The Link
With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions, administration
allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits.
It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.
Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're
more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.
In human terms, it's a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.
Yes, I can see how in cold logic getting beat by your spouse is a 'pre-existing' condition. However it highlights the incredible flaws in the
current health insurance system.
It also highlights why the insurance companies are so terrified of a public option. While so many in the USA love to the idea of unfettered capitalism
and competition this is just a bit
too much competition for the insurance companies. I mean, wow, a plan that would actually PAY for your
illnesses and medical needs, how would they compete with
that.
In 2006, Democrats tried to end the practice. An amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), now a member of leadership, split the Health
Education Labor & Pensions Committee 10-10. The tie meant that the measure failed.
All ten no votes were Republicans, including Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), a member of the "Gang of Six" on the Finance Committee who are hashing out
a bipartisan bill. A spokesman for Enzi didn't immediately return a call from Huffington Post.
No big surprise here. Remember this too. They will make you all sorts of promises today about what and how they will fix insurance, but once the
publci option is dead they are just going to sell you to the highest corporate bidder and not do crap to help you. That is after all what they do
best.
At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people.
"If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state," he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th,
2006.
Straight from the horses ba-dunk-a-dunk. Isn't one of the prospects being put forth as an alternative to the 'public option' making laws against
'pre-existing conditions'? Well if making spousal abuse a no go for the pre-existing condition would make health care too expensive what would
happen if pre-existing conditions were removed all together? More BS I guess.
At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people.
"If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state," he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th,
2006.
Did not happen then and it will not happen now. Wake up people you are getting played.
[edit on 15-9-2009 by Animal]
