sicko - Jezebel

posts about #sicko more →
Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
The Bad News: Melissa Auf Der Maur Has The Swine Flu
Michael Moore Makes Us See Paris In A Whole New Light. And Not Just The Health Care!

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

Ultraprison!
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
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.
Reply

Ultraprison! was starred Ultraprison! was unstarred

Sev
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
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?
Reply

Lymed promoted this comment Sev was starred Sev was unstarred

Lymed
10/07/09

@Sev: That is on the table and has a good chance of becoming law.
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

Sev
10/07/09

@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.
Reply

Edited by Sev at 10/07/09 11:11 AM Sev was starred Sev was unstarred

Rabbitty
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
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.

Priorities? Officially fucked.
Reply

dancingteacups promoted this comment Edited by Rabbitty at 10/07/09 10:20 AM Rabbitty was starred Rabbitty was unstarred

curiousgeorgiana
10/07/09

@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.
Reply

curiousgeorgiana was starred curiousgeorgiana was unstarred

Rabbitty
10/07/09

@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...
Reply

dancingteacups promoted this comment Rabbitty was starred Rabbitty was unstarred

NefariousNewt
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
[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.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

morninggloria
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
I just realized that most of the time, "states' rights" means "assholes' rights."
Reply

morninggloria was starred morninggloria was unstarred

NefariousNewt
10/07/09

@morninggloria: One wonders if the states would consent to making stupidity a pre-existing condition, thereby eliminating most lawmakers from having coverage.
Reply

NefariousNewt was starred NefariousNewt was unstarred

BruiseViolet
10/07/09

@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.
Reply

Maritsa promoted this comment BruiseViolet was starred BruiseViolet was unstarred

Maritsa
10/07/09

@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.
Reply

Maritsa was starred Maritsa was unstarred

Lymed
10/07/09

@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."
Reply

Edited by Lymed at 10/07/09 12:10 PM Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

greengrey
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
If men are the ones causing the problem, shouldn't they be the ones to pay for it?
Reply

greengrey was starred greengrey was unstarred

huls
10/07/09

@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))
Reply

greengrey promoted this comment huls was starred huls was unstarred

curiousgeorgiana
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
Being the victim of a crime is not a medical condition.

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.
Reply

dancingteacups promoted this comment curiousgeorgiana was starred curiousgeorgiana was unstarred

sequined
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
Woop woop! I voted for Patty Murray! Also campaigned for her and have heard her speak. She is fab.
Reply

sequined was starred sequined was unstarred

Lymed
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
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.
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

Anna N.
10/07/09

@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.
Reply

Anna N. was starred Anna N. was unstarred

Lymed
10/07/09

@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.
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

Maritsa
10/07/09

@Lymed: ERISA usually preempts state insurance law, though, so if that was his argument, it would be pretty easy to defeat, like you said.
Reply

Edited by Maritsa at 10/07/09 10:29 AM Maritsa was starred Maritsa was unstarred

Lymed
10/07/09

@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.
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

Zombie Ms. Skittles
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
Hey, you know what would really fix this problem? A public option!
Reply

Schrodinger's Cat
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
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..?
Reply

Lymed promoted this comment Schrodinger's Cat was starred

Lymed
10/07/09

@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
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

Hooplehead
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
*head explodes*

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.
Reply

Hooplehead was starred Hooplehead was unstarred

Lymed
10/07/09

@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.
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

rbg219
10/07/09

@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
Reply

Lymed promoted this comment rbg219 was starred rbg219 was unstarred

Lymed
10/07/09

@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.
Reply

Lymed was starred Lymed was unstarred

Hooplehead
10/07/09

@Lymed: Thank you, that makes me a bit less stabby. But the fact that it is even an issue for anyone is just unbelievable.
Reply

Hooplehead was starred Hooplehead was unstarred

Alys Brangwin has a huge talent
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
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.
Reply

CurtCole
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
Well said Anna, Domestic Violence isn't a women's rights issue, it's a human rights issue.
Reply

CurtCole was starred CurtCole was unstarred

dreamweave
10/07/09

In reply to Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition
Sen. Burr, thanks for keeping us solidly on the "one step forward, two steps back" path of southern states.
Reply

dreamweave was starred dreamweave was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

#sicko

Jezebel

SUBSCRIBE TO Jezebel

Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition

The Bad News: Melissa Auf Der Maur Has The Swine Flu

Michael Moore Makes Us See Paris In A Whole New Light. And Not Just The Health Care!

Login

Reset Password

Register

Submit Your Comment