|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Batkid vs. Two-Face|
Batkid vs. Two-Face
Posted - 11/20/2013 8:46:07 AM | show profile | flag this post
You've seen "Bat Kid" right? The kid who's cancer's in remission and who got to be a caped crime-fighter with the help of the Make-a-Wish Foundation?
Interesting collection here of Tweets and other comments from Republicans who cashed in on his cuteness -- while having actively worked to prevent the kid -- and thousands of others -- from having health insurance:
Say what you want about Obamacare. But it's take on pre-existing conditions and payment limits by insurance companies has made a world of difference for thousands of people like Bat Kid.
Posted - 11/20/2013 10:27:32 AM | show profile | flag this post
no surprise liberals would politicize a kid with cancer and use him to bash republicans.
no surprise libs would hate on the kid because he is white. of course, shrdiu doesn't mention that.
stay classy libs.......
Posted - 11/20/2013 10:45:07 AM | show profile | flag this post
1. Health insurance does not mean healthcare. (Insurers are free to deny claims, refuse to pay and change coverage.)
2. Cancer "care" is often "experimental" and insurance companies refuse to cover it. Getting health insurance will not help.
3. Getting insurance does not mean TREATMENT for the preexisting conditions will be covered. It just means the person can get a policy at whatever rate the insurer wants to charge.
Posted - 11/20/2013 1:23:50 PM | show profile | flag this post
Posted - 11/20/2013 1:26:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
Claiming that "libruls" are politicizing Bat Kid -- but failing to notice that the link takes you to a bunch of REPUBLICANS politicizing the kid.
And I don't know where he injected the racist claim. No evidence of that. But, con has shown his racism in past posts and no doubt thinks it should somehow play here.
Let's look at your "Facts"
"1. Health insurance does not mean healthcare. (Insurers are free to deny claims, refuse to pay and change coverage.)" They are not AS able to deny claims under the ACA than they were before. And they are not allowed to set a payment cap. Cancer treatment is very expensive. Not having that cap means Bat Kid is still able to get cancer treatment paid for by his insurance should he need it again. Insurance caps were the MAIN reason people with insurance were forced off cancer treatment prior to the ACA.
"2. Cancer "care" is often "experimental" and insurance companies refuse to cover it. Getting health insurance will not help." "Often?" Hardly. The vast, overwhelming majority of cancer care is NOT experimental, but tried and tested treatments -- chemotherapy, radiation and the like have been around for years and are not "experimental" by any insurance definition. Experimental treatments are rare and usually paid for by those "evil" big Pharma companies you deplore.
And a Duke University study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found fewer than "a third of the clinical trials showed the experimental drugs improved patient survival, and less than half found the drugs helped other clinical outcomes."
"Experimental" treatments are NOT routine and are generally a "Hail Mary" effort when all known treatments have failed.
"3. Getting insurance does not mean TREATMENT for the preexisting conditions will be covered. It just means the person can get a policy at whatever rate the insurer wants to charge." True. But it's going to be cheaper than paying out of pocket WITHOUT insurance. And without it, you're not going to find many doctors or hospitals that will take you in. Before ACA, insurance companies could have banned Bat Kid from ever having health insurance again. Even if his cancer never came back, a car accident or another health problem could have forced him or his family into bankruptcy.
NONE of these have to do with the thread here.
Bat Kid is in remission. Insurance paid for it.
Posted - 11/20/2013 1:52:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'm fed up past my eyebrows with the stupidity put forth in this forum as if it were fact.
Is the point to waste other posters' precious time? To see whether you have the power to send them scurrying for information? Is it to try to trick news people into falling for bullshit?
Here, from the ACA FAQ:
"Being sick doesn't keep you from getting coverage
"Starting in 2014, being sick won't keep you from getting health coverage. An insurance company can't turn you down or charge you more because of your condition.
"Once you have insurance, the plan can't refuse to cover treatment for pre-existing conditions."
Posted - 11/20/2013 1:54:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
P.S. Look it up yourself the next time, Lazy Ass Dupe for Conspiracy Theories.
Posted - 11/20/2013 2:44:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
Let's take a look at hat you posted.
Here, from the ACA FAQ:
"Being sick doesn't keep you from getting coverage."
Coverage means health INSURANCE, not healthCARE. So yes anyone can buy coverage, I already SAID THAT, thanks for agreeing with me.
"Starting in 2014, being sick won't keep you from getting health coverage. An insurance company can't turn you down or charge you more because of your condition."
Yes, anyone can BUY INSURANCE, I already said that. Thanks, again for agreeing with me. And as far as charging you more, well, just ask people who have signed up. Why does the form ASK if you have a preexisting condition? Just for fun??
"Once you have insurance, the plan can't refuse to cover treatment for pre-existing conditions."
So insurance companies never ever ever deny claims? EVER?
Wow. Let me know what insurance you have. I had to go 10 rounds just to get my copay covered at an urgent care center that the insurer SENT ME TO.
We'll see how this payment for treatment really works. Everyone gets all their doctor recommended treatment paid for EVERY SINGLE TIME. Yep, sounds like the insurers are ready to open their pocketbooks and start paying out all claims every single time.
Your post re cancer treatments is uninformed, at best.
Unless you actually do some research or understand the oncology industry, I cannot discuss this with you further. Treatments are experimental. Period. Protocols for treatment? Hardly.
And GD? Why do you like conspiracy theories so much? I've posted facts and you AGREED with them, then you yell CONSPIRACY and duck off the board.
Posted - 11/20/2013 3:19:35 PM | show profile | flag this post
You seem to be relying on outdated "facts" and ignoring how much of your argument has been changed by the ACA -- denial of coverage, pre-existing conditions, and a few other points.
You also don't seem to understand how health insurance works and how it is directly related to whether or not you can get health care without it.
One of the few treatments you CAN get without insurance IS the rare experimental treatments you keep talking about.
Insurance doesn't pay for these because they are untested and unproven. That's why the government may pay (if it government funded research) or big pharma pays -- because the experimental treatment is a test for something they're trying to bring to market.
Again, you're backing yourself into supporting big pharma -- but believing you should pay for their tests through your health insurance plan.
Posted - 11/20/2013 3:29:33 PM | show profile | flag this post
sad to see the left using a sick kid to bash republicans. do people on the left feel shame?
the evidence is there, pal. take off your liberal glasses.
stop the hate.
stay classy libs.
Posted - 11/20/2013 3:42:31 PM | show profile | flag this post
1. You seem to be relying on outdated "facts" and ignoring how much of your argument has been changed by the ACA -- denial of coverage, pre-existing conditions, and a few other points.
I think we have two different definitions of what coverage means. Coverage means health insurance. It means you bought a policy. It DOESN'T mean *all my diseases get treatment.* Right now, anyone can buy a policy. It does NOT mean all treatment is covered. For example, if I have a $10,000 deductible, until I meet that, my TREATMENT is not being paid for by the insurer. But I have *coverage*, I have a POLICY. But who is paying for treatment? Me.
Similarly, if the treatment your doctor chooses does not fit the definitions of care of the insurer, it will not be paid.
Do you honestly believe -- HONESTLY BELIEVE -- that all claims will be paid by all insurers without hesitation or problem because of the ACA? You REALLY believe that?
2. You also don't seem to understand how health insurance works and how it is directly related to whether or not you can get health care without it.
You can pay for healthcare out of pocket. If you walk into a doctor's office and pay cash, he WILL see you. Not sure what your point is. The idea that the only way to see a doctor is through insurance is ludicrous.
3. One of the few treatments you CAN get without insurance IS the rare experimental treatments you keep talking about.
I don't keep talking about them. I was making the point that insurance DOES NOT pay for them. Which we agreed on.
4. Insurance doesn't pay for these because they are untested and unproven. That's why the government may pay (if it government funded research) or big pharma pays -- because the experimental treatment is a test for something they're trying to bring to market.
Exactly, Big pharma needs the patients for the clinical trials. Agreed again.
5. Again, you're backing yourself into supporting big pharma -- but believing you should pay for their tests through your health insurance plan.
No, I'm not. I never said insurance SHOULD pay, I said they DON'T pay, There's a big difference there.
ES. I understand insurance a lot better than you think I do. Enough that I know that insurers will screw you everytime to get that extra nickel out of you. And that is not going to change.
Again, health insurance/coverage does not mean people will get healthcare.
Posted - 11/20/2013 4:19:13 PM | show profile | flag this post
It means a better chance of getting health care....
Yes, nothing is free.
But Bat Kid now has the ability to GET insurance. And that's a helluva lot cheaper than paying out of pocket for the coverage.
That's the point I was making here. Links to Republican politicians who 1) praised Bat Kid and 2) voted to prevent him from getting insurance, forcing his parents to pay full price, out of pocket for his future treatment.
Posted - 11/23/2013 11:04:20 AM | show profile | flag this post
Been there is full of shit...
Getting health insurance DOES mean you get treatment, mainly treatment that would be too expensive without it. My wife could never get health insurance because of a preexisting condition until we were married and I got her on my group coverage. She got great treatment after that. Yes. we had to fight the insurance companies on numerous billings, but we usually won. And your brainless idiotic argument points out the very fact that we should abolish health insurance companies and go with a single payer government plan like every other nation that has longer life spans while paying half of what we do for health care. If you fucking idiots would actually read something not put out by Fox News it would make life a lot easier for the rest of us who actually have brains. I hate to say this, but I wish every motherfucker who is against universal health coverage would get sick just once and find out how much health insurance they really have. NONE! Talk about your death panels. Your life and death decisions are in the hands of a corporate stooge who would rather see you die than see their yearly bonus slashed from handing out too many payments. But you have been brainwashed by the shills of the insurance companies who are making money off your lack of health care. Why is it that the only people who are against Obamacare are the people who are making millions of dollars a year? Think about it, asswipes.
Posted - 11/23/2013 12:33:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
And your brainless idiotic argument points out the very fact that we should abolish health insurance companies and go with a single payer government plan like every other nation that has longer life spans while paying half of what we do for health care.
Find one post, just ONE post where I advocated the single payer system.
I would like it if insurers would get the hell out of the way, and let patients pay for doctors/hospitals out of pocket for themselves at REASONABLE RATE.
Want to see prices drop? Competition for business?
That's how to do it. 100% Transparency as far as what all the service providers are charging.
Posted - 11/24/2013 8:45:59 AM | show profile | flag this post
Nice try, etaoin
But the only person trying to use this heart warming story for political gain is you. This kid was not affected by Obamacare nor have the other 13.7 million cancer survivors in the country needed Obamacare. The US has the highest overall cancer survival rate in the world and that was before Obamacare.
Posted - 11/24/2013 6:02:40 PM | show profile | flag this post
go to the link.
The headline and subtitle are: "10 Republicans Who Cheered on Batkid, Want to Revoke His Obamacare
These elected officials have been crusading to repeal the Affordable Care Act"
Yes. These 10 Republicans POLITICIZED Bat Kid. And they have been trying to take away protections including the pre-existing condition and lifetime benefits protections enacted under Obamacare.
Do you, blackedtape, agree with these 10 politicians that insurance companies should be allowed to cut off Bat Kid's insurance in the future?
Posted - 11/25/2013 6:29:10 PM | show profile | flag this post
I stand corrected, etaoin
Both you and the Rolling Stone writer used Batkid to make a political point. Not one of those republicans made any reference to Obamacare, and honestly neither you nor the Rolling Stone writer can say what affect, if any, Obamacare would make. The refusal to cover pre-existing conditions was not absolute. It was total speculation on both your parts. Sad to see such hatred for republicans prevented you from seeing this for the heart warming story it truly was. An entire community did not care about politics just trying to make a kid feel better. Something sadly you could never understand.
Posted - 11/26/2013 9:50:05 AM | show profile | flag this post
Your most recent post, blacked...
is full of errors.
Neither I nor Tim Dickinson politicized Bat Kid. But he did point out the hipocracy of 10 Republicans who tried to cash in on Bat Kid's feel-good story -- while having no real concern about his access to health care.
You were also quite wrong on the fact that the ACA does protect Bat Kid from losing health insurance coverage now or in the future. The ACA provides protections that will allow Bat Kid to remain on his parent's insurance until he's 26 if necessary -- and at that point, when shopping for his own insurance -- he cannot be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition in his childhood.
Nor can an insurer set a final cap on how much they will pay for cancer treatment.
But join the 10 Republicans who are willing to make it difficult or impossible for Bat Kid and thousands of other kids like him from getting health insurance in the future.
If that's your wish, maybe Make-a-Wish will fulfill it for you.
Posted - 11/26/2013 9:58:42 AM | show profile | flag this post
"As of 2014, insurers cannot charge consumers different rates for health insurance because of health status or gender.
You can be charged more for your age, however, with older people paying a higher premium than young people. But that increased charge is capped at no more than three times the standard rate.
A pre-existing condition is generally considered an illness or disability a person has prior to applying for health insurance coverage. Currently, the definition varies among states and even by insurance plans.
However, once the law takes full effect in 2014, that definition will lose its importance. Under the law, no one can be denied health care insurance for any reason, including an existing medical condition."
Lifetime insurance payment caps:
"For health plans beginning after Sept. 23, 2010, insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on benefits. That’s a big deal for people with serious illnesses, such as lung cancer, or other chronic conditions requiring ongoing and/or very expensive care."
Posted - 11/26/2013 10:07:38 AM | show profile | flag this post
The only reason you created this topic was to bash Republicans. Which is par the course for you.
Same with Dickinson.
Using the "Bat Kid's feel-good story" to defend the ACA? Thats not politicizing?
"hipocracy"? Is that the new name for Democrats playing politics?
Posted - 11/26/2013 10:15:49 AM | show profile | flag this post
feeling sad now that there's a face -- or a masked Bat Kid face -- to go along with what Republicans really want.
Kinda shows how these guys care more about ideology than the people their actions affect -- like Bat Kid.
Posted - 11/26/2013 10:22:55 AM | show profile | flag this post
Keep politicizing a kid with cancer. Use him. Hate on him because he is white. Deny it. Lie. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Posted - 11/26/2013 10:27:08 AM | show profile | flag this post
Mighty (Dumb) Quinn IS Cruzo!
"Whatever helps you sleep at night" -- pure cruzo-ism.
And a bit of racism mixed in to boot.
Sorry Quzo/Cruzo. But don't you have to have a two-thirds vote to politicize something?
Posted - 11/26/2013 11:18:15 AM | show profile | flag this post
Etaoin your total lack of compassion
Makes you one hell of a political speech writer.
Posted - 11/26/2013 1:31:01 PM | show profile | flag this post
My lack of compassion, blackedtape?
I'm the one who says Bat Kid and thousands of others like him need access to health insurance and the care it can afford.
You're defending ten politicians who cheer him on while voting for him to lose protections to his health care access and his financial future.
You may be due for a reality check.