« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

ObamaCare Promise of No Rationing Broken by FDA

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  September 19th, 2010 at 06:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Until recently, the implications of ObamaCare were debated in a vacuum. There were allegations and responses, but no results to support either side.  Now that we have entered the implementation phase of ObamaCare, things are becoming more clear.  Many of the bold promises that were offered to sell ObamaCare to the American public were not based in reality.

Taxes increases hit Americans next year and, in many states, they are already seeing health insurance rates increase as a result of ObamaCare. In addition to the Obama Administration promising that insurance rates would not go up, they have also promised that rationing of care would not happen.  But bad things seems to be happening sooner than expected and contrary to explicit promises of this Administration.

This past August, an advisory panel for the Food and Drug Administration recommended that the late stage cancer drug Avastin be “de-labeled” because of cost considerations. It is critical to note, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not propose denying cancer victims the right to the drug because of the safety of the drug, but because of a formula containing cost as factor.  

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) has taken a leadership position on the issue and has written letters to the FDA and expressing concern about “cost rationing.”  Senator Vitter is worried that the Avastin case will be the beginning of ObamaCare rationing for drugs that may extend life.  Rationing for seriously ill patients based on cost.

Should the FDA agree with the advisory panel’s recommendation, private insurers and Medicare will drop coverage for the drug for breast cancer patients, despite the fact that the drug extends life for an average of six months. This is a classic example of why many conservatives are concerned about government run health care.

By using cost as a factor in their decision-making, the FDA has begun the implementation of ObamaCare and breast cancer patients may be its first victim. Politically, this is another disaster for those who voted for health care reform. If this drug, or any other, is denied because of cost, they will be forced to defend the decision.

The FDA has put off a final decision for another 90 days on the future of the drug according to the AP.

Drugmaker Roche said Friday that U.S. health regulators will take more time to review its drug Avastin for breast cancer, a use that has generated vigorous debate among cancer specialists and patients.  The company said in a statement that the Food and Drug Administration extended its review of the drug by 90 days, or until Dec. 17.

This kicks the decision until after the fall Congressional elections.  It will be much easier for the FDA to make a difficult decision after the election removing pressure from Americans who oppose government rationed care.  The American people do not want rationed care and drugs for the seriously ill.

The senior advocacy group 60 Plus released the findings of a new poll that asks people about the FDA basing cancer decisions on cost. Let’s just say, the argument about ObamaCare is no longer theoretical — denial of care will impact lives and the American people know it.

Key findings of the poll include:

  • 56% of registered American voters believe the new healthcare reform law will lead to so-called “rationing” of care;
  • 82% believe that cost-effectiveness is not a justification for rationing;
  • 78% “worry” that the FDA’s revocation represents the “start of healthcare rationing;” and
  • 71% of registered American voters report they would be less likely to vote for any member of Congress who supported the FDA decision on drugs like Avastin. 49% would be “much less likely.”

Will someone have the guts to ask an ObamaCare supporter if breast cancer patients should be denied insurance coverage for Avastinor other life extending drugs?  Will others join Senator Vitter in his fight to protect cancer patients?  With Members of Congress running away from ObamaCare, even members of the President’s party, they are sure to run away from the FDA’s potential decision to deny patients access to a drug that extends the life of seriously ill cancer patients.  This situation is yet another example of why ObamaCare needs to be repealed.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • renny

    O’care promises to cut 30% out of Medicare over ten years to help pay for the Patient Protection Act, and the bean counters have already started.

    Two blood tests I have taken regularly for years and never paid for under either private insurance when I was working full time or on Medicare since I retired have been axed by Medicare for no reimbursement.

    My secondary ins., Direct 10 (a clone of Blue Cross/Blue Shield) says if Medicare doesn’t cover it, Dr. 10 won’t cover it. If I continue to have my blood tests four times a year, it could cost me $4000 out of pocket, but not enough to meet the new med. deduction limits which now require 10% instead of 7% costs.

    O’s motto should be Lowered standards of living for all.

    • neomom

      From an online conversation with a lawyer about the impact of ObamaCare and specifically on how care levels will fall for everyone… this was her response…

      “And if we can’t have better health care for everyone, I think it’s only fair that everyone share the burden.”

      There is no discussion with these people rationally. We must repeal this bill even if we have to gut it paragraph by paragraph by attaching new language to other bills (ala Reid’s DREAM Act)

      • 6eorge Jetson


                     Click to see a larger image

      • piedpiperpalin

        does anyone at redstate understand that insurance adjusters have been rationing care for decades? How about all you folks on medicare which is socialism go ahead and pay your own way instead of accepting our govts insurance?

      • voxrationalis

        First without any evidence he asserts Obama Care has already led to Insurance premium increases. Thus attacking the bill for increasing costs. Then he attacks Obama Care for daring to try to control costs using a cost effectiveness model. The FDA and private insurers have applied cost effectiveness as a standard in assessing drugs for years before Obama was even in office. Cost-effectiveness is the standard tool used to keep costs and premiums within reason. Spending tons of money on drugs or procedures with limited therapeutic returns is a sure fire way to guarantee ever increasing premiums. If you want to spend the thousands needed to extend lives for 6 months then man up and support higher premiums.

        • SoFiMil

          n/t

        • Jack_Savage

          Live with it. I mean, errr….deal with it.

        • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

          Your name was something of a tell: we’ve found that whenever somebody’s so insecure as to use their username to tell people how rational they are, they invariably display signs of extreme irrationality (in your case, a fairly reflexive progressivism).

          Lad. You [expletive deleted] up. You trusted the Democrats and endorsed their [expletive deleted] health care rationing system that the populace already hates. To use your own phrase, man up and start doing some – what’s the phrase? Ah, yes – “reality-based thinking.”

          Moe Lane

          PS: Somewhere else.

    • konsurvatyv

      The socialists are trying to deny our rights to coverage. We should be able to get whatever test and drugs we want. Even if there is no proven benefits to the drugs and test- it is our money and our bodies. It is our American right to be able to do what we please.
      Why should I care about the uninsured? They are all lazy, overweight and smoking. They reap the seed they sowed. Obama is trying to take our money and give it to the illegals and good for nothings.

      Vote the Dems out!!!!
      We need to get real Americans back in charge.
      Palin 2012 baby!!!

      • 6eorge Jetson

        nt

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        Poor mobying effort. 1/10 needs improvement.

        • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

          That’s the third one banned on this thread so far. Brian apparently hit a nerve.

          • Jack_Savage

            Brian will be getting a little something in the mail soon from Kathy, I feel sure. Maybe even a personal visit.

  • Superheater

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42381_Page2.html

    “But the fact of the matter is, he did put together a health care reform. It?s not perfect. And I think it?ll have to be fixed over time. And a lot of people are not happy with that health care reform. But he did it.?

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42381_Page2.html#ixzz101NiKH7i

    Just in case you aren’t sick enough of RINOS….

    • izoneguy

      What a stupid thing to say…..

      We are not happy that he did it. We will reverse it and as a matter of fact we will be working on killing many of the sacred cows that the democrats have milked for decades.

  • littlehouse18

    are perfectionists and eugenics supporters. They can’t stand the sight of sick and/or old people because it is so threatening to their sense of themselves. They don’t see the value in “unproductive” people. I don’t think they are planning on growing old themselves.

  • Ann_W

    Oh yeah, the reporters are too busy explaining the code words for racism that the Tea Partiers use.

  • drfredc

    OK, full speed ahead.

    Put together a Viral Ad interviewing a mom who’s going to die early because of Obamacare, Followed by a Dad with prostate cancer whose been sentenced to an early death by Obamacare. Followed by “This is what Obama, Pelosi, Reid and <Your Senator/Congressman/Obamacrat) didn’t tell you about Obamacare because they didn’t understand it. I’m and my message is you can trust me to vote for change you can believe in, I’ll repeal this atrocity and work to improve, not kill, the best health care (and Moms, Dads and friends) on earth.

    Take no prisoners… For the sake of Moms, Dads, & Grandmas and Grandpas…

    • taxpayer1234

      He was diagnosed with esophageal cancer, and Medicare refused to cover the treatment. They gave him a list of hospices in his area–basically telling him to curl up in a corner and die. Fortunately for him, he was transitioning from his wife’s insurance to Medicare at the ripe old age of 66. His wife’s evil mean private insurer covered the treatment–NO fighting, NO questions asked. He was treated by top oncologists at an excellent university hospital. Over the course of 3 years, the insurer shelled out over $1 million to pay for his treatment.

      Thanks to the evil mean private insurer, my dad had 3 good years to see the fulfillment of his dream that his children graduate college. He got to travel, have parties, and watch his 15 grandchildren grow. I treasure every extra minute I had with him.

      • Christine (Trelaina)
      • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

        Is greater than AFLAC’s (the worst of the Private Sector). In fairness, both ultimately reject about 6.5% of the claims filed against either program. I just find that telling of the Progressive Movement’s fundamental dishonesty and strawman burning ont he entire healthcare issue.

    • konsurvatyv

      drfred. Maybe you point me in the right direction. My girlfriends father has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. He wants to have surgery but has no insurance. We are small business owners but can not afford the more than $30.000 dollars the hospital is requesting up front. Not to mention the surgeon, anesthesiologist and pathologist fees. Any suggestions for help before obamacare kicks in?

      • 6eorge Jetson

        Now, it’s $18K/yr. Guess who’s picking up the increase?

      • candi

        My only suggestion is to fill out their forms (new doctor’s office) and put that he is an illegal. There is a lot of funding for immigrants, Americans excluded. Somewhere around 340 billion dollars worth.
        You may find a Christian doctor that has charity left on his card, with obama in office, they are getting tapped out fast.

        God bless you and your family.

      • mom2oneson

        https://www.pcip.gov/ I would do that right away. I think the soonest he could be covered would be November 1st..but I would try to do it right away.. Some are state and some are federal – if your state run program I would call the govenors office too to see if they can light a fire under the processing of it.

        I would get his last few years of tax forms for the last 2 years together and see if there is an uncompensated care program at any of the hospitals. All nonprofits hospitals should have a program like that, I know here the state requires so much be written off to “charity” to keep there tax exempt status. There might be 2 programs, 1 for the hospital and 1 for the physician group, the physician group one would cover the urologist/surgeon fees I believe. It’s a PITA to apply for but it might be worth it.

        I would for sure call or go in person the hospital administration receptionist. Billing offices are notorious for difficult to deal with – there will be a dedicated person ombudsman (someone that talk to the “I the I want to talk to the hospital prez folks”) who knows how thinks work and will help find some kind of solution – the receptionist can have them contact you. They are usually very busy so don’t give up.

        The PCIP plan covers everything he is diagnosed with, no riders on it. The application is easy but you need a letter from an insurance co either rejecting him coverage or with a rider on it. I don’t know what state you are in but
        cigna
        golden rule
        humana
        have online apps you can do to get that letter. I think aetna has a phone application that would be easier too.

  • rascott

    doesn’t have anything to with Obamacare. THis would have occured regardless of it passed or not. This is action based upon FDA authority that has been around for quite some time.

    It does show the impact that the FDA has over Medicare, and then private insurers, since they typically follow what Medicare does. The bigger question is how should expensive treatements of questionable value be rationed? What is the alternative to the FDA rationing? Insurance company rationing?

    • lynn2010

      rein in the FDA and Medicare and clean up house. We are always hearing about gross inefficiency and corruption in these areas, so maybe we could start there. Rather, Obama chooses to dump another bloated, inefficient (and potentially harmful) program on us that we not only don’t want but we also can’t afford. We are all drowning in enough government red tape as it is.

  • douglast

    count me among those who believe that our current system which spends an overwhelmingly disproportionate percentage of our healtcare dollars (public and private) on those who are at the end of life (mostly “naturally”) desperately needs to be re-thought. It is unsustainable and a very inefficient use of resources.

    That said, these debates and decisions need to be had in an open and honest way, with the facts laid bare, and the information presented honestly and plainly. Sneaking rationing in the back door while you are saying the opposite on the TV is not acceptable and should be taken as an insult by every thinking American.

    • powertothepeople

      Or are you saying your younger life is more valuable than one who is older. Either way, it is hogwash. I could care less if a person is 150, their life is still valuable, still worth saving, and since they have spent the many years adding to this country, it is time they get some of that back.

      Your reasoning sounds a lot like the reasoning used by abortion supporters and euthanasia supporters and it is dangerous.

      Most of the old you refer to spent 50 plus years paying into the Medicare system, then folks like you want them to shut up, slink into the dark, and die like the quite old coots you think they should be.

      • davesinsanantonio

        others how to live, or how to end, their lives. That is what liberty is all about; spending your time or money however you choose, not how someone else chooses for you. There should never be anyone on our side telling someone else they cannot have something or cannot do something that is legal. Freedom doesn’t mean the right to do what the government, or society advises or wants, but to do what you want. If we can only do what others allow then we are not free; we are serfs. Get out of other people’s lives! Get out of my life! Let me live or die as I choose. You are not God, stop pretending you are!

    • streiff

      spend a disproportionate amount of money in the aftermath of accidents, too.

      If you stop to think about it, there might be a logical reason why terminally ill people get more medical care than healthy ones.

  • Adjoran

    Over 20% on my plan and a friend’s – different carriers based in different states, and it is solely due to the unfunded mandate to cover preexisting conditions. As rates continue to rise rapidly, more and more people will catch on: if you’re relatively healthy now and your medical costs are less than your premiums, drop the coverage and go self-pay. No worry, whenever you do get sick, they still have to accept you into a plan.

    Inevitably, the only people who don’t drop their insurance will be those already ill and needing expensive treatments. Costs will continue to rise until they cannot afford to pay the premiums and if the insurance companies haven’t gone belly-up before that, they will then.

    There will be no private coverage available, and the Gummint will step in with a new “single payer” plan to cover us all.

    I’d suspect they planned it this way all along, but I doubt they are smart enough.

  • douglast

    All I’m saying is that it isn’t economically feasible or desirable to spend millions of dollars to prolong an already long life an extra 6 months or a year, at the expense of all the other uses that money could be put toward. This is a conversation we as a nation should have at some point. In an open and honest way.

    Personally, I think it’s a selfish act to consume a million dollars in “other people’s money” in order to eke out 6 more months at the age of 85. That’s just me. Culturally, we have gotten to the point where we all want to live forever, and many of us do everything possible to avoid the bitter end. Other cultures view the end of life very differently. In the end, it’s a personal choice for all of us. And I believe it should continue to be as much as possible. And so long as person X is spending their own money, then let them. But once they start spending taxpayer money, then it’s a bit different isn’t it?

    As we all talk about as good fiscal conservatives, there isn’t a limitless pot of government money out there. And unless we want to tax “the rich” into oblivion, at some point we have to make hard choices. We can’t pay a million dollars in the last year of life for every American. That’s just the cold hard truth of the matter.

    I find it a bit ironic that someone whose spent their whole life espousing fiscal conservatism would all of a sudden embrace fiscal socialism when facing death.

    I don’t want rationing, and I certainly don’t want rationing via the back door, but this is an important conversation that needs to be had at some point. My ideal is that at some point more of us, as a culture, embrace the end to life in a different way. But I always want that to be a choice.

    • JSobieski

      The decision of whether something is “worth it” should be made by the patient, and the patient should be responsible for paying for it. Obviously, healthcare is stock full of third party payment arrangements, so in some sense whether something is “worth it” or not will depend on the ability to afford it which will often depend on what kind of deal the patient struck with the third party payor.

      The fact is the government is a lousy third party payor pretty much across the board. If a private insurer acted like Medicare does, it would be sued. Medicare and medicaid should be voucherized, promoting competiton and patient choices.

      The decisions described in this diary and in your comment would then become the decisions of the individuals involved, and not government bureaucrats.

      You talk about personal choices, but that presumes viable options. Personal choices need to be associated with personal responsibilities.

      Until then, its not the fault of people who paid Medicare taxes and were left financially unable to pursue private patient-driven options when faceless bureaucrats make annual changes to what is and is not covered.

      We all agree on the need to empower personal choices, which is the mirror image of personal responsibility. Lets work together on that, and avoid taking digs at how people deal with an imperfect system that may force them act outside their closely held values.

    • powertothepeople

      as you are replying to me and my comment to your above post, and second, most older folks that you seem to have such disdain for, have paid into the system for 50 years or more. I would rather not pay for the health care of the millions of bums in this country and take the savings from that then to act on your heartless suggestion and ration it to the older folks in this country.

      You take the average older person and look at the huge tax bill they have paid over the many many years of their life, and you will see why they are the only one who are entitled to whatever health care they need.

      Your whole hard core truth is in reality just plain nonsense. And to call a person who has paid their taxes and dues for more years than you or I have lived who now wants some of that back in the form of health care socialist makes me want to spit nails. It is pure disrespect and has no basis in factual reality.

      You want to play the part of a good conservative, then get as animated about those who abuse social programs for their entire life, never paying a dime back or into the pot, and stop trying to justify your euthanasia rhetoric with the call of conservatism.

      By the way, there is a tremendous difference with the pursuit of immortality and the human drive to live. No one wants to die and that desire is ingrained in our DNA.

      Get your priorities right, conservatives have no issue with giving back to those who have put in. What we have issue with is entitlement and those who suck the pot dry all while never adding to it. Most old folks have added and added for years, it is theirs to have back.

      And a wise man once said, a nation is judged on how they treat their old and their young. I would like to think conservatives are the leaders in making our country well judged!

      • davesinsanantonio
      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        You are quite right to say that older folk payed into the system all their life and deserve to get some back. HOWEVER, there are some complications to that.

        First, they voted in the past, overwhelmingly, for liberal democrats who continued to add to and bloat up these programs. (let us not forget that for huge periods in our nations recent past the Democrats controlled the presidency and both branches of congress.)

        Furthermore these old people collectively believed the propaganda of the government, And that they state would “take care of them”. They knew that social security was a ponzi scheme and never demanded that the system be fixed.

        So you can say that collectively you cannot let them off of the hook for the present unsustainable situation.

        • powertothepeople

          and you know it. Your claim that most of the old folks, “First, they voted in the past, overwhelmingly, for liberal democrats ” and “Furthermore these old people collectively believed the propaganda of the government, And that they state would ?take care of them” is 100 absurd and not based in fact. It is just as absurd as the democrats claim that most young folks understand their dream and in turn vote for that dream. Just as the conservative movement is filled with young folks, the fight against democrats and the liberal agenda has been fought for generations by the old.

          There are and have been millions of the older persons who have stood against the democrats, liberals, and the socialist programs long before you were a dream in your daddy’s head. And to say any different borders on insanity.

          So again, since you seem to have the same euthanasia goals as the other guy, answer this. Going on your whole not letting them off the hook comment, do you also feel that since you believe all the older folks failed to stand up against certain stuff and must have voted dem, should we just ship them out to the pasture to die? Are their lives less useful than yours and do you believe it is OK to ration them care when they are the only group who has spent tons of years paying for services you and the other guy now want to deny them?

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            how dare you say I have euthanasia goals? All i was doing was making an argument, an argument that by the way is not absurd despite your merely saying so.

            Furthermore your tone is inflammatory and accusatory.

            I never said that there were not some old people who voted against liberals there just were not enough. Or I suppose that FDR, JFK, LBJ, and forty years of democrat control of congress never happened, I guess I imagined it.

            Well, there has to be some adjustments to Medicare and social security, because guess what? we can’t afford them anymore. And old folks are just going to have to understand that.

            They will have to learn that you can’t get something from nothing and you should never trust the government, better late than never.

            And you need to calm down.

          • powertothepeople

            and let me know how that goes. If you do not want your own words to come back to bite you, do not post them.

            But while you are sitting there holding your breath, let me look around here and see if I can find that apology you want..

            Give me ten would you……….

            But lets get back to your new post since you will be sitting there for awhile.

            “I never said that there were not some old people who voted against liberals there just were not enough. Or I suppose that FDR, JFK, LBJ, and forty years of democrat control of congress never happened, I guess I imagined it.”

            Never said you said all, but what you did say was that you could justify rationing care to the ederly because, in your own words, “they voted in the past, overwhelmingly, for liberal democrats” which is just not true. The division was not that much different than it is today. Did you know there were tons of young and middle age voters back then or do you really believe that only the elderly voted?

            You say.

            “Well, there has to be some adjustments to Medicare and social security, because guess what? we can?t afford them anymore. And old folks are just going to have to understand that. ”

            and yet again, you are wrong. We do not have to stop taking care of those who have paid into these systems for years. We have to stop the rampant abuse of the two systems by the government and others. Your argument is baseless and out there. Or are you trying to say since the old coots are nearly dead anyways, lets take from them to pay for the mooching of the young and the poor management of our leadership? That is what you are saying and you said it not me!

            But your most ludicrous statement to date…

            “They will have to learn that you can?t get something from nothing and you should never trust the government, better late than never.”

            Since when did 50 plus years in the workforce, paying taxes for all their life, seeing the deductions each payday, etc etc etc now turn into they are getting something for nothing. Maybe you should look up the word nothing then come back and lets try this again.

            When you make statements that suggest the punishment of the old via taking their HC away which will result in the early deaths just to save a few bucks or to pay for the mistakes of others, that is euthanasia mentality. They paid for it, they should get it, period!~

            Now go back to waiting for that apology…

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            You are so damn worried that old folk might have to pay a little more, well I am sorry but the truth is that they did put their trust in government , and government did fail them, and we have no money.

            And again you put words in my mouth by saying I am in favor of rationing, there or other ways to handle it than rationing.

            and again not apologising for accusing someone of wanting euthanasia is I think at least borderline against the Redstate posting guidelines.

            And again just calling my arguments ludicrous doesn’t make them so.

            Your arguments are weak, but your venom is astounding, so yes, you are acting like an ass.

          • powertothepeople

            Is ” I win, I win, you lose and you are an ass!” Thought you would at least try to back step off your comments but you actually think you are right.

            Whatever floats your boat…….

            By the way, are you still waiting?

      • douglast

        I used reply to, but I wasn’t logged in, and then after logging in it didn’t “remember” that I was replying to.

        Secondly, I came here to point out a financial reality, no matter how much we like it or not. Nowhere did I call for rationing or Euthanasia, or anything else you seem to want to label me with. I don’t disdain old people, I respect them and the wisdom they have acquired through experience. How about toning down the attacks, and engaging in polite conversation?

        Sobieski captured the gist of what I’m trying to say, much more eloquently than I did.

        • powertothepeople

          and grow some thicker skin.

          What I have said is far from being an attack, it is simply taking your own words and showing that you are wrong and that you use the same arguments that abortion and euthanasia supporters use. If you do not like being called on your opinion, either do not post it or try to gain some compassion and stop calling, in a round about way, for the death pastures for all old folks.

          Your financial reality is only in your own head. You take a true premise ( money will run out) and blame that on the old folks which voids your thoughts on “reality.” Even the socialist know the cause of the horrible trouble we are in today are for two main reasons, poor money management/constant spending/borrowing and the rampant abuse of the system by millions.

          I will try to state it again slow this time so you can catch on.

          When you state, care should not be given to the old due to your opinion that they only have 6 months and that 6 months is not a viable reason to give care to them, that is a commie euthanasia belief. Second when you keep on suggesting that the old should be put to pasture to save a few bucks, that is pure Obama type thinking especially when it is the old folks that you want to deny care for were the ones who paid into the system so that all the young could mooch off of it.

          So in closing, stop trying to claim conservatism in your argument, it is not there and the rest of us do not feel that way. We recognize the sanctity of life no matter how young or old, we recognize that the abuse is rampant but it does not come mostly from the old, and we recognize that the elderly have paid into the system for years and years and they now deserve, and yes I said deserve, to have whatever care they need, period.

          But if you feel so strongly about your position, we would expect that when you mom, dad, grandfather, grandmother, etc get to the old age where you feel they are no longer worth saving, that you do everything in your power to send them to eternity via having all care denied to them so that you’re not seen as a hypocrite. We all wait in anticipation for your diary stating you stood firm and did not allow your elderly relatives to waste tax dollars and make the system go broke faster no matter that they paid into their entire lives.

          • douglast

            You took my words and used them to apply labels to me, and ascribe positions to me, that are nowhere stated nor supported by anything I wrote.

            I tried to have a rational conversation with you. You seem more interested in sensationalist slander. Have a nice day.

  • SoFiMil

    .

  • calgacus

    Without a good helping of sophistry.

  • http://applescorneroftheorchard.blogspot.com/ Pomme

    My doctors are holding back a diagnosis (most likely Lupus) until I can find affordable insurance without being price-gouged for a pre-existing condition.

    Government insurance isn’t an option not because we make too much (ministerial salaries are not large salaries) but because we have two vehicles. Seriously.We have two cause one is a work truck while the other is a soccer mom’s. Two vehicles is almost a necessity for middle class any more.

    So, I’m forced to basically lie so a company will cover me affordably. Then, hopefully they won’t decide my life isn’t worth it and stop covering what I need anyway.

    Thanks, Congress!

    • mom2oneson

      Some states use the fed program and some have their own, but have you seen this option? I don’t know your age/state to compare it to a comprehensive med plan in your state but I would check it out. It’s not income/assett based at all so the cars would not matter but you do pay a premium. When you look at other insurance companies you can ask the agent to compare this with policies they are selling, they should be able to tell you what you can get for the same price from private insurers and help you compare. What is great about this is there is no rider on it to exclude anything you are currently diagnosed with.

      https://www.pcip.gov/

  • texasgalt

    read Brian’s article on the air at 7:10 PM Central time.

    Levin was generous in his praise of Brian’s writing ability.

  • 94dgrif

    A few years ago (before we met) my wife was working in as the manager of Hastings. She got sick, and was in and out of the doctor’s room, but they were slow to diagnose her. She missed more and more work until she was fired. Now without insurance, and too sick to work, she stayed at home and got sicker and sicker. Even with repeated efforts she wasn’t accepted to any hospital.

    Ultimately she passed out and was taken by ambulance to the closest ER. They gave her a 20% survival rate and called her family in to say their goodbyes. Thankfully she survived that night… but still wasn’t offered any continuation care. So once she was able to walk out of hospital, she was back fending for herself, cycling back to declining health.

    This happened 3 times. By the third time we had met and I was able to spend my savings to get her the nephrectomy she needed. With just one kidney she still gets sick from time to time, and is too weak to work.

    So here is our situation. I’m not trained in a profession that will extend health coverage to her too. She’s too sick to work. She’s completely uninsurable due to her pre-existing conditions. Before the ObamaCare came along we had 2 options if her infections progressed and she got sick again: either we’d watch her wither and die, or we’d be forced to leave our home and move to another country that provides healthcare (probably the UK as I have family there).

    Healthcare in the US is a private and public tragedy. While I understand the fear of big government and disliking paying taxes, we should be embarrassed by how little compassion we show our weakest fellow American. How can we be proud of a system in which the poorest have to choose between death and fleeing the country?

    A long time ago people fought for and against a public police force, but we now take it for granted. A long time ago people fought for and against a public fire department, but there would be outrage if it were taken from us. Today people fight for and against a public healthcare system, but there are two people here in Texas praying with all our hearts that we get that system.