Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Woman Hailed by President as Obamacare Success Story Now Can't Afford Obamacare

4 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Nekochan

Nekochan

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/woman-hailed-president-obamacare-success-story-now-cant-afford-obamacare_767868.html

"Jessica Sanford was cited by the president as an Obamacare success story at a health care event he had here at the White House in the Rose Garden on October 21," says a reporter for CNN from the White House. "That of course being just last month. The 48-year-old single mom from Washington state purchased what she considered to be affordable health care, life-changing event, she said, on the Washington state health exchange. She decided she was so excited about this news, she wanted to write an e-mail to the president to say that this had really changed her life and that she was thankful for the Afforable Care Act. The president included her e-mail in his remarks to people on hand for the event. Here's a bit of what the president had to say."
The CNN report quotes President Obama as saying, "I recently received a letter from a woman named Jessica Sanford in Washington state. And here's what she wrote, I am a single mom, no child support, self-employed. and I haven't had insurance for 15 years because it's too expensive. I was crying the other day when I signed up, so much stress lifted."
"But days, just really three days after she was mentioned by the president, Jessica Sanford started having problems, she was receiving letters from the Washington state health exchange," reports CNN. "The first letter telling her that tax credit was reduced, therefore, increasing the cost of her health care plan and the,n take a look at this, then she received a letter just last week telling her that her tax credit had been taken away all together. Show you another document here, showing what the tax credit worked out to be... zero dollars according to this document that was provided to us by Jessica Sanford. She describes all of this as a roller coaster ride. Now she says she can't afford insurance in Washington state because of the new developments."
Sanford tells CNN that she's embarrassed. "It was a huge disappointment, especially since i had, you know, my story had been shared by the president. I felt like, you know, i just felt really embarrassed that, you know, he quoted my story and then come to find that the Washington health plan finder, the website here in our state, had grossly miscalculated or they're having a problem figuring their tax credits. and so at least for right now, i don't -- i'm not going to be getting insurance," she says.

Guest


Guest

The old bait and switch. She should take great pride as not only will her family be covered... but she will cover others.

If enough pressure is exerted on her... she will likely now qualify for another entitlement... like many others.

What would that net effect be called? A rise in standard of living... or a decline?

QueenOfHearts

QueenOfHearts

You've got to feel sorry for someone like this lady. She had such high expectations only to be so disappointed. I imagine it is a little shocking.

2seaoat



What would that net effect be called? A rise in standard of living... or a decline?


Neither. A defined risk pool is truly revenue neutral. The revenues must be balanced by liabilities. Actuarial science makes this a near exact science. An insurance pool is dynamic. It is not static. So constant adjustments keep the integrity of the fund. A risk pool has nothing to do with the standard of living.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:What would that net effect be called? A rise in standard of living... or a decline?


Neither. A defined risk pool is truly revenue neutral. The revenues must be balanced by liabilities. Actuarial science makes this a near exact science. An insurance pool is dynamic. It is not static. So constant adjustments keep the integrity of the fund. A risk pool has nothing to do with the standard of living.

lol... you want it both ways. That isn't the way it works. There isn't a definable neutral yet. Stay tuned dilbert.

2seaoat



lol... you want it both ways. That isn't the way it works. There isn't a definable neutral yet. Stay tuned dilbert.


Actually it is exactly how it works. It is simple. What is difficult when the science is replaced by political dogma.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:What would that net effect be called? A rise in standard of living... or a decline?


Neither.  A defined risk pool is truly revenue neutral.  The revenues must be balanced by liabilities.  Actuarial science makes this a near exact science.   An insurance pool is dynamic.  It is not static.   So constant adjustments keep the integrity of the fund.  A risk pool has nothing to do with the standard of living.
The trouble is that the vast majority of people who are signing up...if they actually HAVE signed up, are the elderly and sick and NOT the young and healthy who are NOT signing up for health insurance.



Last edited by Markle on 11/20/2013, 4:35 am; edited 1 time in total

2seaoat



The trouble is that the vast majority of people who are signing if...if they actually HAVE signed up, are the elderly and sick and NOT the young and healthy who are NOT signing up for health insurance.


This was certainly understood. It will take two years of penalties to determine if the same can modify behavior. It certainly is not the ideal situation. There are better ways to deal with healthcare.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:The trouble is that the vast majority of people who are signing if...if they actually HAVE signed up, are the elderly and sick and NOT the young and healthy who are NOT signing up for health insurance.


This was certainly understood.  It will take two years of penalties to determine if the same can modify behavior.  It certainly is not the ideal situation.  There are better ways to deal with healthcare.
People won't stand for having lost the insurance they liked and could afford being taken away after they were PROMISED scores of times they could keep it.  Then they're faced with far higher rates and deductibles so high they might as well not have insurance.  Oh and then that extra surcharge of $63.00 to pay for the high care individuals. 

All that money being squeezed out of a shaky economy and the standard of living continues its downward spiral.

That $63.00...is that a tax or a fee?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum