Reply With Quote
Wherein Yoni improvises only slightly on the theme already given in powerline, folding in his own ad libs, numeration and line breaks for originality's sake...
In Ohio today, President Obama, who repeatedly claims everything that needs to be said on health care, has been said and that the time for talk is over -- decided to say more:
The Times, for their part, described Canfield's story as a "health care drama that could not have been better scripted for his purposes if he had written it himself."President Obama, declaring that "every argument has been made" on his health care overhaul, sought to seal the deal with Congress and the American people on Monday by focusing on a single patient: a self-employed cleaning woman who had dropped her costly insurance plan, only to discover she had leukemia. ...
"The reason Natoma is not here today is that she's lying in a hospital bed, suddenly faced with this emergency -- suddenly thrust into a fight for her life," Mr. Obama said. "She expects to face a month or more of aggressive chemotherapy. ..." The crowd grew momentarily silent, and the president added: "So you want to know why I'm here, Ohio? I'm here because of Natoma [Canfield]."
Yeah, let's count the ways in which it precisely refutes the usefulness of Obamacare:
1) Under Obamacare, it would be illegal for Ms. Canfield to drop her health insurance, as she is reported to have done.
2) Taxpayers would subsidize her legally required insurance policy but, not until 2014. I suspect Ms. Canfield can't wait that long. [Under the Republican plan, however, she would immediately subsidize or initiate state high-risk pools, and can also be expected to lower, rather than raise, individual insurance costs.]
3) Instead of making the case the uninsured are suffering a lack of medical care, Ms. Canfield is, in fact, in a hospital undergoing "aggressive chemotherapy." And, her bills will be paid, presumably, by some combination of taxpayers and patients who have insurance, much as they would be under Obamacare.
There's three ways Ms. Canfield has helped defeat Obamacare today. Can you think of any more?
Thank God for Ms. Canfield receiving medical care, as I said she would, without the benefit of Obamacare!!!
Wherein Yoni improvises only slightly on the theme already given in powerline, folding in his own ad libs, numeration and line breaks for originality's sake...
The uninsured Canfield is receiving medical care without Obamacare. Can't answer that one, eh?
We won!
Boehner's solution: Suggesting GOP plan for Canfield
Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), offered a provocative riposte to President Obama’s Monday mention of cancer-stricken cleaning worker Natoma Canfield as an example of someone who would benefit from comprehensive health care reform.
In his visit to Strongsville, Ohio, Obama said he chose the venue in part because Canfield lived near there. Canfield’s letter to Obama earlier this year -- explaining that she had to drop her coverage after her insurance company raised her rates by 40 percent – has become an administration rallying cry.
But in an email that dropped as Obama was speaking, Steel argued that the delayed implementation of the Democrats’ health care bill would deny coverage to Canfield for about four years. The GOP alternative, a $25 billion infusion into state “high-risk” pools, would help her faster, he argued, despite complaints such pools are expensive and unwieldy.
“[I]ronically, Ms. Canfield would benefit far more from House Republicans’ health care plan than the President’s,” Steel wrote. “Why? Under the President’s plan, she would theoretically get a subsidy and new insurance rules four years from now, in 2014. That isn’t going to help her now. Our plan immediately puts more money into state high-risk pools, or establishes them in states where they currently do not exist.”
The problem is that high-risk pools, which currently cover about 300,000 people in 30 states, come with their own set of significant problems. Moreover, the Obama administration already plans to use the pool system to bridge the gap until their planned 2014 reforms kick in. (The House GOP proposal, which is similar to one offered by John McCain during the 2008 campaign, mandates no waiting list for service.)
But patients’ advocates say using the pool structure as a subs ute rather than a stopgap is a bad idea: Even without waiting lists, pool administrators often create long delays by demanding excruciating levels of do entation to ensure patients aren’t gaming the system. And in some cases, the people who run pools flat-out deny payment to those who are otherwise eligible, just like insurance companies.
Moreover, the programs have proven to be enormously expensive and often come with high ($1,000 or greater) deductibles. They also don’t cover more routine medical costs, and even supporters of the pool concept say a lot more than the GOP’s $25 billion would be needed to cover all uninsured people with pre-existing conditions.
The net effect: Some high-risk pool patients with cancer told NPR in late ’08 that they preferred duking it out with their old insurance providers than fighting with high-risk pool administrators over their benefits.
“The President’s plan includes high-risk pools as well prior to 2014 for uninsured folks with pre-existing conditions,” says White House spokesman Reid Cherlin. “Our high-risk pool is a bridge to guaranteed coverage and no pre-existing conditions. It will protect you in the interim until you get permanent protection. Theirs leaves the insurance companies in charge of deciding whether you can afford coverage or not.”
All of which ignores the elephant in the room.
Ms. Canfield is uninsured and is receiving "aggressive" treatment, in a hospital, without the benefit of the multi-trillion dollar Obamacare.
How.is.that.possible?
I never disputed it.
You don't think a bill for her medical care is piling up?
She's already worried of losing her house
So, why do we need an unpopular health care reform bill shoved down our throats by a bunch of unpopular Democrat politicians?
Don't ask me, I'm not for it.
We all incur debts that lead to choices.
That doesn't mean her debt should be spread amongst the rest of us who are having similar struggles to meet our obligations. Increase my taxes to pay for her health care and I'll be worried about losing my house.
Everyone's budget is tight. Medical care costs money; she's fortunate it's available on credit.
So now you change your tune, uh?
Not everyone has access to credit, or own a house. And it's yet to be seen if she gets to keep it, and how long it will set her back to pay all that mounted debt if she even survives.
I think we can do a lot better as a society, and as one of the most resourceful nations on the planet. I'm actually glad I have a complete opposite view from you on this topic.
I haven't changed my tune.
Everyone has access to medical credit. As Ms. Canfield has aptly demonstrated, she is receiving "aggressive" cancer treatments and she doesn't have insurance or any visible means by which to pay off the debt that is certain accruing as a result
However, Aside from ruining her credit rating, I know of no cases where someone's home has been taken for payment of medical expenses.
If she survives, and I hope she does, what she will find -- if she is willing to deal honestly with her medical creditors -- is a system that is compassionate and willing to accept what she's able to pay, write off other debts, and generally work with her.
Then, there's always bankruptcy.
The fact remains, she's getting medical care...and Obama didn't have anything to do with that.
If you think her falling under government-provided health care where-in a bureaucracy will determine if and when she gets care is better than what she's dealing with now, I refer you to the Canadian that ran to the Mayo Clinic after waiting 16 days for a referral only to be denied because -- well, they'd waited too long and he was no longer a viable candidate for treatment.
That's what you get with Obamacare.
Yes, I oppose "Obamacare"...
...but Got d@mn, are you ing re ed? Seriously.Yeah, let's count the ways in which it precisely refutes the usefulness of Obamacare:
1) Under Obamacare, it would be illegal for Ms. Canfield to drop her health insurance, as she is reported to have done.
The current bill has an individual mandate providing for penalties. By law, Ms. Canfield would be required to carry insurance.
Seriously.
No .
But proffering as a reason against it that someone would have been required to have such coverage when that person otherwise wouldn't be as bad off financially isn't the best sales pitch.
Mother er.
Who said she wouldn't be as bad off financially?
And, even, if she weren't, under the insurance she'd be mandated to hold, the government would have a lot more say about whether or not the hospital, in which she's now receiving "aggressive" care, would even be treating her at all.
Ask Obama's advisor, Dr. Emmanuel, about that one.
Alrighty, then...nice argument.
Sure you have. You kept asking who is paying for her medical care since she has no insurance, and the answer is: she's paying or will be paying for it. She will probably have to give up her house and/or life savings in the process.
And because it means complete financial ruin for her, the Cleveland clinic is tirelessly trying to find Medicare/Charity care for her. Which at this point is uncertain.
So you never heard.... right. You don't know what happens when you declare bankruptcy? You think your house, an asset, is exempt from liquidation to pay your debtors?
You need to inform yourself better.
Just as long as she can find work and can keep up with payments. Which will undoubtedly will set her back for many years. If she cannot, then she's going to have to declare bankruptcy, in which case the whole 'compassionate and willing to accept' part goes down the drain and is replaced with court orders liquidating everything she has.
Over 50% of those filed in this country are tied to medical expenses. Is that not a common enough occurrence for you?
The fact remains, under the status quo, this health situation will most likely ruin her life for years to come.
Canadians know more than you about their own system, and they're more than satisfied with the healthcare they receive. Furthermore, that single isolated case you keep on clinging on, was only possible after that person's family and friends were able to muster upwards of 100K to pay the Mayo clinic. It's nice to have rich friends and family, but not everyone does.
Actually, that's not what you get with Obamacare. What you get is the preservation of the status quo. You keep on preaching how all the private insurance companies will disappear with the proposed plan, but fail to acknowledge that most insurance co's are actually onboard with the proposed plan.
If....
Saying that she would have had insurance instead of not having insurance is not compelling. It makes you look stupid, and unfortunately doesn't help those who oppose it.
Fairly. ing. Obvious.
Why? She's forced to carry private insurance. If anything, the insurance co would be the responsible one.
Yoni wants to have it both ways. He believes Obamacare will cover Ms Canfield at massive public expense, while at the same time denying her treatment altogether.
Ho hum. More death panel *musings* in the monkey cage...
Canfield gets a free ride on taxpaying Yoni's taxes.
There are millions of uninsured who don't "Just Go To The Emergency Room (c)". Because of the cost, they put it off for months or years.
Their perhaps-curable disease (diabetes, cancer, CVD, stroke) is 10x worse and 100x more expensive to treat, and very probably is incurable, only VERY expensively treatable with taxpayers picking up the VASTLY INFLATED tab.
What say you, Oh Militantly Partisan Yoni, the Turd Strafer?
Not to mention that should she not survive treatment, that's not going to stop the debtors from collecting on her house or anything else she could have left behind to her family.
Really. Plus you're free to fly to Costa Rica! Problem solved!
Selfish wants to live and have a place to live?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
