Another ACA victory......not

[JustRalph]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/parents-of-4-year-old-with-cancer-cant-buy-aca-plan-to-cover-her-hospital-care/2017/11/15/a3ba6fb6-c56d-11e7-aae0-cb18a8c29c65_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_acafamily-440p-rhp%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.41922af89faa

[FantasticDan]

Did you even read the article? It's about how the GOP's repeated attacks on the ACA have left a very uncertain and compromised marketplace, and how that's affecting people who desperately need insurance..

I guess maybe your point is how much a comprehensive single payer system is needed? :ThmbUp:

[JustRalph]

Did you even read the article? It's about how the GOP's repeated attacks on the ACA have left a very uncertain and compromised marketplace, and how that's affecting people who desperately need insurance..

I guess maybe your point is how much a comprehensive single payer system is needed? :ThmbUp:

I read it. I’m an equal opportunity blamer :lol:

There’s no getting around how horrible this Law is.......

It just keeps getting worse and worse.........and caught in the middle is a 4 yr old......:bang:

[mostpost]

I read it. I’m an equal opportunity blamer :lol:

There’s no getting around how horrible this Law is.......

It just keeps getting worse and worse.........and caught in the middle is a 4 yr old......:bang:

Explain to me precisely which part of the Affordable Care Act prohibits Cigna from covering Inova Fairfax Hospital. That was a decision that was made by the insurance company based on one thing-profits.

When you are done with that; explain what situation the Briggs family would be in had Obamacare never been passed. Would they have had insurance at all. Apparently Mr. Briggs does not have an employer who offers health insurance-or maybe he is self employed. If Obamacare had never been passed, the Briggs family would never have had access to the premium subsidies the ACA provides. They may not have had insurance at all.

Once again we find that the fault lies not in the law itself but in Republican attempts to sabotage that law. Attempts which now may cost a four year old girl her life.

[mostpost]

Applications covering 42% more people have been submitted this year than in the same period last year.

47% more people have selected plans than selected plans over the same time frame last year.

And, most significantly, new consumers this year are 40% higher.

Al this in spite of the fact that the Trump administration cut advertising and informational spending by 90%.

[JustRalph]

Explain to me precisely which part of the Affordable Care Act prohibits Cigna from covering Inova Fairfax Hospital. That was a decision that was made by the insurance company based on one thing-profits.

When you are done with that; explain what situation the Briggs family would be in had Obamacare never been passed. Would they have had insurance at all. Apparently Mr. Briggs does not have an employer who offers health insurance-or maybe he is self employed. If Obamacare had never been passed, the Briggs family would never have had access to the premium subsidies the ACA provides. They may not have had insurance at all.

Once again we find that the fault lies not in the law itself but in Republican attempts to sabotage that law. Attempts which now may cost a four year old girl her life.

Yeah....... those damn profits always seem to get in the way.

[dkithore]

Explain to me precisely which part of the Affordable Care Act prohibits Cigna from covering Inova Fairfax Hospital. That was a decision that was made by the insurance company based on one thing-profits.

When you are done with that; explain what situation the Briggs family would be in had Obamacare never been passed. Would they have had insurance at all. Apparently Mr. Briggs does not have an employer who offers health insurance-or maybe he is self employed. If Obamacare had never been passed, the Briggs family would never have had access to the premium subsidies the ACA provides. They may not have had insurance at all.

Once again we find that the fault lies not in the law itself but in Republican attempts to sabotage that law. Attempts which now may cost a four year old girl her life.

From same article, what you did not read:

"Warner spokesman Kevin Hall said the senator’s office reached out to Cigna this month and received assurance that it would try to work with the Briggs family."

So, do not need to be fear mongering and blaming Trump simply because you dislike him. Have you heard of corporate greed?

[Tom]

ACA = corporate insurance delight!

[Clocker]

Applications covering 42% more people have been submitted this year than in the same period last year.

47% more people have selected plans than selected plans over the same time frame last year.

And, most significantly, new consumers this year are 40% higher.

Al this in spite of the fact that the Trump administration cut advertising and informational spending by 90%.

How many of those people are getting government subsidies? How many are buying insurance that they don't want or need because of a legal mandate? How many are getting insurance that they will soon discover that they can't afford to use because of extremely high co-pays and deductibles?

[Parkview_Pirate]

How many of those people are getting government subsidies? How many are buying insurance that they don't want or need because of a legal mandate? How many are getting insurance that they will soon discover that they can't afford to use because of extremely high co-pays and deductibles?

Mostie won't even post details on his sources, knowing full well they're generated for propaganda purposes only. The ACA's proponents keep hanging their hat on the idealized view of "more people are covered", but we never get a comprehensive picture of the total cost. Part of that cost is a decline now in the quality of health care, which more than offsets the positives of more people on a plan.

The plan is working as designed, generating higher profits for the top 1%, generating more "revenue" in taxes, and allowing .gov greater control over our lives. And of course one of the best benefits of all - creating hundreds of thousands of low -level parasitic health care jobs to make the employment propaganda numbers look better.

His final Hail Mary pass is to give up his solo business and go back to working for someone else. He is in talks with a former client to hire him so he can buy employer-based insurance. The premiums under the coverage from his former client would be as much as $3,000 a month, he said, triple what he had paid Anthem.

It means giving up his independence, but the only thing that matters now, he says, is Colette.

With health care premiums now ranging easily from $1500 to $2000 a month for a working family of four, the middle class continues to bear the brunt of the side effects of the ACA. This story is typical, as more workers feel the squeeze, and have to make life choices around health care.

The squeeze will continue.

[Clocker]

Did you even read the article? It's about how the GOP's repeated attacks on the ACA have left a very uncertain and compromised marketplace, and how that's affecting people who desperately need insurance..



The article is factually wrong on that.

The family's distress is an extreme example of the pressures facing health care consumers this year. The White House has threatened the Affordable Care Act's demise, changed rules and shortened the window to shop for insurance to Dec. 15. In responses, carriers have raised premiums and exited the individual marketplace in areas that might not be profitable.This is nothing new this year, it has been the trend for some time. It is not caused by Republican "attacks", but by the reaction of the real world to the original highly impractical and unworkable set of regulations.

From the start, the economics of ObamaCare drove insurance companies to place limits on care givers and to form networks of doctors, clinics and hospitals. Without those networks, ObamaCare premiums would have been even higher, starting years ago.

Here is a story in Politico, certainly not a right-wind source, discussing the problem of ObamaCare resulting in narrow networks in 2014. And if it was a big problem in 2014, it was building up for years before that. So contrary to the WaPo, this cannot be blamed on the Trump White House.

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-health-care-networks-premiums-109195

[Clocker]

This article ignores another unintended consequence of ObamaCare. Before the ACA, a family like this would probably have gotten affordable, and usable, insurance from a state-run high risk pool. Since ObamaCare required insurers to provide coverage to those high-risk patients, the pools were deemed to be no longer needed and the programs ended.

High-risk pool insurance did not have networks.

Current Republican discussions about abolishing ObamaCare include reestablishment of high-risk pools at the state or federal level to cover people like this family.

[Clocker]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/parents-of-4-year-old-with-cancer-cant-buy-aca-plan-to-cover-her-hospital-care/2017/11/15/a3ba6fb6-c56d-11e7-aae0-cb18a8c29c65_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_acafamily-440p-rhp%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.41922af89faa

I could not access the link because the greedy Washington Post has a pay wall. Despite their grand new motto "Democracy Dies in Darkness", they want to keep a lot of us in the dark.

The article is also available here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/ct-obamacare-cancer-coverage-20171116-story.html

[upthecreek]

Mostie won't even post details on his sources, knowing full well they're generated for propaganda purposes only. The ACA's proponents keep hanging their hat on the idealized view of "more people are covered", but we never get a comprehensive picture of the total cost. Part of that cost is a decline now in the quality of health care, which more than offsets the positives of more people on a plan.

The plan is working as designed, generating higher profits for the top 1%, generating more "revenue" in taxes, and allowing .gov greater control over our lives. And of course one of the best benefits of all - creating hundreds of thousands of low -level parasitic health care jobs to make the employment propaganda numbers look better.



With health care premiums now ranging easily from $1500 to $2000 a month for a working family of four, the middle class continues to bear the brunt of the side effects of the ACA. This story is typical, as more workers feel the squeeze, and have to make life choices around health care.

The squeeze will continue.
I saw a story on CNBC about a self employed guy , family of 4, who was paying over $10,000 a year the last 2 years and he got his renewal for 2018 and it jumped to $21,000 and thats with a $5,000 ded. He said no way he's going to be able to afford to pay it.

[Parkview_Pirate]

I could not access the link because the greedy Washington Post has a pay wall. Despite their grand new motto "Democracy Dies in Darkness", they want to keep a lot of us in the dark.

The article is also available here:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/ct-obamacare-cancer-coverage-20171116-story.html

I applaud your efforts Clocker, but being kept in the dark is only a problem from the perspective that the government is actually there to help. If .gov wanted us to have better and more affordable health care, we'd have it. Their agenda is different, and on track.

And there is no help for the brainwashed proponents of the ACA. They suffer from a darkness of a different kind...

[Tom]

What is the matter with you people?
I have the RIGHT to have access to a Pap smear if I want one.

[chadk66]

What is the matter with you people?
I have the RIGHT to have access to a Pap smear if I want one.wouldn't that be a shit smear?

[davew]

What is the matter with you people?
I have the RIGHT to have access to a Pap smear if I want one.

Are you transitioning? (or reverse transitioning?)

[fast4522]

Are you transitioning? (or reverse transitioning?)

Same monkey shit you sling right?