'Obamacare' to the rescue

[Pepsi]

• Tweet

'Obamacare' to the rescue


I want to apologize to President Obama. But first, some background.

I found out three weeks ago I have cancer. I'm 49 years old, have been married for almost 20 years and have two kids. My husband has his own small computer business, and I run a small nonprofit in the San Fernando Valley. I am also an artist. Money is tight, and we don't spend it frivolously. We're just ordinary, middle-class people, making an honest living, raising great kids and participating in our community, the kids' schools and church.

We're good people, and we work hard. But we haven't been able to afford health insurance for more than two years. And now I have third-stage breast cancer and am facing months of expensive treatment.

To understand how such a thing could happen to a family like ours, I need to take you back nine years to when my husband got laid off from the entertainment company where he'd worked for 10 years. Until then, we had been insured through his work, with a first-rate plan. After he got laid off, we got to keep that health insurance for 18 months through COBRA, by paying $1,300 a month, which was a huge burden on an unemployed father and his family.

By the time the COBRA ran out, my husband had decided to go into business for himself, so we had to purchase our own insurance. That was fine for a while. Every year his business grew. But insurance premiums were steadily rising too. More than once, we switched carriers for a lower rate, only to have them raise rates significantly after a few months.

With the recession, both of our businesses took a huge hit — my husband's income was cut in half, and the foundations that had supported my small nonprofit were going through their own tough times. We had to start using a home equity line of credit to pay for our health insurance premiums (which by that point cost as much as our monthly mortgage). When the bank capped our home equity line, we were forced to cash in my husband's IRA. The time finally came when we had to make a choice between paying our mortgage or paying for health insurance. We chose to keep our house. We made a nerve-racking gamble, and we lost.

Not having insurance amplifies cancer stress. After the diagnosis, instead of focusing all of my energy on getting well, I was panicked about how we were going to pay for everything. I felt guilty and embarrassed about not being insured. When I went to the diagnostic center to pick up my first reports, I was sent to the financial department, where a woman sat me down to talk about resources for "cash patients" (a polite way of saying "uninsured").

continued-

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ward-in-praise-of-obamacare-20111206,0,6794828.story

[johnhp]

Maybe she should go to that quack Lucy was promoting recently.

[Pepsi]

Or, she should be refused care and left to die (aka the Ron Paul plan)

[johnhp]

That is what happens when we allow people without the best interests of the public to decide public health policy.  Seriously we needed a single payer system a long time ago.  i am quite frankly sick and tired of all the disinfo and whining about healthcare actually covering everyone.

[Pepsi]

That is what happens when we allow people without the best interests of the public to decide public health policy.  Seriously we needed a single payer system a long time ago.  i am quite frankly sick and tired of all the disinfo and whining about healthcare actually covering everyone.

Agree completely.. single payer would save so much money all around and cover everybody.   

[johnhp]

Agree completely.. single payer would save so much money all around and cover everybody.   

This is what kills me about the people who oppose single payer...they are cutting off their noses -- and try to get that fixed -- to spite their faces.

[foodserver]

'Obamacare' to the rescue
...continued-

Thanks for not...

[dustup]

Or, she should be refused care and left to die (aka the Ron Paul plan)

......embellished hype.......noted.....

[Pepsi]

......embellished hype.......noted.....

no hype.. without the provisions of 'obamacare' which prohibit insurance companies turn down pre-existing conditions, what would have happened to this woman, under the Ron Paul plan, pray tell?

[johnhp]

[dustup]

no hype.. without the provisions of 'obamacare' which prohibit insurance companies turn down pre-existing conditions, what would have happened to this woman, under the Ron Paul plan, pray tell?

yep.....you are embellishing Ron Paul's statements and misconstruing how he answered the question......



Crowd Yells Let Him Die (The video's owner prevents external embedding)

[Observer]

I have asked this question before and no one on the Left would address it.

Why should an insurance be required to take on a client they know in advance is going to cause them to take a loss? That really is no different from forcing an insurance company to insure a driver with a long history of DUI convictions.

For anyone on this forum who owns his own business... What would your reaction be if the you were forced by law to provide services to a client who was going to cost you far more than you would ever make from him? Would you just nod your head and "Okay"?

[foodserver]

I have asked this question before and no one on the Left would address it.

Why should an insurance be required to take on a client they know in advance is going to cause them to take a loss? That really is no different from forcing an insurance company to insure a driver with a long history of DUI convictions.

For anyone on this forum who owns his own business... What would your reaction be if the you were forced by law to provide services to a client who was going to cost you far more than you would ever make from him? Would you just nod your head and "Okay"?

It's actually worse than that.  Requiring them to do so removes the company's status as an "insurance" company or even a "company" for that matter.  It's more like a quasi governmental "cut-out" for when things go south.  It will always be not the government or the policy but those evil bastards operating the "insurance" "company." It will be the real estate meltdown all over again.  Government will run the show by co-opting the last remnants of free enterprise and when the wheels come off blame them rather than their own regulation.

The reason you're hearing an echo instead of an answer is that part of your question I've boldfaced.  dagon will try to lie and say he owns several businesses, IM2 probably thinks he actually owns a business.  He'll point to his business card and job title as proof--and John knows better than to even try.  Taking the responsibility of owning a business is generally beneath the considerable intellectual prowess routinely claimed by most of the Leftists on this site. (most of these intellectual giants can't write for shit but then, I may have already pointed that out a few times.  )

[johnhp]

It's actually worse than that.  Requiring them to do so removes the company's status as an "insurance" company or even a "company" for that matter.  It's more like a quasi governmental "cut-out" for when things go south.  It will always be not the government or the policy but those evil bastards operating the "insurance" "company." It will be the real estate meltdown all over again.  Government will run the show by co-opting the last remnants of free enterprise and when the wheels come off blame them rather than their own regulation.

The reason you're hearing an echo instead of an answer is that part of your question I've boldfaced.  dagon will try to lie and say he owns several businesses, IM2 probably thinks he actually owns a business.  He'll point to his business card and job title as proof--and John knows better than to even try.  Taking the responsibility of owning a business is generally beneath the considerable intellectual prowess routinely claimed by most of the Leftists on this site. (most of these intellectual giants can't write for shit but then, I may have already pointed that out a few times.  )

Are they slaves Foodserver?

[johnhp]

I have asked this question before and no one on the Left would address it.

Why should an insurance be required to take on a client they know in advance is going to cause them to take a loss? That really is no different from forcing an insurance company to insure a driver with a long history of DUI convictions.

For anyone on this forum who owns his own business... What would your reaction be if the you were forced by law to provide services to a client who was going to cost you far more than you would ever make from him? Would you just nod your head and "Okay"?

i will say it right here: i do not think they should be forced to take such a client.  The idea of privately funded insurance is repugnant.  We need a single payer approach to the payment for medical care.  That way we can be done with this issue.