Notorious Will Pitt Turns Angrily Against Obamacare

[boomerang]

He was all for it before he found out what it actually meant for him. His wife, who has MS is covered! But her medications, not so much. In fact, not at all. Life-saving medication too. It's just the price one has to pay to insure the uninsured.

Notorious Will Pitt Turns Angrily Against Obamacare

His initial experience was all happy, happy, happy.

Well, I just had my first experience with the Healthcare.gov website...
Creating a user name and account: easy.
Plowing through all the questions: easy.
Alas, I logged out to track down some personal info, and when I tried to log back in, it said the system was currently down.
...but then, Ermahgerd! A phone number: 800-318-2596
And it's toll-free, too!
So I'll be calling in the morning to finish the process.
No. Big. Deal.
Thanks, Obama.

The follow up didn't go so well...

What I've learned after a three-month war with these fiends: the ACA says the insurance companies cannot deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, which is true as far as it goes. But they can deny coverage for the life-saving medications necessary to treat those conditions. The insurance company I signed up with through the ACA exchange just denied coverage of my wife's multiple sclerosis medication. We're "covered," to the tune of $700 a month...just not for what she really needs.
A cozy loophole, that.
F--- you, insurance industry.
F--- you, Mr. President, you piece of sh*t used-car salesman.
From my heart and soul, f--- you.

It's been said that the devil is in the details.

 

[momeNt]

Regulation like the ACA makes for really interesting competitive game theory. With a regulatory floor established, what incentive is there to compete to provide better services? Time will tell.

 

[glenn1]

He was all for it before he found out what it actually meant for him. His wife, who has MS is covered! But her medications, not so much. In fact, not at all. Life-saving medication too. It's just the price one has to pay to insure the uninsured.

Notorious Will Pitt Turns Angrily Against Obamacare

His initial experience was all happy, happy, happy.

The follow up didn't go so well...


It's been said that the devil is in the details.

Poor dumb gullible sap. Hell hath no fury like someone hoping for a taxpayer handout scorned, especially when they figure out they're paying more so that someone else can get the handout instead.

I'm imagining the scene from Animal House where Otter says "You fucked up! You trusted us!"

 

[brycejones]

So he is pissed he didn't review the drug coverage and drug formulary used under his policy before signing up?

Sorry outrage at ACA not found.

 

[Zaap]

Poor dumb gullible sap. Hell hath no fury like someone hoping for a taxpayer handout scorned, especially when they figure out they're paying more so that someone else can get the handout instead.

I'm imagining the scene from Animal House where Otter says "You fucked up! You trusted us!"

It reminds me of a dog chasing its tail.

The politics of "someone else is going to pay for this!" always counts on people never realizing THEY ARE the 'someone else'.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

There are ten different health insurance companies in NH. According to the independent (family friend, ally) insurance adjuster I spoke to at length this afternoon, pursuing coverage with any of them would be a waste of time. Why? Because - according to dude - the whole "You cannot deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions" thing only applies to insurance companies within the ACA network. You heard all that shit about "Grandfathering." Well, this is that, and all of them will turn us down because they still can.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024685964#post8

 

[fskimospy]

So he is pissed he didn't review the drug coverage and drug formulary used under his policy before signing up?

Sorry outrage at ACA not found.

If your wife has MS and you don't check to see if your insurance plan covers her drug needs, well... Uhmm... Ok? This is something a lot of people might not think about though, which raises the important need to help people shop for their insurance.

 

[PokerGuy]

Just about everyone is going to find out in time just how badly we screwed up by allowing this disaster, but alas, now it's too late and we're just stuck with it. The best we can hope for is that the people remember who brought them this disaster and punish his party appropriately at the polls.

 

[werepossum]

He was all for it before he found out what it actually meant for him. His wife, who has MS is covered! But her medications, not so much. In fact, not at all. Life-saving medication too. It's just the price one has to pay to insure the uninsured.

Notorious Will Pitt Turns Angrily Against Obamacare

His initial experience was all happy, happy, happy.

The follow up didn't go so well...

It's been said that the devil is in the details.

He didn't realize that it isn't just Grandma who's going to be given painkillers and an expiration date instead of needed medication. That's the thing about health care paid for by someone else, we're all someone else to other people.

Regulation like the ACA makes for really interesting competitive game theory. With a regulatory floor established, what incentive is there to compete to provide better services? Time will tell.

If the regulations ever stop changing, wouldn't the same dynamic take over? Health care hasn't been unregulated for a long time, so insurance companies are used to competing within a regulatory framework. Even more so than health insurance being nationalized, the turds in the punchbowl at the moment are the non-functional web site and the weekly regulatory changes. If Obama intends to someday provide some measure of deniabilty that he is intentionally destroying the health insurance industry, the regulatory environment must settle down to at least somewhat tolerable levels. At that point it should be business as usual, just at inflated rates.

Poor dumb gullible sap. Hell hath no fury like someone hoping for a taxpayer handout scorned, especially when they figure out they're paying more so that someone else can get the handout instead.

I'm imagining the scene from Animal House where Otter says "You fucked up! You trusted us!"

LOL +1

 

[boomerang]

He didn't realize that it isn't just Grandma who's going to be given painkillers and an expiration date instead of needed medication. That's the thing about health care paid for by someone else, we're all someone else to other people.

The IPAB may eventually become more feared than the IRS and that would be quite an accomplishment.

 

[unokitty]

The follow up didn't go so well...

Some of the most expensive thing in my life have been free...

Uno

 

[werepossum]

The IPAB may eventually become more feared than the IRS and that would be quite an accomplishment.

Could be, although don't forget that the IRS now has a great deal of new control over your life thanks to Obamacare. They won't give up the title without a fight.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

If he likes the ACA, he'll love a Republican health care system plan! Under one of the Republican plans (or lack of a plan) his wife would have her health coverage rescinded by a private insurance company's death panel.

 

[himkhan]

Yaodt

 

[Stewox]

Saying it like it is. Priceless.

 

[shira]

I'm a little confused:

Were the medications for Pitt's wife's condition covered BEFORE he signed up for an ACA policy? Was his wife's condition covered at all, independent of drug coverage?

From the lack of specifics, I can conclude only that Pitt's AHEAD of where he was pre-ACA. Yet he's complaining?

Furthermore, right under his post we find:

So far my med. bills have been astronomical for specialists, diagnostics and major surgery, but most have been paid by insurance. Without ACA my pre-existing condition would make me ineligible for any insurance, and right now I'd be broke and would be looking at selling my condo---this after a lifetime of work and nearing retirement age.

So I thank Pres. Obama from the bottom of my heart. Just remember he tried to do more but was blocked and compromised by the repukes, who are still trying to end O-care. Direct your anger where it needs to go---against the repugs

 

[boomerang]

Furthermore, right under his post we find:

So far my med. bills have been astronomical for specialists, diagnostics and major surgery, but most have been paid by insurance. Without ACA my pre-existing condition would make me ineligible for any insurance, and right now I'd be broke and would be looking at selling my condo---this after a lifetime of work and nearing retirement age. So I thank Pres. Obama from the bottom of my heart. Just remember he tried to do more but was blocked and compromised by the repukes, who are still trying to end O-care. Direct your anger where it needs to go---against the repugs

Where did you find this? I don't see this at the link I provided in the first post. Further, Mr. Pitt's wife has the condition and the use of "my" is possessive. Let's see the link where Mr. Pitt says this or you're just making things up.

 

[SearchMaster]

Two of my children have prescriptions that were listed on the ACA insurance application. Once we started on the new policy, the prescriptions were denied and we (and the doctors) were instructed to use less expensive versions of the medication. We've already tried the less expensive versions and they didn't work or had unacceptable side effects. After much back-and-forth, we were given a three month exemption. Yes, we get to fight this battle every 90 days

I actually don't blame the ACA in principle, but I do think a lot of what the ACA was attempting to prevent is happening with much higher frequency than before. Our pharmacist commented that the price of several medications have risen 500% in the last year since the implementation of ACA, for no justifiable reason.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm a little confused:

Were the medications for Pitt's wife's condition covered BEFORE he signed up for an ACA policy? Was his wife's condition covered at all, independent of drug coverage?

From the lack of specifics, I can conclude only that Pitt's AHEAD of where he was pre-ACA. Yet he's complaining?

Furthermore, right under his post we find:

This. Pitt must have spent his life in a bubble if he doesn't understand that health insurance companies impose restrictions on which drugs they will and will not cover. Each insurance company has its approved formulary detailing its approved medications. They often have at least two tiers of medications, with patients and doctors steered to the preferred tier first (typically generics and drugs where they've negotiated a deal with the manufacturer). Their second-tier drugs carry higher co-pays and may require the doctor to show the preferred alternative has not worked for the patient. The insurance companies will either not pay at all for other medications not on the formulary, or may pay something if the patient and doctor appeal and can prove special circumstances.

The point that Pitt (and his new-found fan-boys) won't grasp is that this has been standard health insurance practice for at least decades, if not forever. It has zero to do with Obama or the ACA. The ACA is NOT dictating each insurance company's formulary.

Often that's no big deal. For example, the insurance company will tell patients as soon as big brand-name drugs (i.e., expensive) fall off patents and generics become available. That will save money for both the patient and the insurance company. In other cases, however, it compromises quality of care by pushing patients to suboptimal alternatives. The point remains that this is standard practice in the health insurance industry and has nothing to do with Obamacare. It's one of the many ways our health care system is broken and has been broken for a very long time.

It sucks for Pitt and his wife that his insurance company doesn't want to pay for a medication that was helping her. Pitt should focus his anger on that insurance company, however, because that's where his problem lies. And, as others point out, maybe Pitt should accept a little accountability for not doing his homework before signing with that insurance company. Formularies are available to review in advance. Ranting against the ACA is an empty waste of energy and lets the real culprit off the hook.

 

[sportage]

Whats the earth shattering big diff with this scenario and the previous statuesque of drug coverage?
GW had a drug overhaul that brought us that infamous donut hole.
And run away increasing drug cost.
Along with his busted budget financial disaster.
Remember GW? Anyone? Anyone?
Hint... he WAS a republican.
Anyone? Anyone?

And for those going into medicare, any half brained idiot will tell you to first check your PART-D coverage options/providers BEFORE signing on that dotted line, as to concerning your particular medication needs.

Obamacare? The GW donut hole?
Obviously, doing it the republican way, and mind you Obamacare "is" doing it the republican way, obviously is the no way of doing it.

Solution?
We all know the solution.
Canada knew the solution.
Universal healthcare.

So lets just not 'fix" Obamacare, lets do it up right.
Vote in a majority of democrats in both houses, a hefty majority, and lets get the people real universal healthcare once and for all. And I mean "for all".
Because without that happening, whether it be the old pre-Obamacare way or the new Obamacare way, healthcare for profit is not the way.
And both systems are exactly that, the same-o same-o healthcare for profit dead end failure.
There is absolutely no way everyone can be or will expect to be happy with either that old, or this new way of healthcare because both are republican based systems.
And a proven total failure with never achieving their goal.

There is no magic fairy. There is no pot of gold under the rainbow.
Not until we get the republicans out of out way, and put democrats in, and then go after national universal healthcare for each and every US citizen.
That would be the easy way. The only way.
Haven't people had enough already with trying it the hard way?
That republican way?
Which is never going to work, has never worked in the past, with providing American citizens with complete and total healthcare/drug coverage.

Until democrats get their chance to do it the right way, don't cry fowl just because the republican way keeps us stagnated with failure.

 

[SaurusX]

Until democrats get their chance to do it the right way, don't cry fowl just because the republican way keeps us stagnated with failure.

The democrats had their chance and they blew it. They could have passed whatever their heart desired and we got the ACA as a result. Republican votes didn't mean squat and the dems didn't need a single one to get their dream legislation passed. Now you want a second go at it? Fat chance.

 

[werepossum]

I'm a little confused:

Were the medications for Pitt's wife's condition covered BEFORE he signed up for an ACA policy? Was his wife's condition covered at all, independent of drug coverage?

From the lack of specifics, I can conclude only that Pitt's AHEAD of where he was pre-ACA. Yet he's complaining?

Furthermore, right under his post we find:

He's gone from promoting Obamacare to being a raging opponent of it and you can only conclude that he's better off under it?

Man, I hope CSI can make use of your truly amazing deductive skills.

Where did you find this? I don't see this at the link I provided in the first post. Further, Mr. Pitt's wife has the condition and the use of "my" is possessive. Let's see the link where Mr. Pitt says this or you're just making things up.

Methinks without looking that Shira is quoting someone commenting on Pitt's post. Setting aside that proggies will rabidly defend it regardless, everyone knows that in any massive government restructuring there will be winners and losers. Mr. Pitt (whomever he is) happens to be a loser with this particular massive government restructuring, whereas the commenter appears to be a winner.

Two of my children have prescriptions that were listed on the ACA insurance application. Once we started on the new policy, the prescriptions were denied and we (and the doctors) were instructed to use less expensive versions of the medication. We've already tried the less expensive versions and they didn't work or had unacceptable side effects. After much back-and-forth, we were given a three month exemption. Yes, we get to fight this battle every 90 days

I actually don't blame the ACA in principle, but I do think a lot of what the ACA was attempting to prevent is happening with much higher frequency than before. Our pharmacist commented that the price of several medications have risen 500% in the last year since the implementation of ACA, for no justifiable reason.

In glorious new Amerika, comrade, everyone has right to second rate medicine. Of course, some animals must always be more equal than others, so the elite will continue to qualify for first rate treatment. As far as medications' costs skyrocketing, among corporations even more so than among individuals there will be winners and losers.

 

[zinfamous]

He's gone from promoting Obamacare to being a raging opponent of it and you can only conclude that he's better off under it?

Man, I hope CSI can make use of your truly amazing deductive skills.

the argument I am reading, based on that comment, is that he was a fan of ACA because prior to that, he/his wife had no access to healthcare.

so, yeah understandable.

Now that he has access to it, he sees that it's as frustrating/infuriating as much of the healthcare we have always had, so, angry!

I mean, it makes sense, doesn't it? Point being, having access now and actually getting payment for doctors is still a net benefit...as shitty as much of it seems to be for the guy, not getting payment for necessary meds. Assuming all of that above is true, how is he not better off under ACA, technically speaking?

 

[werepossum]

the argument I am reading, based on that comment, is that he was a fan of ACA because prior to that, he/his wife had no access to healthcare.

so, yeah understandable.

Now that he has access to it, he sees that it's as frustrating/infuriating as much of the healthcare we have always had, so, angry!

I mean, it makes sense, doesn't it? Point being, having access now and actually getting payment for doctors is still a net benefit...as shitty as much of it seems to be for the guy, not getting payment for necessary meds. Assuming all of that above is true, how is he not better off under ACA, technically speaking?

Could be, but it doesn't read that way to me. He said "my wife's medication" as though this is a medication she regularly takes, not "the medication a doctor prescribed for my wife" as though she needs it but has not yet begin taking it because they can't afford it. Also, this guy is evidently something of a big deal (not that I had a clue who he is) and has been associated with Truth-out.org for years; I find it hard to believe that he did not have health insurance, let alone access to health care. At the very least, he certainly had health insurance when he was a teacher and I find it hard to believe that he would leave that to be a political agitator if that meant his wife would not get the life saving medication she needs to survive MS. And note that he is not railing against the system, but specifically against Obamacare and Obama.

Beyond all that, does he sound like a guy who is better off? Sounds to me more like a guy who, like so many of us, discovered that Obamacare is more money for worse coverage. If like me Obamacare ended his previous coverage, then he would certainly be more angry than if he had nothing and just didn't get as much as he wanted.

 

[boomerang]

Progz are truly amazing. Absent any information to support their viewpoint, they manufacture information based on assumptions. Then, they declare them to be the bare knuckled truth.

"Based upon my assumption of that, this must therefore be true. There you go, all wrapped up neat and tidy and you, btw are wrong." Riiiight.