Dexter cancer patient (Boonstra) who called health care 'unaffordable' will save more than $1K
Source: Detroit News
A Dexter cancer patient featured in a conservative group’s TV ad campaign denouncing her new health care coverage as “unaffordable” will save more than $1,000 this year under the plan, The Detroit News has learned.
Julie Boonstra, 49, starred last month in an emotional television ad, sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, that implied Democratic U.S. Rep. Gary Peters’ vote for the Affordable Care Act made her medication so “unaffordable” that she could die. Peters of Bloomfield Township is running for an open U.S. Senate seat against Republican Terri Lynn Land.
Boonstra said Monday her new plan she dislikes is the Blue Cross Premier Gold health care plan — which caps patient responsibility for out-of-pocket costs at $5,100 a year, lower than the federal law’s maximum of $6,350 a year. It means the new plan will save her at least $1,200 compared with her former insurance plan she preferred that was ended under Obamacare’s coverage requirements...
Boonstra is the ex-wife of Mark Boonstra, the former Washtenaw County GOP chairman whom Gov. Rick Snyder appointed to the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2012. Julie Boonstra said she’s never been a political person...
Read more: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140310/LIFESTYLE03/303100100#ixzz2vbKE7auR
= new reply since forum marked as read
But that figures since I posted it. 
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140310/LIFESTYLE03/303100100
. . . and got a response from a second cousin of mine (whom I haven't seen in decades). She is 64 and lives in Utah, and she and her husband have done pretty well financially. They aren't super wealthy, but lead a very comfortable upper-middle-class existence without having to worry too much (and hey, good for them). I had the following face-palm inducing exchange with her:
Me: And the premiums of younger women who may need those services incorporate the costs of providing health care services to older people as well -- services those younger women are far less likely to need at that point in their lives. That's what insurance is all about. If your premium reflected the full, actuarial risk for an average 64-year-old and none of the costs of providing birth control and maternity care (the Affordable Care Act DOES NOT mandate coverage for abortion except in cases of medical necessity or in cases of rape or incest), and a 25 year-old-woman's premium reflected only her actuarial risk PLUS those same services, your premium would be substantially higher than it is now, and the 25-year-old's would be far lower.
2nd Cousin: I have to admit that I don't understand too much about the insurance industry, but I know that my daughter (who was ages 9-15) and I (29 to 35) live quite nicely without any insurance at all for 6 years. I just don't understand the intrusion into everyone's life requiring insurance for things they necessarily need. My nice Brittany is 32 and has never had insurance and intends to pay the fine rather than be forced to buy insurance. Besides, how much insurance do we really need. If I have a serious accident in my home or car, my insurance already covers that. If you have an accident in my home or my car, my insurance covers that. Why aren't we addressing the cost of medical care which is the real issue, people can't afford medical treatment because the costs are completely out of control.
2nd Cousin: Oops, that was supposed to read " for things they don't necessarily need."
Me: And what would have happened if either of your daughters, during that time that they were uninsured, had suffered a catastrophic injury or illness? Anything can happen to anyone at any time. The reality is they would have been wiped out financially, and likely would not have had access to certain treatment options because of their inability to pay for them. (And any expenses for care she received but couldn't pay for would have to be written off by her care providers and hence passed on to taxpayers anyway.) My sister, Siri, can tell you about a family in her church who lost their teenage son to leukemia. They even had insurance for their son, but it had a lifetime cap on benefits, which his treatments quickly exhausted. Now, in addition to having to cope with the unimaginable grief of losing a child, they are in bankruptcy and have lost their home. THAT is the inhuman reality of the system we had prior to the Affordable Care Act.
Me: I agree with your point about medical care costs. And the Affordable Care Act, to be sure, falls short in reining in those costs. The way to do that would be a single-payer system, but to date, at least, that has not been remotely politically feasible in this country. Providing health care using for-profit, private insurance companies has been and remains an inefficient and dysfunctional way to go about it. Private insurance companies are nothing but a middle man who adds nothing of value to the care received, and merely adds to the cost. But as soon as you even begin to talk about a single-payer systems, conservatives begin sscreaming about 'socialized medicine' (which it really isn't).
Haven't had any further response.
