Julie Boonstra Says That Because Obama Lied to Her, She’s Entitled to Lie to Others. [UPDATED]

Julie Boonstra is a Michigan mother currently battling leukemia. Her medical coverage has been adversely affected by the onset of Obamacare. She’s had the courage to let people know about her struggle by speaking truth to power in an ad sponsored by Americans for Prosperity’s chapter in her state.

Julie tells John that she blames Congressman Peters for trying to quiet her & President Obama for lying to her and the American public about Obamacare. (Boldface in original.)

“The President Lied to me” Cancer Patient Julie Boonstra tells Gibson she will not stay quiet, Fox News Radio, Feb. 25

Apparently, this woman continues to claim, falsely, that her medical coverage has been adversely affected by the onset of Obamacare.  She also claims that Peters, who requested documentation from AFP, which sponsored the ad featuring her, supporting her claims was an attempt to silence her from saying that Obama said falsely that everyone who wanted to keep their health care plan could do so.  

I think we should accept as true her statement that she doesn’t know the difference between a statement that Obama misrepresented that everyone who wished to keep their current insurance plans could do so, and false statements of fact about the specifics of the change from her old plan to her new one.  She claimed falsely that under her new plan she could not keep her previous specialist.  And, most dramatically, she claimed falsely that her new plan will cost her more money, enough more that obtaining the treatment she needs and was receiving before is now unaffordable.  

She can see the same specialist, and receive the same treatment, and her new plan will cost her a maximum of $2 more this year than her old plan cost her last year.

Originally, I and many others assumed that she was unaware of the new ACA-compliant out-of-pocket limit, but it seems now much more likely that she knew she was misrepresenting critical facts in that ad.  In any event, she’s now misrepresenting the nature of Peters’ inquiry and complaint.

She’s a liar, not a dupe.  She just thinks everyone else is a dope.  But she’s wrong.

She–of all people, for heaven’s sake–knows that access to necessary healthcare is not a semantics game. Yet she’s playing one, with others’ lives.   


UPDATE: Here’s an exchange between reader Urban Legend and me in the Comments to this post:


The reporting on this has been confusing. Her premium is cut by over $500. She has a $6250 out of pocket max for deductibles and co-pays (which she will reach because her minimum treatment needs are known and very expensive). The comparison is being made between her reduced premium and the out-of-pocket max to generate the $2 per year maximum increase. But surely her old policy had an out-of-pocket exposure, too, and if its max was close to the new one, which I thought I saw in early reporting, she would have savings would be roughly the saving in premiums. On a full apples-to-apples basis, she would be saving around $6000 per year, not seeing an increase of $2 or anything .

Does anyone have the whole story here?


Urban Legend, as I understand it, what Boonstra has said is that her out-of-pocket cap under her old plan was “low,” that she always hit that cap, and that she will hit the higher cap under her new plan.  But she hasn’t said what that cap under her old plan was, and you’re right that since that cap surely wasn’t less than $2, her annual out-of-pocket expenses definitely were MORE under her old plan than under her new one. I’ll update my post to point that out.

I just did. 3/2