I had a commenter “jaela jahan” visit here the other day who richly deserves a pile-on, because he, she, or it crossed the line.
The subject is Julie Boonstra, described here as “the Dexter, Mich., leukemia victim lost her coverage last fall and now stars in a devastating ad fingering Obamacare — and Peters — for her resulting distress.”
Let’s start there.
promised guaranteed — as was the rest of America — that if she liked her health plan, her doctors, her other medical providers, and her prescription drug regimen, she could keep them … “period.”
Millions of Americans have since learned that those guarantees were false, and that many of the people who made them knew they were false.
She was also promised, as was the rest of America, that a typical family would see a $2,500 reduction in their annual health care costs.
That was also false. Kathleen Sebelius took off that mask on Wednesday.
The people who made those claims, and those who reported them for years as if they were indisputable facts, should be cowering in their caves right now.
Instead, politicians like Harry Reid are attacking Obamacare’s victims as perpretrating “all lies” — oh, I’m sorry, “almost all lies.” And the press, which should be ashamed of its years of non-stop shilling, is piling on.
There will be plenty of time for me and others to deal with them. I want to call out my commenter.
The complete exchange is as follows (bolds are mine):
Commenter “jaela jahan“: This one’s fake too (the Boonstra story — Ed.). You should update. She lied. It’s saving her money. She’s already been outed by Maritza Schultz of Detroit News. She’s probably not really sick, but it is excellent casting by her ex-husband, Mark Boonstra. Look it up.
Me (first comment): The financial situation has to do with a large deductible roughly offsetting the monthly premium, forcing large monthly expenses at the same time. So if she has to pay $3 grand per month in total before it comes down to $570 or whatever, am I really supposed to be impressed that she’ll gradually save about $500 a month for the rest of the year?
She’s probably really not sick? Who is any possession of facts proving that? If the answer is no one, bleep you.
Me (second comment): Try this on for size, cynic:
Boonstra has not backed down. The leukemia victim wrote a letter this week to the Detroit News explaining the complexities of her situation.
“[My critics] choose to ignore the problems inherent with high out-of-pocket limits and prescriptions that aren’t covered for a person like me,” wrote Boonstra. “My new plan could mean wildly fluctuating and front-loaded costs in the first few months of the year. I chose my old plan — the one that Obamacare canceled — specifically so I could budget for the same monthly costs with certainty.”
Oh, and there’s this:
“She has been bedridden, had to sell her house, give up her teaching career,” says Hagerstrom of the anguish that Boonstra’s rare form of leukemia has caused her. “She liked her insurance and now has to relive the uncertainty of five years ago.”
But you say, “She’s probably not really sick.”
Now there’s this from Henry Payne at National Review:
… Boonstra’s ad, backed by Americans for Prosperity, says her policy was “canceled because of Obamacare” and that she fears her “out-of-pocket costs are so high they are unaffordable.” Health-care experts like the Manhattan Institute’s Yevgeniy Feyman say Boonstra “has legitimate concerns.”
“It comes down to uncertainty,” Feyman says. “Cancer treatment is a very personal decision. Her new treatment may not take into account out-of-pocket costs. If her drugs are off the formulary, then [an ACA-mandated cost cap on out-of-pocket drug costs] doesn’t apply.
That’s not a theoretical concern:
These organizations have ignored the details of Boonstra’s plan — instead using numbers from Blue Cross (an advocate for Obamacare) numbers to attack her. Through AFP spokesman Scott Hagerstrom, Boonstra communicated her concerns with her new plan.
Uncertainty dogs her — especially having been lied to once by the president. Where her canceled plan’s premiums once covered all her costs, she now must plan for out-of-pocket expenses. Those expenses are capped but will double to $10,200 if she goes out of her network — a not-uncommon need for cancer patients, whose treatment often changes — for a doctor or tests. Of her five cancer drugs, she has already discovered that one (Loratadine) is not covered. Detroit News columnist Dan Calabrese also unearthed the fact that glaucoma and “long-term care and nursing care are not covered.”
Well, so much for “saving her money.”
Payne’s admonition applies to my commenter: “the intent is to intimidate critics from coming forward.”
The only reason, in the face of the facts, that my commenter would try to claim “she’s probably not sick” is to support that intent. For that, he, she, or it deserves another “Bleep you.”