Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, first Democrats are attacking a cancer patient who lost her healthcare plan under Obamacare, and now at least one Congressman is threatening TV stations who run the ad. This woman did nothing wrong. She believed the president's lie about getting to keep her plan. And then she lost it. Now her new plan has similar out of pocket costs per year, but most of the OOP costs are in the form of deductible, not premiums. She is stressed because she could end up owing it all in the first couple months of the year. She liked her old plan and feels like this new one is unaffordable for her. She made an ad about this and has been attacked viciously by Dems.
Quote:
A Michigan cancer patient is fighting back after her critical claims about ObamaCare were called into question by a Democratic congressman, who went so far as to threaten Michigan television stations running her ad.
The target of that ad, Michigan Rep. Gary Peters, subsequently had his campaign lawyers write to Michigan TV stations, effectively warning that their FCC licenses could be at risk unless they demanded more proof from AFP.
When Obamacare is so bad that you are reduced to attacking cancer patients and threatening TV stations, perhaps Dems should consider repealing it. They have truly lost their minds. And there are apparently no compelling stories for Obamacare, so all they can do is attack sick people who lost their insurance.
She has been repeatedly asked to prove her claims to see where the problems lie, so if it is a real error it can be fixed. So far she just states she doesn't even know ("People are asking me for the numbers and I don’t know those answers — that’s the heartbreak of all of this") what she put into the system. How can a person claim this terrible thing, and not even know what she put into the website? If she doesn't even know what she typed in...did she even type in the right information?
If she could prove it, besides make all these emotional claims, it would be a real thing people need to deal with.
She has been repeatedly asked to prove her claims to see where the problems lie, so if it is a real error it can be fixed. So far she just states she doesn't even know ("People are asking me for the numbers and I don’t know those answers — that’s the heartbreak of all of this") what she put into the system. How can a person claim this terrible thing, and not even know what she put into the website? If she doesn't even know what she typed in...did she even type in the right information?
If she could prove it, besides make all these emotional claims, it would be a real thing people need to deal with.
If she put her numbers into the system and got signed up, why does the system not already have her numbers, instead of stone walling her and demanding she provide the numbers again? Another example of the systems failures? Or just an attempt to perpetuate the lies?
If she put her numbers into the system and got signed up, why does the system not already have her numbers, instead of stone walling her and demanding she provide the numbers again? Another example of the systems failures? Or just an attempt to perpetuate the lies?
She is protected by the privacy protections in the law, they can't reveal her information to prove it true or not...she needs to. Just like all HIPAA protections she is protected unless she makes claims that need legal, or medical, arbitration. Which is why she is not doing so and championing it in the media while refusing to divulge anything.
If she can't tell people even what number she put in the system....if it's the right numbers, the wrong numbers, or just typed in purple monkey dishwasher into all the fields...to me she is lying and knows it. She knows the privacy protections bind the hands of the companies. So she can lie, and lie, and lie in the media while the right wingnuts gulp her story and relish in pretending their claims might have a single true story.
At least Bette in Spokane revealed what she was dealing with. She was wrong, but at least remotely honest.
She is protected by the privacy protections in the law, they can't reveal her information to prove it true or not...she needs to. Just like all HIPAA protections she is protected unless she makes claims that need legal, or medical, arbitration. Which is why she is not doing so and championing it in the media while refusing to divulge anything.
If she can't tell people even what number she put in the system....if it's the right numbers, the wrong numbers, or just typed in purple monkey dishwasher into all the fields...to me she is lying and knows it. She knows the privacy protections bind the hands of the companies. So she can lie, and lie, and lie in the media while the right wingnuts gulp her story and relish in pretending their claims might have a single true story.
At least Bette in Spokane revealed what she was dealing with. She was wrong, but at least remotely honest.
Can you say paranoid BS?
The people that she supplied her numbers to in the act of signing up are the same ones denying her the coverage she signed up for. They have the numbers but insist on playing games with her.
There is no privacy issue since she gave them her numbers at signup to get the correct(?) coverage.
Providing the numbers to the public is a privacy issue, no matter how you try to spin it.
If he was concerned about his voters being lied to and defrauded, he would threaten to remove the FCC licenses of stations that air Obama's speeches. Obama had the Lie of the Year last year and got 4 more Pinocchios today from the WaPo.
He's not trying to silence lies. He's trying to silence a cancer patient who lost her healthcare due to Obama's lies.
People don't seem to realize that this is what McCain/Feingold was all about. It was all about allowing politicians the say in what you can say about them and what you can't. They did a great job in spinning it as being about corporations but it wasn't. No corporations were ever threatened but individuals were until the court put an end to it.
So yes, this individual shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an elected office. The simple idea that he wants to force his idea of censorship on us should completely disqualify him. He won't but he is not the only one and many who complain about this guy will vote for the other guy who advocates the same thing.
The people that she supplied her numbers to in the act of signing up are the same ones denying her the coverage she signed up for. They have the numbers but insist on playing games with her.
There is no privacy issue since she gave them her numbers at signup to get the correct(?) coverage.
Providing the numbers to the public is a privacy issue, no matter how you try to spin it.
It's similiar to what you sign when you get insurance. How is it paranoid to know the ACA privacy policy?
Please tell me, because that makes me wonder if you know what the word even means.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
