| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19756
Back to top |
 Posted: 05/06/17 12:20 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
Prior to Obamacare, treatment for rape was ALREADY a preexisting condition (along with Domestic Violence and Pregnancy), as the article suggests. (The hysteria, is, of course, that people became aware that it could be considered a preexisting condition.)
These state laws protecting women from insurance companies doing this didn't do much protecting previously, as it was considered a major problem that Obamacare stopped.
It's not a half truth, either. Obviously, an event is not relevant to health insurance until it is a medical issue. Likewise, something in policy does not need to be explicitly stated in order for it to have real consequences.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19756
Back to top |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/06/17 6:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
Prior to Obamacare, treatment for rape was ALREADY a preexisting condition (along with Domestic Violence and Pregnancy), as the article suggests. (The hysteria, is, of course, that people became aware that it could be considered a preexisting condition.)
These state laws protecting women from insurance companies doing this didn't do much protecting previously, as it was considered a major problem that Obamacare stopped.
It's not a half truth, either. Obviously, an event is not relevant to health insurance until it is a medical issue. Likewise, something in policy does not need to be explicitly stated in order for it to have real consequences. |
You know that's just made up political bullshit , right.
Either that or you are completely clueless about how insurance underwriting works, which is a distinct possibility.
|
|
StevenHW
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10983
Location: Sacramento, California
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/06/17 7:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
Prior to Obamacare, treatment for rape was ALREADY a preexisting condition (along with Domestic Violence and Pregnancy), as the article suggests. (The hysteria, is, of course, that people became aware that it could be considered a preexisting condition.)
These state laws protecting women from insurance companies doing this didn't do much protecting previously, as it was considered a major problem that Obamacare stopped.
It's not a half truth, either. Obviously, an event is not relevant to health insurance until it is a medical issue. Likewise, something in policy does not need to be explicitly stated in order for it to have real consequences. |
You know that's just made up political bullshit , right.
Either that or you are completely clueless about how insurance underwriting works, which is a distinct possibility. |
While I am in agreement with the fact checkers saying that these sensational headlines are false, saying that being raped could lead to insurance issues prior to Obamacare is not "made up political bullshit". I know this, because I dealt with a similar issue first hand.
When I was in my senior year of high school I was diagnosed with chronic depression due to untreated/diagnosed ADHD. When I was diagnosed, I was covered by my father's employer based insurance which provided mental health coverage (I was lucky in that, as many plans did not). But once I turned 18, I had to go on COBRA (and pay a significant amount to do so) to maintain my coverage. Eventually, I got it under control and my COBRA ran out.
While in college, I worked as a bartender. My employer did not offer health insurance. So, I began looking on the open market. Every single application I filled out had a box asking if I had ever been treated for depression. By checking that box, the prices they wanted to charge me skyrocketed. And that was just for normal health coverage (the actuaries had determined that people with depression were at higher risk for other health issues). The amount they wanted to charge for mental health coverage was so astronomical that purchasing it was not a realistic option. They also informed me that my depression itself would not be covered even if I bought the mental health coverage. Ultimately, the only thing I could afford was catastrophic coverage with high deductibles and a lifetime cap.
I have to imagine that if someone were a victim of sexual assault, and as a result developed depression or PTSD, they would have ended up in the same boat as I did if they had to buy insurance on the open market.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/06/17 8:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| mercfan3 wrote: |
Prior to Obamacare, treatment for rape was ALREADY a preexisting condition (along with Domestic Violence and Pregnancy), as the article suggests. (The hysteria, is, of course, that people became aware that it could be considered a preexisting condition.)
These state laws protecting women from insurance companies doing this didn't do much protecting previously, as it was considered a major problem that Obamacare stopped.
It's not a half truth, either. Obviously, an event is not relevant to health insurance until it is a medical issue. Likewise, something in policy does not need to be explicitly stated in order for it to have real consequences. |
You know that's just made up political bullshit , right.
Either that or you are completely clueless about how insurance underwriting works, which is a distinct possibility. |
While I am in agreement with the fact checkers saying that these sensational headlines are false, saying that being raped could lead to insurance issues prior to Obamacare is not "made up political bullshit". I know this, because I dealt with a similar issue first hand.
When I was in my senior year of high school I was diagnosed with chronic depression due to untreated/diagnosed ADHD. When I was diagnosed, I was covered by my father's employer based insurance which provided mental health coverage (I was lucky in that, as many plans did not). But once I turned 18, I had to go on COBRA (and pay a significant amount to do so) to maintain my coverage. Eventually, I got it under control and my COBRA ran out.
While in college, I worked as a bartender. My employer did not offer health insurance. So, I began looking on the open market. Every single application I filled out had a box asking if I had ever been treated for depression. By checking that box, the prices they wanted to charge me skyrocketed. And that was just for normal health coverage (the actuaries had determined that people with depression were at higher risk for other health issues). The amount they wanted to charge for mental health coverage was so astronomical that purchasing it was not a realistic option. They also informed me that my depression itself would not be covered even if I bought the mental health coverage. Ultimately, the only thing I could afford was catastrophic coverage with high deductibles and a lifetime cap.
I have to imagine that if someone were a victim of sexual assault, and as a result developed depression or PTSD, they would have ended up in the same boat as I did if they had to buy insurance on the open market. |
It's not the rape that's the pre-existing condition, it's the depression, regardless of the genesis of the depression.
You can't prohibit use of pre-existing conditions as a consideration in underwriting unless you have mandatory universal coverage. Otherwise you're just telling people they can stay out of the insurance pool until the day they need medical care and then expect an insurance company to pay. It doesn't work.
So if you get rid of mandatory coverage, you have to allow exclusions for pre-existing conditions. And if depression is a pre-existing condition, why should it matter whether that depression is the result of a rape, an armed robbery, a trash can bomb blowing off your leg, seeing your child hit by a drunk driver and die, your soldier son dying in Iraq, or anything else?
First it's a total fraud to claim "rape is a pre-existing condition". It's not. And second, it's discriminatory crap to single out one crime and universe of victims and say that any condition suffered by that one group of victims as a result of a rape should be given special favored treatment over the identical condition suffered by anyone else, perhaps by reason of an equally horrific event. So if I get shot and paralyzed because I happen to be buying a cup of coffee at 7-11 when an armed robbery occurs, are you going to tell me I'm less deserving?
Indeed, why should a person being treated for depression by reason of a crime have received more favorable treatment than you received? It's not like you were personally responsible for your depression. There's no good reason for the distinction. It may be politically popular among some people, but there's no good policy justification. It's just discriminatory.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15733
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
scullyfu
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8858
Location: Niagara Falls
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/07/17 1:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
did some reading up on the pre-existing claim for rape. and while the rape itself could not be a pre-existing condition, if a woman was raped and decided to take an HIV drug as a precaution that would go down in her record.
when the woman applies for coverage, the insurance company sees the woman's history to determine her rates, *they* may interpret the taking of the HIV meds as meaning she has/had Aids. so, up go the rates. totally ridiculous, but in this new political landscape its not out of the realm of possibility.
_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/07/17 5:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| scullyfu wrote: |
did some reading up on the pre-existing claim for rape. and while the rape itself could not be a pre-existing condition, if a woman was raped and decided to take an HIV drug as a precaution that would go down in her record.
when the woman applies for coverage, the insurance company sees the woman's history to determine her rates, *they* may interpret the taking of the HIV meds as meaning she has/had Aids. so, up go the rates. totally ridiculous, but in this new political landscape its not out of the realm of possibility. |
And what if a drunk driver runs into you and you need a transfusion, and take HIV drugs as a result. What will you think when you find out your treatment prevents you from getting reasonably priced insurance but the rape victim next door who took the very same drugs gets a pass? You think that's the right answer?
How is it possibly fair or rational to single out one set of victims for special treatment while leaving every other victim and person with the identical condition SOL? What is the theoretical policy justification for that?
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9604
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/08/17 1:23 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
Clinton eventually switched on trade policies, which were, btw, Republican-initiated and supported legislation. The majority of Republicans supported GATT, NAFTA while the majority of Democrats didn't. |
Sanders and Trump were talking about stopping job export and "bringing jobs back". Clinton flipping on TPP under pressure from both candidates being against it, is not equivalent to her wanting to stop job export and bring jobs back.
| Quote: |
| The Democratic Party platform is better for the "white working-class man" than is the Republican Party platform. Democratic policies are better, too. |
Their policies are identical on two key issues. Both support illegal immigration and infinite immigration, and both support unlimited unfettered job export. This healthcare fight is showing a difference. On taxes, Obama was just slightly different than Bush. If Trump is able to lower taxes further, that will be another difference.
| Quote: |
Republicans employ racist, xenophobic, and fear-based propaganda as well as rigged voting districts and voter suppression to win elections. |
The Republicans have never been "xenophobic". They embrace and support infinite immigration as much as the Democrats. Which puts a big hole in the charge that they are racists as the immigrants are mostly non-white. Trump wanting to semi-enforce immigration law is not representative of the Republicans. Paul Ryan and company are going to fight Trump on building a wall.
| Quote: |
I understand your issue with illegal immigration and consequent flooding of the workforce which, in simple terms, lessens the value of each worker.
Issues such as healthcare are more critical and immediate, imo. When the CBO scores this dog and pony show bill the House passed and the "white working-class man" sees how fucked it is, it will have less than the 17% approval rating of its predecessor, I predict. |
There is no big cost, if any, to enforcing immigration law. You only need to prosecute a certain number of CEOs or companies to the extent that it isn't worth it, before all the others start to get the message - it is not only illegal to hire illegal workers - you will be prosecuted.
|
|
scullyfu
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8858
Location: Niagara Falls
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/08/17 10:13 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| scullyfu wrote: |
did some reading up on the pre-existing claim for rape. and while the rape itself could not be a pre-existing condition, if a woman was raped and decided to take an HIV drug as a precaution that would go down in her record.
when the woman applies for coverage, the insurance company sees the woman's history to determine her rates, *they* may interpret the taking of the HIV meds as meaning she has/had Aids. so, up go the rates. totally ridiculous, but in this new political landscape its not out of the realm of possibility. |
And what if a drunk driver runs into you and you need a transfusion, and take HIV drugs as a result. What will you think when you find out your treatment prevents you from getting reasonably priced insurance but the rape victim next door who took the very same drugs gets a pass? You think that's the right answer?
How is it possibly fair or rational to single out one set of victims for special treatment while leaving every other victim and person with the identical condition SOL? What is the theoretical policy justification for that? |
why are you being so hostile? show me where I said it would be any different for anyone who was a victim of anything and had taken HIV drugs for whatever reason?
the rape scenario is what we were talking about, so that was how the answer was framed. no one ever said that there should be special rules for rape victims, only that the result of taking HIV precautionary drugs would now become a pre-existing condition, because of the DRUGS, not the rape.
I have no doubt the repugs would go after anyone with that sort of HIV-taking history regardless of the reason and everyone would be subjected to that same policy. so the drunk driving victim would be subjected to the same 'pre-existing' condition hoops as a rape victim. not their fault, but now being pushed to a higher rate pool.
hope that clears up your confusion with my original answer.
_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/08/17 10:54 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| scullyfu wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| scullyfu wrote: |
did some reading up on the pre-existing claim for rape. and while the rape itself could not be a pre-existing condition, if a woman was raped and decided to take an HIV drug as a precaution that would go down in her record.
when the woman applies for coverage, the insurance company sees the woman's history to determine her rates, *they* may interpret the taking of the HIV meds as meaning she has/had Aids. so, up go the rates. totally ridiculous, but in this new political landscape its not out of the realm of possibility. |
And what if a drunk driver runs into you and you need a transfusion, and take HIV drugs as a result. What will you think when you find out your treatment prevents you from getting reasonably priced insurance but the rape victim next door who took the very same drugs gets a pass? You think that's the right answer?
How is it possibly fair or rational to single out one set of victims for special treatment while leaving every other victim and person with the identical condition SOL? What is the theoretical policy justification for that? |
why are you being so hostile? show me where I said it would be any different for anyone who was a victim of anything and had taken HIV drugs for whatever reason?
the rape scenario is what we were talking about, so that was how the answer was framed. no one ever said that there should be special rules for rape victims, only that the result of taking HIV precautionary drugs would now become a pre-existing condition, because of the DRUGS, not the rape.
I have no doubt the repugs would go after anyone with that sort of HIV-taking history regardless of the reason and everyone would be subjected to that same policy. so the drunk driving victim would be subjected to the same 'pre-existing' condition hoops as a rape victim. not their fault, but now being pushed to a higher rate pool.
hope that clears up your confusion with my original answer. |
Actually the discussion was about the bogus claim that the bill treats rape as a pre-existing condition. One of my several responses to that is that there is no basis for singling out one category of people for special treatment superior to others in the identical situation.
I think I've made it clear that I personally believe that for the entire system to work we need both mandatory universal coverage, and with that a prohibition on using pre-existing conditions in underwriting, but that the two have to go together. That said, the bill as passed, as bad as it is, does not define rape as a pre-existing condition. That assertion is just political BS.
By the way, HIV or risk of HIV has always been a potential pre-existing condition. ANY medical condition that exists before the effective date of your policy is a pre-existing condition, whether cancer, acne, the common cold, or any other medical condition. The only relevant question is what the insurer does with that. Can it exclude coverage for costs of treating a pre-existing condition, or increase premiums by reason of the presence of a pre-existing condition, or must it ignore that a condition is pre-existing and treat it the same as if it arose after coverage began? Should the insurer have to pay the costs of treating medical conditions that you already had before you decided to buy insurance and started paying premiums? Should you be able to wait until you get sick or injured before you start paying for insurance? Those are the only questions. Nobody's "going after" anybody.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/08/17 1:19 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
| cthskzfn wrote: |
Clinton eventually switched on trade policies, which were, btw, Republican-initiated and supported legislation. The majority of Republicans supported GATT, NAFTA while the majority of Democrats didn't. |
Sanders and Trump were talking about stopping job export and "bringing jobs back". Clinton flipping on TPP under pressure from both candidates being against it, is not equivalent to her wanting to stop job export and bring jobs back.
Yeah. So? Trump's a pathological liar.
| Quote: |
| The Democratic Party platform is better for the "white working-class man" than is the Republican Party platform. Democratic policies are better, too. |
Their policies are identical on two key issues. Both support illegal immigration and infinite immigration, and both support unlimited unfettered job export. This healthcare fight is showing a difference. On taxes, Obama was just slightly different than Bush. If Trump is able to lower taxes further, that will be another difference.
As we've said, flip sides of the same (corporate) coin.
| Quote: |
Republicans employ racist, xenophobic, and fear-based propaganda as well as rigged voting districts and voter suppression to win elections. |
The Republicans have never been "xenophobic". They embrace and support infinite immigration as much as the Democrats. Which puts a big hole in the charge that they are racists as the immigrants are mostly non-white. Trump wanting to semi-enforce immigration law is not representative of the Republicans. Paul Ryan and company are going to fight Trump on building a wall.
Republicans use racist and xenophobic talking points as a matter of course. I support Ryan's opposition to the asinine wall.
| Quote: |
I understand your issue with illegal immigration and consequent flooding of the workforce which, in simple terms, lessens the value of each worker.
Issues such as healthcare are more critical and immediate, imo. When the CBO scores this dog and pony show bill the House passed and the "white working-class man" sees how fucked it is, it will have less than the 17% approval rating of its predecessor, I predict. |
There is no big cost, if any, to enforcing immigration law. You only need to prosecute a certain number of CEOs or companies to the extent that it isn't worth it, before all the others start to get the message - it is not only illegal to hire illegal workers - you will be prosecuted.
Yeah, I've said that before. Prosecute the CEOs.
I get the feeling you personally bought into Trump's bullshit. |
\
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9604
Back to top |
| Posted: 05/08/17 10:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| cthskzfn wrote: |
| tfan wrote: |
Sanders and Trump were talking about stopping job export and "bringing jobs back". Clinton flipping on TPP under pressure from both candidates being against it, is not equivalent to her wanting to stop job export and bring jobs back. |
Yeah. So? Trump's a pathological liar. |
Trade is the only thing Trump has been consistent on over the years. The problem is not him not wanting to bring jobs back, it is him not being convinced by others not to do it. Trump has no political or ideological allies (unless he wants to join with Bernie Sanders) in any effort to stop or reverse job export.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Republicans employ racist, xenophobic, and fear-based propaganda as well as rigged voting districts and voter suppression to win elections. |
The Republicans have never been "xenophobic". They embrace and support infinite immigration as much as the Democrats. Which puts a big hole in the charge that they are racists as the immigrants are mostly non-white. Trump wanting to semi-enforce immigration law is not representative of the Republicans. Paul Ryan and company are going to fight Trump on building a wall.
Republicans use racist and xenophobic talking points as a matter of course. I support Ryan's opposition to the asinine wall. |
What is a "non radical Islam" example of a non-Trump Republican saying something "xenophobic "?
| Quote: |
| I get the feeling you personally bought into Trump's bullshit. |
I certainly support anti-job export policies and semi-enforcement of immigration law. I don't think we can say he was lying about either - he has not reversed his positions and he can't do either by executive order and virtually no one in Congress support either policy.
|
|
|
|
This phenomenon makes me ashamed to be American. My Canadian and Euro friends are laffing their asses off.
