Star of anti-Obamacare ad refuses to accept proof that ACA will save her money

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
The full cost is yet unknown, however there's a lot of dishonesty going around. For example those "young affluent" types include union workers with good coverage. This is one time both left and right stand against them.

We'll see how this all shakes out.

Lots of dishonesty, like your own. Having recently retired from a union job, I can say that the ACA affected our 2014 coverage not in the slightest, because it was already ACA compliant in 2013. Only slight rather esoteric changes were made to make it that way in 2012.

If union members "suffer" from reduced coverage, they'll also have lower monthly payments, too. Fully paid employer health insurance is a thing of a bygone era.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
So what you are saying is that republicans (as in the party itself) doesn't, nor have they ever put forth a solution in the last 20 years. What kind of solution did you think, only having one party doing the thinking, we would end up with? You can blame the doers or the do nothings but we got what we got because no one else came to the table with a solution.

The Repubs have plenty of HC proposals; they can't reach agreement on any though.

And I've not seen one from either party that I like.

Europe has price controls on HC procedures. That's one big reason their costs are cheaper.

We can't even get rates/prices published here.

Fern
 

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
Mar 14, 2011
3,622
0
0
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373429/war-julie-boonstra-henry-payne

The War on Julie Boonstra
. . . and other Obamacare cancer victims. By Henry Payne

Michigan is a crucial piece on the 2014 U.S. Senate chessboard, and Republicans have a good shot at gaining retiring Democrat Carl Levin’s open seat, given Democratic nominee Gary Peters’s unpopular House vote for the Affordable Care Act. Yet Peters has hope. The president’s unilateral delays in Obamacare mandates have eased planned layoffs by local governments and businesses. Moderate GOP governor Rick Snyder supports the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. And the state’s liberal news media have largely ignored the estimated 225,000-plus canceled individual policies and the job losses at medical-device maker Stryker.


But Julie Boonstra won’t be ignored. So she must be destroyed.


The Dexter, Mich., leukemia victim lost her coverage last fall and now stars in a devastating ad fingering Obamacare — and Peters — for her resulting distress. In an extraordinary media counterstrike, Boonstra, a schoolteacher, has come under assault from Democrats and their media allies decrying her as a liar and an ignoramus for failing to embrace her new, Obamacare-approved plan.


As with outspoken female Obamacare cancer victims in other states, the intent is to intimidate critics from coming forward. Senator Harry Reid’s outrageous Senate-floor claim that all Obamacare horror stories “are untrue” is the mantra of the Democrats’ scorched-earth campaign to elect Peters and preserve a Democratic Senate.
Boonstra’s ad, backed by Americans for Prosperity, says her policy was “canceled because of Obamacare” and that she fears her “out-of-pocket costs are so high they are unaffordable.” Health-care experts like the Manhattan Institute’s Yevgeniy Feyman say Boonstra “has legitimate concerns.”


“It comes down to uncertainty,” Feyman says. “Cancer treatment is a very personal decision. Her new treatment may not take into account out-of-pocket costs. If her drugs are off the formulary, then [an ACA-mandated cost cap on out-of-pocket drug costs] doesn’t apply.”


“If I do not receive my medication, I will die,” worries Boonstra, who was invited to the State of the Union address as the guest of Representative Tim Walberg (R., Mich.). “I believed the president when he said I could keep my health-insurance plan. I feel lied to. Congressman Peters, your decision to vote for Obamacare jeopardized my health.”


Peters and the media have come out swinging, claiming Boonstra is a right-wing Koch-brothers tool (the Kochs donate to AFP). Like their fellow Democrats in office, newsrooms have long been sympathetic to universal health care.


“No doubt that was a difficult experience,” patronized Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler before knocking Boonstra’s lack of enthusiasm for a lower-premium, higher-out-of-pocket-cost Blue Cross plan that Democrats insist is more affordable.
Michigan’s media piled on. The Detroit Free Press trumpeted Kessler’s claim that Boonstra was a liar deserving “two Pinocchios.” “A Dexter woman’s claims in a political ad criticizing U.S. Rep. Gary Peters don’t add up,” echoed MLive.com (a consortium of Booth newspapers in the state), faulting Boonstra’s math skills.


These organizations have ignored the details of Boonstra’s plan — instead using numbers from Blue Cross (an advocate for Obamacare) numbers to attack her. Through AFP spokesman Scott Hagerstrom, Boonstra communicated her concerns with her new plan.


Uncertainty dogs her — especially having been lied to once by the president. Where her canceled plan’s premiums once covered all her costs, she now must plan for out-of-pocket expenses. Those expenses are capped but will double to $10,200 if she goes out of her network — a not-uncommon need for cancer patients, whose treatment often changes — for a doctor or tests. Of her five cancer drugs, she has already discovered that one (Loratadine) is not covered. Detroit News columnist Dan Calabrese also unearthed the fact that glaucoma and “long-term care and nursing care are not covered.”


“She has been bedridden, had to sell her house, give up her teaching career,” says Hagerstrom. “She liked her insurance and now has to relive the uncertainty of five years ago.”


Rather than meeting with his constituent to hear her concerns, Peters tried to intimidate local news stations into pulling the ad, effectively silencing Boonstra. “Failure to prevent the airing of ‘false and misleading advertising’ can be cause for the loss of a station’s license,” wrote Peters through his legal counsel. Subtle as a club.
Peters’s threats received little Michigan media attention. Neither did Boonstra’s failed attempt to contact Peters. Michigan media has internalized Reid’s mantra.


But Boonstra has not backed down. The leukemia victim wrote a letter this week to the Detroit News explaining the complexities of her situation.


“[My critics] choose to ignore the problems inherent with high out-of-pocket limits and prescriptions that aren’t covered for a person like me,” wrote Boonstra. “My new plan could mean wildly fluctuating and front-loaded costs in the first few months of the year. I chose my old plan — the one that Obamacare canceled — specifically so I could budget for the same monthly costs with certainty.”


The Boonstra attacks are not an isolated event. Cancer victim Edie Sundby was attacked by California Democrats and the Los Angeles Times when she wrote an op-ed critical of Obamacare in the Wall Street Journal. Democrats and their Spokane Review parrots thrashed Bette Grenier when she too dared question the ACA. And cancer victim Catherine Blackwood. And so on.


How many patients will be intimidated by such tactics? How many will persevere like Boonstra? It’s only March. Democrats are just getting warmed up.


— Henry Payne is an editorial cartoonist and the auto critic for the Detroit News.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136

Gawd that's weak sauce. One only has to read the linked pieces & read the authors' bios to see that. The author's characterization of the linked LA times piece as an unwarranted attack is particularly egregious. The author depends on the reader going no further than his narrative to spread the usual FUD.

The one thing any observant person will notice is that such claims never reveal the details of "victims" previous plans, making it seem like the ACA doesn't do things that their old plans did.

No nursing home or glaucoma coverage? did the old plan have that?

Out of network doctors not covered? What about the old plan?

Drugs? Same story.

Actual out of pocket monthly cost & deductibles? They never say, of course.

Sold her house? Why, if her old insurance was so great?

The feigned helplessness of Boonstra is amazing. Instead of doing her homework, contacting the carriers of the plans she had to choose from, she bugs her HOR rep as partisan maneuvering. First it was because ACA plans cost more, but now it's all about the uncertainty, which she does nothing constructive to resolve.

It's standard right wing simulated rationality. First, take a position not based on rationality at all. Next, try to justify it with whatever spin you can put on the facts, the ones ignored in formulating the position in the first place.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Everyone should read that absolutely vicious LA times attack.
It’s plain from reading the many interviews Sundby has given over the last few years about her illness and treatment that she’s a remarkable person. After she received her diagnosis in 2007, she took her treatment in hand, searching out doctors she thought right for her, fully participating in her therapeutic choices, and keeping physically and mentally fit. Any doctor would be lucky to have patients like her. Her survival for seven years is as close to a miracle as medical science can boast. She deserves our empathy.
Totally inappropriate and uncalled for.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Everyone should read that absolutely vicious LA times attack.

Totally inappropriate and uncalled for.

Yep. The Weekly Standard piece depends entirely on trust & faith among the well indoctrinated flock, on the reader wanting to believe the pitch in the first place.

Perhaps not so obvious to them, such trust would be misplaced.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The out of network cost and off-schedule drug costs are legitimate gripes. Two conclusions come to mind, the first being that the President lied to her for years about being able to keep her insurance. The second is that while she is claiming that her Obamacare insurance is unaffordable, it would be more accurate to say that her new insurance is cheaper, but under some circumstances might be more expensive, even unaffordable. That doesn't make a very good commercial. However, she also gets some security. Before Obamacare, if her insurance had been lost for whatever reason she would have been uninsurable in the private market. At worst, she roughly breaks even, and depending on how her life progresses might be a little worse off or a lot better off. I appreciate her aggravation at having what she chose ripped away from her, but she's not really one of the losers under Obamacare.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
On the other hand, the selections this remarkable woman made were overridden by people who had never met her.

That has not been shown to be true, merely that it could be true. Even if so, that does not mean her new choices are inferior, either.

Her selections were limited by her previous insurance, anyway, were they not?

Yeh, by people who had never met her, either. Funny that.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
That has not been shown to be true, merely that it could be true. Even if so, that does not mean her new choices are inferior, either.

Her selections were limited by her previous insurance, anyway, were they not?

Yeh, by people who had never met her, either. Funny that.
Selections meaning her preferred insurance plan, treatment, and doctor.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
When shit starts looking bad "It was a Republican plan all along"

There is a reason why Republicans never shoved that plan down the throats of America.

I'm not kidding. The idea was originated by the conservative Heritage Foundation and elected Republican Congressmen backed it. They wanted to introduce an alternative to Hillary Care so that they could save their wealthy insurance company CEO friends.

Republicans Had a PLan to Replace Obamacare. It looked a lot like Obamacare

Unpopular Mandate: Why Do Politicians Reverse Their Positions?

Forbes: The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate

Health Care Mandate Was First Backed by Conservatives
 
Last edited:

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I'm not kidding. The idea was originated by the conservative Heritage Foundation and elected Republican Congressmen backed it. They wanted to introduce an alternative to Hillary Care so that they could save their wealthy insurance company CEO friends.

Republicans Had a PLan to Replace Obamacare. It looked a lot like Obamacare

Unpopular Mandate: Why Do Politicians Reverse Their Positions?

Forbes: The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate

Health Care Mandate Was First Backed by Conservatives
Yes, yes, yes, we know all this. Progz aren't to blame, it all the evil Republicans. You've told us this over and over and over and over. We laughed at you each and every time.

This plays well with the crowd you hang with, I get that. But the rest of us easily recognize the desperation in the argument. If this kind of childish projection helps you come to grips with the mess you've created, fine. But I for one am going to call you out on it each time you post it.

Grow the fuck up - please!
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Selections meaning her preferred insurance plan, treatment, and doctor.

It has not been shown that her treatment or doctor has changed, or that they necessarily had to change under the ACA.

It also seems obvious that Sundby's former carrier withdrew from the individual market in CA for reasons other than the ACA, given that other carriers remained. It's a good excuse for a decision based on other factors, however. Afaik, United offered no reasons, nor are they required to do so. That was a "free market" feature of the CA system long before the ACA.

The fact that detractors of the ACA can only come up with a handful of sympathetic supposed "victims" nationwide should tell us about the veracity of their discontent, particularly given the shifting goalposts, false comparisons & lack of important factual detail in their tales of woe.

As I offered, people who want to believe their pitch probably will, regardless of the facts. In Boonstra's case, it follows AfP's highly effective propaganda formula entirely.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Yes, yes, yes, we know all this. Progz aren't to blame, it all the evil Republicans. You've told us this over and over and over and over. We laughed at you each and every time.

This plays well with the crowd you hang with, I get that. But the rest of us easily recognize the desperation in the argument. If this kind of childish projection helps you come to grips with the mess you've created, fine. But I for one am going to call you out on it each time you post it.

Grow the fuck up - please!

Which addresses the veracity of what was offered not in the slightest. Righties didn't laugh, they just jumped into the bunker o' denial & derision, head first. Because Obama, of course.

Repubs were either insincere when they offered up the individual mandate back then or insincere when they oppose it today, or both.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Which addresses the veracity of what was offered not in the slightest. Righties didn't laugh, they just jumped into the bunker o' denial & derision, head first. Because Obama, of course.

Repubs were either insincere when they offered up the individual mandate back then or insincere when they oppose it today, or both.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Will you blame Republicans when the Dem's lose control of the Senate? I fully expect you will. It's difficult if not impossible for those that deem themselves to be perfection personified to accept any blame for failures. Wasn't me! A sentiment heard in daycare's across the nation.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Will you blame Republicans when the Dem's lose control of the Senate? I fully expect you will. It's difficult if not impossible for those that deem themselves to be perfection personified to accept any blame for failures. Wasn't me! A sentiment heard in daycare's across the nation.

Duh-version & denial. Imagine me opening & closing my upraised hand like a duck's bill, accompanied by a wah-wah-wah sound.

The ACA is far from perfect, and nobody ever claimed that it was. OTOH, many millions of Americans will end up with coverage that was previously out of reach while the private insurance system remains largely intact. Painting that as a bad thing is pure partisan delusion, unsurprising given the bent of Repub leadership. When all this settles in and is seen as progress, Repubs will likely reverse their field again, point out that it was really their idea in the first place. They'll probably get away with it, too, given that their flock often has the attention span & reasoning power of flies fed on fermented fruit.

Dems losing control of the Senate looks a whole lot like Romney winning the election, at least from here. Pure wishful thinking of delusion. It's utterly OT, anyway.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Duh-version & denial. Imagine me opening & closing my upraised hand like a duck's bill, accompanied by a wah-wah-wah sound.

The ACA is far from perfect, and nobody ever claimed that it was. OTOH, many millions of Americans will end up with coverage that was previously out of reach while the private insurance system remains largely intact. Painting that as a bad thing is pure partisan delusion, unsurprising given the bent of Repub leadership. When all this settles in and is seen as progress, Repubs will likely reverse their field again, point out that it was really their idea in the first place. They'll probably get away with it, too, given that their flock often has the attention span & reasoning power of flies fed on fermented fruit.

Dems losing control of the Senate looks a whole lot like Romney winning the election, at least from here. Pure wishful thinking of delusion. It's utterly OT, anyway.

Yes ACA is so great that Obama delayed it dozens of times now so that his party wont be effected during elections. Why delay it? Because when the full impact is felt his party will be thrown out.

I fully expect more delays until after the presidential election.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Yes ACA is so great that Obama delayed it dozens of times now so that his party wont be effected during elections. Why delay it? Because when the full impact is felt his party will be thrown out.

I fully expect more delays until after the presidential election.

More wah-wah-wah.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
Yes ACA is so great that Obama delayed it dozens of times now so that his party wont be effected during elections. Why delay it? Because when the full impact is felt his party will be thrown out.

I fully expect more delays until after the presidential election.

You don't like this Republican idea so I have ask what would you do instead?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
"Shoved down throats"

Talking point. Drink!

Seriously, can you hacks at least PARAPHRASE your talking points!? It just comes across as super, super lazy.

That's because it's not a talking point. When all the polls in America show the people didn't want the ACA and congress ignores that, that's called having something shoved down your throat. Remember congress is there to represent us, not to decide what they think is best for us whether we like it or not.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
I'm not kidding. The idea was originated by the conservative Heritage Foundation and elected Republican Congressmen backed it. They wanted to introduce an alternative to Hillary Care so that they could save their wealthy insurance company CEO friends.

Republicans Had a PLan to Replace Obamacare. It looked a lot like Obamacare

Unpopular Mandate: Why Do Politicians Reverse Their Positions?

Forbes: The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate

Health Care Mandate Was First Backed by Conservatives

Couple things here. How many pages was the Republican plan vs. how many pages has the ACA grown to? Also, was the Republican plan to lie repeatedly to the American people about keeping their doctors and insurance to get this passed?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,180
10,476
136
Up here in Canada our health care is free (out of general taxation). My prescriptions are free, too, because I'm on a federal pension. We have the best health care system in the world and the U.S. has the worst (and this is coming from a U.S. staunch supporter).

I'm willing to bet our citizens are generally poorer than yours. Especially the 10s of millions of illegals who are explicitly exploited as cheap labor. Thus our taxes go into more basic support for them.

I'd be nice to have a breakdown of rural vs urban population for the two countries, as I imagine cost of living is quite different between us - but I've no idea which way that leans. Though I would assume we're more expensive.

That or we simply have a military budget.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,175
55,731
136
I'm willing to bet our citizens are generally poorer than yours. Especially the 10s of millions of illegals who are explicitly exploited as cheap labor. Thus our taxes go into more basic support for them.

I'd be nice to have a breakdown of rural vs urban population for the two countries, as I imagine cost of living is quite different between us - but I've no idea which way that leans. Though I would assume we're more expensive.

That or we simply have a military budget.

The best way to see what relative spending is is to look at what percentage of GDP we spend on health care.

The US's spending is much higher.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Government should just ban insurance outright. That would be the only way to radically change the cost structure that is so fucked up right now.
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,519
2
81
The ACA would have doubled my rates and quadrupled my deductible, dunno what you guys are smokin.

If you are under 30 and a male, your rates go up. Because now you have maternity coverage, congratulations. At double the monthly rate, my deductible would've been 4x. Glad I didn't have to deal with it. Its the unaffordable care act.



Not true - my yearly copay went up 3 dollars....and I'm a male under 30.