Pastor denied cancer treatment by insurance company will soon get treatment under Obamacare!

That's what the headline should read, but that would be the truth, and the truth doesn't make for a good Obamacare horror story.

Below is the story of a man who was denied chemotherapy by his insurance company because of a preexisting condition. In essence, his insurance company was acting as a death panel. In two months he quickly racked up $50,000 in debt for treatment his insurance wouldn't cover. That's $25,000 per month with insurance. He looks into Obamacare and finds out it will cover him for $850 per month, a savings of $24,150 each month. To save someone with preexisting cancer that kind of money would normally be seen as a good thing, but not in the eyes of the Obamacare haters. Watch the video and see how the story is spun to make Obamacare look bad.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Did you actually watch the clip? What you have written is without regard to the facts.

Comparing his cumulative hospital bill to a monthly premium is useless. What is important (and there is no way to know via the information that has been shared) is the Obamacare deductible. We do know that Obamacare policies have comparatively high deductibles (don't take my word for it--look it up on the health care site). So, this man could be in the same boat (owing $50,000) as the result of a high Obamacare deductible--even if it did cover the procedure (and he'd now be paying $800 a month--an amount he says he can't afford).

Also, the clip says he couldn't have gotten covered by Obamacare as quickly as he needed to.

What would benefit this man would be for Obamacare to be repealed and insurance companies to be required to cover pre-existing conditions. That way he could continue to afford his premiums and have the procedures he needed.

The re-election of people like Marcy Kaptur will exacerbate the Obamacare problem--but District 9 voters aren't smart enough to figure that out.

What would benefit this man would be for Obamacare to be repealed and insurance companies to be required to cover pre-existing conditions. That way he could continue to afford his premiums and have the procedures he needed.

If insurers were forced to cover preexisting conditions and were not guaranteed a large influx of younger, healthier people to balance their risk pool, do you think premiums will go down?

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

"[D]o you think premiums will go down?"

Of course not. Premiums would go up. A lot. And other things would happen:

1. Deductibles would go up. A lot.
2. Co-pays would go up.
3. Insurance share would go down (from 80/20 to 70/30, commonly). 10% of any medical bill is also a lot.
4. The number of doctors in your medical plan or network would shrink. This forces more out-of-network spending, which isn't covered at all.

All this is already happening under Obamacare... because it told insurers to cover the already-ill.

And because we're not getting the healthy people enrolling because morons like you keep telling them it's better to be uninsured and then go to the ER whenever they get sick or in an accident than to have coverage that covers SOMETHING. Which is also why auto insurance and home insurance work, on the basis of "not everyone is going to have their house burn down, hit by tornadoes, hit by earthquakes, etc. etc." But strange thing here, I don't hear JACK SHIT from you on how BIG OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT is EVIL for mandating homeowners/liability/auto/etc. insurance. Please oh please tell us how Ohio is justified in requiring all these MANDATES, or tell us what would happen if they weren't in place. Pick one and run with it.

Yep that's what we're telling them.

You are ignoring the fact that healthy young people have been the highest percentage of uninsured for years. It's been a fact used by Dems for years to justify raising the minimum wage but every time they do this group surprisingly didn't buy insurance with the added money.


And a lot of people would not buy insurance because they figured that hey, the assholes at the insurance companies would just go "f you, whatever you got was a pre-existing condition and we won't cover it" if they did buy insurance and got sick. Or they wouldn't cover jack when they needed to use it.

I've noticed almost uniformly that people don't buy health insurance since it's too expensive for the benefits delivered to them.

You Liberals keep dancing around the problem, and we sensible citizens have to keep reminding you: The real problem in the United States is that health care is commonly too expensive. You certainly can't buy it directly, since the price of the average procedure wipes out the life savings of the average middle-class person. So you're 'forced' to consider insurance, which after all these decades of mismanagement, is now also too expensive.

That's why we've covered up the problem for so long, using tax credits for employer-sponsored insurance. The covering-up issue in the USA has existed for a long, long time, too. Since the 1930s. We've had the employer distraction for almost a century now. That's the real symptom, if not the actual cause. And you'd think you Liberals would have been all over that issue, since it originated in excluding women and minorities and manual laborers from the comforts of civilized care.

Power grab and control,just like the Colonial Script..

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

"I don't hear JACK SHIT from you on how BIG OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT is EVIL for mandating homeowners/liability/auto/etc. insurance."

You don't hear that since we're not talking about the federal government, then. The federal government's list of powers is in the U.S. Constitution. The ability to force you to buy a private product or service, is NOT listed there. And powers not listed there automatically fall to "the states or the people". This is basic knowledge of your nation's legal structure, AC. Were you sleeping in class? Officious Liberal blather from the head of the classroom does get a bit boring, I warrant. I hope you feel rested.

Yes I did watch the clip.

Did you? And if you did, why did you write the following?

Also, the clip says he couldn't have gotten covered by Obamacare as quickly as he needed to.

That's not exactly what the clip said. It said he would have two weeks until it took effect. In other words, he has signed up for Obamacare and is eagerly anticipating getting the treatment from it. Apparently even for the $850 a month he will be better off than with his insurance company. I hope he can hang in there for the two week wait. Maybe he should have signed up sooner.

You are right about one thing: it is true that any savings he sees will be offset by a deductible (if there is one), but he will at least be getting something for his money. His insurance company turned him down just when he needed them the most, and they charged him all along the way. As added insult, he owes $50,000 because they wouldn't cover him. I highly doubt that amount was his deductible, as I highly doubt he will see that high of a deductible under Obamacare.

Also, since you watched the clip, did you notice how his preexisting condition had nothing to do with his cancer? It was for a heart condition. That doesn't seem right somehow. He didn't have preexisting cancer, but they were still able to turn him down for cancer related treatment based on a preexisting condition. It sounds like his death panel insurance company had an ace in the hole and knew they were never going to cover him, but took his money anyway. That's the kind of BS Obamacare seeks to put an end to.

I've said it before and I take great pleasure in repeating: Obamacare did nothing about the games the insurers will play with your bills. What insurers do today as a standard issue, is called "billing fraud". You get a procedure that you and/or your doctor is defrauded into believing will be covered by the insurer, and then the insurer refuses to cover it. That's fraud. Obamacare does nothing about that. Insurers will still lull you and your doctor into performing a medical procedure, and they will then refuse to pay for it, sticking you or the doctor with the bill... likely just YOU.

Obamacare will cause people to bankrupt FASTER from medical bills.

Other than outrageously high costs, that's the other major problem with U.S. health care: It's commonly fraudulent. No wonder people just go to the ER and then refuse to pay. Why not? All's fair in love, war and medical-billing fraud.

The Dems are now running on "fixing" Obamacare.

The problem with this tactic is when you publicly want to "fix" a program you are tacitly admitting that it is broken.

During the government shut down the Dems thought that the GOP was finished. What the GOP did was remind everyone that Obamacare is a bad program and that they are wholly against it. The divide was made clear. Now that the effects are being felt the law is liked even less.

I have no doubt that the reason you're seeing the political commentators go from GOP control of the Senate at a 50/50 split to now it's almost assured. In fact the GOP winning 8-10 seats is distinct possibility.

The Dems are hard pressed to find O-care "success" stories because they still must focus on getting people to sign up and they are vastly missing that goal, especially as young people are concerned.


And the GOP keeps faking Obamacare "failure" stories, because they're that damn desperate.

Congrats on keeping your CO from finding out what you're doing to that chicken.

We don't need to fake a thing, all you have to do is look at every poll of it's popularity. And for those "fake" stories... there's a reason Harry Reid walked back his "lies" comment within hours of uttering it.

The fact that you had to attempt to attack me only displays your lack of ability to defend your position. Everyone can see you for what you really are and it's not pretty.


Keep wasting my tax dollar talking politics while in the military.

Look at all those fake Obamacare horror stories.

Sorry dude but you keep backing the side who keeps crying WOLF! WOLF! and see how far that gets you. It's already well-known that you Republicans have oversized fear centers in what passes for your brains, so no wonder why all the GOP scare tactics work on you, but as for the rest of us, we ain't buying it because we ain't so easily manipulated. Seriously, when one article points out 5+ BS stories, that just about proves that there's a BS campaign out there.

But then again you're stupid enough to cheer on the side that blocked benefits for veterans while being part of the military, so I don't expect you to believe anything different.

like you pay taxes...

Actually today I am home sick.

Think I'm wasting your tax money? Have you entered in the "You can win paid for Obamacare sweepstakes yet"? That's right, they are giving out cash prizes trying to get people to sign up. If it was such a good program people should be lining up to sign up for it on it's merits.

From your link: "What's odd about this is that any reporter who has covered the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, which Lord knows hasn't been perfect, is aware of numerous cases of individuals or families who are paying more for coverage this year than last, and possibly for less coverage than they had before." Right there is the catch but it was buried in the article.

BTW, what veterans benefits got cut? In fact the veterans got their full COLA increase this year.


I didn't say anything about CUTS, check your reading comprehension, then go fire up Google and find out for yourself.

Then name the benefits I don't currently have. You made the claim, I'm just making you prove it.


Ok why don't you go to the google link you provided and cite which story your specifically talking about. Those search results go back years and several of those stories have already passed.

If we're talking about the most recent one from Feb '14 here is one such link.

That story is about a BOOST to veterans benefits. Thus I have not nor am not losing any benefits, I'm just not gaining new ones. When you dig deeper you see that some of the benefits were:

"The VA would have been given more tools to eat into its backlog of 390,000 benefit claims awaiting action for more than 125 days. The bill also would have bolstered programs for veterans who suffered sexual abuse, and would have increased dental care and provided more alternative medicine, such as yoga for stress.

In a two-year test program, some overweight veterans living more than 15 minutes from a VA gym would have been given memberships at private health clubs."

Please explain why you think yoga is THAT big of a deal?


You want to wait over three months for care, fine by me buddy.

There are problems with your statement. Nothing in the bill guarantees that it would reduce the VA workload. That means even if the bill passed there still could be a 3 month wait or longer. Plus there have been multiple investigations into the VA system and fixing the cost delays... what it needs is a overhaul. This bill does not do that.

This bill to the VA problem is the equivalent to giving a Flintstones vitamin to a guy with a broken leg.

Sorry to hear the Dems attempt to pander didn't work.


I've said it before and it must needs be repeated: Waiting for care is a sensible allocation of scarce health-care resources. I've had a few health conditions myself that could have easily been queued for care, even months down the road. After all, ultimately SOME care is better than the NO care that's allocated to me via that other system, "by price". Allocation of resources by price in a system that's too expensive by default, only means denial of care.

Sadly, Americans have been perversely trained to expect healthcare NOW NOW NOW in all cases. There's really no way to fix this now without pissing Americans off, and angry Americans behave even more irrationally than they usually do. The rational man merely expects all this to fail in catastrophic fits, enveloped in puffy clouds of propaganda. I expect the conflagration to look pretty from a distance.



I challenge everyone on here to drive up I-75 to the VA in Ann Arbor and just talk to the patients there. That is what US gov't run healthcare looks like.

Luckily I am far enough advanced in my career that I don't have to rely on VA medicine.

Yet we have AC here trying to blame the GOP from blocking the solution.... subsidized yoga classes. I can do without the yoga classes myself.


Obamacare isn't a failure. It was designed to force the young and healthy to pay for the Boomers and the Blacks. So if you're the White working class (by definition) then you're going to think Obamacare is a failure, since it targets YOU.

If anything, its failure is that it didn't budget to send out armed thugs to invade the homes of the young and the healthy until they write checks at gunpoint... which is about the only way today that the Liberals are going to get that money.

There isn't enough money to keep spending $1 million per Boomer for their 'expected' end-of-life care. Robbing people for that money will just force people to hold the government in even more contempt. And the young and the healthy just don't have the money to steal. Obama and his wretched cadre of Liberal minions are digging a dry hole. No joy.

"To save someone with preexisting cancer that kind of money would normally be seen as a good thing, but not in the eyes of the Obamacare haters."

You can't give each Boomer about $1 million in end-of-life medical care. Period. There isn't enough money in the care system to allow that to happen.

Obamacare is an ATTACK on Americans by Boomers to fund their delusional medical care system. Americans have already struck back by simply not paying. And that silly fine or tax or whatever it is on your future federal tax form? I'm already telling people to just ignore it, to not pay it, since there's grand fuck-all that the IRS can do about collecting it.

Regardless of what the SCOTUS said in the Roberts Decision, the federal government does not have the power to force you to buy a private product or service. That power does not exist in the US Constitution. Dodging the argument by calling it a "tax" doesn't actually make it true. If it's a tax, then everyone must pay it.

" the federal government does not have the power to force you to buy a private product or service"
"the federal government does not have the power to force you to buy a private product or service"


"those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder"

Militia Act of 1792. Requiring all qualified citizens to privately purchase a gun and more in defense of the country.

Problem, GZarthy?

How are you going to get out of this one?

"How are you going to get out of this one?"

Get out of what one? The Militia Act of 1792 is unconstitutional and has been superseded* anyway. We have the right to keep and bear arms, and the federal government has the implied right to regulate (i.e. call up for duty) that militia, but that government doesn't have the right to force you to buy a private product or service. Period.

Don't your hands dry out and get all chappy from grasping all that straw?

* "[The previous Militia Acts were] superseded by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States."

What's your citation for the Militia Act of 1792 being unconstitutional? Your opinion?


So where's your Supreme Court ruling that the Militia Act of 1792 is unconstitutional?

It's unconstitutional since it forces Americans to buy a private product or service. Just like a I told you before.

A ruling has never been made on it. A ruling will never be made on it, since it was superseded. It's dead law.

This is called "logic", which is a weak point for Liberals who want to grab guns and otherwise force people to do thing against their self interest.

Ah. So in other words it's unconstitutional because YOUR OPINION. I see. Clearly the Founding Fathers and members of the SECOND CONGRESS EVER don't know their own Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it specifically prohibit being forced to buy private products or services again? I'm quite tired of paying for CAR INSURANCE. That's unconstitutional, right? RIGHT, GZ?!?!

It is Unconstitutional most simply because the United States Constitution does not give the United States Government the power to demand the people pay for a goo d or service under penalty of law. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE INSURANCE.
Chumley you claim its not unconstitutional because you are extremely liberal and ignorant of the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. GO BACK TO BED

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Sorry Lie-tosser aka DTOM, but you're wrong. Just like GZ is wrong.

The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES says it's constitutional.

All you two Tea-tardos are doing is BEING INCREDIBLY BUTTHURT because the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES did not rule your way.

You can throw all the temper tantrums you like about how the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES has ruled and if you can't cope with it, then STFU and move to Somalia or some other LLLLLLibertarian paradise.

The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES gets to rule on constitutionality, NOT YOU.

"The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES says it's constitutional."

No, the Roberts Decision was autistic and skipped over the point entirely, claiming instead that the individual mandate fee was "a tax", which the federal government naturally has to power to levy. But that's not the point. Applying a tax as a consequence for a mandated act, is force used against a citizen, and unless that mandated act is a power of the federal government, then equally naturally the consequences are illegal.

Liberals just can't do logic... not when one of their sacred cows is mooing excessively.

GZarthy, tell me, can you see the pyramids and Sphinx from where you are, because you must be standing in the middle of DENIAL.

The Supreme Court ruled. It's CONSTITUTIONAL. You can claim they're wrong all you want and that's not going to change a goddamn thing, because the Constitutional process has been followed and there is no appealing a decision of the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. What do you think you're gonna do, start an ARMED REVOLUTION?

Bitching about it and continuing to live in denial just proves what a butthurt bitter little child you are over it and that nobody should give your OPINION any attention.

There's some SCOTUS rulings I don't like either (Citizens United being one) but that doesn't mean I deny reality like you and bitch about how something is UNCONSTITUTIONAL when the DECIDING AUTHORITY OF WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL has ruled on it.. This isn't Major League Sportsball where some official dun goofed and you get to put an asterix next to the record for all eternity and bitch about it every time a call doesn't go your way, it's real life and all you are doing is looking like a bitter senile old man raging that things have changed and you don't like it. Give it up already and deal with it.

"What do you think you're gonna do, start an ARMED REVOLUTION?"

No, you're going to lose the Senate and this horrific law we laughingly call "Obamacare" is going to be repealed.

So watta you gonna do then? PASS A LAW? LOL!

"Where in the Constitution does it specifically prohibit being forced to buy private products or services again?"

Constitutional Law 101: The United States Constitution outlines the formation of the federal government. Therefore anything not stated there becomes a right held by the states or the people. In other words, if a particular power isn't in the US Constitution, the federal government therefore doesn't have that legal power.

Did you ever go to college, AC? Do you even read? Oooooh, you Liberals get so fucking angry that the federal government actually has LIMITS.

Although AC and the other vicious packs of thieving Liberals don't want to hear this, there WAS a way that the federal government could have LEGALLY passed a fee for the individual mandate or shared responsibility or whatever favorite phrase they had for it.

1. Issue a federal, shared responsibility tax on every American. Hey, Liberals like to tax, right? No problem there. And the federal government has that power, as expressed in the US Constitution. Again, no problem there.

2. Let Americans filing a tax return, prove they have health insurance, and therefore obtain a tax credit for that, based on whatever silly formula that is no more or less complicated than the shared responsibility tax uses today under Obamacare.

See? Easy peasy. And yet the Democrats probably still don't understand why they promptly lost control of the House of Representatives and they never got it back.

Throngs of butthurt Teabaggers like you who live in denial of a Supreme Court ruling were riled up by Fox News and went to the polls to vote in a pile of Teabaggers who promptly gerrymandered themselves in some fantastically unrepresentative districts is why the Dems don't control the House. Meanwhile, speaking of understanding things, why do all the Teabaggers you voted for keep voting to repeal Obamacare. What are we at now, 54 votes and counting? What's that cost to the taxpayers for each one of those votes? How about you either shut your pie hole or tell your duly elected Teabaggers to stop wasting your freaking money and stop proving themselves to be insane (what's the definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?) and find some other way to show they're worth a damn?

If it was the Dems holding repeated votes to repeal something championed by the GOP and duly upheld by the Supreme Court , you'd have started in on how fucking stupid they are being and that they should shut up and acknowledge SCOTUS around about the third vote. How about you pull your partisan head out of your partisan ass, STFU, and find another, more sensible battle to take up?

Sure sure gerrymandering is why the GOP has the House. Sure.

The GOP won the House before gerrymandering was done. This coming election they won't lose the house and they'll gain the Senate. But sure the Tea Party took the House by gerrymandering.

Just keep saying that when we take the Senate. 53-54 seats in the Senate are a distinct possibility now for us.


Boy, that's some rant. But I love it. I love it when a Liberal loses his shit and reveals just how much he hates democracy when it looks like the vote's not going his way.

Keep up the good work. And when you Liberals lose the Senate, I look forward to more of your rants.

You had your chance to show you were better than the Conservative douchebags. You blew it; you proved Liberals are even BIGGER douchebags when they get ahold of a little power.

I love how he's complaining about the House passing bills aka working. Yet I've noticed the Senate is unable to produce a budget, sometime that has become routine. God forbid Congress actually do work.


Yeah, you see, there's this thing the Senate has called the FILIBUSTER, which is what the minority side does whenever they don't get their way, and guess which party has been the minority party for a while now? (HINT: YOURS.) So invalid comparison is invalid, unless you are saying that the Senate GOP minority are the same sort of whiny petulant babies that are in the House GOP Majority, just different in how they go about wasting the taxpayer dollar trying to get their way.

House isn't working if they're passing shit that has no chance of passing the Senate, or surviving a veto. That's just bullshit showmanship. Seriously, what are they gonna do this election season, run ads that say "WE HELD 54 VOTES TO REPEAL OBAMACARE!"? Yeah that'll go over well... at showing GOP impotence.

Your side has nothing to show but obstructionism and while that may sell to The Base, it's not gonna find traction with the independents. The only thing on your side right now is that Dems traditionally don't go vote in midterms... so retake the Senate, watch as Obama vetoes all your crap for being Tea-tardedly stupid, spend a couple more years with the more elderly Republican Base dying off while the demographics continue to shift to include many more younger LLLLLLLLLLLiberal voters and more "minority" voters, and we'll see how many pissed-off people decide to vote straight Dem ticket in 2016 due to the Tea-tarded racist, sexist, homophobic, make-the-rich-richer bullshit your team does in the run up to the 2016 election. Please, oh please, continue to scream BENGHAZIIIIIIIIII! and IRS!!!! and especially BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!!!!!! for two more years. Don't forget also the LEGITIMATE RAPE!!! and BIRTH CONTROL SLUT!!! and whatever else you have got! DO IT YOU CHICKEN-F___ERS!

Your assertion of Republican "obstructionism" is just a smokescreen.

To summarize, the top three reasons are:

1. "A budget isn't necessary." Democrats decided that since a budget isn't legally necessary, then they wouldn't do it. (That didn't seem to save any money, tho'. Sadface.)

2. "Democrats don't want the blame." This is truly a golden explanation. Democrats couldn't pass budgets unilaterally, since they didn't have the supermajority of 60 to stop or limit filibusters. So, they just stopped passing budgets, like the little petulant children they really are. Like I said before, Democrats don't like any democratic process once it goes against their current power. In short, a filibuster threat is part of the normal process of Senate governance, and can't be considered "obstructionism", much like having rules about keeping quiet when you're in bed for the night is considered "obstructionism".

3. "Democrats couldn't decide on one." Well, that isn't surprising. Liberals can't do math. Get a bunch of them in one room and you can't get a final number out of that pack for the life of you.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.