Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
questionmark

Another Obamacare horror story debunked

51 posts in this topic

Deborah Cavallaro is a hard-working real estate agent in the Westchester suburb of Los Angeles who has been featured prominently on a round of news shows lately, talking about how badly Obamacare is going to cost her when her existing plan gets canceled and she has to find a replacement.

She says she's angry at President Obama for having promised that people who like their health plans could keep them, when hers is getting canceled for not meeting Obamacare's standards.

"Please explain to me," she told Maria Bartiromo on CNBC Wednesday, "how my plan is a 'substandard' plan when ... I'd be paying more for the exchange plans than I am currently paying by a wide margin."

Bartiromo didn't take her up on her request. So I will.

Read more

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is very interesting. This lady could be should be coming out ahead, I'm not sure what her real objections are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is very interesting. This lady could be should be coming out ahead, I'm not sure what her real objections are.

That Obamacare is socialism?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your in error on several facts. The first being our leaders repeated promise that if she likeded her plan she could keep her plan PEROID So our president is a liar.

Second the only plan that she comes out ahead on is the silver plan with subsidies. Here is where you are wrong there. Should you elect to buy the silver plan you have to pay for it yourself. No subsidies for the good one. You need to learn your facts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your in error on several facts. The first being our leaders repeated promise that if she likeded her plan she could keep her plan PEROID So our president is a liar.

umm no. You can keep it. BUT there is nothing stopping the INSURANCE companies from canceling it because it was crappy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cavallaro told me a couple of things that are worth considering. First, what she likes about her current plan is that she can go to any doctor of her choice and any hospital. That's not entirely true, because her current plan with Anthem does favor a network. Plainly, however, it's broad enough to serve her purposes. She's concerned that the new plans will offer smaller networks, which is probably true, though it's not necessarily true that the new networks will exclude her favorite doctors, hospitals or prescription formularies.

This seems to be the important part of what Cavallaro said. Now none of us are privy to her thinking or situation, not even Hiltzik knows. Her stating that having a broad plan is important to her becomes a curious thing when her plan only covers the first two visits. Quite simply, she values choice over costs of office visits. She probably accepts having to pay for office visits. With her income variable makes it a good guess. She also may have Auto Immune Disease (Connective Tissue, Celiac, Lyme, etc.). If she is 60 then she’s had a history of doctors that have not helped ease her pain of symptoms. Allopathic medicine is not very well equipped to handle this kind of illness. But, in her 20 year (at least) journey she probably had found doctors that practice alternative medicines and treatments that help her out. Insurance usually doesn’t cover these anyway, so the bottom line is that she doesn’t need that many visits but being able to go to other doctors as well that provide class C & D (I’m not sure of the category) preventative medicine and some insurance companies may cover costs on a limited basis. I.e. 12 chiropractic visits a year.

So, if this is her reasoning, then what plan provides for a broader network? The implication from Hiltzik, it would be perhaps gold. So then, what is the cost to her compared to her current plan?

Edited by RavenHawk
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

umm no. You can keep it. BUT there is nothing stopping the INSURANCE companies from canceling it because it was crappy.

You people change your tune very fast. None of you were calling these preObamacare plans as crappy until the lie was revealed. “Crappy” is an arbitrary label placed on a plan that was more than adequate for the individual before the deception. Obamacare isn’t providing better coverage and forcing insurance companies to harm their customers. In other words, more is not better but Socialists don’t understand that. In a world with ever increasing custom illnesses, you need customised coverage and care.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Obamacare is socialism?

How do you know that? She may have be a card carrying life-long Democrat for all you know.

Being unhappy with a policy does not equate to "hating" the President no matter how much the Democrat machine wants people to believe that.

If anything, her misunderstanding points to the failure of the Obamacare system more than anything. Perhaps if the websites worked better, she would have understood the situation better.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of you were calling these preObamacare plans as crappy until the lie was revealed.

of course we did. It's part of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course we did. It's part of the law.

But wouldn't you agree that one great think about the United States is that you have the freedom to have a "crappy" insurance policy if you so choose? Or at least you did.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course we did. It's part of the law.

Now you don’t care how blatant your lies are.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But wouldn't you agree that one great think about the United States is that you have the freedom to have a "crappy" insurance policy if you so choose? Or at least you did.

no. your rights are not unlimited

Now you don't care how blatant your lies are.

wrong. It was discussed here on UM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no. your rights are not unlimited

You are completely wrong. Man has unlimited Rights. I’ll leave it at that for now because if you dare reply, your reply will show how ignorant you are. And that is what is desired.

wrong. It was discussed here on UM.

Really? Do you happen to have a link so that the language can be examined?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are completely wrong. Man has unlimited Rights.

Except for healthcare, abortions, two dudes who want to get married, recreational pot, being paid a livable wage, etc....

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except for healthcare, abortions, two dudes who want to get married, recreational pot, being paid a livable wage, etc....

No one is stopping you from doing these things.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Do you happen to have a link so that the language can be examined?

apparently you forget your own posts. I quote you

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=228254&st=75#entry4333007

Those few with the fringe plans will still be initially covered (grandfathered in – for now).

it was shown here http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=178280entry3340335 and

here http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=161028&st=30#entry3052315

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your comprehension is very low. The original statement was “None of you were calling these preObamacare plans as crappy until the lie was revealed.” The implication was to show where *YOU* (not me) were standing up saying that Obama was lying. To date you have not. I know that many including myself where pointing out that the grandfather clause was false. And what we got in response was that we were full of it and we didn’t know what was in the law. Evidently *WE* read the law. We didn’t wait for pro Obamacare pundits to tell us what they wanted us to believe. Yes, *we* were discussing it but you were distancing yourself from it. You had no idea nor cared that this was going to happen. But thanks for bringing up my thread again. It seems that many of things I was predicting from over a year and a half ago (that you were objecting to) is coming true. And as I brought up then that Angie’s List could probably do a better job.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

umm no. You can keep it. BUT there is nothing stopping the INSURANCE companies from canceling it because it was crappy.

From what I gather, the law has a base floor which means that plans falling under the base floor cannot be kept. If they are kept in place, the insurance company would be in violation of the law.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I gather, the law has a base floor which means that plans falling under the base floor cannot be kept. If they are kept in place, the insurance company would be in violation of the law.

Why was this not explained to the American people?

Sorry, my comp is playing up. Here is a clip from Faux, but it does have direct quotes from Obama..............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FDU7eMA-30

Edited by Professor Buzzkill
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was this not explained to the American people?

Sorry, my comp is playing up. Here is a clip from Faux, but it does have direct quotes from Obama..............

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FDU7eMA-30[/media]

Great piece. Because the President painted himself in a corner. He said unequivocally that you could keep your health care plan. Period, end of discussion. He left himself no wiggle room. If he came back a year after the law passed and said "Just kidding guys, if your healthcare plan is crap, you cannot keep it because of the base." Faced with the election, he decided not to make it an issue. It would have led to a major revolt and a shift to Romney. This+ the debacle that is the website shows that the government was simply not ready to roll the healthcare law out. It should be delayed immediately and reformed substantially. JMO

Edited by Thelaw1
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate using harsh terms but if what happened was not outright fraud, it was a material misrepresentation. To prove fraud, we'd have to establish that the President knew you couldn't keep the coverage while saying you could keep the coverage. I guess, using then Speaker Pelosi's words, we had to pass the thing to know what was in it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To prove fraud, we'd have to establish that the President knew you couldn't keep the coverage while saying you could keep the coverage.

If the only options are fraud or gross incompetence then the outcome should be the same.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To prove fraud, we'd have to establish that the President knew you couldn't keep the coverage while saying you could keep the coverage.

we had a thread on exactly that, and it has some very good evidence that he knew. but for some reason i can no longer find it, it seem to dissappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we had a thread on exactly that, and it has some very good evidence that he knew. but for some reason i can no longer find it, it seem to dissappear.

As stated above, is it much better to have an incompetent president rather than a liar? Should it matter if he knew or not? He has portrayed himself as an expert, therefore he should have had this information before making any such statements. Either way the outcome is the same for the public.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are ignoring the fact that he very well may be BOTH grossly incompetent AND grossly dishonest. The two are not mutually exclusive.

And to the tireless debunkers doing their best in an impossible position.... 129 Million to go I guess.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.