It's "in there" too... Pre-Existing Disease medications, not covered?

[Damocles]

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/115...e-existing-conditions-shouldnt-pay-yeah-well/

“If the medicine that you need isn’t on that list, it’s not covered at all. You have to pay completely out of pocket to get that medicine, and the money you spend doesn’t count against your deductible, and it doesn’t count against your out of pocket limits, so you’re basically on your own.”

“So it could be that a MS patient could be expected to pay $62,000 just for one medication. That’s a possibility under the new ObamaCare going on right now.”

And so it continues. What began with the botched rollout of a website, continued with millions of health insurance cancellation notices, and will undoubtedly face a year when the other shoe continues to drop, we are in the midst of doing exactly what Nancy Pelosi infamously said before the bill became law: we are “finding out what’s in it” — and we don’t like it.

 

[evince]

https://twitter.com/ijreviewbubba



your site is a right wing lie site damo

 

[Damocles]

Typical ad hom fallacy attempt, Desh. Reality doesn't change because of who told you about it.

 

[evince]

that site is right wing trash.


you cant deny that

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Typical ad hom fallacy attempt, Desh. Reality doesn't change because of who told you about it.

Well that's a logical fallacy on your part too. Show me where that coverage is available in your typical 80/20 PPO plan prior to the ACA?

It's going to be real funny coming back to this issue in about five years just to see how wrong so many people have opposed reform have been.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

that site is right wing trash.


you cant deny that

True and hardly a credible source but from a debate standpoint Damo is correct. It is a logical fallacy to discredit a persons argument by attacking their source of information as opposed to attacking the reasoning of their position. Having said that, I agree with you. His source is laughable. It's like citig Forbes on tax reform and being surprised that they advocate a flat tax. lol

 

[evince]

that site is making a fucking claim.

they are not credible


he needs to get a credible source if he wants to claim that claim is real

 

[evince]

their right wing fucking sources take everyone down rabbit holes as a distraction.

Fuck them

Get a credible source that makes the same claim if you want to discuss it

 

[Damocles]

Well that's a logical fallacy on your part too. Show me where that coverage is available in your typical 80/20 PPO plan prior to the ACA?

It's going to be real funny coming back to this issue in about five years just to see how wrong so many people have opposed reform have been.

Actually that isn't what the article was about, Mott. It is clear it is pointing out that the coverage was promised, but hadn't materialized not that it used to be but has been taken away.

What you have here, is Mott trying to build a straw man. Just a different logical fallacy. Was the coverage promised? Is this a problem? Is it "in there"?

 

[evince]

then go get a reputable site to agree with this claim by this right wing asshole site


Your fucks lie all day long damo

 

[Damocles]

then go get a reputable site to agree with this claim by this right wing asshole site


Your fucks lie all day long damo

You are wasting your time trying to attack the source and using ad homs. Either buy some ability to access logic or waste the time of some other non-entity in some other thread.

 

[evince]

prove it actually says what this site claims.


get a reputable second source making the same claim.

If you cant then your site is fucking lying

 

[Big Money]

How can this be?

Surely Obamacare advocates wouldn't have lied about what would be covered...would they?

 

[evince]

Prove its TRUE with a reputable source

 

[Damocles]

The 5 tier drug list is a known commodity, Desh. Unintended consequences really do exist, even if you don't like the source reporting them. You fear people actually understanding what is coming, I understand. It's easier to lie to people and hope they never actually learn something, but fortunately people aren't that stupid yet.

 

[evince]

then go get me a place to read up on what your talking about that is NOT some right wing scam site

 

[evince]

Your right wing scam sites lie all the time

 

[Damocles]

I do not waste time destroying logical fallacies, you do that to yourself. Your capacity to only believe what you want notwithstanding.

 

[evince]

so what this results in is you cant prove what this right wing site claims is true?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

 

[Damocles]

so what this results in is you cant prove what this right wing site claims is true?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

You haven't even made a claim, other than you don't like the source. You waste everybody's time with this nonsense. You've presented a logical fallacy it is up to you to correct that worthless logic not for others to do it for you.