply
Male 458
@5cats:
What are the `common sense` solutions they`ve offered?

Why don`t you list them?

Also, you`re Canadian, so aren`t you getting nationalized health care anyway?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]By this, I mean that I think it hands more power to corporations than to the government. [/quote]
Hmm, perhaps, but being able to deny pre-existing conditions was their bread and butter for a long, long time. I`m not so sure the insurance industry is jumping for joy because of the ACA.

[quote]It costs $104.90/mo for Part B with an annual deductible of $147. The Part A (inpatient) deductible is $1184 per "benefit period."

Daily coinsurance is $296 for days 61-90 and $592 for days 91 and beyond. You only get "60 lifetime reserve days" (days 91 and beyond); after that, you`re on your own.[/quote]
It`s sentences like these that make me love my single-payer. Go to see the doctor? Hand them my health card. Emergency room visit? Hand them my health card.

I had a 2nd degree burn on my arm a few years ago from an autoclave mishap. Total cost to me was $0, which eventually came to $50 for gauze, sterile water etc.
0
Reply
Male 1,397
And THAT is precisely one of the reasons they brought it in! Wake up, you dozy sods!
0
Reply
Male 40,277
[quote]Their solution... no health care at all.[/quote]
@Gerry1: Actually? That would be an improvement over ObamaCare...
BUT it`s a `strawman` because NOT ONE Republican is advocating that, so why even mention it?

Republicans have offered dozens of COMMON SENSE suggestions since 2008. ALL have been rejected by Obama and the Dems.

@CynicalGamer: Um, you have no idea what ObamaCare does, do you. Not a question, it`s an observation.
It FORCES Insurance Co to cancel policies which are NO LONGER ALLOWED by ACA rules!
Employers have a choice: cut hours or cut staff! Either way? The employee loses.

[quote]cancelled due to the ACA won`t be cancelled until Dec 31st.[/quote]
@bl8fra: True, but the effect is about the same: it`s gone.

@lauriloo: "threatened to" but did they? NO! The ACA passed UNCHANGED... not that anyone had READ IT YET or anything.
ALL changes to it since then came from OBAMA.
Facts!
0
Reply
Male 40,277
[quote]Some as much as 41%.[/quote]
@SmagBoy1: You LIAR! That`s the (current) AVERAGE which means about half have risen MORE THAN 41%!

"Small segment"? WTF? Millions of Americans = "small"? And remember: this is just the FIRST STEP! Employer-based policies are next, and that will effect 93 Million, says the WHITE HOUSE`S NUMBERS.

Jesus Pop-Corns Eating Christ! @SmagBoy1 you just cannot tell the truth anymore? You have... Obamaitis!

[quote]...if the Republicans...[/quote]
#1 You keep SAYING that, but have NEVER offered any evidence.
#2 you mean the American Public! Since the VAST majority do NOT want an outright `single-payer` system.

@FoolsPrussia: Our side? This is ONE GUY! ffs
And Obama has done nothing BUT tell the truth, right? >-(
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patch

[quote]my interpretation of the ACA was that it is meant to be transitory until such time as a proper single-payer system is enacted[/quote]
That`s what they keep saying; my personal opinion is that it`s a step in the opposite direction. By this, I mean that I think it hands more power to corporations than to the government.

[quote]perhaps expanding Medicare by 10 years of age every 5 years until everyone is covered maybe[/quote]
Medicare is similar to other insurance schemes and is expensive - though it is relatively inexpensive for the elderly.

It costs $104.90/mo for Part B with an annual deductible of $147. The Part A (inpatient) deductible is $1184 per "benefit period."

Daily coinsurance is $296 for days 61-90 and $592 for days 91 and beyond. You only get "60 lifetime reserve days" (days 91 and beyond); after that, you`re on your own.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@pazerlenis:

Although I disagree with you about the authenticity of the article. I will say I agree with your general sentiment. I believe we need to go back to the Equal-time rule and the Fairness Doctrine, yet I believe it would require more defined articulable language in it or tort reform.
0
Reply
Male 8,410
CynicalGamer-"employers are cutting hours so they don`t have to pay a little more out of their pockets,"

Change that to "employers are cutting hours so they don`t have to go out of business due to increased costs of Obamacare"
0
Reply
Male 1,380
@richanddead, "Careful you don`t turn into one of those `pawns` that you like to call everyone else you disagree with."

Its not about disagreeing with your beliefs, its about HOW those beliefs are expressed. I`m not trying to tell you ACA is good or anything, I`m trying to tell you the way some conservatives are arguing against ACA is disingenuous and outright manipulative. This article is a PERFECT example of wanting it to be true so badly the facts are ignored.

Its gotten so bad that its actually hard to find any good objective information on it. The liberals focusing on fighting the conservatives, the conservatives doing everything they can to undermine the liberals.

I`d prefer getting more truthful information instead of all this partisan bull$#!t.
0
Reply
Male 403
he should start making meth or ask have his bitch wife get him a job with better benefits from a former business partner. did someone beat me to this? i didn`t check the other comments.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]et me ask you this, why are you all so ashamed of Obamacare that you`re so desperate to blame in on the GOP?[/quote]
I never really understood this either; my interpretation of the ACA was that it is meant to be transitory until such time as a proper single-payer system is enacted. To go from the model that existed before the ACA to a single-payer model would probably have crushed an already strained economy. HMOs are too intertwined in your system to immediately switch them to a supplementary coverage model like we have north of the 49th. I dislike the concept of the ACA, but I don`t think there`s a better way to do it...perhaps expanding Medicare by 10 years of age every 5 years until everyone is covered maybe, but I`m afraid I don`t know enough about Medicare to say if that would be feasible.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@lauriloo: First off, the Democrats had enough of a majority at the time to cut off debate via cloture and stopping a any filibuster. Secondly, they did not receive a single solitary republican vote, which they knew would happen before hand. They could have passed anything they wanted. They passed Obamacare as a step toward the single payer system. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi publicly and proudly admitted that was the reason. The reason that Obamacare was chosen and not the single payer was because "I wanted to have a bill that accomplished the same things as a single-payer or a public option would do. Even if we couldn`t get the votes in the Senate to do the public option. And I believe we did that." like Nancy Pelosi admitted to on June 28, 2012 with Ed Schultz. They couldn`t pull even enough Democrats to support that one no matter how much pork they threw in, not as a "concession" to the Republicans whom had already stated they would not vote for such crap.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
@pazerlenis: This one seems to be true too, along with the other 100,000 people that have been forced on to PCIP`s and are having similar issues because Obamacare ended their insurance. Careful you don`t turn into one of those "pawns" that you like to call everyone else you disagree with.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
Why so high, because there was lower enrollment and higher costs than originally projected because the population served is disproportionately older. More than 7/10 people enrolled are over 45 years old. Sound familiar?
And he will have access to medical devices, but the out of pocket expenses can be up to $7,000 per individual expense. So yea his $3,000 MRI, he would have to pay fully out of his own pocket.
Therefore, his insurance navigator may be giving him the real costs of what he`ll be paying if his insurance is dropped and he is still not able to be signed up in time.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
Lol, you may want to look farther than a politically slanted countergroup like Newshounds.us that gets its information from political opinion blogs like Mediaite.com. You probably won`t be getting all the information.
First off, he says "when my insurance comes out", there are more plans to obamacare than simply the ones on the website. There are PCIP`s, Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans.
If he is not able to apply for Obamacare as he said, because the website is a failure. His insurance navigator probably is recommending the South Carolina High-risk insurance pool, a PCIP, which is a state run program that covers those who have been refused or can not apply to other forms of healthcare programs. People in the system are offered reduced coverage and it`s funded by premiums based on health assessments. And yes, the rates can be up to $1500 a month, infact its really $1669.30 if he is in his 55-59 years old.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@nubblins

[quote]Wait, why can insurance companies do this in the first place? o.O[/quote]
The ACA mandates that all health insurance schemes - I mean plans - meet certain requirements that weren`t in place before. Any plans that existed before the ACA that don`t meet the new criteria aren`t legally allowed to remain as is.

For example, some people (men, the elderly, the sterile) really didn`t want to pay for insurance that offers to cover maternity care. So, rationally, they chose plans that did not include coverage that they would never need to use. As per the ACA, those plans and similar plans are not allowed to exist anymore.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
Wait, why can insurance companies do this in the first place? o.O
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@lauriloo

[quote]They threatened to filibuster it to death if they didn`t get what they wanted, that`s how.[/quote]
Oh noes, not the dreaded filibuster. Obviously that`s so heinous that it stops any and all politicians from doing their jobs,

Except, wait a minute, no it doesn`t. You mean to tell me that there have been filibusters (even recently) that didn`t really do anything other than (very) temporarily slow the process down?

Let me ask you this, why are you all so ashamed of Obamacare that you`re so desperate to blame in on the GOP? I don`t even really like the GOP but c`mon now, the ACA is 100% Democrat. If you can`t accept that, you should ask yourself why.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
Love how republicans are blaming obama for the insurance companies greed, and gullible people are believing them and saying its fact.
0
Reply
Male 1,949
You want to know what I do after I peruse the internet for local and national news? I come here. Thanks, IAB. You`re making yourself less and less relevant by posting the same poo I just looked at. Keep up the good work and perhaps I`ll return to look at more news that I may have missed.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"Tell me again how the Republicans changed this bill?"

They threatened to filibuster it to death if they didn`t get what they wanted, that`s how. It was NOT a cakewalk to get it passed. Not having a single payer system or at least a public option was all a concession to the GOP to be able to pass the ACA.
0
Reply
Male 15,165
"that won`t change the indisputable FACT that the Democrats are now in the process of actually killing people."

I don`t like the Democrats either, but this doesn`t make sense from either a logical or moral standpoint.

Explain to me how all the great many people who couldn`t afford insurance got healthcare before ACA and how giving them affordable insurance helps them.
0
Reply
Male 14
Secondly, Whatever insurance guy he`s talking too is just full of hot air. He says that the ACA plans force him to pay for pharmaceuticals and medical devices which just isn`t true. ACA plans cover those things as essential health benefits. Also his insurance guy claims that he`ll need a plan costing him 1500 a month. This too isn`t true as the most expensive coverage in his state for people over 50 is just slightly over 750 a month. Keep in mind that`s the most expensive plan in the ACA for him not necessarily one he would need to pick up. He could grab one costing him 266 a month and potentially have it subsidized down to 163 a month if he qualifies for those subsidies.

I think someone might be taking advantage of this guy when he is at such a poor medical state. I sincerely hope someone informs him properly and he gets on the plan he needs to get well.
0
Reply
Male 14
There are some pretty big issues with what this guy was saying. I`m certainly not calling him a liar but I think he might be misinformed.

Firstly People who are getting plans cancelled due to the ACA won`t be cancelled until Dec 31st. The way he says it his was already cancelled. It might have just been a slip up but it`s also possible that his current plan was cancelled due to him reaching an annual limit that many current plans have (and will be prohibited under the ACA). It might just be that he got the notice that his plan will be cancelled on the 31st of Dec but if it`s already cancelled then it`s not because of the ACA.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
"that won`t change the indisputable FACT that the Democrats are now in the process of actually killing people."

so if the democrats are doing it now, then the republicans did it before them yess? so how many death do the republicans have on their concious? no seriously. how many drating people died becuase they couldn`t afford healthcare. versus the deathtiol caused by obamacare. and don`t feed me this crap, this one has been debunked.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
It must be so tough to be a republican, and read the stupidity that comes forth from some of more vocal republicans on this site. I think you all deserve a support group.
0
Reply
Male 560
Well this comments section was less entertaining then I thought it would be.... Guess you got to be 5Cats to really cause a stir. Here`s a better and more reputable source than a wingnut brigade Washington Times same story
0
Reply
Male 2,591
These people are so incredibly full of shxt..
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Republican party is so concerned about a flawed national health care system. Their solution... no health care at all.[/quote]
No, just no NATIONALIZED, i.e., SOCIALIST health care system.

Besides, if we nationalize our health care system, the Canadians will have nowhere to go to keep from dying on a waiting list.

And Smeggy, the plural of anecdote is data.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]The republicans wants the poor people to die. [/quote]
You can throw your totally baseless slander at the republicans till your dick falls off, but that won`t change the indisputable FACT that the Democrats are now in the process of actually killing people.
0
Reply
Male 1,341
A little off topic maybe, but I`ve been away for a while. Wwhat`s Wwith the Ccaptions here every Oother post?
0
Reply
Male 450
Please don`t read this wrong. I hate this whole thing and what they are doing with Obamacare. However, people want to poo on Obama so much as soon as we see one thing wrong everyone jumps on it. Almost NO ONE is going after the insurance companies or employers who are taking a stand against this change by ruining lives. The employers are cutting hours so they don`t have to pay a little more out of their pockets, insurance companies want Obamacare repealed so they will (as per their usual tactics) find any loophole to make it look as dismal as possible. Congratulations. You found you a cancer patient really quick. Good job. I hope it works out for you.
0
Reply
Male 39,524

Republican party is so concerned about a flawed national health care system. Their solution... no health care at all.

0
Reply
Male 2,357
@SmagBoy

[quote] if the Republicans would have allowed Universal care instead of trying to block every single idea the president has ever had, this wouldn`t be an issue[/quote]
You mean to tell me that the Democrats, who created the ACA, unilaterally passed the ACA, and have unilaterally sponsored the ACA, are somehow not responsible for the ACA?

Tell me again how the Republicans changed this bill?

Seriously, it`s getting old. You can just say that you`re disappointed in the plans implemented by the Democrats. I promise you, you owe them no de facto loyalty.
0
Reply
Male 2,214
The republicans wants the poor people to die. Period.And they do it with Christian love.
0
Reply
Male 15,165
His life is worth... not very much.
0
Reply
Male 7,772
lolllllllllll
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"There are more and more stories like this coming out. It`s what happens when people act emotionally when passing legislation without looking at the practicality of it."

Yes, that describes the GOP perfectly.
0
Reply
Male 10
Obama didn`t say you could keep your insurance...he didn`t say that you could keep your doctor...He said that you could keep your insurance if your plan didn`t change...you all remember it the same way right?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
What does it say about your side if you have to resort to complete BS like this, especially when there are actually some legitimate reasons to criticize the ACA?
0
Reply
Female 1,467
I felt dirty reading the comments. It makes the back and forth on IAB look like a tea party between old college roommates.
0
Reply
Male 3,908

0
Reply
Male 11,739
It`s too bad it isn`t true. It would remove more stupid from the gene pool.
0
Reply
Male 1,380
@richanddead, "There are more and more stories like this coming out."

That is such a good point! And I hear a select few of those stories are even true!!
0
Reply
Male 146
What`s up with the Sstuttering Ttitles?

It feels like someone trying to be clever but failing.
0
Reply
Male 1,689
Yah, there are a lot of things wrong with the ACA that we can attack without resorting to making s*** up.

The website sucks, premiums will go up by a bit, health insurance companies may not be able to pay for their plans if healthier people don`t sign up, taxes on the super-rich will go up...but this story is complete bat-poo. Lauriloo beat me to the punch debunking yet another Fox-fabricated story.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Headline translated from Foxinese to English, "Cancer" Patient Holds Breath To Die In A Fit of Pique Over Law He Doesn`t Like."

Please Fox viewers follow suit.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
Um, yeah. Google is your friend:

Debunked
0
Reply
Female 1,803
I love how these people quote percentages instead of the actual $ amount. Old crap policy $10/mo, new decent but still cheap policy $90/mo. AAAGGGHHH, it went up 900%!!!!!!!!!!!!

I`ve seen so many of these anecdotes on Fox so easily debunked it`s not even funny anymore.
0
Reply
Male 633
At 1:50 can`t even come up with the presidents name, who did he vote for?
0
Reply
Male 4,431
elkingo, if the Republicans would have allowed Universal care instead of trying to block every single idea the president has ever had, this wouldn`t be an issue.
0
Reply
Male 2,675
Wow, no one even tries to be believable anymore do they.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Anecdotal BS is BS. Sure, some plans are eliminated under the ACA. But NO plan that would have paid for this guy`s treatment is going up by 833%. The fact is that there is a small segment of the population that WILL see healthcare insurance costs increase. Some as much as 41%. Of course, they`re buying minimal plans with huge deductibles, but that makes sense to them as they`re generally self-employed and healthy.

833%? That such epic BS that it`s pointless to debunk. And it casts doubt on the actual real cases that *do* exist (although, to be sure, many, many, many more people will pay far less than they currently do and receive far more care).
0
Reply
Male 5,620
Also, I can`t wait for the liberal brigade to come yell at Bakcagain21 for being European and caring about American politics.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
What did he expect to happen? He voted for Obama, he got what he voted for. Sad, but that is the truth. It`s going to happen a lot. I guess we gotta just get over it.
0
Reply
Male 4,098
There are more and more stories like this coming out. It`s what happens when people act emotionally when passing legislation without looking at the practicality of it.
0
Reply
Male 560
Link: Cancer Patient Chooses Death After Obamacare [Rate Link] - Cancer patient chooses death after Obamacare causes his premium to increase by 833%
0
Reply