Without Obamacare, I would have died.

[schmuckley]

smells like:bullshit

 

[Victorian Gray]

smells like:bullshit

Well, you have the pertinent information needed to start an investigation. Use it to expose the slimy bastard.

He should have manned up and died.

 

[dphantom]

most likely, the insurer dropped coverage for one of two reasons:
1. The existing policy did not meet ACA minimum requirements
2. Dropping high risk insurees to reduce costs knowing the insuree could get subsidized coverage under ACA that would take care of his needs

If I was the insurer, I would do the same. I reduce my costs while knowing the insuree will get his needed coverage subsidized by taxpayers

 

[Sunburn74]

Without Obamacare, millions of people wouldn't have been forced to pay for his care and thus could afford to send their kids to college, get a new car for the first time in 16 years, and otherwise spend their own money the way they saw fit. The money didn't come from thin air or volunteer donation personally from progressives' pockets.

Why have any social services at all then? I'm starting to agree with you. It really should be every man, woman, elder, disabled, child, and indigent for themselves all for the sake of personally lowering my taxes.

 

[ivwshane]

Well, you have the pertinent information needed to start an investigation. Use it to expose the slimy bastard.

He should have manned up and died.

You are mistaking his reply, he wasn't saying the OP's story smelled like bullshit, he was simply stating that his surroundings, as in his house/room smells like bullshit. I guess he has Tourette's syndrome or something.

 

[Drako]

Posting in a Thanks Obama thread.

 

[Matt1970]

But in order to spot the joke, there actually has to be a joke.

I just spotted one

 

[Victorian Gray]

I just spotted one

I'll admit, I smiled.

 

[Matt1970]

I'll admit, I smiled.

Glad to bring a smile to your face.

 

[uclaLabrat]

I never knew spending 78% of your income on health insurance causes death.

You have to be insanely flexible after all these gymnastics!

The ACA has allowed my family and I to receive insurance while I was unemployed that wouldn't bankrupt my family. And I still rely on it now that I'm working, as my employer generally hires workers as temps for the first year.

 

[JEDIYoda]

it's pretty clear, they aren't really opposed to ACA itself, just that Obama brought it about. And, people like the Recchi family be damned by feeding them lies.

Here let me fix this for you --

it's very crystal clear, they aren't really opposed to ACA itself, just that Obama brought it about. And, people like the Recchi family be damned by feeding them lies.

 

[OverVolt]

People like him will make the insurance companies go bankrupt though. Then nobody will have insurance. Hooray.

 

[OverVolt]

Just your usual derogatory bullshit.

Presented with an example of how the ACA actually helps people, you bad mouth it.

It helps him and everyone else dies a death of a thousand premium rises.

You guys act like a liver transplant will save his life.

http://www.healthline.com/health-slideshow/liver-transplant

"75 percent of transplant patients live at least five years after surgery. Sometimes the liver can fail, or the original disease may return."

The drugs they put you on to prevent rejection compromise your immune system. Your lifespan is greatly reduced. 25% odds you die before 5 years is up. 50% odds you die by 10 years, etc. etc.

 

[Matt1970]

It helps him and everyone else dies a death of a thousand premium rises.

You guys act like a liver transplant will save his life.

http://www.healthline.com/health-slideshow/liver-transplant

"75 percent of transplant patients live at least five years after surgery. Sometimes the liver can fail, or the original disease may return."

The drugs they put you on to prevent rejection compromise your immune system. Your lifespan is greatly reduced. 25% odds you die before 5 years is up. 50% odds you die by 10 years, etc. etc.

And I am sure age is a factor. This guy is 58 or maybe even 59 by now.

 

[Sunburn74]

Why don't you leave the doctoring to actual doctors?

The ACA is not about affecting the ceiling for healthcare security in this country but rather raising the floor. You guys are so concerned about your personal taxes and your personal premium rises, that you lose sight of why we have those taxes and premiums in the first place (those people out there in existence who can't even afford to pay taxes, let alone for anything else).

 

[brycejones]

But in order to spot the joke, there actually has to be a joke.

I think we missed it. He is saying all his posts are jokes, which I guess makes sense now.

 

[glenn1]

Why have any social services at all then? I'm starting to agree with you. It really should be every man, woman, elder, disabled, child, and indigent for themselves all for the sake of personally lowering my taxes.

No, but completely ignoring the trade-offs in a story like this is just as blatantly dishonest. Sure this one dude in the OP story got help, but it's not like this is some kind of Pareto maximizing policy or anything other than a straight transfer from one set of persons to another. Obamacare basically makes the universal choice that redirecting resources to medical care for certain people so they have more money to spend on their economic objectives like college education, cars, etc. is better than me or you having that slice money to spend on those economic objectives on our own behalf instead. Others can debate the wisdom of that, but to wrap it up in some mantle of moral superiority is a crock of shit.

 

[master_shake_]

People like him will make the insurance companies go bankrupt though. Then nobody will have insurance. Hooray.

they won't go bankrupt though...

they are too big to fail remember?

think back about oh about 6 years and 7 trillion dollars ago.

 

[Atreus21]

Isn't it a little backwards how private health insurance works? You'll only be covered if you're well enough to work. If you're too sick and can't work, you lose your health insurance coverage because you lost your job who you were getting your coverage through or you don't have the money to afford the monthly premiums when you were earning an income then its pretty much a death sentence. Luckily for the man in the story, he had SSI income plus Obamacare.

You can thank the government for tying health insurance to employment.

 

[frowertr]

On Jan. 1 this year, I started on the Obamacare insurance. I now pay just $126 a month for insurance; a federal government subsidy covers the rest. If we had to cover the full cost of our health care, we would have just $574 left each month for all of our other expenses, including food and medicines.

Federal government subsidy = people like me who's rate went up when Obamercare took over.

So lets get this straight. This guy's premium goes down and he gets better healthcare than what he had before he was canceled?!?

Look, I get it. People should't be left out in the cold. But other people shouldn't have to pay for them either.

 

[Sunburn74]

No, but completely ignoring the trade-offs in a story like this is just as blatantly dishonest. Sure this one dude in the OP story got help, but it's not like this is some kind of Pareto maximizing policy or anything other than a straight transfer from one set of persons to another. Obamacare basically makes the universal choice that redirecting resources to medical care for certain people so they have more money to spend on their economic objectives like college education, cars, etc. is better than me or you having that slice money to spend on those economic objectives on our own behalf instead. Others can debate the wisdom of that, but to wrap it up in some mantle of moral superiority is a crock of shit.

Actually it is about moral superiority. Moral and ethical reasons are the driving force behind common social services. Most people do believe it is ethically wrong to abandon such people (the poor, the elderly, children and orphans, etc). The argument you are making against obamacare has been and can be made against any overall social service (its the why should I pay for them argument?). Its simply a matter of where you draw the floor for an acceptable life and the only reason to even have a floor is ethics. In a purely utilitarian world (the worlds designed by John Stuart Mill, or to a lesser extent nietzsche) based purely on reason and logic or self preservation, we would probably let these people die as a means of maximizing happiness for everyone (a few people would have suffering, but the majority of us would have more space, more money, etc as a result and thus maximal happiness). But we don't simply abandon then because it is unethical.

My personal floor is that everyone should have access to some basic level of affordable health care, without need to resort to ERs in the throes of end stage disease, even if it means we all pay a bit more. The ACA has moved our country a little closer to my personal floor. Your personal floor seems to be that you're ok with some people not having access to affordable health care and living with such consequences, even if it means death and disability for them.

Federal government subsidy = people like me who's rate went up when Obamercare took over.
So lets get this straight. This guy's premium goes down and he gets better healthcare than what he had before he was canceled?!?
Look, I get it. People should't be left out in the cold. But other people shouldn't have to pay for them either.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Orphanages are not free; someone pays. If you believe that everyone should have access to affordable healthcare, there will HAVE to be some redistribution of resources, because currently there are people who can't afford anything (and by anything I mean food, water, clothes, housing, etc let alone a gallbladder operation)

 

[glenn1]

My personal floor is that everyone should have access to some basic level of affordable health care, without need to resort to ERs in the throes of end stage disease, even if it means we all pay a bit more. The ACA has moved our country a little closer to my personal floor. Your personal floor seems to be that you're ok with some people not having access to affordable health care and living with such consequences, even if it means death and disability for them.

How does a liver transplant costing hundreds of thousands represent "basic levels of affordable care"? If you've read my posts before I've continually advocated for government run health-care with 3 components: federally paid catastrophic care for all, ending the employer subsidy in favor of incenting HSAs, and increasing primary care for the very poor and indigent in locally based clinics.

How does giving senior citizens more spending money at the expense of their offspring who are raising children of their own address any social problem?

 

[Cozarkian]

No, its backwards because the way its setup now, you lose our coverage when you need it the most. In this case, the man lost his health, lost his ability to work, lost his business, lost the income that paid for his health care coverage, and became ineligible for the operation he needed to save his life.

A major problem is the reliance on employers to provide coverage which causes many people not to be properly insured. For example, a disability insurance plan would have allowed said person to get the income necessary to continue to pay his health insurance premiums during his illness. Since many, if not most, employers don't offer disability insurance, people don't realize they need it.

I'd like to see the removal of tax incentives for employers to provide health insurance and instead making premiums deductible for individual taxpayers. Then individuals could choose the plan they like and there would be no concerns about needing to switch doctors if you change employers and your new employer plan uses a different medical group. More people would also rely upon insurance brokers who could provide advice as to the amount of health, disability and life insurance an individual needs. Finally, employees would be able to better evaluate competing job offers because they would be comparing wage to wage, rather than trying to compare wage + benefits when the specific details of those benefits aren't known until after an offer is accepted.

 

[CitizenKain]

Look, I get it. People should't be left out in the cold. But other people shouldn't have to pay for them either.

Are you confused on how insurance works?

 

[glenn1]

Are you confused on how insurance works?

I don't know but you sure seem to be. What insurable interest do other insurance premium payers and taxpayers have in whether the dude in OP story gets a liver transplant? Absolutely zero (and in the case of other ratepayers it's arguably the insurable interest is negative), so this isn't insurance by definition but rather government mandated charity. Which isn't always a bad thing of itself, but it should be in no way conflated with "insurance" in any sense of the word.