Why ILA, USF and the Other Trolls Were Dreading My Return

H

Howey

Banned
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?57463-Obama-to-cancer-survivor.-Fuck-off

Quit relying on Breitbart.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-obamacare-isnt-blame

The Wall Street Journal published a provocative piece today that seemed as if it had been designed in a lab by Republicans to condemn health care reform. The headline reads, “You Also Can’t Keep Your Doctor,” with a subhead that adds, “I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I’ll live.”



On cue, the right quickly decided this is the single most important op-ed in the world. And frankly, at a surface level, it’s hard to blame them – the piece tells the story of a cancer survivor named Edie Littlefield Sundby, whose insurer, United Healthcare, is poised to end her coverage, pull out of the individual market, and direct Sundby into an exchange where she’ll have new coverage and a new physician.



Naturally, the writer blames the White House and the Affordable Care Act for ending her “world-class health plan.” One of the right-wing bloggers highlighting the op-ed suggested Obama is effectively delivering a “death sentence” to this woman who’s fought stage-4 gallbladder cancer for years.



But as is usually the case in situations like these, the closer one looks at the relevant details, the weaker the potency of the political attack. In this case, Sundby isn’t losing out because of “Obamacare”; she’s in a bind because her insurer made a business decision. As Igor Volsky explained, United Healthcare dropped her plan because it’s “struggled to compete in California’s individual health care market for years and didn’t want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby.”


The company, which only had 8,000 individual policy holders in California out of the two million who participate in the market, announced (along with a second insurer, Aetna) that it would be pulling out of the individual market in May. The company could not compete with Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California and Kaiser Permanente, who control more than 80 percent of the individual market. […]



“The company’s plans reflect its concern that the first wave of newly insured customers under the law may be the costliest,” [United Healthcare] Chief Executive Officer Stephen Helmsley told investors last October.

This explanation should raise a few eyebrows among those who desperate to blame the president, Democrats, or the law itself. Volsky added, “The company packed its bags and dumped its beneficiaries because it wants its competitors to swallow the first wave of sicker enrollees only to re-enter the market later and profit from the healthy people who still haven’t signed up for coverage.”



If conservatives want to complain about a private insurer prioritizing profit margins, we can certainly have that conversation. If the right wants to explore private insurers preying on public anxiety and confusion to scare people, we can talk about that, too.



But in Sundby’s case, the issue is profit margins, not politics. The right is eager to point fingers, but if they’re looking at the president, they’re pointing in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...
 
Here's another one debunked!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115457/obamacare-victim-florida-happy-she-can-get-real-coverage

he policy Barrette has today is called the Go Blue Plan 91. It is not what most people would consider real insurance. Its coverage of doctor visits and tests, such as MRI scans, consists of paying $50 and then letting Barrette pay the remaining balance. Drug coverage works more or less in the same way, only the plan pays $15 per prescription—which is enough to cover generics, but not many name-brands. And hospitalization? The plan pays nothing at all. As Wemple put it, "it’s a pray-that-you-don’t-really-get-sick 'plan.'" Barrette doesn't really disagree—but this plan, she says, was all she could afford. "Most everyone I talked to said they were paying thousands more to get hospital coverage," she told me, "so I took my chances with what I have now."

OK, but what can she get from Obamacare? Using plan data provided to me by the Kaiser Family Foundation, residents of Polk County, Florida have dozens of insurance options from which to choose. The cheapest option for somebody of Barrette's age has premiums of $440 a month, the most expensive goes for $914 a month. But Barrette wouldn’t pay those prices. Obamacare offers tax credits to people with incomes of up to four times the poverty line, or about $45,000 for an individual. Given Barrette’s income, she’ll be getting a tax credit worth nearly $331 a month, according to the Kaiser Foundation’s subsidy calculator. And that tax credit works like a discount, upfront. To figure out what she’d pay, you subtract the value of the tax credit from the price of the plan.
Click to expand...
 
Someone on JPP named "Truth Detector" just posted this in response to a thread:

This story is based on a lie. Any Veteran can get access to healthcare without Medicaid. Medicaid is the state run version of Medicare and is focused on the poor, not Veterans. Veterans qualify for Government care for life at little or no cost.

So whil poli-fact claimed statements made by this hyper partisan Democrat liar was "mostly true", I would argue they were "mostly false."
Click to expand...

The quote was in reference to this Politifact article:

"(I)n the state of Texas, especially with Republicans, with Rick Perry refusing to accept the hundred billion dollars in expanded Medicaid, there's 40,000 veterans in the state of Texas that are not going to receive health care as a result of that decision," Hinojosa said in a Sept. 25, 2013, interview on the YNN cable news channel’s "Capital Tonight" show.
Click to expand...

Politifact goes on to note that this is an accurate, if even low, number.

...(I'm not even going to pursue "Truth" Detector's statement that "Medicaid is the state run version of Medicare", because that would constitute a Politifact and Howeyfact ruling of "Pants on fire" and "Motherfuckers lying through his teeth!"


Which begs to differ "Truth" Detector's claim

Any Veteran can get access to healthcare without Medicaid.
Click to expand...

If he were to read further he'd know how wrong he is...

There are 21.8 men and women in the US who are considered veterans by serving in the military. If free healthcare were provided to all of them, the system would implode. Some may or may not have private insurance.

There are nearly 3 million of these veterans considered disabled who are eligible for VA care at some level with or without cost.

There are also nearly half a million homeless veterans who get no care.

Veterans are not automatically entitled to health care, therefore "Truth" Detector is wrongo.
 
A shocking number of veterans in America have no health insurance. Health insurance they could obtain through Obamacare.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15932009

Many U.S. military veterans lack health insurance and are ineligible for care in Veterans Administration health care facilities. Using two recently released national government surveys--the 2004 Current Population Survey and the 2002 National Health Interview Survey--the authors examined how many veterans are uninsured (lacking health insurance coverage and not receiving care from the VA) and whether uninsured veterans have problems in access to care. In 2003, 1.69 million military veterans neither had health insurance nor received ongoing care at Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals or clinics; the number of uninsured veterans increased by 235,159 since 2000. The proportion of nonelderly veterans who were uninsured rose from 9.9 percent in 2000 to 11.9 percent in 2003. An additional 3.90 million members of veterans' households were also uninsured and ineligible for VHA care. Medicare covered virtually all Korean War and World War II veterans, but 681,808 Vietnam-era veterans were uninsured (8.7 percent of the 7.85 million Vietnam-era vets). Among the 8.27 million veterans who served during "other eras" (including the Persian Gulf War), 12.1 percent (999,548) lacked health coverage. A disturbingly high number of veterans reported problems in obtaining needed medical care. By almost any measure, uninsured veterans had as much trouble getting medical care as other uninsured persons. Thus millions of U.S. veterans and their family members are uninsured and face grave difficulties in gaining access to even the most basic medical care.
 
The only dread they would have is dealing with another empty headed hyper partisan dimwit on a forum infested by them.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so much for kicking the trolling habit.....guess rehab wasn't successful after all.....
Click to expand...

I love that 1.69 million veterans claim as well. That lie takes the cake so-to-speak.

But the most bonef headed claim the dimwit makes is that they will have better luck trying to sign up for Obamacare; yes, Howey, you really are THAT stupid.
 
I know that Bravo's an easy target given his limited intellectual capacity, but this was a funny one...




http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?55917-Christianity....from-the-President

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-the-christian-nation-quote/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...-desk-president-obama-and-muslims-in-america/

Taken, again, out of context:

http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/02/21/tr...urnerscall-renewal-address-faith-and-politics

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.
Click to expand...

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-historic-call-to-renewa.html

They're all taken out of context. And why didn't he use a source?
 
Some more inconvenient facts for dimwits like Howey who parrot Obama talking points like trained circus monkeys:

If you served in the active military service and were separated under any condition other than dishonorable, you may qualify for VA health care benefits. Current and former members of the Reserves or National Guard who were called to active duty by a federal order and completed the full period for which they were called or ordered to active duty may be eligible for VA health benefits as well.

Most Veterans who enlisted after September 7, 1980, or entered active duty after October 16, 1981, must have served 24 continuous months or the full period for which they were called to active duty in order to be eligible. This minimum duty requirement may not apply to Veterans who were discharged for a disability incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, for a hardship or “early out,” or those who served prior to September 7, 1980. Since there are a number of other exceptions to the minimum duty requirements, VA encourages all Veterans to apply so that we may determine their enrollment eligibility.

Certain Veterans may be afforded enhanced eligibility status when applying and enrolling in the VA health care system. Veterans who:
◾Are a Former Prisoner of War (POW)
◾In receipt of the Purple Heart Medal.
◾In receipt of the Medal of Honor.
◾Have a compensable VA awarded service-connected disability of 10% or more.
◾In receipt of a VA Pension.
◾Were discharged from the military because of a disability (not preexisting), early out, or hardship.
◾Served in a Theater of Operations for 5 years post discharge.
◾Served in the Republic of Vietnam from January 9, 1962 to May 7, 1975.
◾Served in the Persian Gulf from August 2, 1990 to November 11, 1998.
◾Were stationed or resided at Camp Lejeune for 30 days or more between January 1, 1957 and December 31, 1987.
◾Are found by VA to be Catastrophically Disabled.
◾Previous years' household income is below VA's National Income or Geographical-Adjusted Thresholds.

http://www.va.gov/healthbenefits/apply/veterans.asp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top