Bricker knows all of this. In all my years on this board he has not once been interested in facts. It’s all about his ‘side’ winning.
No problem - here you go.
Please hold while we ready your cell at Guantanamo Resorts. Enjoy your stay. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
Thanks folks, but we must be completely, nit-pickingly totally specific here.** Ferret Herder** is completely correct of course - I had remembered the specific details of the case incorrectly.
Naturally, in Bricker-world, the fact that I had a detail wrong completely and totally negates my main point -that companies regularly practice rescission based on stupid reasons in order to deny treatment for major conditions and thus save the companies money.
Thanks for the help folks, but as long as Bricker has a nit to fall back on, he’s golden.
But you do get free health care.
Several posters have said things along these lines, but I seriously think Bricker is looking into these examples, and I don’t think he is going to try to wriggle out of his agreement.
The terrorist have won! :eek:
Thanks! I’m looking forward to it, and if I seem to struggle a bit when the men come to pick me up, it’s only because I’m so keen to go.
Tell them they can call me “George” if they like.
Ah. Reverse psychology. Got it.
No, I’m being sincere. It takes time and a lot of serious thought to change you mind about something like that-it’s not as easy as changing a channel.
His discussion point was not about the larger topic of rescission, and how patients are routinely denied coverage when insurance companies go back and find small errors or pre-existing conditions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the insurance claim.
His point was to pick a nit about the details of one specific example that I used.
Well, I’ve learned something.
I don’t believe I lost my wager, as I think EP concedes.
But I must admit that I said what I said because I was confident that the story’s illustration was wrong in concept, not just wrong in specific detail.
And in fact, I see now that it wasn’t. It was wrong in the specifics, but correct in the intention: companies do seem to seek recission for highly trivial reasons. I had no problem with a company denying coverage for cancer after it learns that a person was previously treated for cancer, even if a mild form of it. That makes perfect sense.
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.
So I’d like to spend a bit of time in research, and see what the result was when these decision were (as they must have been) challenged for bad faith.
But I owe EP an apology – I thought you were exaggerating. Turns out you were merely misrembering a detail.
One that really made me sick was the one about termination of insurance during treatment for stage IV non-Hodgkin’s cancer, over an old CT scan done that revealed a tiny aneurysm and some small gallstones. The doctor hadn’t reported those results to the patient. It took 2 appeals and the IL AG to get him reinstated.
Bricker has changed his mind on these boards before; publicly, and about a major issue. Frankly, that’s more than I can say about pretty much any other poster, liberal or conservative. He’s shown that he will align his opinion where the evidence points. Let’s at least wait for the guy to do the “wrong” thing before we start sniping, huh?
eta: I see he posted while I was typing, and was open minded and intelligent as I thought he would be.
Thank you for this Bricker. And for the record, I would not want you to stop debating the topic. It’s a very important one.
I think the LA Times quote posted earlier is important here:
In other words, the goal of rescission is to terminate policies in order to increase profits.
And, they **fully admit **that they will continue to deny coverage based on mistakes or non-related conditions.
A leper approaches Jesus.
Rabbi, I am in pain. Heal me!
Jesus: Please give your health insurance card to Simon over there.
Leper: But I do not have a card, master.
Jesus: Oh well. Lays hands on him You are healed. Now, please sit over there, and Judas will negotiate terms of your payment.
I’ve personally had a health claim rejected that took 6 months for the insurance company to re-accept because they found that the doctor had written a date as MM/DD/YY instead of MM/DD/YYYY on one of the forms.
Isn’t cancer one of the few diseases that is likely to recur if not treated effectively? Am I misunderstanding this post or are you advocating that people can not switch insurance if they’d gotten cancer?
in the UK, I’m fairly sure people are treated whether its their first time or third time getting cancer…
See. This is the problem with communist medicine. The system is so overburdened that you had to wait till the next morning! Bastards! And you had to go in on a holiday! Stinkin pinko communist healthcare %$#&^%…[sup]*[/sup]
[sup]*[/sup]This message brought to you by Betsy McCaughey, Sarah Palin, and tea parties everywhere.
I believe he’s saying that it might be acceptable if the person didn’t disclose that they’ve previously had cancer when applying for coverage as opposed to a case of acne from 25 years ago.