bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Democrat Congressman Gary Peters is running for US Senate in Michigan, where he's facing a strong Republican opponent in former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land. Like other Democrats across the America, Peters is worried sick about the political impact Obamacare -- a law for which Peters v**ed in 2010. Unlike many others, however, he's taken the extraordinary step of dispatching a team of lawyers to bully Michigan broadcasters into refusing to air a television ad that's critical of the healthcare overhaul. The spot is being run by Americans for Prosperity and features a cancer patient who was among the millions whose previous health plans were dropped as a result of Obamacare. The mother who's battling leukemia says politicians broke their word about the law, and that she's hurting because of it:



Julie Boonstra is one of the many victims of Democrats' egregious "lie of the year," and now Democrats are looking to silence her story via intimidation and legal saber-rattling:


After relating her story publicly in an ad produced by the advocacy group Americans for Prosperity (AFP), Peters dispatched lawyers to prevent the spot from running on local television stations. Boonstra, who says she is now struggling to pay out of pocket for her rising healthcare costs, told the Washington Free Beacon she is stunned by Peters’ efforts to censor her story. “I’m appalled. I’m appalled as a mom, as a woman, and as a cancer patient, as someone living with cancer … who has stood before this nation to say, ‘I cannot afford that out of pocket expense,’” said Boonstra, who said she was given a 20 percent chance of surviving her disease. “As a Michigan resident, to silence my voice, I’m absolutely appalled.” Peters, who is running for a seat in the Senate, instructed his legal council earlier this week to demand that stations stop running the AFP ad until additional evidence of the cancer victim’s claims could be produced. “For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should immediately require AFP to provide the factual documentation for its claims if you are going to continue airing this advertising,” read the letter from Peters’ lawyers.


Liberals are angry and distraught -- not over Boonstra's predicament and sense of betrayal, it would seem, but over how effective her message is. So they're hinting that broadcasters who run this ad might be jeopardizing their FCC license by doing so. This behavior would fall into the category of "gangster government," as coined by Michael Barone. Democrats and some media members are further insisting that Boonstra doesn't understand her own situation as well as they do. Obamacare actually improves her situation, they say. Stunned by the tactics and arrogance of her detractors, the cancer victim says she's outraged that Peters is trying to shut her up, and continues to assert that the law "is hurting me." She cites her dropped plan (a broken promise that in and of itself gives her standing to attack the law), as well as unpredictable costs as evidence of the damage she's suffered. The Washington Post's fact checker -- whose analysis is cited in the letter from Peters' attorneys -- concludes that because her new premiums are lower, Boonstra's overall costs "could well even out" over time thanks to Obamacare's coverage out-of-pocket costs caps (which have been delayed for a year).

First of all, "could" is not the same as "will." Will her premiums creep or jump higher in the future? That's not a bad bet. Also, while she is fortunate to have reduced premiums, millions of others are experiencing the opposite effect on that front. Secondly, Boonstra says her new plan's out-of-pocket costs are unaffordable in spite of the limits, and says the unpredictability of month-to-month expenses is a hardship. Finally, Obamacare advocates erected an impossible standard of no downsides or losers, to which they're rightly being held in the court of public opinion. Having heard the endless vows and slogans from Democrats, Boonstra assumed that she could keep her plan and doctor, and would also see her medical costs drop substantially. Instead, she lost the plan she liked, was forced to track down a new plan that would include her specialist, and doesn't know how she's going to cover high payments that will come directly out of her pocket. Here she is on The Kelly File, responding to the Democrat in the segment who suggests that she simply doesn't know what's best for her:



This mom with cancer was unquestionably misled about the healthcare law. She says it is harming her coverage and finances. Democrats' solution to their political fix is to accuse her of misleading (intimating that she'd best shut her mouth and be grateful for all they've done for her) in order to block television stations from airing her story. In case you'd forgotten, the White House attacked the veracity of another angry female cancer patient back in November. In what universe is this considered a winning strategy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Kpjyr1x7mC0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LN075qLKEYQ

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/02/24/dem-senate-candidate-attacks-female-cancer-patient-in-antiobamacare-ad-n1799732?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Don Overton Loc: Southwest USA

Gosh, you realize how many lies she told, don't you?

Kevyn

The ad she was used in is a total lie, take a moment to read the t***h of how the ACA will actually help her and likely save her a bit of money. If the ACA is so bad why arn't the opponents able to actually find someone it harms to put in their commercials? Would they just rather lie even when they get caught every time? Note that the Free Press is owned by Gannett a very concervitive company, and this is not a left wing reference.

The ad featuring Julie Boonstra of Dexter claimed increased health care costs, but that's now under scrutiny.

By Todd Spangler

Detroit Free Press Washington Staff

WASHINGTON — A political ad that features a Dexter woman criticizing U.S. Rep. Gary Peters, a candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan, for his v**e in favor of the Affordable Care Act is coming under scrutiny from the Washington Post.

In its Fact Checker column, the Post’s Glenn Kessler vets the ad produced by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group that has spent upwards of $1 million already in targeting Peters, a Bloomfield Township Democrat, who is running to replace the retiring Sen. Carl Levin.

The ad features Julie Boonstra of Dexter, a leukemia patient who says her previous insurance, which she preferred, was canceled under the Affordable Care Act. She says that “the out-of-pocket costs are so high that it’s unaffordable,” and, “if I do not receive my medication, I will die.”

Boonstra was a guest of U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, a Tipton Republican, at last month’s State of the Union address, representing a citizenwho had lost coverage because of the health care reform bill passed in 2010.

The Post, however, said Americans for Prosperity confirmed that Boonstra was able to find a new Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan plan that allowed her to keep her doctor; and it noted that under the ACA, individual plans have an out-of-pocket maximum cost of $6,350 a year, including medications.

Kessler quoted a report in the Detroit News that said the new plan’s premium was reduced from $1,100 a month to $571 — meaning that over the course of a year, Boonstra would save $6,348, just two dollars less than the out-of-pocket maximum for the plan.

Because pharmaceutical costs are counted in the out-of-pocket maximum, after that amount is paid drugs are covered at 100%.

The Free Press was unable to reach Boonstra in Dexter at phone numbers listed under her name, and Americans for Prosperity spokesman Levi Russell did not return a telephone call for comment. He told the Post that the costs of her coverage “have quickly become unpredictable” and that instead “of knowing exactly what she would have to pay every month, she now is facing a roller coaster of expenses.”

The ad, which has Boonstra saying Peters’ “decision to v**e for Obamacare jeopardized my health” does not mention Peters’ v**e last year to allow insurers to keep selling individual policies that were offered before the ACA went into effect.

Ricko Loc: Florida

Kevyn-millions have lost their insurance because of the ACA and Peters v**ed for it. The ACA is a Pig and you can put all the lipstick you want on it and it is still a Pig. Peters is trying to run away from his v**e and hopefully the people of Michigan will see through his ruse. Democrats cannot defend this monster because it hurts more people than it helps and when all is said and done there will still be 30 million left uninsured which is the number we started with. It has been a misguided exercise in futility and democrats are running from it like scared rats. Good Luck America !!!

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

This ad and interview does a fairly good job of getting the out of pocket maximum conversation in the news.

She will owe $0 after her non-premium costs go over the $6,350.
1: If she or anyone gets a $6,350 bill, they don't have to pay it in 30 days and can work with the hospital/doctor/provider to negotiate a payment plan. The same is true if the bill is only $63.
2: The hospital/doctor/provider is not going to require you to pay all of your costs up front prior to service. They may require that you cover the co-pay up front ($10-$50) if you have a co-pay plan but not the entire cost. They'll send a bill. If you can't pay the whole bill, you can call and negotiate a payment that you can afford.

She doesn't reveal what her insurance plan requires for prescriptions. It can vary a lot:
High deductible plans credit your Rx costs toward your OOP limit.
Other plans require you to always pay a fee or a percentage of the Rx and it may not go toward your OOP limit.

If she got talked into a plan where she has an OOP limit and high Rx costs that don't count toward the OOP limit, she could very well have a low premium but end up paying much more than she would've paid with a 2x higher premium. If so, get a credit line, save the receipts and consider replacing the policy with the one where Rx go toward the OOP limit. The costs can be deducted for a tax refund when they go over 7.5% of adjusted income.

Kevyn

If what you say is true why on earth dosn't Americans for Prosparity actually use one of the so called millions harmed as a spokesperson rather than duping some poor sick woman the ACA actually helped into making a patently false attack ad?

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

There have been many many people who have confirmed everything that most people would say needs improvement in the ACA. But you don't see them if your watching only the main stream media.

Like I have said mutiple times in my informal questioning of small business owners they have almost all seen their premiums double.

Obama lies and the liberal media and his legions of obama bots say so what. Well if this woman's impression is that she isn't better off under obamacare she has a constitutional right to express her opinion.

We should all be very very afraid if our gov snaps it's fingers and you get sued or your FCC license gets revoked just for expressing yourself.

stan3186

You make a lot of assumptions with this statement. Without getting into the particular policy terms to assume that the hospital will "work with her" and reduce the bill is a hope not a guarantee. Sometimes they will work with someone who doesn't have insurance but if you have insurance they will collect the total amount if at all possible. If they can not collect it in wh**ever time frame or terms they want, they will turn it over to collections which will destroy a person's credit. As far as getting a line of credit to cover the cost, she would have to have either excellent credit to get a credit card large enough and pay out the nose in interest or she would have to have equity in here home to do a second mortgage for an equity line of credit.
That's just what everyone wants, to have to get a line of credit on their home to pay for a hospital bill.
Bear in mind that her condition is ongoing, so that bill of OOP maximum will come due each and every year.
Not an ideal situation, anyway you slice it,

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Well golly gee wiz do you understand what 'COULD' means?

Would you buy a car with COULD payments, it could be $400 a month or it COULD be $4000 but we'll get back to ya.

As usual liberals know it all and want to decide someone else's fate.

This is what happens when people are lied to.

Liberty Tree

You did not really expect the Obama worshippers to not respond as they did? No matter what is presented or who gets hurt they will defend Obamacare to the death. Too bad Obamacare has no cure for the toxic koolaid they consume. It is always the same with them. They cannot refute the message with t***h so spin the words and attack the messanger.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

It may well be their death which they are responsible for and that I really don't care about but the others they hurt I do care about.

Kevyn

We are talking about a paid ad by Americans For Prosperity, the so called main street media makes loads of money selling advertisement space including political attack ads from this group all of the time. My question remains, why do they depend on lies in very expensive ads if they have millions folks actually victimized by the ACA? The answer is obvious, the examples when examined on an individual basis and scrutinized prove to be lies. Business with increase in premiums previously offered substandard policy's with low coverage caps and no hospitalization. Individuals used as examples almost always have better options at signifigant cost savings to what they had in the past.

stan3186

As is usual with you liberals, you don't know what you're talking about. The ACA has affected I believe nothing but individual insurance policy offerings. The employer mandates have not yet taken effect and won't until 2015. I've had health insurance license for number of years. I sold both individual, and small group policies to companies. Most of my experience revolves around individual, non-group, health insurance plans.

Individual insurance marketplace offered full ranges of insurance coverages, depending on the individual or the individual families needs and what they can afford. There were a few, a very few, non-major medical insurance plans which did not include hospital stays or very limited coverage hospital stays. These were all what you would call "guaranteed issue" and typically excluded pre-existing condition clauses. These would be the ones that you refer to as inferior low coverage caps, but they were not in fact major medical policies..

Major medical policies in the individual market place could include Dr. co-pays for Dr. office visits, generally an annual deductible of anywhere from $100-$5000 before coverage began under the major medical portions of the insurance. The pricing of the plans would be dependent upon a number of variables including age, smokers and non-smokers, the size of the deductible, whether or not maternity coverage was included and finally the lifetime limit of the policy which was typically $1-$5 million. The pricing of the plan was primarily impacted by smoking or non-smoking and the amount of the deductible. Another very costly benefit was maternity coverage but of very little consequence was the policy limits.

In most cases the insured could choose what coverages they wanted included in their policies. It was not a one-size-fits-all type of plan in most instances, unlike in group policies where everybody receives the same exact coverage. What has happened with the ACA type policy as opposed to an individualized plan is they are all one size fits all. What do I mean by that? A big one is you cannot eliminate maternity coverage which is very expensive and was one of the most expensive "riders" one could include in a policy. The inability to exclude maternity coverage is one of the reasons the ACA plans are so much more expensive. The inflexible nature of the ACA plans is one of the main reasons why they are more expensive. All the other noise is total BS.

The proponents of the ACA will tell you that it is because of the much greater coverages that the ACA plans have over the individual plans previously in the marketplace, that is simply not true. The only thing that is better with the ACA is that pre-existing condition clauses are not included where they were included in the individualized plans. Does that make a difference in costs? Yes, to some limited effect. However, the theory of spreading the risk over a large pool of insureds does reduce the risk of pre-existing conditions to the insurers. We did not have to have a total remaking of the insurance marketplace in order to accomplish that. All that had to be done was to make the policyholders part of a very large group in order to spread that risk, which is exactly the difference between group health insurance plans and individual health insurance plans. Everything else concerning the ACA as compared to the individual market place is a lie, and strictly politically motivated.

Of course all liberals on this forum will say that this is not true because they will not face the reality that Obama is strictly a political animal and everything that he does is politically motivated. Not what is necessarily what is best for the country but absolutely what is best for his political agenda.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

Nah, you're a bit off here. First, I wrote that it could be a problem depending on her Rx costs and the type of plan she bought. Second, it is not an assumption regarding provider bills and payment options. While it is not a guarantee, they receive less if it goes to collections due to the collections contractor fee and prefer a payment option whether or not you have insurance. They realize most folks don't have a big bucks sitting around to throw at an unforeseen provider bill.
Stan, another thing to keep in mind if you or someone you know is in this situation...if they accept your insurance and your insurance states that you owe nothing but the provider insists you owe them, you don't need to pay it and appeal to the state insurance commissioner. They may still send it to collections but if you have a decent insurance commission office, you will get action for them to cease and desist.

Agreed, the credit line would have high interest but it would be a better option than not paying and having possessions taken when later in the year as the OOP limit is reached, she'd have extra in the monthly budget from the low premium to catch up. It's never an ideal situation and this has been the reality of the insurance industry for decades.

The reality of the way it used to be: At least now she can be assured she won't be dropped from a plan due to her pre-existing condition or some lifetime benefit maximum. She can also be assured her premiums won't double or triple just because she has an illness. Depending on the type of plan she bought, it may cost her more even though her premiums are lower. It will be interesting to see if the media follows this story later in the year regarding her plan costs and her options. Mid-term candidates will need to take calculators to debates and town hall meetings.

dbleach3

I saw the lady on the news and I've read some of the "stuff" on this blog, most of which is either helpful to the lady, or critical of her and accusing her of lying. Which leads to ask 2 questions:
1. Why can't we buy health insurance like we buy auto insurance? I've been insured by the same company (USAA) for approx 60 years.
2. Why did she have to change policies? Oh, that,s right the President lied and should be impeached. And the lo-information v**er (spelled welfare moocher) v**ed for the sorry soul.