Originally Posted By ecdc <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140310/LIFESTYLE03/303100100">http://www.detroitnews.com/art...03100100</a> The truthiness of Obamacare could not be summed up more perfectly than in this story. A Michigan woman stars in a Koch brothers ad claiming Obamacare rates will be far too expensive for her. She reveals which plan she chose, the Detroit News discovers she will save at least $1,200 a year on healthcare. What did the woman say when asked about the savings? It "can't be true," and "I personally do not believe that." And there you have it folks. Facts be damned. She "doesn't believe it," and thinks it can't be true. So hey, that's apparently all we need to go by. Welcome to the conservative worldview of Obamacare.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I want to know if she's being "compensated" in any way by the Koch brothers for choosing not to believe the truth about her new policy. It seems too convenient that she refuses to acknowledge the actual out of pocket costs she now has as compared to her previous policy, especially in light of this little tidbit: "Boonstra is the ex-wife of Mark Boonstra, the former Washtenaw County GOP chairman whom Gov. Rick Snyder appointed to the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2012. Julie Boonstra said she’s never been a political person beyond advocating for lower-cost oral chemotherapy treatment in Washington." So she's never been a "political person" yet she was married to a former county GOP chairman who was appointed to the MI Court of Appeals two years ago? Uh huh. No way someone can be married to a Republican operative and *not* be involved in politics. It's never worked that way. If the spouse is deeply involved, you're deeply involved. Whether or not you want to be. And I have a huge problem with her lawyer's bogus claim that her monthly costs are now "unpredictable" because she might meet her annual cap of $5100 with one unexpected and unplanned medical treatment. So what if that's true? She's able to squirrel away over $500 every month that she's not giving to the insurance company in the form of more expensive premiums. Plus, no hospital or clinic would expect her to pony up the $5100 before the treatment were to begin; she would be able to pay that down with her monthly premium savings in less than 10 months. Which is how most individuals pay hospitals for unexpected emergency surgeries like appendectomies that are rarely budgeted into the household finances. This woman is paying her insurance company less money every year for the same level of care. She continues to see the same doctors, the same specialists... nothing has changed. Yet she conveniently refuses to believe that this is costing her less money so she can rail against the evil Obamacare that Republicans love to hate. Let me repeat: WHAT IS SHE GETTING FROM THE KOCH BROTHERS IN ORDER TO PROPAGATE THESE LIES?
Originally Posted By Tikiduck Remember, Republicans are somehow exempt from a reliance on facts. They can blurt out whatever they want and the ignorant masses will believe. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://youtu.be/9c2Wu4_vDlc">http://youtu.be/9c2Wu4_vDlc</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 So many of the "horror stories" the right has been touting about Obamacare have proven to be exaggerated, out of context, or outright lies. Even some of the people they used as freaking examples (this women, those couples on Hannity) turn out to actually benefit from the ACA, even if they don't realize it, or don't want to admit it. Yes, there are some people who will arguably be "losers" under Obamacare. With a law of its scope, that was inevitable. But there are many more winners. But "Kentucky man finds policy that saves his family money, is satisfied" does not make for a compelling headline. Literally millions of people have now bought policies on the individual market. Since the deadline isn't till the end of this month, and since the penalty for not buying is pretty wimpy, one can reasonable infer that all those millions did so because they're either getting something better than their old policies or couldn't afford to get covered at all previously but now can. Plus millions more covered under Medicaid in those states whose governors aren't intentionally denying that to their own citizens. That's millions of success stories, very few of which you'll ever hear about. And not that many negative stories that stand up to scrutiny. So... more winners than losers under Obamacare. So what does the right do? They want to run against Obamacare in 2014 and make that the big issue. The only thing they can do is create a negative perception. The more savvy operatives are well aware that the vast majority of Americans aren't directly affected by Obamacare at all. Most will simply keep whatever employer-provided policy (or Medicare or Medicaid) they already had. So the GOP can't win if the only voters were people directly affected. But if you can create the impression that Obamacare is a problem for those people that it doesn't affect, THEN you have a chance of making it a winning campaign issue. So they're scaring seniors again (as in 2010) with "this means cuts to your Medicare!" And trying to scare people with employer-provided policies with "this will mean longer waits for your doctor and policies that cover less for you - just you wait!" It's all they have, really, and the hell of it is, it may work with "low information voters." It did in 2010. I firmly believe the Democrats need to stop being on the defensive about the ACA and go on offense. Point out the successes, relentlessly. Debunk the bogus horror stories like this one, and the scare tactics.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer When you have a country where 46% of the population believes in a Stone Age creation myth there aren't going to be that many people with the capacity for reasoned thought.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Yes, there are some people who will arguably be "losers" under Obamacare. With a law of its scope, that was inevitable.<< And that's just it. You want to talk about the shortcomings? Fine. I may or may not agree that they're a problem or that they aren't worth it. I think the President deserved the shellacking he got over the whole "if you like your plan, you can keep it" business. It was poorly explained and poorly sold to the American people. But if you're going to oppose Obamacare or complain about it, is it really too much to ask that you do so with reality? To stare in the face of numerical facts (old plan costs X, new plan costs Y) and say, "I don't believe that," as if anything we feel like believing is up for grabs, is just absurd. But it's what so many mindless people in this country do. Evolution? Meh, I don't *believe* that. Climate change? I don't *believe* that. It's the equivalent of saying I don't believe in gravity or that 2+2=4. It's childish and stupid. I suppose you can choose to believe whatever you want, but the rest of us get to point out you're an idiot who's entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Let me repeat: WHAT IS SHE GETTING FROM THE KOCH BROTHERS IN ORDER TO PROPAGATE THESE LIES?<< A wild guess: It's green and has pictures of dead presidents on it.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf I appreciate those of you refuting the inaccuracies from the right. But let's not lose sight of the fact that Obamacare essentially doubles down on the current broken system. In order for it to be fixed once and for all, the shortcomings need to be addressed as well.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No question. It improves a terrible system for a limited number of people. But ultimately we need single payer, like the rest of the developed world figured out ages ago.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But let's not lose sight of the fact that Obamacare essentially doubles down on the current broken system.<< I don't disagree at all, but I think it's always worth remembering that 1) Obamacare is preferable to the previous status quo, and 2) Obamacare was all that was politically feasible. I think that's important because the focus needs to remain on fixing the system, not on attacking Obamacare. It may seem like a subtle difference, but in my mind, it's the difference between actually fixing the problems or just wallowing in the political infighting and sniping that's the hallmark of our system.
Originally Posted By The Truth NYT/CBS Poll: Six Percent Say Obamacare is Working, Should Remain Intact Over half of American voters regret that the Affordable Care Act passed, and nearly two-thirds say it never would have -- if we knew then what we know now. CNN Poll: Health care law support drops to all-time low As the deadline for 2014 enrollment nears, Obamacare is increasingly growing unpopular, especially among the uninsured. A new Kaiser Family Foundation survey finds that about twice as many uninsured people have an unfavorable view of the health-care law than have a favorable one. The people that supported the ACA were told not to pass it yet they did so against the will of the people. The few that still support the ACA are a meaningless minority who will never understand the destruction of the law.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Obamacare hit a milestone with Obama's announcement yesterday that over 6 million signed up so far, short of the original 7 million, but ahead of the revised CBO estimate. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/27/news/economy/obamacare-signups/">http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/2...signups/</a> Good news for millions of Americans who were previously uninsured.
Originally Posted By AZDLDad I observed a woman who was turned away from my doctor's office because her new HCA (HealthNet) plan was not accepted at it because the doctor already had another HealthNet contract that prevents them from accepting the HCA plan version. They also would not take cash. So she walked. IMHO- this was sad. Do your homework to find out if your current doctors accept your new insurance if you are 'required' to have it. Woman walks in a provides insurance card
Originally Posted By skinnerbox << They also would not take cash.>> I have never encountered any physician who wouldn't take a direct cash payment. Never. If the doctor's office indeed refused to take cash, then it must have been because of a billing issue requiring a credit card upfront and she probably didn't have one. Easily remedied with a VISA gift card or the like. But you're correct about doing homework to see which doctors/hospitals takes which plans.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "I observed a woman who was turned away from my doctor's office because her new HCA (HealthNet) plan was not accepted at it because the doctor already had another HealthNet contract that prevents them from accepting the HCA plan version." In my experience the people you encounter at the Dr's office counter almost NEVER know the actual contents of or how to intrepret their contracts with insurance companies. I deal with them all day, and they don't know jack.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>In my experience the people you encounter at the Dr's office counter almost NEVER know the actual contents of or how to intrepret their contracts with insurance companies. I deal with them all day, and they don't know jack. << Having to deal with the overhead of dealing with countless insurance providers and the near infinite permutations in levels of coverage is yet one more issue that adds to the cost of providing healthcare in the USA. As for not taking cash for payment, that seems very odd. I suspect the problem was that they wouldn't take a check. But in this day and age of debit cards almost no one takes checks anymore.
