Hi 68° | Lo 44°

Letter: Obamacare protected my sister from financial disaster

The Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that many Americans will leave work voluntarily because of Obamacare. Extremists twisted this conclusion into the misleading statement that the law will cause millions of Americans to “lose their jobs.” I’m tired of this relentless onslaught against a program that’s providing peace of mind to millions of Americans.

Several years ago, my self-employed sister bought an individual health plan that promised to cover most medical costs beyond the $5,000 deductible. Her pre-existing condition (cancer) meant that better plans were unavailable to her.

As it turns out, some significant exclusions lurked in her policy’s fine print, and after a heart attack, she found herself responsible for $40,000 in medical bills. Imagine the anxiety of being stuck with a policy that she now realized was nearly worthless, knowing that another bout of cancer or heart disease wouldn’t just threaten her physical health, but could also wipe her out financially. But with two pre-existing conditions, buying into a decent plan was impossible.

Now, thanks to Obamacare, my sister has a health care plan that actually protects her from potential financial disaster. It has broader coverage, a smaller deductible, and a lower premium than her prior plan, despite her medical history. Without it, she’d be sent back to that cruel Catch-22, where the very reason that she urgently needs health care coverage (her increased likelihood of cancer or heart disease) would disqualify her from getting it.

Personally, I’m grateful for Obamacare.



Legacy Comments48

Just out of curiosity, how many on here actually know where the 47 million number for the uninsured came from? Also out of curiosity, how many know what the breakdown of that number is in regards to folks who are not us citizens, folks who qualify for govt programs and have not signed up, and 34 yrs old and under who can afford insurance but do not buy it? Basically the 47 million uninsured is a lie.

So Tillie, you still seem to feel that you deserve answers but you do not have to provide any. Is that how it works? We are suppose to believe you? Just saying,.

This is an OPINION page. I give my opinion,. I don't see the point in listing sources, etc, etc. If that is what you want, read Wikipedia and stay of the OPINION page. But when some one makes a bare statement supposedly of fact that I find not true I will question him on it. Now I don't know what answers you are waiting for from me and I really don't care. As I said before you are free to ignore me, please do.

You make statements all the time that some find not true and ask you questions about them. Again, why are you exempt from answering and expect others to answer you? That is am honest question. We do not ask you to list sources, we ask you to answer our questions. Again, you get back what you give out.

Please read previous post. "We" ask you to answer our questions. Who the blank are you? The Inquisition? Tell you what? How about I just ignore you?

You said you were going to ignore me before, yet you did not. Nothing wrong with me asking you why you demand answers and why you do not. Honest question. The point you are missing is that if you do not have to answer folks questions, they do not have to answer yours. Funny how you lefties call people out for things you do.

As far as who the blank I am, I am the one you accuse, assume and pretty much twist and ignore what I say in my posts, but take the time to trash me at every turn. Did you expect me to not respond? Again, you get back what you put out.

only 11% of enrollees in NObamaKare did not have previous insurance. So to recap 1) the Affordable point of NObamaKare is a LIE 2) the 40,000,000 uninsured would get coverage is a LIE and 3) the bending the cost curve of health care is also a LIE - all LIES were sold to the readers by 100% partisan democrats.

Sail, all I can add is this - “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” ― Winston Churchill

For a different and fairer take on the issues involved, instead of the usual rip-n-read headlines from suspect sources:

This lady is thankful for Obamacare. The Republicans one goal is to repeal it. They want that more than deficit reduction, jobs or believe it or not lower taxes. They have talked about it for five years and have had over forty votes to repeal. Is there something I have just written that is untrue? The so called plan that Republicans have come finally up with doesn't cover pre existing conditions if you haven't had continuous coverage ,which is the same as cobra and very expensive. It offers tax rebates to low income folks for insurance, people who probably don't pay taxes anyway. You can make your cracks about "uninformed" but that won't help people like this woman's sister when the Republicans finally get their way and take away something that might help this country catch up with the rest of the civilized world.

They cancelled millions of policies so that a few people could get covered. No one needs to get wiped out completely. That is why we have bankruptcy laws and in some cases you can make a deal with the bank to keep your home. So 90 million will suffer so that 10-12 million can be subsidized. You find that makes sense?

They insurance companies cancled the policies rather than make them comply with the law. They did it out of greed to protect their profits and large CEO salaries. Why do you think they only have a few hospitals in NH. It's not because they would lose money but that they could't make the amount profit they wanted.

popular propaganda but not exactly accurate. My company, expected that this year we would have to comply, had a previous plan that cost the employee $65 but because it did not cover some minute little thing, did not comply with Obamacare. Therefore, they found a plan for $35 and picked up the tab, offering it to employees as it did comply with Obamacare. But guess what, most employees took the one that did not comply with Obamacare. Why? Because the plan that complied with Obamacare did not include hospitalization. The plan that did not comply with Obamacare included hospitalization. Most felt that they would rather pay the $65 and $95 tax rather than not have hospitalization. The whole thing is a real mess and I hope that in the future Republicans will overturn the law. It seems so far as if only those who want people to subsidize them like it Check the consistent polls.

Itsa - someone's not telling the truth here - either your employer lied to you, or you're lying to us, or you mis-understood something along the way. Hospitalization is one of the essential benefits of ACA-compliant policies.

Nope, I have the policy in front of me as I write this. It meets all criteria. The better policy for $65 meets all of the standards but one obscure one. You are misiinformed.

One of the 10 criteria a policy must meet for ACA compliance is hospitalization coverage. You care to revise the incorrect information in your comment? This is why ACA gets so much bad press, some people just make up stories or repeat stories they have heard, without bothering to find out if they are true or not. In this case the latter. There is so much disinformation circulating as truth, it's no wonder people get confused. Others have already had their minds made up and as such are only willing to listen to what supports their preconceived idea, fictional or not.

BTW, the 10 criteria are; Ambulatory patient services Emergency services Hospitalization Maternity and newborn care Mental health and substance use disorder services, behavioral health treatment Prescription drugs Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices Laboratory services Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management Pediatric services, including oral and vision care

These truths (about Obamacare) are self evident: 1) you can't keep your doctor even though Obama said you could if you have to take Obamacare, 2) Deductibles are doubling and quadrupling, 3) Prescription drug co-ays are going to double, 4) you can't keep your existing plan if you like it, 5) people who have paid handsomely for their plans are not paying for those who did not have insurance and taking a bath in the wallet. Those are not made up stories. 5 million people losing their preferred plans in not a made up story.

QUOTE "criteria a policy must meet"........real Americans are outraged that the democrats on a 100% omnipotent partisan vote ...COMMAND....real Americans to possess under penalty of law what the elite liberal progressive democrats have COMMANDED.

Sail here we go again. Point out the article in either the Federal or State Constitutions that anointed you as the defining force as to just who is and isn't a Real American. I think you will find, that besides your following of 4, Americans are more outraged that republicans sat on their hands as medical costs skyrocketed. Then true to form they jump in with their lame self-serving criticism of those who were the only ones to act on it. H2S by any other name still smells the same.

If you are telling me that the policy that does not include hospitalization is ACA compliant, you (or the policy writer) are simply wrong. Or are you going to try to tell me that the official ACA site is lying? This is very, very basic. In order to be compliant with ACA, the policy must include hospitalization.

Itsa, I very carefully clicked the "reply" link under your post, but the website dumped my reply into the top levle of comments. I don't know why. I will try again: If you are telling me that the policy that does not include hospitalization is ACA compliant, you (or the policy writer) are simply wrong. Or are you going to try to tell me that the official ACA site is lying? This is very, very basic. In order to be compliant with ACA, the policy must include hospitalization.

Nope, I know the policy......sorry. I just found out that our insurance consultants found that this policy complies. However, on further review it covers the insured for hospitalization but not anyone else in the family. $35 every two weeks, the company is offering it free. Many took the $65 plan as it provided much, much more and lower deductibles. The plan we have for $65 covers maternity but not to the extent that Obamacare stipulates. But the $65 plan has lower deductibles, low co-pays, better overall coverage for the average person.

Itsa - thank you for clarifying. So, for the record, the less expensive plan is ACA compliant, and does cover hospitalization. I'm still wondering what that "minute thing" was that made the more expensive plan non-compliant.

The family plan covers the primary insured but does not cover hospitalization for the spouse or children. They have to be covered under an Obamacare policy. So for $35 twice per month, the employee can be covered and for hospitalization for himself but not his spouse or children. They need to buy a separate policy which will cost them approximately $257 with two children even if it is subsidized. Then that will have a $6000 deductible. Now, at the end of the day, would it be more affordable for an employee making $15.00 per hour to pay $65 per month or $257 $35=$292? Moreover the $65 plan that does not comply has a $1000 deductible and $10, $15, $20 prescription plan. Now the maternity coverage on that plan falls below the Obamacare mandated coverage. Whoopeee ding! Most people took the current $65 plan. They could care less about Obamacare and playing that game, they will pay the $95 fine an say, OH WELL!

Yanno... I think I agree with you on one thing about the ACA. I don't think that maternity coverage should be required if the insurance purchaser is male or over the age of 55. I am surprised that an ACA compliant policy would not include hospitalization for all of the people covered. That seems odd to me.

Again, where do you get your misinformation on family plans. Family Plans premiums don't work that way. As far as your reference to the $15.00/hr worker, prior to the ACA it was costing about $7.50/hr to to get decent coverage. The average yearly cost for private health insurance, decent coverage, was almost $20K. We could go around and around forever on this.

I also thought the $95 dollar tax was for people who just refused to get any insurance at all, so it wouldn't apply here. Something stinks in Denmark.

What was this "minute little thing" your employer's insurance didn't cover?

So according to your later post, almost every thing you say in this post is not true.

Still waiting for the list of countries that you said hated their socialized medicine.

trolling, provoking

If you are referring to me, I am simply asking a question. You made a blanket statement about countries that have failed socialized medicine and the populace is unhappy with it. All I ask is name those countries.

Quit picking on itsa! When CARPers repeatedly post distorted, inaccurate and inflammatory information, and then are unable or unwilling to document the source of those claims--the term that can fairly be applied to the practice is "trolling." It's richly ironic for a CARPer to make the same accusation of a poster who only asked him to back up a claim. We're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Except for the Carp Per Diems, they seem to think.

Tillie, I consulted my pocket translation guide for conservative posters and under Trolling, it said it translated to "asking tough questions and expecting an answer".

To be honest I didn't even know what a "troll" was. I thought it was a little leprechaun. Some people on here make statements and just expect me to swallow them whole. Itsa and Sail spend a lot of time questioning Obama and other Dems' truthfulness, but seem to have a problem with veracity themselves. I will admit I am not one of the best educated people (I think) on this site but I can recognize a bunch of bunkhum when I see it.

Good one!

The Reps have several plans. Those plans include buying insurance across state lines, high risk pools tort reform and a list of other ideas. Not just one plan but several have been offered and ignored by the press and the Dems. Again, no Rep wants anybody with a pre existing conditions to be refused health care. We all want affordable health care with choices, and options. We just disagree about how we go about it. .

Give me a break. "We all want, we all want", Who is "we"? Bush was in for eight years, where was his plan? The Republicans had no plan until the ACA. was a done deal. Only Romney was serious about universal health care. I repeat when the Reps have their way, goodbye pre existing conditions and goodbye to insurance for your college age kids because the Insurance Companies don't want it and we will be back to the status quo that worked so well before. (sarcasm again)

Romney was a Pol working in one of the most Liberal States in the country. He took that job so he could run for higher office period. We are the folks who you deem mean, greedy and nasty. Do you think it is only Dems that have pre existing conditions? The fallacy that Reps do not want great education, health care etc, is just that, a fallacy. Nothing more than talking points to get votes and by the way, divide this country. We all deal with health issues and insurance issues, just like we deal with education problems. Has nothing to do with politics. Dems claim they are the party of We, but at every turn they use tactics to divide us on every level. That is not what I call working together. Kids should be on their parents insurance while in college or pursing a trade. If they do neither, they should not be on their parents insurance period. Your party feels that everyone should get help, but they do not feel that help should be a based on them bettering themselves. Instead, we have created an entitled society, and now that entitled society is generational. Programs are great if they are going to the folks who use them as stepping stones to bettering their lives.

Great rhetoric, but where were the plans before the ACA. You admit Romney only passed health care because he was in a blue state. So therefore Republicans have no interest in health care, pre existing conditions or students, unless they are pushed into it. Stay on topic. We are talking health care here. After food and shelter, it should be a basic right. especially in the United States.

For Tillie: God and/or Nature endowed individuals with rights, which governments are instituted to protect. Only progressives and liberals believe instead the governments distribute rights according to the liberal elites’ sense of social good.


Nobody wants to see any person thrown off an insurance policy for a pre existing condition. That is something we all agree on. To state that Reps would turn that back is absurd. Bad health hits a lot of folks and nobody deserves to be penalized for it. Statements like that make you realize how uninformed many are. They are scare tactics, plain and simple. And the uninformed believes them.

Rabbit you are correct that no one would do away with the pre-existing condition clause. But why didn't any republicans pass this earlier, as in decades. Why did it take the liberals to put it in place, that is the basic question.

Tough tutti, Mary. According to Rabbit and others on this website, your sister and millions of others will lose their insurance just as soon as the Republicans get back in power again.


Post a Comment
