It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Violet Sky
That's awful. I wonder what other things are considered 'pre-existing conditions'.
We do need reform, especially in regard to the whole 'pre-existing' notion.
The people that need insurance the most SHOULD be able to get it, not the other way around.
Originally posted by Violet Sky
That's awful. I wonder what other things are considered 'pre-existing conditions'.
We do need reform, especially in regard to the whole 'pre-existing' notion.
The people that need insurance the most SHOULD be able to get it, not the other way around.
Originally posted by Animal
there is really nothing we can do to make the insurance companies make insurance affordable other than completely take over their operations.
Originally posted by Anjin
Originally posted by Animal
there is really nothing we can do to make the insurance companies make insurance affordable other than completely take over their operations.
Groceries, gas, cable TV, cell phones, electricity, movie rentals, sporting events and clothes are getting too expensive also. The Government needs to take over everything because that's obviously the only option. Too bad they couldn't regulate instead.......
there is really nothing we can do to make the insurance companies make insurance affordable other than completely take over their operations.
that is except for a public option that will create a type of competition that will force them to make changes themselves.