Or just write GBP.
USD, GBP, EUR … why bother with funny symbols?
There have been similar cases in the UK where someone with a very, very rare condition requiring very, very expensive specialist treatment is unable to get the procedure done on the NHS and has to go elsewhere (often the US) for it. I recall one a few years back where Simon Cowell (yes, *that *Simon Cowell) heard about a child in such circumstances where the parents were fundraising for the treatment and he gave them the remainder of the money they needs (IIRC something like £250,000). But these are so unusual that they make the newspapers; the whole “spaghetti dinners to fund cancer treatment” is not a thing here. And no one is arguing about whether if you have the money US healthcare is among the best in the world, any more than if you have the money you can get the best schools, food, housing, security etc.
Oh yeah, my sister was born with cysts on one of her lungs and was sent to Great Ormond Street Hospital, where they removed two lobes of her lung and she made a full recovery. She’s completely healthy now and her lung actually grew back somehow. While GOSH requires private funding, all services provided were free to the sufferer. I don’t think my family could have afforded to pay for my sister’s care had they lived in the US.
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 make a compelling argument but in rebuttal let me offer the following:
You’re a socialist, lol! U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!!
The defense rests.
Oh, but it’s not, not necessarily. When Rocío Durcal (a Spanish singer and former child actress who was living in Mexico) found out she had cancer, she first went to Houston. After asking a bit, she was told that she could get the exact same treatments in Spain - since she still had her old Madrid flat, she relocated back. When my classmate Bea’s father had brain cancer, one of the doctors who treated him was an American who was studying in Pamplona to learn techniques developed there (he was one of the interns). When…
US healthcare is the best when it happens to be the best and if you have the money. Other countries are the best at other times, and you need either the money or to be a resident.
I probably would have changed it again, yes. But if the issue had simply been coverage, I would have denied losing it (before I changed it) and acknowledged losing it (after I changed it)..
I’m not sure what kind of wagering you’ve done in your life, but can you offer up any examples of gaming systems where one can win, or lose, a bet based on what terms the bettor might have agreed to but didn’t actually agree to?
Almost all of them. The house sets the rules. The bettor’s understanding of them is irrelevant.
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.
Again: I’m not sure what kind of wagering you’ve done in your life, but can you offer up any examples of gaming systems where one can win, or lose, a bet based on what terms the bettor might have agreed to but didn’t actually agree to?
What you wrote doesn’t respond to that. When the house sets the rules, the bettor ACTUALLY AGREES to those rules.
In the “house” they’re written down. Everyone can see them. Here, too, they were written down. Everyone can see them.
So, too, that was done here. To refresh your recollection:
- Same offer: find me a single documented case of a person being denied insurance coverage for treatment for a heart attack because they forgot to say they took acne medication years ago, I’ll forever after refraining from saying what a poor idea I believe government-paid or mandated health care is, and if not, EP promises to never again attack the reverse of the issue with made up stories. *
Have you, or anyone, found me a single documented case of a person being denied insurance coverage for treatment for a heart attack because they forgot to say they took acne medication years ago?
That’s what I agreed to. That’s what EP agreed to. To his credit, he hasn’t tried to say I lost. He has said, and I said, that even though I didn’t lose, the larger point I was making was wrong.
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.
Can we just drop the whole Bricker/Bet topic.
He’s gone as far as he’s likely to. He’s admitted the claim was correct in principle, but said was sufficiently inaccurate in specifics to make the bet null & void. You all know he’s not going to suddenly admit he was wrong, and that the bet stands.
So please, let’s move on and focus on the key subject of this thread: taking the piss out of the USA for its comically inefficient healthcare setup.
I would expect that someone commenting on policy would make an effort to be more informed than the average couch-tuber.
This is probably confused by the fact that the Republicans waged an unprecedented war of filibustering, so what, in other administrations, would have been control of congress, was worth nearly nothing.
Just a small example of how the outright uncivil combativeness of the Republicans confuses an issue. If you heard news story after news story about how Senate Republicans stopped bill after bill, would you, if you were a low-information voter, assume Dems had control?
The very fact that you use this as an example shows that you are more than happy to distort or confuse issues to get your way. You know, or at least you should have, that the Repubs were epic-obstructionist, but you still slipped it in, presumably to try and slide a partisan stab at Obama’s perceived ineffectiveness.
Maybe if you don’t understand what you’re talking about, you should shut the fuck up and learn about it before taking sides?
Although, that would require that you don’t immediately fly to the defense of whatever ideological conservative is being discussed, in all circumstances.
While we’re on the subject of wagering, it is customary for both parties to agree to a bet. I did not agree with your terms. Ever. So I guess you can claim that you won your proposal.
The bigger picture in this thread is: There is a profit motive in the method of insuring healthcare in the United States. A free-market profit driven business model is frequently a good thing, and can deliver good service at a competitive price.
In the case of health care insurance however, a profit-driven system has drawbacks that can be very serious. When a private company breaks a contract with you, you have the ability to sue them or otherwise get recompense for the broken contract. You are “made whole”. This is great when a company fails to paint your house properly, or a company backs out of a booking for a wedding hall.
However, if a private health insurer renegs on a contract, or denies you coverage that you are entitled to, or otherwise illegally conducts business to increase their profits… then your very life is affected. You may lose your life, or drastically shorten it. You cannot be “made whole” by suing.
What for-profit companies seem to be doing is regularly denying claims or performing rescission, or delaying claims in order to increase profits. If they are “caught” then they (reluctantly) pay the claim. The result is that people do not get timely treatment, which negatively affects their health. All for the sake of increased profits for the company.
This is a major problem in the US system. It is a problem that should be addressed. These cases do happen. Regularly. This is what the discussion should be about.
You read this board, right?
How Will Current HC Bill Help Me?
“Preexisting Medical Condition” – As Of When? How Do They Find Out?
I did not know this about health insurance companies
Well, the Democrats just threw me under a bus with healthcare.
Medical Insurance and Pre-existing Conditions
Rational healthcare debate - politics free zone
Sarah Palin proven right! Government tricks beautiful young mom; imposes 1st Death Panel Verdict
Conservative opinion on US health care
Document exposes what the RNC really thinks of its donors, admits to using “fear.”
Every single one of those thread either discusses or references the Beaton acne/breast cancer case. We’ve been talking about this here for a long time. Those were just on the first page of results; I figured I’d found enough.
And I’ll admit I didn’t search names through every thread, but I notice you posted in at least one of those.
While EVERYONE in the country might be excused for not knowing about this case, you don’t really have that excuse yourself.
Easy big fella. I was just pointing out some ambiguity in your statement by using the term ‘might’ to describe the state of agreement. It doesn’t really describe real world situations where a resolution is always based on agreement or non-agreement, and can’t be a one-sided affair. I’m sure you know a contract requires a meeting of the minds, and the introduction of ‘mights’ and ‘maybes’ means there’s been no agreement. But whether you actively agree to the terms of a casino or not, they’ve set the rules.
I’m not referring to your prior bet, which is up to you and the other party to resolve, and wasn’t conducted according to anyone’s known rules. And I agree that your original statement was not refuted based on it’s literal interpretation. And you did the stand-up thing by admitting that there was an illustration of the point even if it didn’t match the terms of the bet.
A better example of a horse race is a disqualification. Your horse could come in 8 lengths ahead of all the others, clearing winning the race according to a simple observation. But the stewards can end up disqualifying the horse for a variety of reasons, and then by the rules, the horse did not win, nor did you. Much easier to bribe a race official than to hire a sniper.
I didn’t know about the case. Or if I did, I had forgotten. Not everyone has the same things in his brain that you do.
I don’t find that he didn’t know about this specific case, odd. However, not knowing about rescission is a little odd. It featured quite predominantly in the news for a quite a while.
Not that that means anything. Just found it a little odd.
I think they are basically three groups (with some overlap) who are in opposition.
[ol]
[li]Those who are ideologically opposed to government sponsored healthcare regardless of facts.[/li][li]Insurance companies and others who benefit financially from the current system. This would include politicians who benefit from donations or expect a job in the industry when they leave congress.[/li][li]Those who’ve been taken in by propaganda generated by 1 and 2 about “death panels”, long waiting times, etc.[/li][/ol]
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.
- 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.