Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

"Healthcare" in the US

The sad things is that BCBS is the better company by far. I've had both United and BCBS. BCBS actually pays some claims. I could only get United to pay a claim when I spent a few hours of my time appealing. Every claim I had to examine the rules written into the policy and then write a letter telling them why it should be covered. I had family that had cancer and one of the things it does is drain your energy. Many elderly and people with cancer wouldn't have the stamina to contest every bill. My brother had bills in envelopes, stacked rows, that spanned the width of his couch. He used up every bit of his retirement fund fighting cancer, and when his money ran out, so did his treatment options.

My experience with them was always negative. I remember first moving to the US and having to fill in the ridiculously long form just to get cover, and mistakenly filed saying my OH was pregnant. It was immediately refused. Then upon correcting the mistake they refused to cover her birth control citing some FDA reasons so ended up paying for it myself via Canada. The appointment just to get that refusal was also co-pay.

Now I'm currently awaiting whatever the comically small amount I'm due to receive after years of wrangling on their part over the class action lawsuit which I'm part of for their price fixing. Three years and counting on that one.
 
My experience with them was always negative. I remember first moving to the US and having to fill in the ridiculously long form just to get cover, and mistakenly filed saying my OH was pregnant. It was immediately refused. Then upon correcting the mistake they refused to cover her birth control citing some FDA reasons so ended up paying for it myself via Canada. The appointment just to get that refusal was also co-pay.

Now I'm currently awaiting whatever the comically small amount I'm due to receive after years of wrangling on their part over the class action lawsuit which I'm part of for their price fixing. Three years and counting on that one.

Yes, the entire system needs an overhaul. Unfortunately, too much money is being made for it to change for the better. Or, at least, it will take more than shooting one guy for it to change.
 
Have any Republicans commented on this?

I haven't seen any yet. One thing that Republicans do with their messaging is that they wait to comment, and then every Republican says the same thing right down to the exact wording. They must get an email from a central authority telling them what to say. It doesn't allow for deviation, but it results in much more powerful messaging.
 
I haven't seen any yet. One thing that Republicans do with their messaging is that they wait to comment, and then every Republican says the same thing right down to the exact wording. They must get an email from a central authority telling them what to say. It doesn't allow for deviation, but it results in much more powerful messaging.

Interesting. I wonder if that's a plausible argument in favour of democratic centralism.
 
Interesting. I wonder if that's a plausible argument in favour of democratic centralism.

Please explain.

<edited to add>
One of the reasons that Bernie Sanders gets so much traction is that he says the same message over and over and he doesn't modify it when speaking to conservatives. He'll also wade in and speak to people who disagree with him. He knows his message and stays on message.
 
Please explain.

Democratic centralism is an organisational principle in which political decisions reached by voting processes are binding upon all members of the organisation. It's usually associated with Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyist parties, but has also been used by democratic socialist and social democratic parties such as the African National Congress. It's basically a means to get everyone singing from the same political hymn sheet, as it were.

Regardless, statements like those from Walz are just tactically fuck-headed.
 
Democratic centralism is an organisational principle in which political decisions reached by voting processes are binding upon all members of the organisation. It's usually associated with Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyist parties, but has also been used by democratic socialist and social democratic parties such as the African National Congress. It's basically a means to get everyone singing from the same political hymn sheet, as it were.

Regardless, statements like those from Walz are just tactically fuck-headed.

Thanks! It seems like the Republicans are using that principle.

At the very least, the Dems should be sending out a "message of day" email. I don't even see them doing that much.
 
Last edited:
Thanks! It seems like the Republicans are using that principle.

At the very least, the Dems should be sending out a "message of day" email. I don't even see them doing that much.

I think a big part of the problem the Democrats have with messaging (and the Labour party here, plus a load of other centrist types elsewhere) is that that idea of sensible, common sense management based politics is so deeply embedded it's like they don't even know what they stand for, let alone have the ability to communicate it. It's not just that it's supporting the sort of things this guy practiced, it's that they're not even able to advocate for that, even though everyone else can see that's what they're supporting.
 
Please explain.

<edited to add>
One of the reasons that Bernie Sanders gets so much traction is that he says the same message over and over and he doesn't modify it when speaking to conservatives. He'll also wade in and speak to people who disagree with him. He knows his message and stays on message.
He stands for something. It's actually very easy to stay on message when you stand for something and believe in it.

IMO watching from afar, that's where Harris got hopelessly lost in the election campaign. She started off with a message. I was quite surprised and impressed by her initial statements. But didn't then stand for it. As the weeks went by, it became diluted to the point of homeopathic medicine.
 
He stands for something. It's actually very easy to stay on message when you stand for something and believe in it.

IMO watching from afar, that's where Harris got hopelessly lost in the election campaign. She started off with a message. I was quite surprised and impressed by her initial statements. But didn't then stand for it. As the weeks went by, it became diluted to the point of homeopathic medicine.
Listened to "advice" from "election experts" no doubt :rolleyes:
 
Listened to "advice" from "election experts" no doubt :rolleyes:
It appears that way, yes. Spooked by the Commie Kamala jibe.

Healthcare should be an open goal to any politician serious about reforming it. The majority of Americans are ripped off and they know it. They spend far more money per capita than any other country on earth on healthcare yet lead indicators like life expectancy, infant mortality, etc, are woeful.

I mean we moan and with good reason about our crumbling services, but they are at least there for us when we need them and do the best they can with their limited resources. To refuse to treat when you have all the facilities to do so and the treatment is likely to be effective is, well, evil. No other word adequately captures it.
 
and you'd imagine it would be the preferred structure over here if the tories or reform get anywhere near power.
 
I'm finding the reaction to this fascinating... people are having a really hard time having sympathy with the dead guy here and I suspect not just hard lefties. I'm wondering if this will make more people face up to just how bad the system is.
 
IMO watching from afar, that's where Harris got hopelessly lost in the election campaign. She started off with a message. I was quite surprised and impressed by her initial statements. But didn't then stand for it. As the weeks went by, it became diluted to the point of homeopathic medicine.
So it became even more potent. Or something. :hmm:
 
I'm finding the reaction to this fascinating... people are having a really hard time having sympathy with the dead guy here and I suspect not just hard lefties. I'm wondering if this will make more people face up to just how bad the system is.
I'm quite surprised by it, I must admit. Even made it onto the BBC news that people were less than totally sympathetic.

IMO it's an example of the banality of evil, wherein bureaucrats make bureaucratic decisions that they know are going to kill people and justify it to themselves by hiding behind some nonsense about 'responsibility to shareholders' or something, and are quite happy to enjoy the rewards (I'm sure he was a millionaire) and be good spouses and good parents and all the rest of it. We see it again and again.
 
This is the kind of inhumane shit is why nobody is sad that a health insurance CEO got shot to death:


Pulling anaesthesia mid-procedure. It's at this point it's fucking sadism.
Penalising patients and anaesthesiologists for what surgeons do - or do not do - is a particularly twisted kind of logic.

If insurers are concerned by how long a surgical procedure takes - it doesn't take a genius to work out that the person to challenge is the surgeon and not the patient, or the anaesthesiologist.

It also shows a total lack of regard or understanding of the complexity of some surgeries and it should be borne in mind that speed does not necessarily equate to safe or satisfactory outcomes.
 
Back
Top Bottom