# Document exposes what the RNC really thinks of its donors, admits to using "fear." **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 4, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303 "2010-03-04T17:44:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/161 "2010-03-06T02:04:08Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Perhaps he will simply go to the Sisters of Mercy Charity Hospital, which is funded entirely by voluntary **non** -tax deductible donations. I’m sure the care he receives there will be absolutely top-rate. Actually the Sister’s of Mercy do good work, IIRC. However \*\*Bricker \*\*has stated [elsewhere](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12083460), that if he lost his health insurance he should die because it was God’s will to see him sooner. > [@](#): > > But if, in spite of the long odds against it, that happens, then I’m prepared to get sick and die, which is, after all, the ultimate fate that waits me at some point, and which I’ll assume God has some urgent need for my arrival in Heaven at just that point in time. > > What I won’t do is reach into your pocket and say, “Hey, since I’ve had some bad luck here, why don’t you pay for me?” In the same thread he paraded out his idea that if we, as Americans, outlawed abortion he would support UHC. So basically he’s into punishing the poor and unemployed because of the evils of abortion. Makes sense to me.:dubious: > [@](#): > > 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. Which basically boils down to: “No health care for you or your family because the harlots are having abortions.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/162 "2010-03-06T02:05:02Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Out of interest, why do you believe this? I’m not asking this question sarcastically or anything like that, but as a person who does not believe that people are entitled, as a matter of right, what they deserve or what they work for, I’d be interested in knowing what your argument for that is. > > Also, what additional argument(s) would you use to refute the idea that we should take away from someone what they have not deserved or worked for, yet possess? Property rights are wise social policy for reasons that deserve their own thread. Briefly: adopting this policy encourages greater productivity than otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/163 "2010-03-06T02:11:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, road maintenance does very more directly with population. But it still doesn’t scale nearly as well as the health care expense, which is extremely individually focused. Meh. Both are per capita. I don’t see any reason to believe the incidence of kidney transplants is higher among a hundred million people than it is among one million. The total expense is higher, but so is the revenue-bearing population. > [@](#): > > Moreover, let’s say I agree that roads should be purely a private venture. What of it? That ship has sailed. The public has decided the issue against me. I have lost that battle. > > I have not lost the healthcare battle. Suppose I contend that public roads are a mistake – why should I support a second mistake? But neither you nor almost any healthcare opponent actually think that public roads, law, and defense are mistakes. My argument is that the healthcare battle is in most respects formally equivalent to the battles over law, defense, and roads. People will naturally have different preferences over the provision of a particular public good because they may bear the burden disproportionately or they simply have better non-public alternatives. This is understandable: one does not need to have identical preferences over public goods in general. I simply do not have very much respect for the arguments that somehow healthcare is a different sort of good that requires a different treatment from government than any other kind of public good. It doesn’t; one non-exclusive public good is pretty much the same as any other. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/164 "2010-03-06T02:17:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Property rights are wise social policy for reasons that deserve their own thread. Briefly: adopting this policy encourages greater productivity than otherwise. So why are we in favour of encouraging greater productivity? And, if I may; > [@](#): > > You know, I’m sick of the double standard. It doesn’t seem particularly fair to me to talk about a double standard, when, going by my reading of the situation, you’re comparing one person’s statements with another person’s statements. Fair enough if the two are linked in some way - let’s say, both members speaking on behalf of an organisation - but why is it that it is acceptable to hold **CJJ** \* in this instance to the standards of another person, and then declare him/her wanting? Unless **CJJ** \* has agreed with your someone in another thread, or they with he/her here, then i’d say you’re sick for nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/165 "2010-03-06T02:34:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bricker’s debate partner uncritically cites anecdotes from an advocacy group, and ignores the fact that federal law already prohibits the denial of coverage for any pre-existing condition for which no treatment has been sought for six months prior to the application. > > So the “Ohh, scary!” acne story is pure bunk. Bricker still has a heart attack from the stress of dealing with dishonest debate tactics from others, but fortunately his high-schol acne plays no part in his coverage. Whack-a-Mole’s debate partner engages in some smoke and mirrors. First, the cite from the advocacy group was itself quoting from a report published in the _American Journal of Medicine_. Second, that is an ad hominem attack by criticizing the source rather than the substance which is easily verifiable. Do you dispute the figures cited for bankruptcies? Third, acne IS deemed a pre-existing condition (I cited the Washington Post on that one for you…are they not to be trusted?) and if you did not write that down on your form when applying for health insurance they can, and do, revoke your insurance. They do it a lot. They even have a word for it: Rescission. Here are some other pre-existing conditions: [Cops, Firefighters, Expectant Dads, and Those Suffering From Allergies, Acne and Toenail Fungus](http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-18-2009/0005096676&EDATE=) > [@](#): > > For example, rather than reviewing medical histories when applications are submitted, some insurance companies award policies quickly to begin collecting premiums. If the policyholders subsequently get sick and file expensive claims, these insurance companies initiate investigations to scrutinize the details of the policyholder’s application ma:terials and medical records. If the insurance companies find discrepancies, omissions, or misrepresentations, they can retroactively cancel policies, return premiums, and refuse payment for medical services. This practice is known as “post-claims underwriting.” > > \ > > • Insurance companies rescind coverage even when discrepancies are unintentional or caused by others. In one case reviewed by the Committee, a WellPoint subsidiary rescinded coverage for a patient in Virginia whose insurance agent entered his weight incorrectly on his application and failed to return it to him for review. The company’s Associate General Counsel warned that the agent’s actions were “not acceptable” and recommended against rescission, but she was overruled. > > • Insurance companies rescind coverage for conditions that are unknown to > policyholders. In 2004, Fortis Health, now known as Assurant, rescinded coverage for a policyholder with lymphoma, denying him chemotherapy and a life-saving stem cell transplant. The company located a CT scan taken five years earlier that identified silent gall stones and an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm, but the policyholder’s doctor never informed him of these conditions. After direct intervention from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, the individual’s policy was reinstated. > > • Insurance companies rescind coverage for discrepancies unrelated to the medical conditions for which patients seek medical care. In November 2006, a Texas resident with a policy from WellPoint was diagnosed with a lump in her breast. The company initiated an investigation into the patient’s medical history and concluded that she failed to disclose that she had been diagnosed previously with osteoporosis and bone density loss. The company rescinded her policy and refused to pay for medical care for the lump in her breast. > > • Insurance companies rescind coverage for family members who were not involved in misrepresentations. When a UnitedHealth subsidiary determined in 2007 that a policyholder in Michigan failed to disclose his abnormal blood count and other conditions, the company also rescinded coverage for his spouse and two children. When his spouse called to find out “[w]hy we dropped whole family instead of husband,” the company official “[c]alled her back told her coverage was voided to medical history not on app.” > > • Insurance companies automatically investigate medical histories for all policyholders with certain conditions. WellPoint and Assurant informed the Committee that they automatically investigate the medical records of every policyholder with certain conditions, including leukemia, ovarian cancer, brain cancer, and even becoming pregnant with twins. UnitedHealth was unable to explain specifically how its investigations are triggered, claiming that it utilized a computer program so complex that no single individual in the company could explain it. > > • Insurance companies have evaluated employee performance based on the amount of money their employees saved the company through rescissions. The Committee obtained an annual p~rformance evaluation of the Director of Group Underwriting WellPoint. Under “results achieved” for meeting financial “targets” and improving financial “stability,” the review stated that this official obtained “Retro savings of $9,835,564” through rescissions. The official was awarded a perfect “5” for “exceptional performance.” > > SOURCE: [Committee on Energy and Commerce Staff, Supplemental Information Regarding the Individual Health Insurance Market](http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/rescission_supplemental.pdf) (PDF) I’ll leave it to the judgment of the Board on who is engaging in dishonest or evasive debate tactics. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/166 "2010-03-06T02:38:58Z")
As a liberal who has donated to the democrats, they do the exact same thing. They will send out emails designed to play on our anger and fear or outrage all the times with a link at the bottom so we can ‘do something’ by donating money. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/167 "2010-03-06T02:40:44Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > It doesn’t seem particularly fair to me to talk about a double standard, when, going by my reading of the situation, you’re comparing one person’s statements with another person’s statements. Fair enough if the two are linked in some way - let’s say, both members speaking on behalf of an organisation - but why is it that it is acceptable to hold **CJJ** \* in this instance to the standards of another person, and then declare him/her wanting? Unless **CJJ** \* has agreed with your someone in another thread, or they with he/her here, then i’d say you’re sick for nothing. Yeah, except if you’re being pursued by a swarm of mosquitos, it’s tough to deveop an appreciation for the foibles of each insect. It’s true that CJJ didn’t make those statements. But that ignores the dyanmic of this message board, and it’s that dynamic that makes me sick, not the individual statements of CJJ, who, for all I know, is remarkable internally consistent. But CJJ’s comments pass without any negative reaction. In the other thread, those comments also pass without huge amounts of negative reaction. (There was one poster who criticized the statements in the other thread, and a second generalized statement of disgust that I assume also was intended for that poster, if not specifically that post). Upthread, I said, “There’s one of me, and a zillion of you.” This is when that dynamic becomes key. The masses sit backand let crap pass unchallenged when its “their side,” and leap on faulty logic when it’s used for a cause they don’t like. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/168 "2010-03-06T02:44:35Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’ll leave it to the judgment of the Board on who is engaging in dishonest or evasive debate tactics. “Some insurance companies…” do that stuff. How many? How prevalent is the practice? By outling the worst, most abusive, borderline practices and claiming that’s the state of affairs, I’ll also take the judgment… well, not of the Board, because, thank God, the Board’s membership does not reflect the voting public’s beliefs. It’s amazing how satisfied with their health insurance most people are, given this wide swatch of acne-related denials. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/169 "2010-03-06T02:52:25Z")
So, these wild stories we are hearing are all made up? Those people who testified to these abuses, they were either making shit up or wildly exaggerating a few random, isolated incidents. Incidents that were, no doubt, quickly resolved once responsible insurance executives were apprised of the situation. But by no means is this a standard practice engaged in to advance profitability. This is appears to be what you would like to imply, without going so far as to put yourself behind it. You seek the benefit of insinuation without the responsibility of support. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/170 "2010-03-06T02:56:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, these wild stories we are hearing are all made up? Those people who testified to these abuses, they were either making shit up or wildly exaggerating a few random, isolated incidents. Incidents that were, no doubt, quickly resolved once responsible insurance executives were apprised of the situation. > > But by no means is this a standard practice engaged in to advance profitability. > > This is appears to be what you would like to imply, without going so far as to put yourself behind it. You seek the benefit of insinuation without the responsibility of support. No, that’s what that cite did. It offers plenty of stories, but I don’t see any data to show prevelance. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/171 "2010-03-06T02:58:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Some insurance companies…” do that stuff. How many? How prevalent is the practice? > > By outling the worst, most abusive, borderline practices and claiming that’s the state of affairs, I’ll also take the judgment… well, not of the Board, because, thank God, the Board’s membership does not reflect the voting public’s beliefs. It’s amazing how satisfied with their health insurance most people are, given this wide swatch of acne-related denials. According to this article, if you actually use your health insurance on expensive procedures, your chances of a rescission are 15-50%. [http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/28/unconscionable-math/](http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/28/unconscionable-math/) > [@](#): > > It should be fairly clear that the people who do not file insurance claims do not face rescission. The insurance companies will happily deposit their checks. Indeed, even for someone in the 95th percentile, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for the insurance company to take the nuclear option of blowing up the policy. $11,487 in claims is less than two years’ premium; less than one if the individual has family coverage in the $12,000 price range. But that top one percent, the folks responsible for more than $35,000 of costs – sometimes far, far more – well there, ladies and gentlemen, is where the money comes in. Once an insurance company knows that Sally has breast cancer, it has already seen the goat; it knows it wants nothing to do with Sally. > > If the top 5% is the absolute largest population for whom rescission would make sense, the probability of having your policy cancelled given that you have filed a claim is fully 10% (0.5% rescission/5.0% of the population). If you take the LA Times estimate that $300mm was saved by abrogating 20,000 policies in California ($15,000/policy), you are somewhere in the 15% zone, depending on the convexity of the top section of population. If, as I suspect, rescission is targeted toward the truly bankrupting cases – the top 1%, the folks with over $35,000 of annual claims who could never be profitable for the carrier – then the probability of having your policy torn up given a massively expensive condition is pushing 50%. One in two. You have three times better odds playing Russian Roulette. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/172 "2010-03-06T03:01:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yeah, except if you’re being pursued by a swarm of mosquitos, it’s tough to deveop an appreciation for the foibles of each insect. But you did develop that appreciation. Your complaint about double standards was phrased very much in terms of two particular posters - the someone in the other thread, and **CJJ** \* in this one. You identified particular arguments, and called one of them out by name. You can’t fall back on this argument when you’ve already developed such an appreciation - it is a double standard to highlight and identify to make your argument, and then say it’s too hard not to generalise when asked about it. If it is so tough, why use CJJ\* to make your point? Why refer to two specific instances, two posters? > [@](#): > > It’s true that CJJ didn’t make those statements. But that ignores the dyanmic of this message board, and it’s that dynamic that makes me sick, not the individual statements of CJJ, who, for all I know, is remarkable internally consistent. > > But CJJ’s comments pass without any negative reaction. In the other thread, those comments also pass without huge amounts of negative reaction. (There was one poster who criticized the statements in the other thread, and a second generalized statement of disgust that I assume also was intended for that poster, if not specifically that post). > > Upthread, I said, “There’s one of me, and a zillion of you.” This is when that dynamic becomes key. The masses sit backand let crap pass unchallenged when its “their side,” and leap on faulty logic when it’s used for a cause they don’t like. But your own arguments explain it, to an extent - there’s a zillion of us, and one of you. If you, the sufferer of the swarm of mosquitos, cannot be expected to differentiate, to not generalise, to not treat them all in the same way, how on Earth can we mosquitos be expected to keep track of the statements each and every one of us make? At least, with you, there is the excuse that you are the focus of the “stinging”; it’s easier to keep track of what you say because there’s only one of you, and because everyone else is quoting you and arguing you. How easy is it to miss a single post in a thread, for whatever reason? I very much doubt that everyone on “my” side is reading every single one of my posts, but i’d be suprised if most weren’t reading yours - not because of a bias, but because there are so many of “us” that missing out on my post does not, frankly, miss out much of the debate, whereas missing out on one of yours misses out on an entire side. It’s unreasonable to expect even an entirely unbiased, fair-minded group to pay equal attention to every member of a side of one and a side of many. Even more so in that you’re apparently assuming that everyone agrees with you that the two situations you compare are equivalent. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/173 "2010-03-06T03:04:55Z")
> [@](#): > > …but I don’t see any data to show prevelance. You are, again, implying rather than stating. You are implying that you don’t believe it. Well, do you or don’t you? (Jeez, getting a straight answer out of a Jesuit trained lawyer is like trying to grab an earthworm out of a vat of motor oil using chopsticks!) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/174 "2010-03-06T03:19:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Some insurance companies…” do that stuff. How many? How prevalent is the practice? When three of the nation’s largest health insurers tell congress that it is just business as usual, I think one can say that most of them do. > **[Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders, lawmaker says](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-jun-17-fi-rescind17-story.html)** > > Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders, lawmaker says > [@](#): > > An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period. > > It also found that policyholders with breast cancer, lymphoma and more than 1,000 other conditions were targeted for rescission and that employees were praised in performance reviews for terminating the policies of customers with expensive illnesses. > > “No one can defend, and I certainly cannot defend, the practice of canceling coverage after the fact,” said Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.), a member of the committee. “There is no acceptable minimum to denying coverage after the fact.” > > The executives – Richard A. Collins, chief executive of UnitedHealth’s Golden Rule Insurance Co.; Don Hamm, chief executive of Assurant Health and Brian Sassi, president of consumer business for WellPoint Inc., parent of Blue Cross of California – were courteous and matter-of-fact in their testimony. > > But they would not commit to limiting rescissions to only policyholders who intentionally lie or commit fraud to obtain coverage, a refusal that met with dismay from legislators on both sides of the political aisle. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/175 "2010-03-06T03:34:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Some insurance companies…” do that stuff. How many? How prevalent is the practice? > > By outling the worst, most abusive, borderline practices and claiming that’s the state of affairs, I’ll also take the judgment… well, not of the Board, because, thank God, the Board’s membership does not reflect the voting public’s beliefs. It’s amazing how satisfied with their health insurance most people are, given this wide swatch of acne-related denials. “Some insurance companies”? Yeah, well, if you read my cite you’d see that they were looking at three huge insurance companies. One, WellPoint, says on their [website homepage](http://www.wellpoint.com/) that, “One of every nine Americans is a member of a WellPoint affiliated health plan.” That is just one and my cite notes that Well Point has staff who work on rescissions and are judged by how much money they save. Given they have people dedicated to this task I would not surmise these are just one-off exceptions. Further, I cited that 62% of bankruptcies were health related. I do not know the final number but it seemed 2009 was on pace to see [1.5 million](http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-06-03-bankruptcy-filings-unemployment_N.htm) bankruptcies filed. With a little math we see 930,000 were health related. The cite also noted that most of those were well educated, middle class people. I’ll be generous and say “most” means 50%+1 so, more math, that makes it 465,001 working, middle class people. Presumably most of them have insurance. Heck, assume only half of them had insurance and you are at 232,500. Say 10% of those were rescissions and you have 23,250 people who thought they were covered and found out otherwise. We can do this all night but I think the picture is becoming clear that rescission is not an aberration that happen here and there but standard operating procedure for the health industry. Unfortunately only four states (Hawaii, Kansas, Texas, and Washington per my earlier PDF cite) were able to provide actual rescission numbers but nevertheless there is enough circumstantial evidence to show this is going on and not a rare occurrence (indeed admitted to by major insurance companies). This of course does not even get into being denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions as cited above. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/176 "2010-03-06T04:47:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s true that CJJ didn’t make those statements. But that ignores the dyanmic of this message board, and it’s that dynamic that makes me sick, not the individual statements of CJJ, who, for all I know, is remarkable internally consistent. I’m willing to accept this as-is…and I say that in the most unironic way allowed by an internet message board:-) > [@](#): > > Upthread, I said, “There’s one of me, and a zillion of you.” This is when that dynamic becomes key. The masses sit backand let crap pass unchallenged when its “their side,” and leap on faulty logic when it’s used for a cause they don’t like. I can sympathize, but my problem isn’t really with faulty logic, just the ease with which current political discussion can be sidetracked by using hot-button words–precisely the point of the OP IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/177 "2010-03-06T05:25:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Maybe productive people are tired enough of being forced to pay the freight for non-productive people. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > […] you already pay for the healthcare of those lazy people and as someone else noted it costs you more than if they were in a proper healthcare system. > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. but I am willing to pay that extra cost as a benefit of sending the signal that the “payment” is not an entitlement. Speaking as a productive person, I’m tired enough of being forced to pay the freight of extra costs and a less efficient healthcare system just so conservative ideologues can feel smug about “sending signals” to lazy people. Now THAT’s “non-productive”. I’m reminded of the story of the shopkeeper who decided he’d rather sink 5% of his annual profits into maintaining an expensive and unpleasant zero-shoplifting security system than put up with losing 1% of his annual profits to shoplifting with ordinary security. He didn’t care that he was actually sacrificing MORE money for a system with more hassles and pissing off his valued customers by making it more difficult to shop in his store, as long as he could feel that he was sticking it to those goddamned thieves. Two shining examples of the victory of blind self-righteousness over ordinary common sense. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/178 "2010-03-06T05:30:40Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > I can sympathize, but my problem isn’t really with faulty logic, just the ease with which current political discussion can be sidetracked by using hot-button words–precisely the point of the OP IMO. Yes, why has this thread become yet another whine session about how bad modifying the health care system would be instead of a discussion of Republican campaign tactics? Who started that hijack, and why? I wonder… but not very damn hard. It’s standard GOP tactics. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tooth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c67d28/32.png) [@The\_Tooth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tooth)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/179 "2010-03-06T06:48:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My club rules also say that the club rules are not severable – that is, they are either all applied at once, or not at all. Precisely the point. It doesn’t apply to me, because I’m not a member. It doesn’t apply to policy, because the US isn’t a theocracy. Does it apply to you? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303/180 "2010-03-06T06:56:13Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Fucking me up the ass would not save your life, or make any significant improvement to your health. Given that **Bricker** had already been told to drop this line of discussion, you are out of line for pursuing it. Knock it off. [/Moderating] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/document-exposes-what-the-rnc-really-thinks-of-its-donors-admits-to-using-fear/531303.md?page=10)