All you poor, deluded sufferers of communist health care in Europe, take heart

[CannyDan]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

Guess Bricker forgot about it too. To be fair, he dismissed the anecdote as "pure bunk" two years ago, so it's been a while.

There have been plenty of times that I've screamed with frustration at Bricker’s debate tactics. But this time I’m willing to give him the ‘technical win’ because he admits the main point, that insurance companies routinely use trivial and unrelated factors to withhold payment for life saving medical care. The anecdote, though different in particulars of the life threatening illness, surely wasn’t bunk.

What I really want to hear from Bricker is how this affects him politically. Given the above set of facts, does he defend the current system, or would he now support changing it somehow, perhaps to reduce the effect the profit incentive has? Might he even accept a single payer option funded by direct taxation? Or might he offer some novel system of his own?

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Ghost of Bricker Past

....Once again, I would support a system that limited its benefits to the employed....

- from the above link

At last, a solution to the problem of the unemployed! Compost!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

4. Fading, but still a factor, the racism of several that know that this will benefit also minorities, a factor that almost derailed the GI-Bill back then.

Yes. I actually thought of putting something like

4. People who don't want to pay for other people's care (especially certain groups of other people).

I'm not sure why I didn't. I think I got distracted by something, thought I had finished the post, and submitted it.

I think it's a significant factor and I don't think that it's faded all that much.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

While EVERYONE in the country might be excused for not knowing about this case, you don't really have that excuse yourself.

Are you suggesting that you are responsible and accountable for recalling every fact discussed in every thread in which you've participated?

And of course, not one of those threads talks about acne in relation to a heart attack, I'm guessing, so how can you say my memory failed me anyway? I'm supposed to have (a) recalled threads from months or years ago that (b) mentioned acne but (c) didn't mention heart attacks but (d) DID mention breast cancer, and stitched all that together to be on top of this reference?

Right.

[davidm]

Can the discussion about Bricker's wagering and memory be taken to another thread?

Just a request.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by CannyDan

What I really want to hear from Bricker is how this affects him politically. Given the above set of facts, does he defend the current system, or would he now support changing it somehow, perhaps to reduce the effect the profit incentive has? Might he even accept a single payer option funded by direct taxation? Or might he offer some novel system of his own?

Good question.

At a bare minimum, I'd support strengthening mandatory coverage laws to eliminate these kind of bad faith recissions, requiring that before an insurance company can rescind coverage, they have to show deliberate and material misrepresentation, and that they have only a set period to do so -- like a statute of limitations, once a certain period had passed, they would be stuck. This would require them to act in good faith: if they are truly wary of someone who took acne medication years ago, drop them as a customer NOW, not when they become a liability. Of course, they won't; they'd decimate their customer base.

[davidm]

Who the hell remembers every single medication and every minor health issue they've had their whole life.

In any case, if we have mandatory coverage laws and mandatory acceptance laws, then rescission won't even be an issue any more, right?

[Jenaroph]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Are you suggesting that you are responsible and accountable for recalling every fact discussed in every thread in which you've participated?

And of course, not one of those threads talks about acne in relation to a heart attack, I'm guessing, so how can you say my memory failed me anyway? I'm supposed to have (a) recalled threads from months or years ago that (b) mentioned acne but (c) didn't mention heart attacks but (d) DID mention breast cancer, and stitched all that together to be on top of this reference?

Right.

In response to the idea that the acne/breast cancer recission had been well-publicized, you said

Seriously? Are you out of your fucking mind?

I figured that showing that the very case had been discussed multiple times on this board and that you had in fact had participated in one of the conversations might just be evidence that he was not in fact out of his fucking mind by suggesting that it had been well-publicized.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Bricker

If you bet on a horse to win, and at the end of the race its eight lengths in front of every other horse, and clearly going to win, and then it is shot by a sniper and dies, THE HORSE DOESN'T WIN. You can say how obvious it is that the horse would have won, and I agree.

Hmmmm.

Y'know, I've been having a not-so-good run at the track lately. Maybe I should consider some pro-active measures, myself.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Bricker

So well-publicized?

Here is a cite to the claim that almost half the people in this country didn't know the US declared independence from Great Britain in 1776.

I can't tell for sure, but that story is probably more publicized than the acne one, wouldn't you say?

Here's a cite to the claim that in November 2008 almost 60% of Obama voters did not know that the Democrats then had control of Congress.

Again, I don't know where the acne story broke, but I am confident that the Democrats have control of Congress was more widely publicized.

Yes, I follow news more than the people on the wrong sides of those questions. but, somehow, shockingly, I missed the big acne story. Probably that was the day the dog shredded the paper. What fucking bad luck! The day the Post carries the acne story on page A1 above the folds, and that's the day Fido gets a hankering for newsprint.

Seriously - are you out of your fucking mind? The acne story was so well-publicized that the only way to miss it was to be willfully ignorant?? You could send a pollster out to any city in this country and start asking people and not one in fifty would know that there was an incident involving acne medication and denial of treatment.

Yes, many people are comically uninformed when it comes to our political system. They don't participate actively, or read the news, and so they don't know basic facts that the rest of us take for granted. Like what year the U.S. declared independence, or that rescission has been used by insurance companies in many cases involving an absolutely minuscule and completely medically irrelevant failure to report past medical treatment.

People like that -- and I'm glad you compared your ignorance to theirs because it might look like partisan sniping if I had to do it -- have no useful insight to share in discussions of good public policy. If you have no idea what the problems are that we're trying to fix, how can you address them?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Jenaroph

In response to the idea that the acne/breast cancer recission had been well-publicized, you said I figured that showing that the very case had been discussed multiple times on this board and that you had in fact had participated in one of the conversations might just be evidence that he was not in fact out of his fucking mind by suggesting that it had been well-publicized.

OK. Good point.

I still didn't know -- or had forgotten -- about it, and I don't think that's an unreasonable position to find myself in.

But you're right -- it was discussed around here enough to easily surpass the "out of fucking mind" level.

He wasn't out of his mind.

My bad.

But I still didn't remember it, and not for any sinister or contrived reasons.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

If you have no idea what the problems are that we're trying to fix, how can you address them?

I know. People like that should stay home and not vote, right?

[mhendo]

Bricker, you are absolutely correct that we are under no obligation to remember every single minor detail that crosses our path over the years. I also respect the fact that you conceded that EP's general point was actually valid.

I am somewhat surprised, though, that you were apparently unaware until just this moment of the extent to which insurance companies dishonestly treated their policyholders in order to deny coverage.

You were a pretty frequent contributor to debates over health care reform, and one of the central issues in those debates concerned the issue of creating a system that made arbitrary, profit-seeking decisions like this more unlikely. The term "rescission" essentially entered the American consciousness during the debates over health care reform in the period before and after Obama took office, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings on policy terminations in the summer of 2009. This is when Robin Beaton testified about her own case.

In a national debate where some of the central issues included the way that health coverage currently works in the United States, and the ways in which Americans can often be denied health care even if they actually pay for coverage, the fact that someone who spent some considerable time participating in the debate could be unaware of the issue of rescission in that debate is rather perplexing. While it's not surprising that you didn't remember Beaton's specific case (i didn't either), the fact that you were unaware of this behavior altogether surprised me, especially since you generally do seem to go to the trouble of informing yourself on the issues that you choose to debate on this board.

[jasg]

From a two year old post. Bricker has backed UHC.

Originally Posted by Bricker

Those are very compelling arguments. And if we restricted abortion, I have to say that we'd be morally obligated to provide some form of universal health care, pre-cradle to grave.

[CannyDan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Good question.

At a bare minimum, I'd support strengthening mandatory coverage laws to eliminate these kind of bad faith recissions, requiring that before an insurance company can rescind coverage, they have to show deliberate and material misrepresentation, and that they have only a set period to do so -- like a statute of limitations, once a certain period had passed, they would be stuck. This would require them to act in good faith: if they are truly wary of someone who took acne medication years ago, drop them as a customer NOW, not when they become a liability. Of course, they won't; they'd decimate their customer base.

Thank you for the direct answer. I agree that this -- or these, your above suggestions -- would be "a bare minimum" but it is a step in the right direction.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Bricker, you are absolutely correct that we are under no obligation to remember every single minor detail that crosses our path over the years. I also respect the fact that you conceded that EP's general point was actually valid.

I am somewhat surprised, though, that you were apparently unaware until just this moment of the extent to which insurance companies dishonestly treated their policyholders in order to deny coverage.

You were a pretty frequent contributor to debates over health care reform, and one of the central issues in those debates concerned the issue of creating a system that made arbitrary, profit-seeking decisions like this more unlikely. The term "rescission" essentially entered the American consciousness during the debates over health care reform in the period before and after Obama took office, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings on policy terminations in the summer of 2009. This is when Robin Beaton testified about her own case.

In a national debate where some of the central issues included the way that health coverage currently works in the United States, and the ways in which Americans can often be denied health care even if they actually pay for coverage, the fact that someone who spent some considerable time participating in the debate could be unaware of the issue of rescission in that debate is rather perplexing. While it's not surprising that you didn't remember Beaton's specific case (i didn't either), the fact that you were unaware of this behavior altogether surprised me, especially since you generally do seem to go to the trouble of informing yourself on the issues that you choose to debate on this board.

That's fair, and frankly, in re-reading that post in which I said it was bunk, I think the problem was (a) I didn't find the claims plausible, but (b) failed to more fully investigate them to determine if they really were bunk. In other words, I called them "bunk" as a knee-jerk reaction, not a result of careful study.

I appreciate your comment that I usually inform myself a little better, and I usually do... but, for whatever reason, not this time.

And given that I have now seen the lack of knowledge I had, I've admitted as much. Can't really do more.

[CannyDan]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Can't really do more.

Oh yes you can, buddy. Prove ol' 'luc correct in his prediction. We're right, you're smart -- now you're ours.

Time to get a big "L"iberal sweater and join the cheerleading squad.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by CannyDan

Oh yes you can, buddy. Prove ol' 'luc correct in his prediction. We're right, you're smart -- now you're ours.

Time to get a big "L"iberal sweater and join the cheerleading squad.

No, I'm afraid I'm not quite there yet.

[elucidator]

Well. now, lets not rush things. For myself, I have little faith in drastic reversals of a political opinion. If one can change one's mind that quickly, one isn't changing anything of any significance anyway.

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by CannyDan

Oh yes you can, buddy. Prove ol' 'luc correct in his prediction. We're right, you're smart -- now you're ours.

Time to get a big "L"iberal sweater and join the cheerleading squad. ;) :D

Not to get too picky, but it's not impossible to be in favor of some sort of government involvement in healthcare AND remain politically conservative. My own state's governor is an example of that: Mitch Daniels started a program that allows people who don't qualify for Medicaid and have no access employer-sponsored insurance to obtain health coverage at a reasonable cost. The individuals do have to contribute, based on income (and I have to report any raise or increase in income when it occurs so they can adjust my monthly bill), but because it is subsidized for the poor and near-poor they aren't shut out, and pre-existing conditions are no bar to joining up. It's not a perfect solution, but it has enabled my spouse to keep up with his diabetes such that he is now healthier and requires less medication than when first diagnosed, as opposed to out of control/in the hospital/losing body parts. It has also enabled me to get care when I needed it so I could continue working instead of waiting until things were at ER levels of severity in order to get treatment. Yes, oh horrors, state subsidized health coverage (that is what it is) in a Red state. A down side is that it does lock us into staying in Indiana instead of going elsewhere in search of a better economy but we can live with that.

For TL:DNR - Bricker might "concede"/change his mind on this one issue but still otherwise be a conservative. One issue does not a liberal make.

[TriPolar]

Well I can see why Bricker has his dander up on this one. He made a claim, it was proven wrong in concept, yet not detail, he admitted it, and everybody's been up his nose since then. How often do people admit they're wrong about things, even when only in a general way instead of on the specific details? Hardly seems worth sewing the scarlett C on him now.

[elucidator]

Still, it would be/will be fun to see him take out his zircon-encrusted nitpicking tweezers and parse the other guys to tears. "Nibbled to death by ducks" leaps to mind.

[CannyDan]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

Not to get too picky, but it's not impossible to be in favor of some sort of government involvement in healthcare AND remain politically conservative. <snip>
For TL: DNR - Bricker might "concede"/change his mind on this one issue but still otherwise be a conservative. One issue does not a liberal make.

Is the concept of "joke" foreign to you? I know humor can be difficult to convey in a printed medium, but sheesh, I added smilies, didn't you notice? Earlier I was complimentary of his answer to my direct question, and I have not quibbled about the resolution of his not-bet with EP. Methinks thou hast misdirected thine protest.

[Wesley Clark]

Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat

I honestly struggle to understand how even the most vehement of right wingers can feel that the US system is the best way.

As a nation, you spend the highest proportion of GDP on healthcare. Yet you place 38th in life expectancy. Living in the UK, the cost of my healthcare received will be half of an American male, but the odds say I'll live a year and a half longer? If I was living in Sweden, I'd be expected to live 3 years longer.

When presented with multiple examples of state healthcare that is cheaper and more effective than your current system, how can you argue that social healthcare is a bad idea?

You are assuming the right wingers who do that are making a rational, informed opinion based on an objective review of various health care policies around the globe.

What is really happening is a bunch of creationist climate change deniers are assuming that because we are Americans we are automatically the best. Most of them have never even visited a foreign country, let alone understand anything about the health system either at home or abroad.

The people who observe our health care system rationally virtually never say it is a good system from what I've seen.

[BobLibDem]

What a tedious thread. I don't give two shits about some retarded bet or the guy who made it. It's all quite simple: the essential feature about a health care system is that people who are sick get taken care of. If it doesn't do that, it isn't good. So if a person gets cancer but only can afford treatment IF he has insurance and IF he got his insurance before he had any trace of cancer, then the system sucks and we need to fix it. If you think it's okay that a system allows insurance to welsh on coverage because of preconditions, relevant or not, then you're an asshole.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

Well I can see why Bricker has his dander up on this one. He made a claim, it was proven wrong in concept, yet not detail, he admitted it, and everybody's been up his nose since then. How often do people admit they're wrong about things, even when only in a general way instead of on the specific details? Hardly seems worth sewing the scarlett C on him now.

Well, if he hadn't made the claim in such a childish way in the first place, and hadn't afterwards specified over and over again that he was technically right, and then resorted to arguing about how wagers work (even though there, clearly, was never a wager here to begin with), he might not have earned so much ire.

I'm conversely surprised that so many people are trying to argue in his favor after he said something so completely asinine. I'd expect someone to be the object of ridicule after what he said, but you and several other people are vociferously defending him. Especially given that it appears he's got a history of arguing against health care reform. Not that it's news at all that opponents of health care reform are uninformed, but it is significant and it's something everyone should pay attention to.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

For TLNR - Bricker might "concede"/change his mind on this one issue but still otherwise be a conservative. One issue does not a liberal make.

Well, we know THAT; he came around on gay marriage years ago.

[sisu]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

I called up the NHS helpline in the wee small hours of Saturday night/Sunday morning and got an GP appointment for my daughter that day. On a Sunday. Easter Sunday.
And then we went to a pharmacy to get her medicine. Which is free for under-18s.Won't someone please save us from this oppression?

bloody commies and obviously atheists working on a Sunday.

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

What a tedious thread. I don't give two shits about some retarded bet or the guy who made it. It's all quite simple: the essential feature about a health care system is that people who are sick get taken care of. If it doesn't do that, it isn't good. So if a person gets cancer but only can afford treatment IF he has insurance and IF he got his insurance before he had any trace of cancer, then the system sucks and we need to fix it. If you think it's okay that a system allows insurance to welsh on coverage because of preconditions, relevant or not, then you're an asshole.

Bob you have summed it beautifully.

In Australia we have issues with our health care system as does every country but you do not go bankrupt if you get sick here. What are dopers thoughts on this?

Should health care be socialised? Should we all contribute the health of our fellow nation dwellers?

[jasg]

Originally Posted by sisu

Should health care be socialised? Should we all contribute the health of our fellow nation dwellers?

Yes.

In another thread, a wise doper once said

Originally Posted by Drum God

It seems to me entirely reasonable that, living in a civilized society, each of us can contribute a portion of our wealth to insure the well-being of everyone. The rest of the modern world does it. It's time for us to step forward and care for our fellow citizens. It's cheaper. It's more effective. It's the right thing to do.

Seems to me that back in kindergarten and Sunday school there was a lot of emphasis on sharing, so socialized health care is just a logical extension.

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

What a tedious thread. I don't give two shits about some retarded bet or the guy who made it. It's all quite simple: the essential feature about a health care system is that people who are sick get taken care of. If it doesn't do that, it isn't good. So if a person gets cancer but only can afford treatment IF he has insurance and IF he got his insurance before he had any trace of cancer, then the system sucks and we need to fix it. If you think it's okay that a system allows insurance to welsh on coverage because of preconditions, relevant or not, then you're an asshole.

Amen.

We have system that denies coverage for people with existing conditions. In other words, sick people, the people who need it most!

Holy fuck people. If you are OK with this, you are indeed a giant puckering oscillating asshole.

[Peanut Gallery]

Originally Posted by Bricker

And of course, not one of those threads talks about acne in relation to a heart attack

/point and laugh. Keep clinging to that life preserver. There is land out there somewhere!

Originally Posted by Bricker

But I did not realize that companies had the business plan of denying coverage for a typo on weight, one not even submitted by the applicant.

People have beaten all around this bush, but I'm willing to call the bold part a flat out lie. But then in true Bricker fashion you have the italic part to keep you afloat, with eyelashes a-batting. Yes, I know the complete statement has its own meaning. I'm saying you look the fool for nit-picking in defense of such an obvious flaw with the profit-motive in health care. The other posters on this board who have more invested in you are patting you on the back for your change of heart, but know that at least one lurker finds your 'style' transparent, tedious, and pathetic. I'm willing to bet many more than one (but the bet is only valid on a Tuesday, under a full moon, wearing green socks).

[Nava]

Originally Posted by sisu

bloody commies and obviously atheists working on a Sunday.

Nah, they're all Jews, except for one Muslim nurse.

[SweetLucy]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

There is hope for a better tomorrow. Maybe with the proper reforms you too can someday be a country where debt collectors stalk emergency rooms and demand payment before treatment is given




America is just a wealthy version of a 3rd world country anymore.

They should be called Excretive, rather than Accretive