Posted on 09/29/2009 3:09:19 AM PDT by Son House
But not for the reasons Obama cites.
She "was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne," he said in one telling.
Beaton did not lose her insurance because she failed to own up to a skin problem in her past. She lost it because, when enrolling in the plan, she had not reported a previous heart condition and did not list her weight accurately.
Obama tells stories of real-life hardships repeatedly, in his speech to a joint session of Congress, in interviews and at his citizen meetings across the country in support of his campaign to rework medical insurance. Beaton's case is just one cited by Obama that mixes fact with fiction.
Even in his painstakingly prepared speech to Congress, Obama got some material facts wrong.
He said an Illinois man died because his insurance company found an undisclosed case of gallstones in his past, canceled his insurance and delayed a stem-cell transplant for his cancer. The man did lose his insurance, but got it back retroactively and had treatment that his family says extended his life for nearly four years.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The only thing that tires me more than this man’s anecdotal BS are the morons who swallow it hook-line-and-sinker.
He lie!
Funny, when Bush mentioned Yellow Cake in his speech to congress you didn't read “...Even in his painstakingly prepared speech to Congress, BUSH got some material facts wrong.”
What you hear and read was “Bush lied” even though the seventeen words in question were technically correct.
Obama lies?
Sirley you jest..
Look.If you are an American and you haven’t learned that Obama is a lying sack of crap yet, you have not been paying attention....
It’s an AP story. That explains it.
Lie.
Lie lie lie.
Private health insurance is a pain but government “insurance” will suck worse.
Consider if Beaton were seeking treatment for her breast cancer under Obamacare. She could be denied treatment simply because she was too old or allowed only treatments that were less effective because newer treatment options were not yet approved. Even if she wasn’t too old, her preexisting heart condition and weight could be construed as making her less “worthy” of care and send her to end of life counseling rather than treatment. In any case there would be no legal remedy or appeals process.
Worse there would be no other doctor or hospital to go to. Doctors and hospitals would not be individual providers. The government would be the only provider and if you didn't like your prognosis or prescription that would be it. Every health care worker would be speaking for the one provider the government.
"Worse there would be no other doctor or hospital to go to. Doctors and hospitals would not be individual providers. The government would be the only provider and if you didn't like your prognosis or prescription that would be it. Every health care worker would be speaking for the one provider the government."
And worse yet, besides no appeal process or alternative health care providers, each step in the process for diagnosis and then review would take five to ten times longer than it does in today's situation.
In addition:
1) there would be zero incentives to expand the supply of professional health care capacity to meet an explosion in demand for new patients,
2) there would be zero incentives for discovery and perfection of new treatment innovation.
It would be just the opposite - there would only be incentives to do the minimally acceptable research and treatments. There would be a lack of incentives for new treatment capacity... and it goes downhill from there...
Wellll, whudder we a’ waitin’ for? Let’s sell our souls and git it! (primal shriek)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.