Single mom thanked Obama for her $169/mo insurance -- But...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What makes the insurance decent? Who said she could not have gotten medicaid before and simply did not know it like she did not know now? I see nothing in there that says the ACA is good for her and her family. Have you seen the bronze plans? Have you seen the out of pocket expenses? This is a case of a child being put on medicaid, it has nothing at all do with private insurance plans. I agree, her son being on medicaid is a good thing for her. The ACA did not create medicaid

Could you make the claim that all of the plans on the exchange were more than comparable plans pre-ACA? So you don't actually know either? Barring additional information, nobody can say if she's better off or worse off. We know two things from the woman herself:

I have had an ongoing tendinitis problem due to my line of work that I haven’t had treated.

She had a preexisting condition and:

Yes, Sanford says, it was all true at the time she wrote the letter. She was ecstatic when she discovered she could sign up for a health plan that covered all her needs at a reasonable price. As a freelance court reporter, Sanford, 48, doesn’t make a lot – a little less than $50,000 a year. That doesn’t go very far when there is a child in the household and his father doesn’t pay child support. Her 14-year-old son Ryan requires a special prescription medication that must be compounded. Before the Affordable Care Act came along, she was getting rate quotes of $500 and $600 a month. She just couldn’t afford health insurance, and her health care costs left her strapped.

source

Do you think she only got quotes for the top-notch plans and they were $500-$600 a month or is it more likely that those were the best rates she could obtain for ANY plan? It's really hard to say since it's all anecdotal.

More importantly, why is this story that's over 8 months old being re-posted today? This exact topic was covered back in 2013:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Did something change or are we just rehashing propaganda to fill space?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I also want to be clear that the experience of one person is meaningless. There will be winners and losers, the overall outcome is what matters.

I agree. Isn't it a bit too early to determine what the outcome will be? Do 100 threads like this a week get us any closer to the truth?

I just proved it was propaganda with quotes that are 100% propaganda. Great job with your diversions rather than respond to my points.

How exactly did I divert? I presented another source that elaborated on the specific issue that you were quoting as "proof" that the original source was propaganda. Did you not realize that? I'll try again. This is what you said was proof that the Guardian article was "100% propaganda" :

Then there's the cancer patient who in the Wall Street Journal blamed Obama for the loss of her insurance plan that she "liked" and wanted to keep. Her insurance company made the decision to kick her off last May. It is true that she will be losing access to the range of specialists she had under that plan, but she will be able to get a plan if she wants one – other companies can't deny her because of a pre-existing condition – and it will be cheaper.

The woman referred to in that quote is Edie Littlefield Sundby who wrote an op-ed in WSJ. The additional information I posted contained among other things, a quote from her insurance company's spokesperson, Cheryl Randolph, explaining that the cancellation of her plan was because "Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members." I can't actually speak to the "and it will be cheaper" part of the Guardian article excerpt you quoted, but the rest is true enough.

I assure you, I wasn't trying to divert anything.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What makes the insurance decent? Who said she could not have gotten medicaid before and simply did not know it like she did not know now? I see nothing in there that says the ACA is good for her and her family. Have you seen the bronze plans? Have you seen the out of pocket expenses? This is a case of a child being put on medicaid, it has nothing at all do with private insurance plans. I agree, her son being on medicaid is a good thing for her. The ACA did not create medicaid

Could you make the claim that all of the plans on the exchange were more than comparable plans pre-ACA? So you don't actually know either? Barring additional information, nobody can say if she's better off or worse off. We know two things from the woman herself:

I have had an ongoing tendinitis problem due to my line of work that I haven’t had treated.

She had a preexisting condition and:

Yes, Sanford says, it was all true at the time she wrote the letter. She was ecstatic when she discovered she could sign up for a health plan that covered all her needs at a reasonable price. As a freelance court reporter, Sanford, 48, doesn’t make a lot – a little less than $50,000 a year. That doesn’t go very far when there is a child in the household and his father doesn’t pay child support. Her 14-year-old son Ryan requires a special prescription medication that must be compounded. Before the Affordable Care Act came along, she was getting rate quotes of $500 and $600 a month. She just couldn’t afford health insurance, and her health care costs left her strapped.

source



Do you think she only got quotes for the top-notch plans and they were $500-$600 a month or is it more likely that those were the best rates she could obtain for ANY plan? It's really hard to say since it's all anecdotal.



More importantly, why is this story that's over 8 months old being re-posted today? This exact topic was covered back in 2013:



www.abovetopsecret.com...



Did something change or are we just rehashing propaganda to fill space?

As I already said, it's possible she is better off, it's possible she is worse off. What seems to have her possibly better off is medicaid though, which has been available for children since before the ACA.

More than that it's impossible to tell right now how she actually is faring.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

I also want to be clear that the experience of one person is meaningless. There will be winners and losers, the overall outcome is what matters.

I agree. Isn't it a bit too early to determine what the outcome will be? Do 100 threads like this a week get us any closer to the truth?

I just proved it was propaganda with quotes that are 100% propaganda. Great job with your diversions rather than respond to my points.

How exactly did I divert? I presented another source that elaborated on the specific issue that you were quoting as "proof" that the original source was propaganda. Did you not realize that? I'll try again. This is what you said was proof that the Guardian article was "100% propaganda" :

Then there's the cancer patient who in the Wall Street Journal blamed Obama for the loss of her insurance plan that she "liked" and wanted to keep. Her insurance company made the decision to kick her off last May. It is true that she will be losing access to the range of specialists she had under that plan, but she will be able to get a plan if she wants one – other companies can't deny her because of a pre-existing condition – and it will be cheaper.

The woman referred to in that quote is Edie Littlefield Sundby who wrote an op-ed in WSJ. The additional information I posted contained among other things, a quote from her insurance company's spokesperson, Cheryl Randolph, explaining that the cancellation of her plan was because "Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members." I can't actually speak to the "and it will be cheaper" part of the Guardian article excerpt you quoted, but the rest is true enough.



I assure you, I wasn't trying to divert anything.

Well the part I quoted as propaganda was the part saying her new plan will be better and cheaper. Pure propaganda. If the other plan was hard to make cost effective it's highly unlikely a new plan that is better will suddenly be cheaper. That simply fails the logic test. Again, the part that makes it propaganda is the "and it will be cheaper" part .. as there is literally zero evidence for the claim.

What I want is for Obama to stop trying to put off implementation of the ACA in order to win Democrat seats, so we can see the actual effects of the ACA. My guess is that if it was going to be a good thing, they'd implement it. The fact they are not suggests the outcome will not be good, and they are scrambling.

My personal plan is not changed. In fact it's cheaper. I am also on a state run health plan, and I get a discount because I work at a large hospital and using hospital affiliated Dr.'s is discounted, so I do not expect my experience will be similar to most people.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I also want to be clear that the experience of one person is meaningless. There will be winners and losers, the overall outcome is what matters.

Correct, the overall outcome is what is important.

They took a system, let the insurance companies have a free hand in writing the law, added a huge layer of federal bureaucracy to the mess, spent tons advertising what is supposed to be something that everyone should want and added all the people that could not get coverage before.... and told us that our costs would go down. What's hard to swallow there?

Oh well, if you like your plan, you can keep your plan too... right?

I think a really big, MAJOR issue is being totally overlooked in the ACA, and that is:

Except there’s a key detail none of these media outlets mentioned. Which is: Sanford’s son was discovered to qualify for Medicaid coverage at a cost of just $30 a month. He has ADHD and, according to Sanford, it costs them $250 a month for prescription drugs alone. Which will now all be covered. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't know about you, but free or little cost health care for our children, just by putting them on psychotropic drugs, scares the hell out of me.
I used to laugh at the 'Zombie Apocalypse' scenario......I'm not laughing anymore.

a reply to: butcherguy

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Ahh, those magnificent words.

That was a major egg on obamas face that seems to have gone away all too quickly. It was a blatant lie.

In fact, It was almost as bad as the time he said:

“That's the good thing as a President, I can, I can do whatever I want.”
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

As you demanded in another thread,



Democrats take on the Koch brothers

You will have to prove these claims 100% now.

It's about quantity not quality. Xeuchen was trying to pitch "Death Panels" earlier tonight in this thread:



www.abovetopsecret.com...



Which was abandoned because it was of course completely untrue and now there this one! The Jessica Sanford story was debunked within a week or two of it's posting. Notice the publish date of the source article is Nov 19, 2013? Here's this one and a few others dismantled:



The Guardian - Remember all those Obamacare horror stories? Not looking so bad now



Isn't posting information known to be false a violation of ToS?

Your source is propaganda.
Proof ...

Then there's the cancer patient who in the Wall Street Journal blamed Obama for the loss of her insurance plan that she "liked" and wanted to keep. Her insurance company made the decision to kick her off last May. It is true that she will be losing access to the range of specialists she had under that plan, but she will be able to get a plan if she wants one – other companies can't deny her because of a pre-existing condition – and it will be cheaper.

How do they know it will be cheaper? Many people pay MORE, and it's a proven fact. Complete propaganda. Also for the son with ADHD .. if she did not know about medicaid now, she may have been eligible before, and never used it. So all in all the ACA has not helped her in any way that has been shown.

How can you call it proof with no link to back it up? Also the "there"s a cancer patient" how can this be fact checked with no name.

originally posted by: HanzHenry

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe

She has found out (like the rest of us) that Obamacare is not as affordable as promised.

Of course, it was written BY the insurance companies. The industry that profits off of something gets to design the program that becomes law? W T F ?

healthcare companies are first place

in the SCUMBAG category.. I mean profiting off of people sick/injured/dying?
Can NOT possibly be a bigger pile of excrement than that pretty much.

how about you and I start a widget company, then have the govt come to us to write the program and laws about mandatory widget buying by every citizen?

There!
That's the whole damn point of Obamacare, it's not to get people healthy, it's to make insurance companies richer. It's total fachism!

We just can't have a society where sick people (and keeping them sick) are profitable, it clearly doesn't make sense. We need roads to go to work, when the road breaks, do we pay for the patching? No it's payed by taxes.

It's pretty simple really, if healing people would be 100% money lost then we would finance prevention a lot more, we wouldn't want people to get sick, we wouldn't be attacked by GMO's, we would stop polluting so much...

Health, education, courts, infrastructures should all be viewed like investments towards a profitable society.
Corruption and greed is inevitable when profits are in game, maybe we should do something to stop making our health a game?

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Debunking Obamacare sob story

Except there’s a key detail none of these media outlets mentioned.
Which is: Sanford’s son was discovered to qualify for Medicaid coverage at a cost of just $30 a month. He has ADHD and, according to Sanford, it costs them $250 a month for prescription drugs alone. Which will now all be covered. It’s true the rest of her insurance won’t get a big discount, as she had first thought.
“That mistake is totally on us,” said Bethany Frey of the Washington state health exchange.
But a bronze-level policy for a 48-year-old woman making $49,000 can be had on the state exchange for $237 a month, and a silver-level policy for $313. So here’s a family that was totally uninsured for 15 years because it had always cost at least $500 to $600 a month for skimpy policies to cover them both. And what they can get now is full coverage for $30 a month for the son and scantier coverage in the $250 to $300 a month range for the mom.

It's nice to leave out details isn't it..

Except that, even with Medicaid expansion, her income doesn't come anywhere near Medicaid plan levels ($21K for a family side of "two".)

It's possible with his condition that he was already Medicaid-eligible, or that someone's gerrymandering her entitlement to avoid embarrassing the President.

Whatever - point is, Medicaid isn't "free", it's paid-for by the government using our tax dollars - and it has nothing, at all, to do with the exchanges or private insurance; we haven't magically gotten something for nothing, the taxpayer now picks up the bill for her kid's insurance.

a reply to: xuenchen

You could have had the beginnings of a great healthcare system. The financial institutions sabotaged it.

One day, you will join the civilised nations of the world and treat your sick with dignity.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese
a reply to: xuenchen

You could have had the beginnings of a great healthcare system. The financial institutions sabotaged it.

One day, you will join the civilised nations of the world and treat your sick with dignity.

On the contrary... the healthcare law was only intended as a Transfer-of-Wealth mechanism

in addition many that were 'Mandated' to join are to be nullified from future status as gun-owners for a lot of medication/health issues that will negate them from gun ownership

the ACA is intentionally complex and rightfully deserves all the partial delays in implementation...Not because they want to simplify or streamline the product --- It's delays are caused by the recognition of loopholes which will allow some individuals to remove the 'government mandated Noose' around their necks and a structured denial of medical care that would normally prolong life (yeah- there is the same old 'death panels' popping up again~ euthanasia protocols~


the ACA is but one prong in the Obama pitchfork (a satanic pitchfork at that)
the complete snowjob on economic recovery, CPI, jobs, manufacturing rebounds is all disinformnation by a regime that is hell bent on creating chaos (pretty much the 12th Imam eschatology paradigm is the influence/driving force)


Obama will have to vacate the Oval-Office-Occupation eventually... now do you think he will saunter off into the Sunset ?

I suggest that he is doing the regimes' best to leave the USA in shambles with a defunct military, a nation with little logistics to arm themselves with guns and non-existant lead projectiles for their ammo...a nation disarmed, poor, jobless and mandated to try and sustain themselves on GMO food grains at a hefty price, a gutted military, with nary a 'radical Islamist' to be found anywhere in the USA by EO...

What a leadership track record for a candidate as the "Caliph" of a resurrected Caliphate in 2016 when BHO is mustered out of the executive branch

It is the Whole Package --- not just the ACA/health management facet we need to address
that single mom is also Not the single focal point
...it is the whole stinking mess he calls change ...fundamental transformation

a true Dunning-Kruger idiot

Seriously, you americans make me belly laugh everytime with this hatred for Obamacare. Your reluctance to see anybody on the poorer end of society get a better deal in healthcare is, for lack of a better term, Disturbing.

Lets ask a few questions right now:
1) What made Obamacare such a popular vote winner?
A: Peoples need for affordable medical care.

2) Why cant people afford medical insurance?
A) Because big pharma have colluded together to ensure they make trillions of dollars from your average joe.

3) Why are some american's so against Obamacare?
A) Because they clearly believe we are still living in the middle-ages where its every man, woman and child for themselves. They have no sense of community, no sense of tribal survival, no understanding of how the jobs today do not enable people to afford suitable medical insurance.
Part of their argument is "We have the best medical care in the world" - And that's not far from the truth, but the best of the best in your country can only be afforded by the rich of the rich - And so the elitist 2 tier society continues.

You're screwing yourselves america.

a reply to: SearchLightsInc

None of that is true, and the poor do not have affordable healthcare now. America spends about 60% of all tax money on entitlement/welfare programs.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Onslaught2996



As you demanded in another thread,







Democrats take on the Koch brothers

You will have to prove these claims 100% now.

It's about quantity not quality. Xeuchen was trying to pitch "Death Panels" earlier tonight in this thread:







www.abovetopsecret.com...







Which was abandoned because it was of course completely untrue and now there this one! The Jessica Sanford story was debunked within a week or two of it's posting. Notice the publish date of the source article is Nov 19, 2013? Here's this one and a few others dismantled:







The Guardian - Remember all those Obamacare horror stories? Not looking so bad now







Isn't posting information known to be false a violation of ToS?

Your source is propaganda.

Proof ...

Then there's the cancer patient who in the Wall Street Journal blamed Obama for the loss of her insurance plan that she "liked" and wanted to keep. Her insurance company made the decision to kick her off last May. It is true that she will be losing access to the range of specialists she had under that plan, but she will be able to get a plan if she wants one – other companies can't deny her because of a pre-existing condition – and it will be cheaper.

How do they know it will be cheaper? Many people pay MORE, and it's a proven fact. Complete propaganda. Also for the son with ADHD .. if she did not know about medicaid now, she may have been eligible before, and never used it. So all in all the ACA has not helped her in any way that has been shown.

How can you call it proof with no link to back it up? Also the "there"s a cancer patient" how can this be fact checked with no name.

Proof. Boom. Bye.

For Male in the 30+ bracket ... Compare to $195 before Obamacare (Bluecare 806).

BlueCare HMO Everyday Health 1498 $300
BlueOptions Predictable Cost 1423 $350
BlueOptions Everyday Health 1431 $330
BlueCare HMO Predictable Cost 1490 $320

The Bronze plans averaged about $275

So a similar plan is $1500 a year more expensive, and the cheapest plans are about $1000 more a year. The worst plan possible is $220, still $300 more a year .. and that is the lowest plan offered.

BlueSelect Essential (HSA) 1452 $210 per month and $6250 deductible and you pay 100% out of pocket on EVERYTHING.
BlueSelect Essential (HSA) 1463 $220 per month and you get 30% AFTER deductible and basically zero help on anything.

Nassau County Fl.
consumerdirect.bcbsfl.com.../shopping/qhp

At the end of the day you lot should stop bickering over this one case.

The tone of this thread is very hostile.

Bottom line? This ACA was written by the very people who profit from its implementation, this must be a conflict of interest.

And that pretty much sums up the US establishment - one big stinking pile of conflict of interest.

Instead of arguing about these petty examples of government exccess and corruption - why not campaign against the government to address the root causes of these issue's?

For one - stationing troops in 100 odd countries would be a good start - that would cover everyones healthcare , and more than half those troops might as well be on holiday anyway.

Oh sorry I forgot the "defence" budget is written by people who profit from it, never mind.

originally posted by: Soapusmaximus
At the end of the day you lot should stop bickering over this one case.

The tone of this thread is very hostile.



Bottom line? This ACA was written by the very people who profit from its implementation, this must be a conflict of interest.



And that pretty much sums up the US establishment - one big stinking pile of conflict of interest.



Instead of arguing about these petty examples of government exccess and corruption - why not campaign against the government to address the root causes of these issue's?



For one - stationing troops in 100 odd countries would be a good start - that would cover everyones healthcare , and more than half those troops might as well be on holiday anyway.



Oh sorry I forgot the "defence" budget is written by people who profit from it, never mind.

Your figures are so far off it's laughable.

Healthcare spending in the US is about $3.5 Trillion. The TOTAL military spending is $0.7 trillion. The cost of those troops is not even a drop of water in the ocean of spending.

Fleecing the American people...so many have blindly accepted, and made gluttons of themselves on the kool-aid and 'feel good sugar' this admin has been handing out with reckless abandon.

When did common sense become not so common?

originally posted by: Soapusmaximus
At the end of the day you lot should stop bickering over this one case.

The tone of this thread is very hostile.

Bottom line? This ACA was written by the very people who profit from its implementation, this must be a conflict of interest.

And that pretty much sums up the US establishment - one big stinking pile of conflict of interest.

Instead of arguing about these petty examples of government exccess and corruption - why not campaign against the government to address the root causes of these issue's?

For one - stationing troops in 100 odd countries would be a good start - that would cover everyones healthcare , and more than half those troops might as well be on holiday anyway.

Oh sorry I forgot the "defence" budget is written by people who profit from it, never mind.

The U.S. spends more on healthcare in dollars, and as a percentage of GDP than any other country on the planet - for that kind of spending, we *should* have reasonable universal healthcare for all citizens.

In pushing for healthcare reform, we had an opportunity to (start to) fix much of that - the redundant and ineffective bureaucracies, the waste, fraud and abuse rampant in government means-tested programs, the middle-class squeeze, where the cost of full-pay health insurance was enough that a person could quit working, and improve their standard of living, by letting the government pickup the tab, the cost of torts and defensive medicine, the fact that our drug companies charge us much higher costs for drugs to subsidize their sales overseas, etc, etc.

And rather than attempt to simplify and streamline our system, to make it more effective, efficient, and cost-effective, we trebled-down on what was broken in the first place. The opportunity to meaningfully reform and improve healthcare in this country was squandered, and we'll have to wait *years* until our budget is in total crisis before we try again to fix it.

Many Conservatives would probably have supported reform to reduce costs, and increase availability - but that's not the ACA. It's a terribly expensive and burdensome pile of fecal matter whose true costs have yet to be felt - wait for 5 or 10 years, when it's in full effect, and then tell us how we're getting such a good deal, spending over a trillion dollars a year on a system that's even more broken then than it was when they passed it.