When I worked at a newspaper, those "men's rights" trolls e-mailed me all the time. Marc Angelucci's office in particular - I believe he's the one who goes around suing bars for having "Ladies Night" and stuff like that.
Just because a law is protecting women doesn't mean it's ignoring men.
Hey, that's a great idea! Regardless of the other issues at hand, how about banning insurance companies from denying coverage for any pre-exisiting condition?
@Lymed: I know it's on the table but the way the debate's going I wouldn't be surprised if "reform" ends up being something like allowing exactly one uninsured person in the country to purchace a private plan for only 30% of his/her household income.
It is inconceivable to me that the rights of insurance corporations are so important to our country that they must not be infringed upon by the rights of people who are abused by their domestic partners, least our country fall into disarray.
@Rabbitty: It's what the Founding Fathers wanted. Multi-million dollar corporatoins need protection from the meddling of the federal government. Individuals can protect themselves.
@curiousgeorgiana: Little known fact. The Declaration of Independence contains a number of typos. Really it should read:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all corporations are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...
[Sen. Richard] Burr says it's "deplorable to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence. However, states should be responsible for regulating insurance markets.
When are people like this going to get the idea that something that is a good idea and in the best interests of the general welfare in one state is good for the whole country?!? It has to be Federally mandated, because for some reason, some states don't have a problem with it and aren't doing anything about it.
@morninggloria: One wonders if the states would consent to making stupidity a pre-existing condition, thereby eliminating most lawmakers from having coverage.
@morninggloria: It's really fun being in law school and having to listen to state's rights arguments opposing any kind of progress EVER. And having to be adult and civil. So, I'm glad I can come here to have some like-mindedness.
@BruiseViolet: So what, Loving v. Virginia was a bad decision? We had a few Federalist Society a-holes at my school, but for some reason they only reared their head during my crim class.
@Maritsa: I had the best constitutional law professor ever because he finishes he overview of Loving v. Virginia by saying "My wife and I believe we were the first couple to be married in Virginia under the decision."
@greengrey: of course not! the only reason men hit women is to put them in their place! if women weren't guided through life with a swift hand and a strong man, they'd just be nympho hussies living in sin, doncha know?!
((between this and the guinea article, today is a bad day))
The former law student in me actually intellectually understands what Burr is saying. Historically, the federal government has left regulation of the individual insurance market to the states. The federal government regulates employer funded insurance under ERISA. The argument is that ERISA covers employers with employees in multiple states and that those employers should not be forced to adapt their insurance benefits to each state's regulations. But since most private insurance is sold by companies that exist in a different state than the recipient, I think it does impact interstate commerce and can therefore be regulated by the federal government. And the federal government can do pretty much anything they want if it is requirements for what private insurance can offer through a federally run exchange.
So, I understand what he is saying, but I can easily prove it wrong.
@Lymed: On a more basic level, I'm always annoyed about states' rights concerns because so many Republicans quickly throw them out the window when it suits them, and because "states' rights" often seems like a proxy for big corporations' rights and/or an unwillingness to provide social services. However, I don't know Burr's voting record, so he could be a totally genuine states-righter.
@Anna N.: I agree. There is hypocrisy in the states rights arguers. Just like there is hypocrisy in people who say the government should stay out of their life, but should of course stay in the lives of pregnant women. I was just saying, historically, the federal government has stayed out of individual insurance and I think it started with it being a health and safety issuing traditionally regulated by states. But I think it is very easy to say it impacts interstate commerce because people are likely making decisions about moving across state lines based on insurance.
@Maritsa: ERISA only applies to group insurance. The argument for a federal law for ERISA was that the fact that different states had different laws was impacting employers' ability to open business locations in different states because they couldn't run multiple benefit plans. So it was a different argument than would apply to individual insurance. The pre-existing condition exclusions for domestic violence would only apply to non-ERISA plans.
I'm wondering if there's a resource online that catalogs each state law's regulations over insurance company practices... Does PA consider domestic violence "a pre-existing condition"? Whose house do I blow up to change that..?
@Schrodinger's Cat: It is not that any state considers it a pre-ex condition, it is that 8 states and D.C. don't have a law that specifically bars it from being considered a pre-ex condition. Those 8 states are:
Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming
The hell? Seriously? So your ex-partner being a psycho who likes to beat you is now a disqualifier for buying health care anytime in the future? Because being a battered woman means you'll never get sick? Or, more likely, because they think you'll use too many resources and they want to cut you off before you become an unprofitable client? Either way,that's just awful and wrong. The fact that anyone can make that argument with a straight face casts some serious doubt on their humanity.
@Hooplehead: Well, tripping on the stairs and hurting your knee could be a disqualifier so I guess they see nothing different than if you were pushed down the stairs. But this is for the individual market only, none of this applies to group insurance including employer paid insurance which is limited by HIPAA in its definition of pre-existing condition to a medical condition for which a participant has received diagnosis, care or treatment within the previous 6 months. And under HIPAA, you still get covered it is just that condition could be excluded from coverage for up to 12 months if you had a gap in insurance coverage.
@Lymed: So basically if you are self-employed, you are screwed? Or out of work for a year in between during which that happens? My family is self-employed so we're in that individual market (SUPER EXPENSIVE BTW) so I am very curious as we do change health insurance companies every couple of years due to ever rising premiums or unacceptable coverage
@rbg219: If you change insurance companies, you want to read the fine print. Particularly about pre-existing condition exclusions and other exclusions. Compare those to your current plan. Obviously, if you have a condition being treated you don't want to switch to a plan that does not cover that condition. And check your state laws, because some states do limit pre-ex exclusions.
The federal exchange that looks like it will be a part of health reform will be real help to people in your situation. The exchange will allow you to compare plans and they will make rules as to requirements in plans that are part of the exchange.
FUCKING RICHARD BURR! I never voted for you, and I never will. You bring as much shame to my home district as the representative who replaced you, Virginia Foxx.
10/07/09
Just because a law is protecting women doesn't mean it's ignoring men.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
Priorities? Officially fucked.
10/07/09
10/07/09
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all corporations are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...
10/07/09
When are people like this going to get the idea that something that is a good idea and in the best interests of the general welfare in one state is good for the whole country?!? It has to be Federally mandated, because for some reason, some states don't have a problem with it and aren't doing anything about it.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
((between this and the guinea article, today is a bad day))
10/07/09
This infuriates me. I'm glad I had insurance before I got the shit beat out of me by my ex. Phew. Dodged a bullet there.
10/07/09
10/07/09
So, I understand what he is saying, but I can easily prove it wrong.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming
10/07/09
The hell? Seriously? So your ex-partner being a psycho who likes to beat you is now a disqualifier for buying health care anytime in the future? Because being a battered woman means you'll never get sick? Or, more likely, because they think you'll use too many resources and they want to cut you off before you become an unprofitable client? Either way,that's just awful and wrong. The fact that anyone can make that argument with a straight face casts some serious doubt on their humanity.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
The federal exchange that looks like it will be a part of health reform will be real help to people in your situation. The exchange will allow you to compare plans and they will make rules as to requirements in plans that are part of the exchange.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09