Document exposes what the RNC really thinks of its donors, admits to using "fear."

[elucidator]

I am struck by a nuance of capitalist theology, which friend Bricker has brought to my attention.

Those who do not work are not worthy. So far, so good. A bit Calvinistic for my taste, but I am not of the capitalist faith, so lets just run with it.

But, of course, there are distinctions to be made, even amongst the lazy and unworthy. There are the lazy, unworthy and poor, and the lazy, unworthy and rich. Just to paint with a broad brush, a rough outline.

Both are comprised of people who, however unworthy of government aid, still retain the usual set of human rights. And the aggregate human rights of the one group far outweighs the other, by simple fact of numbers.

Yet, it would be wrong for government to take from the rich unworthy to benefit the poor unworthy, even though both are unworthy, and even though the poor unworthy far outnumber the rich unworthy.

But, of course! It is private property, isn’t it?! Private property bestows a kind of secular grace, it distinguishes one set of unworthy persons from another. Though it doesn’t actually make one set more worthy that the other, the effect is the same.

And this secular grace can be passed down, it can be inherited! It can even be bestowed, like a blessing or an indulgence, one can simply give it to another! And that person, instantly, becomes more worthy than he was before, even if he were the most slothful slob on the planet!

I admit, I had always though of capitalism as a spiritual void, a vast silence in the place where the still small voice is heard. But clearly, there is more subtlety and nuance to capitalist theology than I knew.

I feel intrigued, albeit somewhat nauseated…

[Bricker]

@Wesley_Clark

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/

Fascinating. Quoting from your cite:

If the top 5% is the absolute largest population for whom rescission would make sense…

Is it?

… 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)…

And since the LA Times is a neutral, unbiased,unpolitical source, we should certainly take their estimate.

… 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.

If he SUSPECTS??

Well, I suspect he’s wrong. I guess that settles that.

He;s written a long article explaining why the testimony that less than one percent of policies being cancelled by recission is something to worry about. And to the extent he rebuts the simple numbers, he’s right – we can’t just say that 0.5% is a tiny number, but must consider when those cases arise.

But he doesn’t prove the case that it IS happening like that, either. IS recission targetted towards the bankrupting cases?

And notice too the other little cause slipped in here. You guys were talking about acne as a pre-existing condition. But there problem mentioned here is lying on the forms, which in typical liberal fashion we learn is not the fault of the person doing the lying, but hte fault of the evil company for letting them lie:

I mentioned a story in my comment on the Baseline article, and it’s a favorite of mine, so I’ll repeat it here: Years ago I was walking a casino floor with a casino executive. It was an incredibly detailed tour, and we got to talking about pretty much everything that came to mind about crowds and gaming. Now, a clever observer might notice that even the tolerant people of Nevada will not allow alcohol in vending machines – wouldn’t want the little ones to be able to get a Bud Light without a human being verifying their ID. But there we were in the middle of acres of blinking lights, with absolutely no one making sure that underage kids weren’t walking up to a slot machine. Indeed, they don’t card for the table games.

The executive told me you are free to play if you are underage, you just aren’t free to win. You can sit down and pump your money into the slots, and if you look presentable you can drop some chips on blackjack or craps. However, if you should happen to start winning, the pit boss or security team will come over and check your ID. The house edge is 100%.
.
.
.
It is in the health insurer’s interest to have application fraud, not only because it saves time and expense on the front end, but also because it lets them get out of any policy that isn’t going well for them. If the health insurer had to verify the information – if, in essence the insurance company had to behave as an accredited investor with adequate expertise to make a decision without reliance – it wouldn’t have the opportunity to bail out. It would catch more genuine liars, but many of these liars would have turned out to be healthy, profitable customers, and what the carrier really wants is a population devoid of expensive claims, not devoid of liars.

Funny you guys never mentioned this. Hilarious.

[Bricker]

@Revenant_Threshold

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?

]

Because my complaint is not those specific posters, but the lack of willingness of anyone else to jump in and address the faulty logic one of them must have. (In this case, CJJ has the right of it, and the other poster is in error).

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.

Yes, if I expected it in every instance, that would be unfair.

I remain convinced that if this truly were anything approaching an entirely unbiased, fair-minded group, it would happen more than it does.

[Bricker]

@CJJ

I’m willing to accept this as-is…and I say that in the most unironic way allowed by an internet message board:-)

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.

Concur… and as I said above,in this instance, you’re in the right.

[Bricker]

@The_Tooth

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?

They apply to my personal life, of course. But as a voter, I accept that we cannot apply my religious rules, and I don’t try to.

[Bricker]

@Kimstu

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.

Absolutely right. This is a perfect analogy.

Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute.

[Richard_Parker]

Well, at least you’ve gotten him to the point of admitting that it’s not about the money. That’s something.

[ElvisL1ves]

Yes, it’s about actually paying extra for the privilege of saying “Fuck you, I got mine”.

Odd how somebody can call himself a Christian while rejecting the entire Sermon on the Mount, isn’t it?

[Squink]

RNC’s finance director behind controversial fundraising pitch

Rob Bickhart, who presented the document during a retreat at a Florida resort, is no low-level staffer.

He’s the RNC’s finance director – and a veteran operative in party politics at the national level. During a career that spans more than 30 years, he has served in senior jobs in the Reagan administration, the Senate and the regional transit authority in Philadelphia. In between, he has raised piles of cash for campaigns and earned lucrative fees as a hospital lobbyist.
…
the RNC has paid Bickhart and a consultancy he owns $370,000, according to Federal Election Committee records. At the RNC’s winter retreat last month in Hawaii, Bickhart gave several presentations, including one to reporters on the impact of the Supreme Court decision overturning a key law that restricted corporate giving

Egotistical reactionaries of the nation unite!

I can see why the Pubs here want so badly to talk about something besides the OP, but what the hell is in it for independents and Dems?
Are ya’ll getting a kickback from Michael Steele?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

And notice too the other little cause slipped in here. You guys were talking about acne as a pre-existing condition. But there problem mentioned here is lying on the forms, which in typical liberal fashion we learn is not the fault of the person doing the lying, but hte fault of the evil company for letting them lie:

Funny you guys never mentioned this. Hilarious.

It is the company’s fault because they make no attempt to assess the truth up front. Rather, they are content to accept your money and then, if you dare to try to use your policy to cover a medical expense, they will then seek to find ways to revoke your policy and leave you hung out to dry.

I have provided examples of this above. The companies admit to the practice.

Liberals are not saying someone who commits fraud should be left to keep their insurance. Liberals are saying a great many of these people are not committing fraud at all. In many cases they simply did not know they had a “pre-existing condition”. There was an example above where a patient had never been informed of some things that showed on their medical tests and they had zero reason (no symptoms) to suppose they had other issues. How is it fraud then when they literally do not have the information to inform the insurance company? Magically intuit it?

Apparently you have not bothered to read my cite from earlier so I will include more of it for your benefit:

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.”

<snip>

Rather than reviewing individual medical histories at the time 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 original application materials and medical records in order to find discrepancies, omissions, or misrepresentations. This practice is known as “postclaims underwriting.”

<snip>

A Mississippi court described why this practice is controversial:

An insurer has an obligation to its insured to do its underwriting at the time a policy application is made, not after a claim is filed. It is patently unfair for a claimant to obtain a policy, pay his premiums and operate under the assumption that he is insured against a specified risk, only to learn after he submits a claim that he is not insured, and, therefore, cannot obtain any other policy to cover the loss. The insurer controls when the underwriting occurs… If the insured is not an acceptable risk, the application should [be] denied up front, not after a policy is issued. This allows the proposed insured to seek other coverage with another company since no company will insure an individual who has suffered serious illness or injury.9

<snip>

One significant area of confusion and dispute is whether insurance companies are legally permitted to rescind coverage without demonstrating that policyholders intentionally misrepresented health information. At the federal level, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act prohibits insurance companies that offer products in the individual health insurance market from rescinding or otherwise discontinuing coverage unless there has been fraud or intentional misrepresentation of a material fact by the applicant or policyholder.

<snip>

Insurance companies do not necessarily follow this law, however, when they are operating in states that do not require proof of intentional or fraudulent activity. According to responses to the Committee’s 50-state survey, the majority of states do not require a showing of fraud or intent before insurance companies may rescind coverage. In these states, insurance companies may rescind policies based on any material misrepresentations, even if accidental or unintentional. 14

SOURCE: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/rescission_supplemental.pdf (PDF)

Typical for a conservative to look at all that and condescendingly suggest it is the poor companies who are beset by the evil libruls who want a free ride. :rolleyes:

[Bricker]

@Richard_Parker

Well, at least you’ve gotten him to the point of admitting that it’s not about the money. That’s something.

Yes, I suddenly, for the first time ever, admiited this. :rolleyes:

@Bricker

“Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute,” is, by your lights, also “irrational,” I imagine. That’s another calculus in which more than simply the dollars expended at the moment are considered.

So it’s not convincing to say, “Any objection to ‘subsidizing the other guy’ is irrational because an intelligent system is bound to cost much, much less…” when the objection is to forced subsidization of the other guy, regardless of cost. Someone may rationally say, in other words, that it’s not the cost, it’s the objection to being forced to pay for someone else, period.

(December 11, 2009)

@Bricker

@emacknight

But it doesn’t matter at all if it’s a right or not. You are still paying for people’s health care under the current non-right system. The whole “health care is not a right” is just a big red herring.

Do you understand what is meant by the phrase millions for defense but not one cent for tribute?

(January 10, 2010)

@Bricker

@Lobohan

You pay for their medical care now though higher premiums. You are adverse to paying less?

Never mind that the subsidies are a small part of the overall bill.

Your argument isn’t very compelling.

I am adverse to paying for others.

I’ve lost track of where it was, but in one of these threads, I offered the analogy of “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”

December 15, 2009

Yup. Good thing someone wrested that new admission out of me just now. Newly. As in, just now.

[Bricker]

@Whack-a-Mole

Liberals are not saying someone who commits fraud should be left to keep their insurance. Liberals are saying a great many of these people are not committing fraud at all. In many cases they simply did not know they had a “pre-existing condition”. There was an example above where a patient had never been informed of some things that showed on their medical tests and they had zero reason (no symptoms) to suppose they had other issues. How is it fraud then when they literally do not have the information to inform the insurance company? Magically intuit it?

What horseshit.

OK, then. I support a law that forbids a company from recission on a policy if the underlying cause is people not knowing they had a pre-existing condition, and honestly (but mistakenly) answered incorrectly.

Of course, that’s not all you want, is it? You’d love for the public to believe in this myth of evil companies cruelly cancelling policies left and right, but in fact, this whole claim is a red herring. So, OK. I agree: companies should be legally enjoined from cancelling a policy when the only “fraud” is honest error about a pre-existing condition.

So, we’re done now? Or (gasp) is there something else you actually want?

[Richard_Parker]

You got me, I haven’t been hanging on your every word. My apologies. Had I paid more attention to you in those other threads you cite which I have not read, I would have realized that you admitted as long ago as December that you prefer a lousy and inefficient system in order to send a “signal” to the “unproductive.”

Because, of course, deciding as a society to subsidize the poor is exactly the same as paying off our enemies.

[Richard_Parker]

Actually, we already subsidize the poor. Make that, subsidize the “unproductive” middle class.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

What horseshit.

<snip>

Of course, that’s not all you want, is it? You’d love for the public to believe in this myth of evil companies cruelly cancelling policies left and right, but in fact, this whole claim is a red herring.

Horseshit indeed. Red Herring is it?

The three insurance companies testifying at today’s hearing reported to the Committee that they rescinded at least 19,776 policies from 2003 to 2007.16 This number significantly undercounts the total number of rescissions because one company, UnitedHealth, failed to provide data for 2003 and 2004, and another company, WellPoint, did not provide data from all of its subsidiaries.

SOURCE: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090616/rescission_supplemental.pdf

Not sure why you keep dodging this. These companies admit to doing this to the tune of near 20,000 people in this cite alone (which, as noted, is definitely an undercount).

How many does it have to be before you admit the companies are decidedly playing unfairly? Note the court’s opinion I cited above. How is it fair that, through no fault of your own, you might get your insurance revoked when you need it most? Thing is you, right now, may well feel you have done your due diligence buying insurance, answered all questions appropriately and honestly and are dutifully paying your bills. While the number may be small (to you) the issue is you have no idea if your insurance will be revoked. Submit a substantial claim and know the company will now pore over your application with a microscope seeking a way to not pay.

You’re ok with that? Yes I know you said fine, prevent this abuse but you seem to think there is really not much here. The companies are fine and plugging this little hole is a minor thing. It goes to the apparent mindset of conservatives that you think the insurance companies are fine and doing nothing wrong and everyone else are being whiny brats who want a freebie.

[Steve_MB]

@Bricker

There is a key difference. The cost to defend the borders of the country does not change based on how many people are inside the country.

Wrong. A country that nobody wants to conquer (e.g. because it is empty land) costs less to defend than one that everybody wants to conquer (e.g. because it contains many potential subjects).

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Kimstu

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.

@Bricker

Absolutely right. This is a perfect analogy.

Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute.

Here again is where I am puzzled over the conservative mindset. The willingness to cut off their nose to spite their face.

So let’s agree that we need to send a message to the no-good layabouts sponging off of the hard working people of the world.

Thing is, in the attempt to prevent these lazy people from getting a single, unearned cent from the hard working people you also manage to scoop up a fair number of the hard working people in the dragnet too and punish them (not to mention kids of the lazy people who are not at fault for being born to those people).

As noted 62% of bankruptcies are from health related issues and most of those are educated, middle class people. If you had real UHC that would not happen. Yet in order to be sure the lazy do not get a thing hundreds of thousands of “useful” people get creamed as well every year.

Consider the knock-on effects too. Those bankrupt people may have to stop paying for their kid’s college education (or move to a low rent area with shit schools). Those kids are now less likely to become as productive as they might have been otherwise. Those bankrupt people may end up on welfare (some probably will). Because they cannot get healthcare they may be unable to return to work and be a productive member of society again. Because they are bankrupt their unpaid bills get paid by everyone else (ends up in the cost of products and services).

Then add in things such as with the current system workers are considerably less flexible in their ability to change jobs. This is not good for the economy although I suppose great for employers because they have the employees over a barrel. A more efficient economy would result if labor was more…liquid I guess (for lack of a better term that escapes me at the moment).

It amazes me that conservatives are willing to accept all this pain to be damn sure those nogoodniks never see a dime! Who cares if the country goes in the shitter? Just make sure lazy people get the message! :rolleyes:

[The_Tooth]

@Bricker

They apply to my personal life, of course.

Then you should favour an adequate health insurance system. Even when you vote, unless you become a different person then. So much for the all-or-nothing nature of the moral code to which you claim to adhere. It’s clearly nonsense.

[Steve_MB]

@Bricker

Absolutely right. This is a perfect analogy.

Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute.

Nope. Ordinary levels of security maintain an equilibrium level of shoplifting. Paying tribute increases the likelihood of future demands for more tribute.

Really, you’re usually too clever to try such dim-witted arguments…

[Steve_MB]

@Whack-a-Mole

It is the company’s fault because they make no attempt to assess the truth up front. Rather, they are content to accept your money and then, if you dare to try to use your policy to cover a medical expense, they will then seek to find ways to revoke your policy and leave you hung out to dry.

I’m sure that Bricker is perfectly consistent, and never (for example) takes the position that some legal situation or other should be considered settled and not re-visited later when one side finds it convenient to stir the pot.