HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » My coworker has the most ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:20 PM

My coworker has the most poisonous hatred for Obama out of everyone I know

The pure, raw savagery of it really surprised me when I lightheartedly replied to what seemed like a fairly ordinary "I hate Obama" post on FB.

There's a back-story, though, and I got the info today. Can anyone confirm what she's claiming re: the Affordable Care Act?

Her son, born earlier this year, has a congenital heart defect requiring extensive medical care already in his young life, and the bills keep piling up. My coworker asserts that she hates Obama because some clauses of the ACA took effect October 1 2012 and somehow reclassified her son in a way that denies him full coverage for specialist visits. As a result, she needs to recalibrate her (admittedly inadequate) insurance that she gets through our employer, and ultimately it won't come anywhere near to covering the costs.

She feels that this is due to Obama's policies, rather than to the shortcomings of her private, employer provided insurance.

She's no dummy, and I respect her quite a bit, so much so that I didn't bother getting into a stupid pissing contest with her on the subject; she is obviously dealing with horrors on a day-to-day basis that I am thankful not to have to face. She's on track to accumulate well over half a million in medical bills with no end in sight. Short of hitting the lottery or declaring bankruptcy, she'll be paying them off for the rest of her life.

For this reason, I won't pursue the matter with her further unless she brings it up, but I'm curious: what do you suppose she's talking about? What policy went into effect on 10/1/2012 and knocked her son into insurance/specialist limbo? She didn't give specifics, and her rage was so potent that I didn't want to press for specifics in the workplace.


Any ideas?

11 replies, 1628 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Orrex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:23 PM

1. Sounds like she is listening to too much fox noise

rush limbaugh, sean hannity, glenn beck etc for her own good

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:24 PM

2. Just a quick hit from Wikipedia - not sure how it would apply in this case.

Effective October 1, 2012

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will begin the Readmissions Reduction Program, which requires CMS to reduce payments to IPPS hospitals with excess readmissions, effective for discharges beginning on October 1, 2012. The regulations that implement this provision are in subpart I of 42 CFR part 412 (412.150 through 412.154). Starting in October, an estimated total of 2,217 hospitals across the nation will be penalized; however, only 307 of these hospitals will receive this year's maximum penalty, i.e., 1 percent off their base Medicare reimbursements. The penalty will be deducted from reimbursements each time a hospital submits a claim starting Oct. 1. The maximum penalty will increase after this year, to 2 percent of regular payments starting in October 2013 and then to 3 percent the following year. As an example, if a hospital received the maximum penalty of 1 percent and it submitted a claim for $20,000 for a stay, Medicare would reimburse it $19,800. Together, these 2,217 hospitals will forfeit more than $280 million in Medicare funds over the next year, i.e., until October 2013, as Medicare and Medicaid begin a wide-ranging push to start paying health care providers based on the quality of care they provide. The $280 million in penalties comprises about 0.3 percent of the total amount hospitals are paid by Medicare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Permanut (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:27 PM

3. Might indeed be relevant if readmission is the issue...

It could be, in fact; I know that he spent several weeks in the NICU and returned to the hospital several times thereafter.

Thanks for the info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Permanut (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 10:06 PM

11. this shouldn't have anything to do with her son

I am by no means an ACA expert, but I'm pretty sure this provision is meant as a punishment for hospitals who, on a regular basis, don't give patients proper care, send them home early to free up the bedspace, and then have to readmit because the patient got sick again. An example would be someone with pneumonia who was treated quickly, rushed home and relapsed. Not someone born with a congenital defect.

It's widely known that those with little to no insurance or wealth don't get the same level of care as those with full coverage or personal fortunes. This provision is to punish hospitals who continue this practice or provide subpar care on a regular basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:28 PM

4. Something really stinks about your co-worker's account of the matter. Just to be clear: her

 

employer-provided health insurance has left her in the lurch for her dependent and she blames and hates Obama for it? And it all came to a boil on October 1, 2012?

Methinks there's something rotten in the state of Denmark and it ain't Obama or his Health Care Reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:33 PM

7. Yeah, that's what I can't put my finger on

She was very specific about the date but not much else.

This will sound lame, but I know her well enough to state with confidence that she wouldn't outright lie about it, though she could certainly be incorrect and unaware.

My sense was that her son had been enrolled in/covered by some program classifying him as "disabled" until Oct 1, at which time he was reclassified as "heart condition," which (according to her) slammed the door on access to specialists, etc.

I gently tried to assert that the whole point of the ACA is to get more people covered, rather than to restrict coverage, but she was adamant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:36 PM

8. Well, I'm shooting in the dark here myself but this story just stinks to

 

high heaven and sounds like a convenient cover for some really nasty underlying beliefs (like racism and such).

It's just so amazing (and convenient?) that it all came to a boil on October 1, 2012. Did she hate Obama with poisonous hatred before October 1?

One final thought: maybe she blames Obama for something that his Health Care Reform has absolutely nothing to do with. IOW, she would have been screwed either way (HCR or no) and her real beef is with her employer's shitty health insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coalition_unwilling (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:39 PM

9. Good question

I didn't really discuss politics with her until the last week or so. She would occasionally post run-of-the-mill crap about how he wants to raise our taxes blah blah blah, but it really took a turn yesterday.

Again, given her situation, I'm not going to tell her what to think, but if I can get more info out of her and maybe show her where she's incorrect, perhaps it will make her ordeal somewhat more manageable, even if she still hates Obama thereafter. It'll be like those Red states that hate welfare queens but happily accept millions of dollars in public assistance...


Thanks for your input.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:30 PM

5. I don't think in ACA comes remotely close to doing that.

But, I think in 2014 under "ObamaCare " she will be better off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:32 PM

6. Under the Romney plan

Her employer insurance would not cover her son at all, birth defect is a pre existing condition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Original post)

Wed Nov 7, 2012, 09:41 PM

10. The ACA doesn't have caps on the amount that they can charge you for coverage or it hasn't kicked

in yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread