Affordable Care Act (ACA) - Obamacare

Don't be fooled by another 'Obamacare horror story' - Yahoo Finance

Here's another Affordable Care Act horror story that's, well, too bad to be true. It’s centers on the plight of a woman from Lawrenceburg, Tenn. whose $57-a-month plan was canceled because it didn’t meet the standards of the new law, thus "forcing" her into a $373-a-month Platinum plan purchased through HealthCare.gov.

The woman, Emilie Lamb, 39, was so outraged that she told her story in this video from Americans for Prosperity and again in this op-ed from the New York Post. And she was a guest of her Congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, at the State of the Union Address last month. (Blackburn’s office was kind enough to pass along to Lamb my request to speak to her, but I never heard from her.)

Lamb suffers from lupus, a chronic inflammatory autoimmune illness that requires lifelong monitoring and treatment. Her old plan, she wrote,“was perfect for someone with my unique medical condition and limited financial means.” But the experts I spoke with say Lamb is lucky she didn’t land in bankruptcy court before her old health plan was consigned to well-deserved oblivion. Here’s why.

Her old health plan, CoverTN, may have been a well-intentioned effort by the state of Tennesee to provide minimal coverage for lower-income working people. But the most it would pay out for health care in a single year was $25,000. That’s barely enough for an uncomplicated pregnancy, and totally inadequate for a serious, unpredictable illness such as lupus that can require expensive treatments.

“Lupus is a highly variable disease,” Gary Gilkeson, M.D., a professor of medicine and lupus specialist at the Medical University of South Carolina, said. “There certainly are patients that do well on low-cost generic medications, but about 50 or 60 percent will end up needing immunosuppressants.” If lower-cost varieties don’t work, he said, “they go on to the biologics like Benlysta, which is around $50,000 a year, or Rituxan, which is about $60,000 a year.”

In addition, having lupus greatly increases a person’s risk of developing cancer, kidney failure, or heart disease, all of which can have six-figure treatment costs—well above the $25,000 limit of Lamb's old plan. Luckily, Lamb hasn't yet needed any of these expensive drugs or treatments. But there's a very good chance that she will.

Under her old plan, they would not have been covered. Under her new plan, they will be. I used HealthCare.gov’s window-shopping feature to identify what she purchased: a Platinum plan with a $1,500 out-of-pocket limit. (Here’s the Summary of Benefits and Coverage for it.) There is no deductible, 25 percent coinsurance for pretty much all services, and, most critically, no upper limit on what the plan will pay out for medical care. So if she ever has a complication of her disease, or needs one of those expensive drugs, the most she’ll have to pay out of pocket in a year is $1,500. The insurance company will pick up the rest of the tab, no matter how costly.

In other words, she now has real health insurance, not junk. The only "horror story" here was the insurance she used to have.

And remember, before the new health law went into effect, having a serious pre-existing condition such as lupus would have made it impossible for Lamb to be accepted for private health insurance at any price. But when she went to buy her new plan, she wasn’t asked a single question about her health history, because it is now officially a non-issue.
 
We Do Not Get to Have Nice Things: The French Healthcare Edition
We Do Not Get to Have Nice Things: The French Healthcare Edition | Mike the Mad Biologist

What I’ve never understood about the entire healthcare debate is the need to invent completely new plans. My take on this is ultimately pragmatic: find a system that provides universal coverage and good healthcare and institute it. Much of Europe–including the dreaded French–have very good healthcare. Translate the damn documentation, slap a big ol’ U.S. of A. flag on it, and you have some healthcare. If other countries can do that, it’s not impossible, or even impractical.
 
My daughter's been looking for a job for a while now, everything seems to be in the $10 per hour rate or less sometimes. These jobs keep the hours down and don't pay benefits. What can people do that make that kind of money, and perhaps have a kid, to be able to afford some kind of health care? How many "grownups" have had to move back in with their parents? I personally don't have a clue as to how to fix something like this that has been so fucked up for so long.
 
Last edited:
Golly gee another story where a patient gets something for nothing.

So what's the REAL story? Who pays for health insurance when the "premiums" don't even cover the cost of a patients health care.

The tax payers of course.

Let's not kid ourselves here folks Obama care is just another government hand out!.

Jim
 
The answer KW. Tell her to get a damn good education and investment worth a life time of handouts!

Both she and I know this doc. She works part time and is studying law at the local college. I pick up her med.. As a single parent she's been with me all her life and is a staunch anti-federalist. :)
 

Many in Europe would disagree their health care is "good".

Part of the problem is the attitude of the citizenry in the US. They are very impatient and to enact a system of long waits for "elective" surgery and LIMITING advanced care for the elderly etc, just WON'T cut it.

Nope the people in the US want it FREE, FAST, and DELIVERED in an UNLIMITED MANNER. Now it should be clear WHY universal health care has not been instituted in this country, because "how we want it" is just to expensive and because "how they have it" is insufficient!

Here allow me to give you some examples of how costs are controlled OVER THERE! First an 80 with long standing DM, who develops RF does NOT qualify for hemodialyis nope they get PD! (Cost savings an easy 50k annually)

Or how about that 70 year old male with multiple medical problems whom MAY benefit from bypass surgery? Over there it wont happen, while in the US it UNFORTUNATELY probably will.

Another the average length a patient has to wait to have "elective GB surgery" 2-3 YEARS over there. In the US if you are admitted only twice the surgery will likely be performed "emergently".

So how exactly to they provide ALL THAT CARE for so little? They don't!

Ya see since roughly 90% of health care dollars are spent IN THE HOSPITAL, they limit hospital based services. ASK anyone OVER THERE!

JIM
 
Hey if you don't believe my last post, then explain WHY so many Canadians come to the US for their HEALTH CARE!!! (And believe me, many of the French and English would be doing the same Canadian tap dance if it didn't mandate a transoceanic visit)

jim
 
What a touching story Mad Mike the biologist,

Now if the world of scientific study and the application of "universal" health care to a population of 300k was as simple as a single anecdote we could all live in the land of Oz.

Obama care propaganda is it any better than those inflated stories from the right about those who have "lost insurance". NOT!

Nope Mike is like many on the right and the left, to overcome by the wins or losses of the messenger, to concern themselves with the message, or to acknowledge it's failings or successes.

JIM
 
Hey if you don't believe my last post, then explain WHY so many Canadians come to the US for their HEALTH CARE!!! (And believe me, many of the French and English would be doing the same Canadian tap dance if it didn't mandate a transoceanic visit)

jim
This is very true, I know a bunch of em that come to the U.S for their health care from Canada because they want to live!
 
Now Azazal that's RIGHT WING propaganda, define "a bunch" [:o)]

well, out of my 3k or so clients, around 250 are dual citizen U.S./Canada and much prefer coming to the U.S. for anything beyond a normal doc visit, on the flip side of that coin around 1k of my U.S. clients go to Canada for their prescription drugs because they are about half the cost.
 
Now for some more realistic news about the French health care system.

Just remember where Mad Mike dad received his care....... PARIS ....... read on, to get the rest of the story ........

Oh yea hold on to your pocket book if you want this "graduated tax system" instituted in the US.

Yea it's one anecdote BUT so was Mikes, yet this guy HAS NO AGENDA!
 

Attachments

Ah more right wing propaganda! I need contact numbers for ALL of those "cheaper" and more accessible US agencies. [:o)]
 
Oh yea one may also want to take note, since essentially NO litigation is allowed by statute within the French system. (Understand since the system is almost entirely taxpayer funded, it wouldn't make since for taxpayers to sue themselves would it?)
Happens all the time in the US, lol)

I've NO DOUBT that significantly reduces the cost of their system. Now go tell US patients they CAN'T SUE, the doctors or the hospital if something goes wrong AND it's their fault!

That is one of many attitudinal changes which must occur before the US to adopts a truly universal form of health care, AND now the lawyers enter the picture........health care without lawsuits, BULLSHIT!

Well then "we don't need that type of health care". Why "what's wrong with the health care we (I) have anyway"? LMAO
 
The Cato Institute loses again
The Cato Institute loses again | The Incidental Economist

Judge Spencer (ED-VA) issued his opinion late yesterday in King v. Sebelius, the second case on whether the ACA’s tax credits are legal in states with federally-facilitated exchanges. The court granted the US government’s motion to dismiss, which will send the case on to the Fourth Circuit. As Austin explained yesterday, briefs were just filed in the parallel case Halbig v. Sebelius before the District of Columbia Circuit.*

These cases are the mastermind of the Cato Institute. The core idea is that Democrats in Congress and President Obama intended to punish moderately poor people in any state that did not create a state exchange. It is a preposterous idea, based entirely on a drafting ambiguity (in 26 USC 36B) that would have been fixed by a bipartisan technical correction in any normal tax bill. But the ACA is no ordinary bill. It has become the forum for gladiatorial combat in the courts.

The biggest problem with Cato’s argument is federalism. If Congress wanted to threaten states in such a dramatic fashion (build state exchanges or suffer the consequences), then Congress must give “clear notice” so the states see the choice clearly. This is the Arlington rule, an opinion by Justice Alito joined by the other 4 conservative justices.
 
Back
Top