Woman DIES who was denied insured health care that she paid for because of Obamacare enrollment problems
scholar - 2-7-2014 at 23:28
She had a brain tumor and urgently needed treatment, which was to be covered by the insurance she signed up for on the Obamacare exchange, and paid
for it--but, the web site, paperwork, communication, etc. was so messed up that she did not get the coverage and care she needed.
It was not malice on anyone's part (IBM was contracted to work the exchange, they didn't save money from the coverage not going through, they just
tragically didn't have an effectively working health insurance exchange).
People who signed up for coverage across the US, and who have been paying for it, may not find out that there is a problem with their coverage until
they need treatment, and the insurance they thought they had won't pay for it.
marymary100 - 3-7-2014 at 00:32
The Affordable Healthcare Act had a lot of problems didn't it. From this side of the pond it seemed as if Americans despise their opponents so much
that there were paid politicians more interested in scoring political points than in treating patients effectively. I guess this woman, and any
others, were failed by those who couldn't manage to get round a table and make something work. I would guess that those who opposed change had at the
very least campaign contributions from the medical sector. Bring back Mr Deeds.
Redwolf5150 - 3-7-2014 at 02:33
The blame in this case is on Xerox, not the ACA, derp.
scholar - 4-7-2014 at 02:07
In reality, the misnamed Affordable Care Act (which made health insurance more expensive by requiring health insurance to cover more things, even if
the buyer wanted a more basic plan) required these insurance exchanges--even though they weren't ready or reliable. Xerox was the specific provider
that failed in this case in Nevada, while other exchanges operating under the compulsion of Obamacare run by other companies also had embarrassing
That said, there were states whose exchanges worked better.
And, before Obamacare, there have certainly been cases where people who paid for health insurance expected care that their health insurance companies
declined to pay for.
Redwolf5150 - 11-7-2014 at 02:46
And I suppose THAT'S President Obama's fault, too?
marymary100 - 11-7-2014 at 09:36
I was reading something earlier about American misconceptions of what social justice is and there was a key phrase which leapt out at me - "It takes
less understanding to hate something than to support it."
I think I finally get why Americans on one side hate any idea thought up by the other - lack of understanding.
scholar - 11-7-2014 at 18:12
No, it isn't.
It is fair to state that people have been known to miss getting medical treatments that they had expected to get with their insurance coverage before
Obamacare. (And, sometimes, they were mistaken; other times, the insurance did not meet their obligations.)
But, this is an instance where a health insurance exchange under the ACA screwed up the situation in a way that led up to the death of a woman who
urgently needed life-preserving medical care. The government does wrong when it intervenes in a way that harms people, especially when the
intervention results in their death.
scholar - 11-7-2014 at 18:22
But, that does not describe the situation in the U.S.
Democrats do not automatically hate any idea from the Republicans. Obama and the Democrats have been doing things that they criticized when President
Bush did similar things while in office. They like the ideas, when it serves their purposes.
And, conservatives do not hate Democrat ideas based on them coming from Democrats, or for lack of understanding. Quite the contrary, their better
understanding of economics and of the harm and added cost of government regulations lead them to want proposals that will actually work, instead of
backing well-intended failures.
marymary100 - 11-7-2014 at 20:12
One of the inevitable consequences of the first past the post version of democracy is that there is polarisation of opinion. This often - and in the
US more so than in other countries - leads to a two party system. All the candidate needs to do to get into power is to be less bad than the other
candidate, assuming he or she has enough money to run in the first place. You vote for the least worst option.
scholar - 12-7-2014 at 01:45
What does the phrase "first past the post" mean here?
I don't think this is so.
Many people voted for President Obama (for the first time, at least) because they genuinely believed that a change was needed for better economic
recovery, or that he would really bring health care costs down and bring health insurance to more people. Many people who believed he could
accomplish these things were genuinely disappointed in the way they have turned out.
And people who voted for Gov. Romney included people who saw in him a man who had taken several companies which had been failing and set them on a
path to survival and profits, which meant that they would continue to offer employment to people. Someone who understands real-life business
economics and employment was a good choice for the country, in view of the problems of unemployment and a lack of economic growth. Even fair-minded
economists who favored Obama's objectives would have to agree that a struggling economy was not a good environment to add the costs of what Obama
wished to do.
Redwolf5150 - 13-7-2014 at 17:34
[bad img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10527286_1525474937674629_4684564109563460932_n.jpg[/bad img]
marymary100 - 13-7-2014 at 17:41
scholar, are you seriously telling me you don't know what first past the post means?
Redwolf5150 - 13-7-2014 at 22:51
Since he obviously DOESN'T!
scholar - 13-7-2014 at 23:39
I know various election methods in the U.S., but I do not recall ever seeing that exact phrase. A description such as, "The candidate who gets the
most votes wins the office" is common. I am sure that "first past the post" is NOT in any constitution I have read (they vary from state to
marymary100 - 14-7-2014 at 05:51