Skip to comments.Pastor Diagnosed With Cancer: 'No Compassion in the Affordable Care Act'
Posted on 03/18/2014 8:24:04 AM PDT by grundle
A pastor recently diagnosed with cancer, and who is covered under Obamacare, tells a local Iowa reporter that there's "no compassion in the Affordable Care Act."
"Back in January, Pastor Angran was diagnosed with stage three cancer of the esophagus. He had insurance, but because of a previous heart condition, it did not cover the treatments he needed for his cancer. He found that out just minutes before receiving life-saving chemo," says the local reporter.
The pastor says, "One of the workers came and said let me talk to you. And so I went to talk to her. She says that we found out that your insurance does not include chemo."
"Over the past two months, the Angrans have emptied their savings account and racked up $50,000 in debt. They signed up for the Affordable Care Act," says the local reporter, "but found it to be anything but affordable. It will cost the couple more than $800 per month, money they just don't have."
The reporter adds, "As a pastor, Angran has devoted his life to helping others, to being compassionate. He says, 'There's no compassion in the Affordable Care Act.'" Related Stories
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
I thought I read somewhere that pre-existing conditions couldn’t be used to deny service. I guess that’s not true.
I know on Medicare ... if one gets a Medigap policy, that no pre-existing conditions can be used to deny coverage or set higher premiums during the open enrollment period (it’s one time only in your life).
there will be millions of these stories in the next 2 years, most will remain untold by the lapdog media
well Pastor, you are gonna die. You probably voted for this freak along with your wife.
your reap what you sow
Cancer is likely to cost upwards of 100K if chemo and radiation is needed. Even after they save one’s life,
the residual costs keep mounting, due to the damage that
these therapies cause.
However, a reporter or editor will eventually have his own story to tell or a story of a loved one.
I did a quick search and came up with this ...
ObamaCare eliminates pre-existing conditions starting 2014. No more pre-existing conditions means you can’t be denied coverage, charged more, or denied treatment based on health status. Considering in 1 in 2 Americans has a health condition that qualifies as a pre-existing condition ObamaCare doing away with pre-existing conditions is a big deal.
ObamaCare means no more pre-existing conditions: Being sick or having been sick in the past can no longer can keep you from coverage.
What Does ObamaCare Do For Sick People?
If your currently sick, or have been sick in the past the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, is a big deal. Let’s take a quick look at some of the key provisions that ensure that people with preexisting conditions get the help they need:
Insurance companies can’t deny coverage or charge more for people with preexisting conditions
Insurance companies can no longer deny you for any reason other than fraud.
Insurance companies can’t put lifetime or annual dollar limits on Essential Health Benefits which include screenings, preventions, and treatments for most life threatening sickness such as cancer.
All plans cover free wellness and preventive services. There is no longer a reason to put off doctor visits meaning early detection will help stop sickness before it starts and early treatments will help treat people before its too late.
Subsidies are available for those who make less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. This helps to make both premium costs and out-of-pocket costs more affordable.
Note: The benefits, rights, and protections offered to those with preexisting conditions only apply to plans that have to comply with the ACA. If your plan was issued before 2014 and would have faced cancellation in 2014 but the “fix” to keep your plan until 2015 was put in place it may be exempt from any or all of the above.
It would appear that someone’s story here — is not true.
“Isn’t that nice”
I don’t see a lot of faith demonstrated here. Perhaps God’s plan is to overcome his debt with a special blessing or for the pastor’s suffering to be an example to others on how to be joyful in all things.
Maybe Our Lord has a reason for taking him home soon and this is all just the mechanism to do it. One of the mistakes Christians make (especially Westerners) is that it must somehow be God’s will for us to stay alive and in financial stability. God’s grace is often exhibited most when we have no other choice but to surrender to His will. Perhaps God is stripping away the false foundations that this pastor is relying on rather than trusting in Him.
Cancer does not run in my family but, if I were to be diagnosed, I would tell the doctors to give me the pain meds and ask the Lord that I come home quickly but that His will be done. I don’t see the point in bankrupting myself just to buy another six months of life.
Quick, call Harry Reid, another fraudulent claim!. /S
I don’t know what the full story is. However, the issue with pre-existing conditions is different from the issue with approved treatments.
The pre-existing condition problem would apply if you had, say cancer, and then got insured, and wanted treatment for the disease you had before you got insured.
The approved treatment issue is IPAB or “death panel” related. They could say that if you’ve ever had condition (a) (in this case heart problems), that treatment (b) (in this case chemo) isn’t cost effective because it’s unlikely to prolong your life.
That might be what is going on here. The ACA may be more generous about pre-existing conditions, but stingier on what types of treatments it covers.
He got the treatment. So, it wasn’t about not getting treated ... it was about who was going to pay for it.
I don’t know how that could be true ... when pre-existing conditions were eliminated from consideration. Something is not right with this news story.
Senate leader Harry Reid stated categorically that these pitiful stories are mere figments of the Koch bros. imagination.
If that reply was good enough for the NYT.It should be good enough for everyone else.
What makes you think the pastor endorsed Demo policy?
That settles it, no need to tell the truth about government medical failure in NV then. People couldn’t understand or wouldn’t listen.
I can only go by what is presented here (and it doesn’t seem to be full or complete) ...
“... but because of a previous heart condition, it did not cover the treatments he needed for his cancer.”
That sounds like excluding because pre-existing conditions.
So who do you believe-- a pastor, or a website shilling for the government?
I believe that to be true about pre-existing conditions not being used, that’s why. When something is “true” - it doesn’t matter who it comes from in saying it.
I would concentrate less on the source and more on a fact being true or not.
My understanding and knowledge of this subject is that it is “TRUE” that pre-existing conditions cannot be used to deny policies or deny service under the present law.
If that is not true, I would appreciate the documentation on that.
Pre-existing conditions cannot be used to deny buying a plan...but that has nothing to do with whether the plan actually covers the treatment in a meaningful way.
The story did not read that he was denied treatment under Obamacare but that the premium of $800.00 a month was unaffordable.
I’ve got news for him, as much as I loath Obamacare that $800.00 a month for both he and his wife (the article was not clear if it included her) is actually very cheap as far as individual insurance plans go. Especially if it will cover the majority of his cancer treatment costs.
I dropped my private coverage when it increased to $700.00 a month for me alone and that was several years ago. I wonder what he was paying under his previous plan. I have a feeling it may have been one provided through his employment as a pastor so he did not have to pay his full share.
So how does that fit into this story where it says ...
... but because of a previous heart condition, it did not cover the treatments he needed for his cancer.
Well, maybe we’re splitting hairs, and that’s what our lawmakers do.
But they would say he had insurance. He just didn’t like the fine print. If he’d had a second heart condition, or an ulcer, he would have been fully covered. But for Stage 3 cancer with prior heart trouble, he wasn’t. I agree it sucks, by the way. But, they’d say that he had insurance.
well Pastor,......You probably voted for this freak along with your wife.
Why would you assume that? Is he a Black Pastor?
So ... he’s complaining because he wants Obamacare to cover his problem - BUT - he doesn’t want to pay the monthly premium for it?! .... LOL ...
One of the things about Obamacare is that it did not raise prices uniformly. Many people in places with ridiculous costs due to their own states regulations saw only small increases, or in some cases, decreases. What it primarily did was make places where insurance prices were relatively reasonable just as messed up as New York, Connecticut, etc. where the cost of living and the standard wages are much higher.
It’s like suddenly getting charged Manhattan rental prices for everyone...which doesn’t affect the people living in Manhattan already very much, but is devastating for the family living in small-town Virginia earning a moderate wage in a low-cost area...with riders for all the stuff that happens to folks in Manhattan and dropping coverage for things common in rural Virginia.
I read it a little bit closer, because of another person’s comments to me. It appears he did not want to pay the monthly premiums for Obamacare. So he didn’t get coverage because Obamacare was not signed up by him.
It was his other insurance policy that did not cover it!
Obamacare will cover pre-existing conditions...PERIOD!
Most likely because it is of the heart condition, not the fact that he had it before he got the insurance. Like organ transplants on someone with late stage cancer.
I always thought that was the case.
It appears that this story is about a pastor who REFUSED to get Obamacare, because the premium was too much. So, instead the pastor has to pay many times more out of pocket under his “non-Obamacare” policy (which he apparently had all along).
This is a very misleading story!
I read it a bit closer now too. The article dies from vaguery, pronouns, and imprecision.
I now see that the pastor refused to get Obamacare, because he didn’t want to pay the monthly premium. This story was about his “non-Obamacare” policy not covering this treatment.
The pastor now sounds more like a idiot to me ... than anything else.
The things I said are correct, but may be irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Betcha dollars to donuts pastor voted only for Democrats his whole life and voted for obama at least twice.
Yeah ... I understand.
No matter who the pastor voted for ... his personal financial position would be a whole lot better now ... if he had gotten an Obamacare policy, instead of refusing to do so ... and instead staying with his non-Obamacare policy.
You are right....that $800 a month must include subsidies. I checked for just Hubby and me....$1300 mnth and a $12k deductible, for the Silver plan.
“...pre-existing conditions couldnt be used to deny service. I guess thats not true.”
Kind of like when Barry said, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor. Period.”
He got the treatment. So, it wasnt about not getting treated ... it was about who was going to pay for it.Did some digging. In this article (http://freebeacon.com/iowa-pastor-diagnosed-with-cancer-finds-obamacare-anything-but-affordable/), it says his ACA insurance doesn't start for another two weeks, and that he finds the price of the ACA insurance that covers the treatment to be unaffordable. So it's his old insurance that doesn't cover the treatment. And basically, he's ticked that Obummercare doesn't pay for the costs racked up by his old insurance. My sympathy more or less goes away at that point.
Something is not right with this news story.It doesn't tell the whole story. See my additional link I just posted.
It seems he is covered by ACA. But he didn't get covered until after paying out the $50k.
The article is really deceptive. I'm pretty upset about the whole ACA debacle but I haven't been too happy about the way medical insurance has gone over the last decade anyway (and his situation is a good example). But this kind of deceptive writing only muddies the water.
When you read the story very, very carefully you see that this meant ... “and who is eligible to be covered under Obamacare.”
It’s either an inept writer - or - an intentionally deceptive writer.
Yeah, it took a while, but we all got it figured out.
I’m not in the exact same situation, but there are some similarities with my situation. I just became eligible for Medicare, and in the first month I ended up in the hospital. Now, I hadn’t yet completed everything else I was going to do, yet — so while the basic Medicare covered most of it, I was still left with bills afterward.
My Part D doesn’t go into effect until a couple of weeks from now. And my Medigap policy will go into effect at the same time.
Now while I would love for them to “go back” and cover stuff that happened before the other policies went into effect - I would be an idiot for even thinking they could or would do that.
I have to pay some money on those previous bills, but I’m not trying to make a big stink of it - just because I didn’t finish my paperwork a month earlier. That’s just the way things happen, sometimes.
AND ... by the way, my Medigap policy won’t factor in any of my pre-existing conditions - and from now on, I won’t have any copays and no deductibles (basically nothing out of pocket from now on, no matter what).
The fact of the matter is that pre-existing conditions are covered under Obamacare. It’s just that this writer of the article is either inept as a writer, or he is being extremely deceptive in his writing.
In that case, I don't understand what his complaint is. He should be a poster boy FOR the ACA if Obamacare would have covered him and his prior policy did not.
It’s a deceptive article ...
Prayers for him.
why would you assume that?
no I believe he is white, but lemme tell ya, most of these “Christians” are liberal
This is a ping list for cancer survivors and caregivers to share information. If you would like your name added to or removed from this ping list, please tell us in the comments section at this link (click here). (For the most updated list of names, click on the same link and scroll to the end of the comments.)
most of these Christians are liberal
I’ve never been able to understand how folks can go to church on SUNDAY and sing, shout, praise The Lord feel The Spirit, and then go into the voting booth on TUESDAY and vote for candidates and a Party that propagates killing little babies in the womb and same-sex marriage. It’s a mystery.