Jimmy Carter Cures ObamaCare

[PoliticalChic]

The question was:
Is it covered under ObamaCare.

The answer is: It depends on the individual insurance company, and if you click on the link, you can find out.

Do you still not understand that ObamaCare is not an insurance company, and that each insurance company has its own company-specific list of drugs and treatments it will and will not cover?

Apparently not.

You're getting a free ride, aren't you? Employer coverage? You have no idea how these things work.

Connect the dots:

a. "The exorbitant price of drugs costs ALL of us…… in our employers ability to provide wages and benefits, to the taxpayer and costs of Medicare, Medicaid and now subsidized Healthcare ” ACA” “Obamacare”. These costs are not sustainable and will be the collapse of the Healthcare system as we know it today…."
Are Drug Companies Bankrupting Healthcare? - The People's Pharmacy


b. Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.


c. "....slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.” Are you thinking ‘seniors’?
George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus



Democrat Governor Dick Lamm once created a firestorm in Colorado (a few years after leaving the Governor’s office) when he said: “the elderly have a duty to die.”

Nice rant, worthy of its own thread.

Nothing to do with the question you asked me, though. Thanks for playing.

The point is simple....but not as simple as you.

There is no such thing as an insurance company not covered by ObamaCare.


Every company must conform to whatever ObamaCare demands of them.


"Some 15 million Americans, or about 6% of non-elderly adults, currently buy coverage on the individual market. Starting this fall, they'll be able to shop for and enroll in health insurance through state-based exchanges, with coverage taking effect in January. By 2016, some 24 million people will get insurance through the exchanges, while another 12 million will continue to get individual coverage outside of them, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Both groups will be affected by thenew Obamacare rules. Starting next year, nearly all individual plans -- both in and out of the exchanges -- will be required to cover an array of "essential" services, including medication, maternity and mental health care. Many plans don't currently offer those benefits.

So what happens to the plans that don't meet the new minimum standards? They will likely disappear. A handful of existing plans will be grandfathered in, but the qualifying criteria for that is hard to meet..."
Most individual health insurance isn't good enough for Obamacare

Again, fascinating stuff, but it obviously didn't provide you with the answer you were requesting specific to Keytruda, so I'm wondering why you're posting it in an attempt to derail your own thread.

If you're no longer interested in discussing Keytruda, let's move on.

On the contrary.

You provided exactly what I expected.

 

[Arianrhod]

The answer is: It depends on the individual insurance company, and if you click on the link, you can find out.

Do you still not understand that ObamaCare is not an insurance company, and that each insurance company has its own company-specific list of drugs and treatments it will and will not cover?

Apparently not.

You're getting a free ride, aren't you? Employer coverage? You have no idea how these things work.

Connect the dots:

a. "The exorbitant price of drugs costs ALL of us…… in our employers ability to provide wages and benefits, to the taxpayer and costs of Medicare, Medicaid and now subsidized Healthcare ” ACA” “Obamacare”. These costs are not sustainable and will be the collapse of the Healthcare system as we know it today…."
Are Drug Companies Bankrupting Healthcare? - The People's Pharmacy


b. Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.


c. "....slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.” Are you thinking ‘seniors’?
George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus



Democrat Governor Dick Lamm once created a firestorm in Colorado (a few years after leaving the Governor’s office) when he said: “the elderly have a duty to die.”

Nice rant, worthy of its own thread.

Nothing to do with the question you asked me, though. Thanks for playing.

The point is simple....but not as simple as you.

There is no such thing as an insurance company not covered by ObamaCare.


Every company must conform to whatever ObamaCare demands of them.


"Some 15 million Americans, or about 6% of non-elderly adults, currently buy coverage on the individual market. Starting this fall, they'll be able to shop for and enroll in health insurance through state-based exchanges, with coverage taking effect in January. By 2016, some 24 million people will get insurance through the exchanges, while another 12 million will continue to get individual coverage outside of them, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Both groups will be affected by thenew Obamacare rules. Starting next year, nearly all individual plans -- both in and out of the exchanges -- will be required to cover an array of "essential" services, including medication, maternity and mental health care. Many plans don't currently offer those benefits.

So what happens to the plans that don't meet the new minimum standards? They will likely disappear. A handful of existing plans will be grandfathered in, but the qualifying criteria for that is hard to meet..."
Most individual health insurance isn't good enough for Obamacare

Again, fascinating stuff, but it obviously didn't provide you with the answer you were requesting specific to Keytruda, so I'm wondering why you're posting it in an attempt to derail your own thread.

If you're no longer interested in discussing Keytruda, let's move on.

On the contrary.

You provided exactly what I expected.

Glad I could help you understand that the question you were asking didn't make any sense as asked. Alternatively, if you still don't understand, at least your reactions have helped inform others.

Now let's discuss one or all of the issues in the mash-up in Post #19.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Connect the dots:

a. "The exorbitant price of drugs costs ALL of us…… in our employers ability to provide wages and benefits, to the taxpayer and costs of Medicare, Medicaid and now subsidized Healthcare ” ACA” “Obamacare”. These costs are not sustainable and will be the collapse of the Healthcare system as we know it today…."
Are Drug Companies Bankrupting Healthcare? - The People's Pharmacy


b. Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.


c. "....slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.” Are you thinking ‘seniors’?
George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus



Democrat Governor Dick Lamm once created a firestorm in Colorado (a few years after leaving the Governor’s office) when he said: “the elderly have a duty to die.”

Nice rant, worthy of its own thread.

Nothing to do with the question you asked me, though. Thanks for playing.

The point is simple....but not as simple as you.

There is no such thing as an insurance company not covered by ObamaCare.


Every company must conform to whatever ObamaCare demands of them.


"Some 15 million Americans, or about 6% of non-elderly adults, currently buy coverage on the individual market. Starting this fall, they'll be able to shop for and enroll in health insurance through state-based exchanges, with coverage taking effect in January. By 2016, some 24 million people will get insurance through the exchanges, while another 12 million will continue to get individual coverage outside of them, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Both groups will be affected by thenew Obamacare rules. Starting next year, nearly all individual plans -- both in and out of the exchanges -- will be required to cover an array of "essential" services, including medication, maternity and mental health care. Many plans don't currently offer those benefits.

So what happens to the plans that don't meet the new minimum standards? They will likely disappear. A handful of existing plans will be grandfathered in, but the qualifying criteria for that is hard to meet..."
Most individual health insurance isn't good enough for Obamacare

Again, fascinating stuff, but it obviously didn't provide you with the answer you were requesting specific to Keytruda, so I'm wondering why you're posting it in an attempt to derail your own thread.

If you're no longer interested in discussing Keytruda, let's move on.

On the contrary.

You provided exactly what I expected.

Glad I could help you understand that the question you were asking didn't make any sense as asked. Alternatively, if you still don't understand, at least your reactions have helped inform others.

Now let's discuss one or all of the issues in the mash-up in Post #19.

Have you come to recognize your error, imagining that health insurance companies are in no way separate from the rules in ObamaCare?

No?

Not yet?

Try harder....but, fair warning: if this is the first time you tried thinking, you might be subject to an aneurysm.

 

[Arianrhod]

Have you come to recognize your error, imagining that health insurance companies are in no way separate from the rules in ObamaCare?

As we hadn't started discussing that yet, there's no error, except in your assumption. I'm well aware that the PPACA, as a piece of legislation relevant to the health insurance industry, does in fact provide access to affordable health insurance for more Americans than were previously able to access that health insurance.

You don't seem to be aware that insurance companies are corporate entities that set their own internal policies. How can I help you with that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Have you come to recognize your error, imagining that health insurance companies are in no way separate from the rules in ObamaCare?

As we hadn't started discussing that yet, there's no error, except in your assumption. I'm well aware that the PPACA, as a piece of legislation relevant to the health insurance industry, does in fact provide access to affordable health insurance for more Americans than were previously able to access that health insurance.

You don't seem to be aware that insurance companies are corporate entities that set their own internal policies. How can I help you with that?

You can help by sticking to the truth.

No, health insurance companies do not set their own policies.
They are under the ObamaCare dictates.

All of them, and every policy they write....except for a few grandfathered in.


Again:

"Some 15 million Americans, or about 6% of non-elderly adults, currently buy coverage on the individual market. Starting this fall, they'll be able to shop for and enroll in health insurance through state-based exchanges, with coverage taking effect in January. By 2016, some 24 million people will get insurance through the exchanges, while another 12 million will continue to get individual coverage outside of them, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.


Both groups will be affected by the new Obamacare rules. Starting next year, nearly all individual plans -- both in and out of the exchanges -- will be required to cover an array of "essential" services, including medication, maternity and mental health care. Many plans don't currently offer those benefits.


So what happens to the plans that don't meet the new minimum standards? They will likely disappear. A handful of existing plans will be grandfathered in, but the qualifying criteria for that is hard to meet...
Most individual health insurance isn't good enough for Obamacare




Since you are unable to answer the original question....I will: the federal government will cut costs via rationing health, and refusing medicines and technology that they.....they.....deem too expensive.

 

[Arianrhod]

No, health insurance companies do not set their own policies.

Really? There's no difference between the Blues and, say, HealthExtras? You'll have to provide evidence for that.

While you're doing that, here's a little something for you to contemplate:

Cancer and the Affordable Care Act

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, health insurance companies do not set their own policies.

Really? There's no difference between the Blues and, say, HealthExtras? You'll have to provide evidence for that.

While you're doing that, here's a little something for you to contemplate:

Cancer and the Affordable Care Act

1. No, every single detail of every insurers policies is subject to ObamaCare law.

2. Did you not read this in your link:
"Beginning with plan years starting after July 1, 2011, insurance companies that deny payment for a treatment or service are required to conduct internal appeals at the patient's request within specific timelines:

Know what 'deny' means?
Know why they might deny treatment?

See the OP.

 

[Arianrhod]

No, health insurance companies do not set their own policies.

Really? There's no difference between the Blues and, say, HealthExtras? You'll have to provide evidence for that.

While you're doing that, here's a little something for you to contemplate:

Cancer and the Affordable Care Act

1. No, every single detail of every insurers policies is subject to ObamaCare law.

No. If that were true, there'd be no differences between carriers or between the same carrier from state to state. There are. Whatever fantasy version of "government-run healthcare" you're entertaining, this is not that.

2. Did you not read this in your link:
"Beginning with plan years starting after July 1, 2011, insurance companies that deny payment for a treatment or service are required to conduct internal appeals at the patient's request within specific timelines:

Know what 'deny' means?

It means, among other things, that prior to the PPACA, insurers could refuse to cover an adult who'd been cancer-free for decades because of a childhood treatment for cancer.

They're not allowed to do that anymore.

Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, health insurance companies do not set their own policies.

Really? There's no difference between the Blues and, say, HealthExtras? You'll have to provide evidence for that.

While you're doing that, here's a little something for you to contemplate:

Cancer and the Affordable Care Act

1. No, every single detail of every insurers policies is subject to ObamaCare law.

No. If that were true, there'd be no differences between carriers or between the same carrier from state to state. There are. Whatever fantasy version of "government-run healthcare" you're entertaining, this is not that.

2. Did you not read this in your link:
"Beginning with plan years starting after July 1, 2011, insurance companies that deny payment for a treatment or service are required to conduct internal appeals at the patient's request within specific timelines:

Know what 'deny' means?

It means, among other things, that prior to the PPACA, insurers could refuse to cover an adult who'd been cancer-free for decades because of a childhood treatment for cancer.

They're not allowed to do that anymore.

Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

Funny.

In post #25 I proved it, and here you are whining 'is not, is nooottttttt!'


And they cannot deny treatment...but can deny particular treatments.
And that was the point of the OP.


It is at the heart of Liberalism: no concern for lives lost.

 

[Arianrhod]

In post #25 I proved it…

That you don’t understand the provisions of the PPACA? That’s been evident since Post #1.

And they cannot deny treatment...but can deny particular treatments.
And that was the point of the OP.


It is at the heart of Liberalism: no concern for lives lost.

(A) Who’s “they”? Every single insurer? You’ll need to prove that
(B) Are you laboring under the delusion that denying treatment altogether didn’t cost lives? Why does Cancer.net say otherwise? Is it because they’re lying and you’re telling the truth? Fascinating.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

No, health insurance companies do not set their own policies.

Really? There's no difference between the Blues and, say, HealthExtras? You'll have to provide evidence for that.

While you're doing that, here's a little something for you to contemplate:

Cancer and the Affordable Care Act

1. No, every single detail of every insurers policies is subject to ObamaCare law.

No. If that were true, there'd be no differences between carriers or between the same carrier from state to state. There are. Whatever fantasy version of "government-run healthcare" you're entertaining, this is not that.

2. Did you not read this in your link:
"Beginning with plan years starting after July 1, 2011, insurance companies that deny payment for a treatment or service are required to conduct internal appeals at the patient's request within specific timelines:

Know what 'deny' means?

It means, among other things, that prior to the PPACA, insurers could refuse to cover an adult who'd been cancer-free for decades because of a childhood treatment for cancer.

They're not allowed to do that anymore.

Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

Funny.

In post #25 I proved it, and here you are whining 'is not, is nooottttttt!'


And they cannot deny treatment...but can deny particular treatments.
And that was the point of the OP.


It is at the heart of Liberalism: no concern for lives lost.

What are the guidelines for denial ?

I know the Unaffordable Care Act pushes certain requirements for care (that drive up the costs).

What you are saying is that they can also deny care (so people can pay for things they don't want or need...and not get the things they want and need.....how left-wing).

Did I get that right ?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, health insurance companies do not set their own policies.

Really? There's no difference between the Blues and, say, HealthExtras? You'll have to provide evidence for that.

While you're doing that, here's a little something for you to contemplate:

Cancer and the Affordable Care Act

1. No, every single detail of every insurers policies is subject to ObamaCare law.

No. If that were true, there'd be no differences between carriers or between the same carrier from state to state. There are. Whatever fantasy version of "government-run healthcare" you're entertaining, this is not that.

2. Did you not read this in your link:
"Beginning with plan years starting after July 1, 2011, insurance companies that deny payment for a treatment or service are required to conduct internal appeals at the patient's request within specific timelines:

Know what 'deny' means?

It means, among other things, that prior to the PPACA, insurers could refuse to cover an adult who'd been cancer-free for decades because of a childhood treatment for cancer.

They're not allowed to do that anymore.

Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

Funny.

In post #25 I proved it, and here you are whining 'is not, is nooottttttt!'


And they cannot deny treatment...but can deny particular treatments.
And that was the point of the OP.


It is at the heart of Liberalism: no concern for lives lost.

What are the guidelines for denial ?

I know the Unaffordable Care Act pushes certain requirements for care (that drive up the costs).

What you are saying is that they can also deny care (so people can pay for things they don't want or need...and not get the things they want and need.....how left-wing).

Did I get that right ?

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get



This is the government's explanation of the item....
"Nothing in the bill infringes upon you and your doctor's ability to make medical decisions. The National Health Benefits Advisory Council is not a "government committee" but is made up of providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, independent experts and representatives of government agencies. They will make recommendations about minimum standards of care and covered benefits that insurance companies have to offer- ensuring that everyone has a health plan that provides them with adequate coverage."

To my mind, this is not a complete denial...but a talking point.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[PoliticalChic]

The aim of Liberals, Leftists, totalitarian is never...has never....been saving lives or improving the quality of healthcare.
Need proof?

See who this President put in charge:


"....director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the office that oversees government health care programs, is Dr. Donald Berwick, an outspoken admirer of the British National Health Service and its rationing arm, the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE).

"I am romantic about the National Health Service (NHS). I love it," Berwick said during a 2008 speech to British physicians, going on to call it "generous, hopeful, confident, joyous, and just." He compared the wonders of British health care to a U.S. system that he described as trapped in "the darkness of private enterprise."

Berwick was referring to a British health care system where 750,000 patients are awaiting admission to NHS hospitals.

The government's official target for diagnostic testing was a wait of no more than 18 weeks by 2008.

The reality doesn't come close; the latest estimates suggest that for most specialties, only 30 percent to 50 percent of patients are treated within 18 weeks.

For trauma and orthopedics patients, the figure is only 20 percent.

Overall, more than half of British patients wait more than 18 weeks for care.

Every year, 50,000 surgeries are canceled because patients become too sick on the waiting list to proceed.

The one thing the NHS is good at is saving money. After all, it is far cheaper to let the sick die than to provide care, says Tanner.

At the forefront of this cost-based rationing is NICE. It acts as a comparative effectiveness tool for NHS, comparing various treatments and determining whether the benefits the patient receives, such as prolonged life, are cost efficient for the government.

Dr. Berwick wants to bring NICE-style rationing to this country. "It's not a question of whether we will ration care," he said in a magazine interview for Biotechnology Healthcare, "It is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

Maybe those worries about death panels weren't so crazy after all, says Tanner."

Source: Michael Tanner, "'Death panels' were an overblown claim -- until now," Daily Caller, May 27, 2010.

For text:
‘Death panels’ were an overblown claim – until now




For context, I suggest this thread:

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JimH52]

Did somebody say "Death Panels"?

Just you.

What your OP shows is the costs of cancer treatment, and why people need insurance to cover them.

Welcome to the real world.

Is that drug that saved Carter available to those covered under ObamaCare?

ObamaCare is not an insurance company. Who's the patient's insurer? Ask them.

As I never posted against folks having health insurance, and President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care....perhaps you'd care to answer:

Is that drug that saved Carter available to those covered under ObamaCare?

Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?

 

[Arianrhod]

Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?

She'll cite EMTALA, with absolutely no understanding of how that was paid for.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did somebody say "Death Panels"?

Just you.

What your OP shows is the costs of cancer treatment, and why people need insurance to cover them.

Welcome to the real world.

Is that drug that saved Carter available to those covered under ObamaCare?

ObamaCare is not an insurance company. Who's the patient's insurer? Ask them.

As I never posted against folks having health insurance, and President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care....perhaps you'd care to answer:

Is that drug that saved Carter available to those covered under ObamaCare?

Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?

President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care..

Now, I'll prove this...and await your apology:


"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments fromMedicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay."
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1986...President Reagan gave healthcare to every single person in the United States.

Just one more reason to see Reagan as the finest President in the last hundred years.


Waiting for that apology.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?

She'll cite EMTALA, with absolutely no understanding of how that was paid for.

So you knew it was true, also.


Did you also know that, prior to the ObamaCare scam, almost 90 % of Americans with healthcare insurance were happy with same?

Did you know that?

 

[Arianrhod]

Just you.

What your OP shows is the costs of cancer treatment, and why people need insurance to cover them.

Welcome to the real world.

Is that drug that saved Carter available to those covered under ObamaCare?

ObamaCare is not an insurance company. Who's the patient's insurer? Ask them.

As I never posted against folks having health insurance, and President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care....perhaps you'd care to answer:

Is that drug that saved Carter available to those covered under ObamaCare?

Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?

President Ronald Reagan made certain that every person in the nation...citizen or not....had health care..

Now, I'll prove this...and await your apology:


"The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments fromMedicare to provide an appropriate medical screening examination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of citizenship, legal status, or ability to pay."
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1986...President Reagan gave healthcare to every single person in the United States.

Just one more reason to see Reagan as the finest President in the last hundred years.


Waiting for that apology.

Predicted you'd do this in Post #36.

Now tell the class what happened when people used emergent services and couldn't pay.

 

[Arianrhod]

Ronald Reagan did what? Are u on drugs?

She'll cite EMTALA, with absolutely no understanding of how that was paid for.

So you knew it was true, also.


Did you also know that, prior to the ObamaCare scam, almost 90 % of Americans with healthcare insurance were happy with same?

Did you know that?

Now tell the class what happened when people used emergent services and couldn't pay.