Koch Brothers Latest Obamacare Ad Is Their Most Dishonest And Deceptive One Yet

julie boonstra

 

The Koch Brothers SuperPAC, Americans for Prosperity, is currently running an ad in Michigan targeting Democratic Senate candidate Rep. Gary Peters, who is up for election in November. The commercial, titled ‘Julie’s Story: It’s Time To Listen’, states that a cancer patient named Julie Boonstra is being bankrupted by the Affordable Care Act. She discusses how her original plan was cancelled and now her out-of-pocket expenses are so high she finds them totally unaffordable.

Of course, after a few people dug in and investigated, it appears that, just like every other Koch Bros. funded Obamacare ad, the truth is a whole lot different than what was placed in the ad. Thanks to Benjy Sarlin at MSNBC, the Detroit News, Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog and the basic facts of the health care law, the real story is nowhere near the horror story depicted in the commercial.

 

 

When you see that ad, you’d think that Obamacare is killing Ms. Boonstra! It seems like she is dealing with a real-life horror movie where bureaucratic nonsense and an uncaring law has made her life expendable. Of course, pesky facts always get in the way of a good narrative. The truth is that Julie Boonstra did have her existing insurance policy cancelled because it didn’t meet the minimum standards of the ACA. Instead, she had to get a better policy at half the price. She was paying $1,100 a month in premiums under her old policy. She now pays $571 a month.

If she is paying less a month, how can she justify that Obamacare is bankrupting her? Well, she says it is because she now faces out of pocket expenses more often. She states that for a lot of her treatments, she is forced to do a 20% co-pay. However, under the law, there is a cap on how much she can be charged out of pocket. The cap is $6,350 a year. By her own admission, she is saving nearly that exact amount in premiums due to the ACA. So, even if she has to pay the maximum amount in out of pocket expenses a year under the new plan (doubtful), she isn’t paying anymore than she did under her old plan.

Basically, this is as dishonest as you can get with a political ad. Ms. Boonstra, at worst, is having to deal with smaller expenses on a more frequent basis, but is not spending anymore than she did previously. In fact, it is more than likely she’ll still end up spending less than before. On top of that, her old policy, that was twice as expensive, only got cancelled because it didn’t offer as extensive of coverage as it should have. She now has a better policy for half the price and she cannot be kicked off of it due to her condition.

Kessler gave the ad two Pinocchios. Personally, I think it is one of the biggest lies we’ve ever seen in politics, and that is saying something. It just goes to show how good this law really is when lobbyists and politicians have to stoop to telling outright lies in their attempts to discredit it.

If you’re ready to read more from the unbossed and unbought Politicus team, sign up for our newsletter here!

4 Replies to “Koch Brothers Latest Obamacare Ad Is Their Most Dishonest And Deceptive One Yet”

  1. Sue-em
    False Advertising
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/False+Advertising

    “Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities” (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)).
    Proof Requirement
    To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser’s own or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement’s potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually at…

  2. Even if your take is different than Ms. Boonstra why is she less entitled to tell her story than you? Also, assuming all that you say is accurate…and that others are similarly situation, then that doesn’t explain why another move from the Obama administration to CHANGE AGAIN Obamacare so that insurance can now sell less expensive policies….seems to go against the philosphy that people had less than adequate plans when they are now encouraging insurance companies to break the ACA laws and offer less expensive plans. People in washington need to make up their minds – is it a great plan and if so why is it being changed 28 times (at least, kind of losing count now)? (Answer hint: it’s a big plan with unintended consequences that they are now scrambling to ‘fix’ to ensure that the legislators who voted for this disaster are not kicked out of office.)

  3. The thing that stood out the most for me is this one point: “People not knowing what their insurance policy does or does not provide is a key reason why Obamacare is so badly misunderstood. However, it must be noted that most people who fail to take the time to understand their insurance coverage do not go on television seeking to influence millions of people based on a complete misunderstanding of their own insurance circumstances.”

    Having been employed in a medical collections position with a national cancer group for over three years, I can say that we had patients paying only $5 a month to settle the debt on their treatment and diagnostic bills. Never once were we pushy or not understanding. This woman’s testimony is extremely suspect for a Koch Brother payoff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.