The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 04-26-2012, 12:13 PM
CannyDan CannyDan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East coast of Florida
Posts: 2,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenaroph View Post
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 Brickerís debate tactics. But this time Iím willing to give him the Ďtechnical winí 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 wasnít 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?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #102  
Old 04-26-2012, 12:15 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
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!
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 04-26-2012, 12:45 PM
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 6,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:12 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 44,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenaroph View Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:16 PM
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 6,175
Can the discussion about Bricker's wagering and memory be taken to another thread?

Just a request.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:16 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 44,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannyDan View Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:19 PM
davidm davidm is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Near Philadelphia PA, USA
Posts: 6,175
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?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:26 PM
Jenaroph Jenaroph is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
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
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:27 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 21,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:37 PM
mister nyx mister nyx is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:39 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 44,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenaroph View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:40 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 44,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister nyx View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:43 PM
mhendo mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
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.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:54 PM
jasg jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 2,980
From a two year old post. Bricker has backed UHC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 04-26-2012, 02:21 PM
CannyDan CannyDan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East coast of Florida
Posts: 2,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 04-26-2012, 03:11 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 44,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 04-26-2012, 03:16 PM
CannyDan CannyDan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East coast of Florida
Posts: 2,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
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.

Last edited by CannyDan; 04-26-2012 at 03:17 PM.. Reason: too many smilie faces
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 04-26-2012, 03:36 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 44,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannyDan View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 04-26-2012, 03:37 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
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.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 04-26-2012, 03:49 PM
Broomstick Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 18,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannyDan View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #121  
Old 04-26-2012, 03:57 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
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.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 04-26-2012, 04:00 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
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.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 04-26-2012, 04:29 PM
CannyDan CannyDan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: East coast of Florida
Posts: 2,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 04-26-2012, 04:50 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 04-26-2012, 05:04 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
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.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 04-26-2012, 05:33 PM
mister nyx mister nyx is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 979
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 04-26-2012, 07:13 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 21,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 04-26-2012, 07:45 PM
sisu sisu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:32 PM
jasg jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 2,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by sisu View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drum God View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 04-27-2012, 08:24 AM
Revtim Revtim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 04-27-2012, 09:04 AM
Peanut Gallery Peanut Gallery is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 04-27-2012, 09:05 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by sisu View Post
bloody commies and obviously atheists working on a Sunday.
Nah, they're all Jews, except for one Muslim nurse.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 04-27-2012, 11:41 PM
SweetLucy SweetLucy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
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
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.