December 11, 2013, - 5:51 pm

Gays, HIV/AID Activists: ObamaCare Makes It Too Expensive to Fight HIV/AIDS; Deductibles Too Steep, “Discrimination”

By Debbie Schlussel

And yet another group of Barack Obama’s traditional (or, in this case, traditionally untraditional) allies is upset about ObamaCare: gay and HIV/AIDS activists. They say that the deductibles are so high that those afflicted with HIV/AIDS cannot afford the steep payments for drugs they must take. They say this constitutes “discrimination” against them for a pre-existing condition. Really? Tell that to all the cancer victims who are also now finding out their drugs and treatments will be either too expensive or just won’t happen, because they won’t be able to go to their preferred doctors anymore. That’s discrimination, too, isn’t it? In fact, isn’t the whole ObamaCare program discrimination against middle class Americans, who are now being forced to pay more to foot the bill for the ObamaPhone demographic? Just sayin’.


A coalition of 31 HIV/AIDS organizations is urging the Obama administration to investigate whether some health insurers are trying to discourage HIV-infected patients from enrolling in new policies being sold under the health-care law, a move the groups say could be illegal.

The Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination against people who are sick; insurers can’t deny them coverage or charge them more than healthier peers. But in a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius last week, the coalition said it had noticed “a number of disturbing trends” in plans on the insurance exchanges, including plans that don’t cover all available HIV drugs and what it termed “egregious cost-sharing designs.” . . .

Among examples the HIV/AIDS coalition cited:

Aetna Inc. requires patients to pay 50% of the cost, after a drug deductible, for most HIV drugs in Florida. In Florida and some other states, Cigna Corp. CI -1.13% and Aetna’s separate CoventryOne put all HIV drugs—including generics—in a special category, requiring patients to pay 40% to 50% of their cost. That can be thousands of dollars a month.

Humana Inc.’s posted list of covered drugs in Florida and Alabama lists only six HIV drugs; other drugs are on a separate specialty list that shoppers might not know to check, the group says. All require patients to pay 50% of the cost, after a separate drug deductible.

For most drugs, insurers have traditionally required patients to pay only a flat copay, generally $10 to $50. . . . The HIV/AIDS groups haven’t received a response from their Dec. 2 letter, said Robert Greenwald, director of the Center for Health and Law Policy Innovation at Harvard University and co-chair of the coalition. “This matters a lot to people living with HIV,” he said.

Hmmm . . . if only gays took to the streets over this the way they did over Proposition 8 in California (which made gay marriage illegal). But they won’t. They’ll just be like the rest of Obama’s sheep in America: they’ll do nothing to stop it, other than the letter noted above.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 Responses

A harbinger of the death panels, although I hope these groups will condemn some of the behavior that leads to AIDS.

Little Al on December 11, 2013 at 6:15 pm

They wanted a nationalized health care sector, and now they have it. It apparently never occurred to them that that would entail rationing. HIV/AIDS patients represent a very small proportion of the population in the United States. It was inevitable that the Affordable Care Act would adversely a part of the population that would most need advanced medical care. Ironically, Proposition 8 and similar state legislation was the focus of gay activists, rather than what the Affordable Care Act hoped to accomplish at their expense. Complaints about disparate impact and discrimination on the part of gays is pretty much meaningless at this point. As with the NHS in the UK, everyone has their obligation to die when they become too expensive. Thank you Mr. Obama for such a glorious gift.

Worry01 on December 11, 2013 at 6:30 pm

OTOH, I see a special (middle-class-home-owning-taxpayer-supported, of course) program on the horizon to address this undo hardship on the oppressed and protected gay class.

DS_ROCKS! on December 11, 2013 at 6:35 pm


    I also see a special program to save sodomites while young children, or old folks, die from minor treatable infections.

    Darrell L. Hicks on December 12, 2013 at 9:34 am

We’re all being pushed into single payer. Medicaid is the first step.

Making private health insurance unaffordable is meant to get us there faster!

If people think that won’t happen in five to ten years time, they’re dreaming.

And the insurance industry is helping to dig its own grave – since they thought they could milk Obamacare for all it was worth and its backfired on them.

And you can keep your plan and your doctor – the one the government gives you very soon!

NormanF on December 11, 2013 at 6:41 pm

Obama’s probably bought and paid for gay support with the LBGT stuff so yes I think there will probably not be a squeak out of them.

There won’t be any “Philadelphia” style productions for gay Obamacare victims.

Frankz on December 11, 2013 at 6:43 pm


Frankz on December 11, 2013 at 6:51 pm

Homosexuals are just having a temporary set back. They’ll be getting their subsidies and treatment over everyone else.

Once rationing hits (already happening) and the death panels are in place who’s going to get preferential treatment: a 70 year old grandma needing a hip replacement, or the 26 year old male homosexual with AIDS?

The Pink Mafia (and all their enablers) will see to it that the 26 year old with AIDS gets in line in front of granny.

Ruckus_Tom on December 11, 2013 at 7:00 pm

I’d like to see how this is handled in UK via the NHS. I’m sure it will mirror what Ruckus_Tom said above. I agree they’ll be given’ special status.

It was reported last week in UK that older patients are being put off of operations to save $$ even thou’ it’s against the law. That will be ObamaCare in the future.

Thank an Obama-Putin voter, please. I don’t care who you are, if you voted for ObamaPutin and wanted ObamaCare I will not feel bad if you are rationed and sacrificed. I’ll save all my abundant sympathy for those of us who knew the horrible truth of what would happen even before this fugazi freak was elected.

I’m heartless that way and can’t wait to see just desserts being served up.

Skunky on December 11, 2013 at 7:58 pm

@ Skunky-
I agree with you, and you’re not alone in feeling that way. G-d forgive me for saying this, but should this country ever become a total snake pit led by bad people, especially a regime aided by the foolishness and willful blindness of those on the Left, then I hope that they’re the first ones to go. It would only be fair. (Maybe us Jews, those few of us who don’t constantly gulp down the kool-aid of the Left, will handle the issue of our wayward, alleged co-religionists.)
Let the O-bots be left to go because of ACA, especially those aging hippies! Wouldn’t that be ironic and fitting?

Craig on December 11, 2013 at 8:23 pm

Gays are an interest group. Their behavior is consonant with all others: Grab as much money and influence as you can.

Primetime on December 11, 2013 at 9:46 pm

The irony is rich.

I think people vastly overstate the power of the so-called gay mafia when there is real push back from other numerically more important groups on an issue of money (as opposed to gay marriage, for example). The elderly are a much more powerful force. What will happen is that they would win, except for the ailing old, who will be killed off via death panel.

But there is a very serious issue not being discussed here. British gays rely on drugs developed in America. The British system does not fund R and D very seriously. Guess who will be hard hit when drugs are not developed in the US? Yes, gay men.

Irony indeed.

skzion on December 12, 2013 at 2:36 am

Death panels will, and have affected people in the 50s, and, quite likely, younger, just as the chaos of Obamacare already has, in the last couple of months.

The politically correct bureaucracy has taken gay marriage under its wing, as can be seen by the increasing number of states which have instituted gay marriage and the incorporation of gays (but not the elderly, although there are some changes here because of exponentially increasing Social Security disability) as an accepted victim group.

And, of course, gay people do grow old.

Little Al on December 12, 2013 at 9:11 am

    Little Al, you are (obviously) right that the elderly are not a protected class, and that political elites have made gay marriage a big cause. However, in political science there by now a traditional understanding that policy type has a huge effect on the politics surrounding it. By this I mean that a policy that is perceived not to have losers has a different politics than one that is perceived to have losers (e.g., a so-called “redistributive” policy.) While one can make a case that non-gays do lose from gay marriage, this is more of an abstract argument (which doesn’t mean it is wrong). Healthcare benefits inherently have winners and losers when their provision arises from government. So, I don’t think one can generalize from gay marriage.

    The elderly are a powerful political group because (1) the are a lot of them, (2) they tend to vote, and (3) they have organizational backing. I think it’s fair to say that the elderly have shown that they can win political fights over redistributive policies.

    All that said, I think gay men may well get special consideration.

    skzion on December 12, 2013 at 1:38 pm

OT: ..she was the only one of 9 aboard to die:

Nick Fury on December 12, 2013 at 12:12 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field