No, the AHCA Doesn't Make Rape a Preexisting Condition
Geezus, people.
The latest less-than-truthful meme about Republicans' American Health Care Act (AHCA), passed by the U.S. House on Thursday, is that it makes rape a "preexisting condition" for health-insurance purposes. According to a host of women's publications and an army of outraged tweeters, sexual assault and domestic abuse survivors could soon be forced to disclose their attacks to insurance companies, which could subsequently deny them health-insurance coverage because of it.
None of this is true. Like, not even a little bit. And the fact it's not just being shared by shady social-media activists and their unwitting dupes but by ostensibly-legitimate media outlets is another sad indictment of press standards these days.
Nothing in the new Republican health care bill specifically addresses sexual assault or domestic violence whatsoever. What it does say is that states can apply for waivers that will allow insurance companies, under certain limited circumstances, to charge higher premiums to people based on their personal medical histories—that's it. (States that are granted the waivers must also set up special high-risk insurance pools to try and help defray costs for these people.) Under Obamacare, no such price variances based on preexisting conditions are permitted.
Historically, conditions that could trigger higher premiums or coverage denials have been mostly chronic diseases and syndromes. Some insurance plans also included pregnancy as a preexisting condition, which—contra the current pop narrative—did not mean that any woman who was or had been pregnant would be denied insurance coverage altogether, simply that those applying for new health insurance while currently pregnant might not be eligible for immediate maternity/prenatal care. And for a while, in the 1980s, it was apparently not unheard of for health insurance companies to deny coverage to domestic abuse victims.
By 2009, however, all but eight U.S. states had passed laws directly prohibiting the practice, and as of July 2014, all but six states had. Even if Obamacare is replaced by the AHCA tomorrow, insurers in 44 states will still be barred by law from considering domestic and sexual abuse a preexisting condition. (Update: Buzzfeed's Paul McLeod confirmed with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners yesterday that there are now only two states, Idaho and Vermont, that don't explicitly "ban insurers from factoring domestic abuse into premium costs." For more detailed information, see this great analysis from Washington Post Fact Checker Michelle Ye Hee Lee and my longer update at the bottom of this post.)
Doesn't that mean there's a possibility that those other six states could choose to apply for waivers, and then insurance companies within them could perhaps choose to charge higher premiums for abuse victims? Yes. They also could choose to charge higher premiums for prior victims of car accidents and ingrown toenails. It doesn't mean they will.
A Politifact investigation in 2009 could turn up no evidence that such practices were happening in the then-eight states that would allow it. "Just because it's legal in some states for insurance companies to cite domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, it doesn't mean that insurance companies are actually taking advantage of the loophole," it noted.
A spokesperson for American's Health Insurance Plans, the health insurer trade association, told CNN this week that "of course survivors of domestic abuse and rape should be covered," and it wasn't simply a federal law stopping insurers from saying otherwise. Kristine Grow, the organization's senior vice president of communications, said the industry willingly follows the guidance in this area set out by the National Association of Insurance Companies, which advises against coverage discrimination for abuse and assault victims.
So far, the only examples offered as evidence that such discrimination is common have fallen far short. In CNN's story, a woman's insurance application was rejected for unspecified reasons that she believes were related to her history of domestic abuse, though the insurance company didn't actually provide any reason. She was able to get health coverage from another insurer not long after.
In the story getting much more attention, a woman who had been sexually assaulted was prescribed anti-HIV medication as a precaution. When she tried to apply for new insurance coverage not long after, her application was denied because of a company policy against insuring anyone who had been on the HIV medication recently. The insurers did not initially deny her claim because she was a rape victim—they weren't even aware of that information at first, though she says she did later inform them. If anything, the company is guilty of not treating this woman differently based on her history of sexual assault.
If you think it's bad that the company wouldn't insure people who had previously taken medication to prevent HIV, then let's talk about that policy! But let's not pretend that "rape" was the preexisting condition the insurer was worried about in this case. And if it's a bad policy, then why not work to change it for all health-care consumers instead of carving out a rape-victim exception? Do people really want a two-tiered system where rape victims can get sexual infection medication covered (if they're willing to talk about the rape to strangers) but people who have consensual sex can't?
If Democrats and progressives would just stick to actual details of the AHCA, they would still have plenty of material to make Republicans look bad (and the same goes for traffic-thirsty bloggers). But once again, that's not enough for them. In their zeal to portray Donald Trump and the current GOP as worse than Nazis, the actual details of the bill don't matter—and if that terrifies a ton of sexual-assault survivors and terrorizes American women in the process, so be it.
Update | May 6, 11:30 a.m.: Since I posted this, several other media outlets have investigated the rape-as-preexisting-condition claims and come to similar conclusions as mine. Politifact declared the claim "mostly false," and The Washington Post—which yesterday morning published an op-ed yesterday perpetuating the rape claim—ran a Fact Checker column today giving it Four Pinnochios. "The notion that AHCA classifies rape or sexual assault as a preexisting condition, or that survivors would be denied coverage, is false," wrote the Post's Michelle Ye Hee Lee. In addition, "almost all states (at least 45 to 48) have their own laws protecting survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse."
"It takes several leaps of imagination to assume that survivors of rape and sexual assault will face higher premiums as a result of conditions relating to their abuse," Lee continues.
A person would need to be in the individual or small-group market (most Americans under 65 are on employer-provided plans), in a state that sought waivers, and in one of two to five states that did not prohibit insurance-company discrimination against survivors of sexual abuse.
In other words, this claim relies on so many factors — including unknown decisions by a handful of states and insurance companies — that this talking point becomes almost meaningless.
We always say at The Fact Checker that the more complicated the topic, the more susceptible it is to spin. Both media coverage and hyperbole among advocates are at fault for creating a misleading representation of the House GOP health bill. We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios, but the out-of-control rhetoric and the numerous assumptions pushed us to Four Pinocchios.
The New York Times admitted that the claims are "overly simplistic" and "need context." Meanwhile New York magazine, one of the original publishers of the AHCA-makes-rape-a-preexisting-condition claim, published a correction on the original piece and edited it significantly, also switching the headline from "In Trump's America, Rape Is a Preexisting Condition" to "In Trump's America, Being Sexually Assaulted Coult Make Your Health Insurance More Expensive" (and even updating the url to reflect the headline change). BizzyBlog pointed this out last night and, using a cached copy of the article, offers a side-by-side comparison:
Allure magazine also walked back bolder headline claims:
As of Saturday afternoon, however, a host media outlets—including Boing Boing, Broadly, and popular millennial news sites Elite Daily, Distractify, and Bustle—were still running with claims that either the AHCA directly lists rape/sexual assault/domestic abuse as conditions that could cost people their insurance or that it permits it in such a way where the practice will become extremely likely.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And yet these people are okay with the AHCA’s raping of my paycheck.
Your paychecks should not walk around in skimpy wallets.
I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is what I do.,,.,.,., http://www.careerstoday100.com
I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is what I do..,.,.,.. http://www.careerstoday100.com
I heard your paycheck consented, enthusiastically and repeatedly.
I wouldn’t mind an affirmative consent standard for all new taxes.
The catchphrase would reform to “No means Yes!”
According to a host of women’s publications and an army of outraged tweeters, sexual assault and domestic abuse survivors could soon be forced to disclose their attacks to insurance companies, which could subsequently deny them health-insurance coverage because of it.
And they think religious folks are nuts.
One does not preclude the other.
Duh doy.
As long as the rape or domestic abuse victim doesn’t visit the ER or get checked in to the hospital, or get any other recorded healthcare, you’re right.
However, insurance companies can (and have!) denied coverage based on any healthcare you may have required, if they felt like it.
Sleep well, assholes.
Thanks, I will.
Oh, can you give a cite of an example where someone has been refused coverage because they visited a hospital after they were raped?
People have been denied coverage based previous medical history like cancer or heart disease, but as rape isn’t a recurring disease. It hardly seems likely that an insurance company would risk a publicity nightmare, over something that is fiscally irrelevant. Your concerns on this issue actually seem like cheap, demagogic bullshit. But feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
I can’t think of a rape victim being denied services because they were raped? OP you must have an idea, yeah?
As long as the rape or domestic abuse victim doesn’t visit the ER or get checked in to the hospital, or get any other recorded healthcare, you’re right.
However, insurance companies can (and have!) denied coverage based on any healthcare you may have required, if they felt like it.
Sleep well, assholes.
Sleep well, manipulated one.
Can we define progressivism as a pre-existing condition? That should drain the swamp.
Post truth America!
That ship already sailed.
Autistic screeching over partisan alternative facts will continue to happen because it works. These people aren’t going to read ENB’s article, let alone anything that undermines the faith.
The sooner you realize that this is the behavior of a cult, the less headaches you’ll have to endure trying to reason with them. Any sign of opposition only further entrenches their faith, and it will remain that way until the exposure of their disconnect from reality starts to impact their social lives.
the less fewer headaches
Get it together.
Shit, I’ve been Crusted.
Eeew.
Someone’s peanut butter and jealous.
I created an account just so I could thank you for introducing me to the term “Autistic screeching”. 🙂
Is feminism a form of autism?
One more try:
Is feminism a form of autism?
“…Do people really want a two-tiered system where rape victims can get sexual infection medication covered (if they’re willing to talk about the rape to strangers) but people who have consensual sex can’t?”
What about a system where a woman’s birth control is totally paid out-of-pocket, while a man’s Viagra is covered? Or where your insurance coverage for a truly catastrophic illness is capped and you are subject to both death AND bankruptcy when the insurance company stops paying for your treatment?
Elizabeth, rather than whine about left-wing hyperbole, how about you whine about how ACHA was rushed, crammed-down, and prevented from any amendments being considered? It had none of the hearings, discussion, and transparency that, say what you will about it, characterized the hundred-plus hearings and months of examination of the ACA prior to its passing. THEY RELEASED THE TEXT OF THE ACHA BILL ONLY 18 HOURS PRIOR TO VOTING. That’s the most craven, cynical move I’ve seen from either party that I can remember.
Relax, buddy. There is plenty of time to whine about all of these things.
It’s happening.
You want Elizabeth to just reiterate the same points Suderman has been emphasizing the last few days? Why not something original?
“What about a system where a woman’s birth control is totally paid out-of-pocket, while a man’s Viagra is covered?”
Wouldn’t the correct comparison be to condoms? Which also aren’t covered?
Or…vaginal dryness creams which are? So…that attempt comparison seems to fall apart.
Of course…these are people who think not giving is taking, so…
Birth is a medical disorder than needs to be corrected, you monster.
First, good one.
Second, do these people know tubal ligation is covered? Even by Medicaid?
I’m not sure they even know what they want.
They want cake.
NOW and paid for by you.
Second, do these people know tubal ligation is covered?
Unless your employer is Catholic.
Not monster, momster.
“What about a system where a woman’s birth control is totally paid out-of-pocket…”
People paying for their own stuff, at a cost of $50 a month? What kind of dystopian hell hole are you talking about?
Er… make that $20 a month.
A dystopian hell hole where insurance means protection against unpredictable financial risk, and therefore costs a reasonable amount?
This isn’t the Wild West where every general store had a line of coffins outside because people were shooting each other in the streets.
No, but may be police stations should stock coffins.
$20? Overpaying.
I’ve seen it advertised under $10 at WalMart, etc.
Unless the guy taking Viagra is gay, it is arguable thst at least one woman benefits from a man taking Viagra.
FTFY
When you start with lies, you’ve already lost.
I think it is important enough for an article to be dedicated to dispelling the fabrication of how the proposed law would make rape a pre-existing condition. Other articles can also focus on the shit that is the proposed law.
Viagra is only usually covered when it is used and perscribed for it’s original purpose as a drug to prevent hypertension.
Viagra is only usually covered when it is used and prescribed for it’s original purpose as a drug to prevent hypertension.
Viagra is only usually covered when it is used and prescribed for it’s original purpose as a drug to prevent hypertension.
“What about a system where a woman’s birth control is totally paid out-of-pocket, while a man’s Viagra is covered?”
Are you trying to suggest that such a system exists or is coming?
(Why only women’s birth control? Don’t men ever buy a condom? I know I have; somehow the fact that my employer wasn’t giving me them via “insurance” rather than cash compensation didn’t stop me, because I am a grown-ass adult.
Also, uh … I’ve looked. The Pill is under $10/mo as a generic at various pharmacies.
Please explain why “insurance” ought to be paying for that, and how it’s better than not doing so and increasing their cash compensation? Or just them putting on their big girl panties and buying some?
If you want to talk “but poor people!”, fine, suggest a Free Pills For Poors program. But that’s a different problem.)
“Geezus, people.” is my response to basically everything that comes out of The Resistance.
I put that in as a placeholder subtitle but then decided to keep it. I really don’t know what else to say
It is absolutely perfect!
I can’t wait until her gender finally excommunicates this traitor.
You do need a tagline, ENB. Robby has his “to be sure,” Bailey has his “yaaay, science,” KMW has her “sex, drugs, and robots,” and you can have this. It’s a good one.
A catchphrase is clear benchmark for having ‘made it’.
“Hasta la vista, baby.”
“Bazinga!” (ugh..)
“Ho Ho Ho!”
“Cash me Ousside.”
“D’oh!”
“You’re Fired!”
“I pity the fool.”
See, all these famous catchphrases are easily associated with their famous counterparts.
“And on the third day,
Geezus rose from the pond,
And honked out his message,
To his waiting flock.”
Wouldn’t wouldn’t wouldn’t wouldn’t wouldn’t wouldn’t would wouldn’t.
^Sign 13 of the End Times.
Oh wait there is a ‘would’ in there. Crisis averted. We can lower the threat level back to orange.
Orange? I thought we were still at Mahogany.
The next four years are automatically threat level orange. But when it comes to Crusty, it’s threat level purple skittle.
ORANGE.
As in Cheetos.
Get with it people.
Liar.
insurance pools to try and help defray
You meant “try to help”, right?
I swear I’m not doing this on purpose, but it’s like the more you guys tell me, the more my sub-conscious rebels
Under the bludgeonings of the commentariat,
Your subconscious is bloody, but unbowed.
I could care less about it.
That means you do care.
Irregardless, you should.
That literally made my head explode.
English motherfuckers. DO YOU SPEAK IT?
“English Motherfuckers” is plainly a plural.
DO YOU SPEAK THEM?
“There is a spectre haunting Elizabeth Nolan Brown – the spectre of her subconscious!”
I was browsing through that Twitter stream that somebody linked earlier, the preexisting condition blather, and all of the people whining there must cost a combined $250,000,000 or more. I’m willing to bet that a good number of serious diseases would disappear if people had to start paying for their own care.
because they would probably die?
Eternal life is not a natural right unless you’re a JW.
Did they all die in the dark, barely remembered age of … early 2010?
Maybe they’re concerned that false accusations of rape could be considered a preexisting mental condition?
“Just because it’s legal in some states for insurance companies to cite domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, it doesn’t mean that insurance companies are actually taking advantage of the loophole,”
It’s not a loophole if it’s part of the actual law. *facepalm*
I thought that’s what a loophole is…like, a “gap” in regulation or law that allows a behavior that seems like should be prevented by the law generally.
Loophole always literally means “a deliberate facet of the law that the speaker dislikes”.
??????O Do you know everybody can make $500 to $600 per day for just easiest work from home. I have made $634 Today and $18623 last month by just doing an easy job online from home. I am vey happy that I have this job now and am able to earn Thousands Dollars online. Every person can join this job now by just click on the link given below.??????? ?????____BIG…..EARN….MONEY..___???????-
RE: No, the AHCA Doesn’t Make Rape a Preexisting Condition
Yes, rape is a preexisting condition.
All men are rapists.
Marriage is legalized rape.
Men rape with their eyes as well with their penis.
Just ask any feminist with a chickenshit degree in Women’s Studies sometime…if you dare.
No, rape is an activity. Having been raped is a preexisting condition.
Please forgive me.
I’m just so stupid.
Yes, that is immensely clear from the idiocy of your posts.
That one dude’s sign “CONSENT IS NOT JUST ASS ENT” is a good lesson on why you pencil it in first. That way you do not run out of space for the rest of your letters.
I don’t care what sentient trees do in their private time!
I can see it now.
Insurance guy: Well, we cannot cover you. You’ve been raped.
Woman: No I haven’t.
Insurance guy: …yet.
Heh Heh Heh
what Rachel explained I’m amazed that anyone able to earn $400000 in four weeks on the computer . you could check here…….111111111…… http://www.7jobspots.com
My Uncle Tristan got an awesome metallic Toyota Sienna by working parttime off of a macbook air… visit this site right here???USA~JOB-START
Say Liz, can you address something more substantive than a meme?
Like the AHCA?
I personally enjoy reading ENB. She is able to go places that penis people might fear to tread.
Well, what about the rest of the 57???
The rest of the 57 were destroyed during the Bowling Green Massacre, which Andrew Jackson foresaw.
(And, seriously, Reason?
Can no easy Bayesian spam detector clean out this pathetic and obvious spam commenting?)
RE: Democrats’ “zeal to portray Donald Trump and the current GOP as worse than Nazis”
Democrats ought to watch their excessive over-reach just a little bit, lest they worsen this in 2018:
“The whole Democratic Party is now a smoking pile of rubble: In state government things are worse, if anything. The GOP now controls historical record number of governors’ mansions, including a majority of New England governorships. Tuesday’s election swapped around a few state legislative houses but left Democrats controlling a distinct minority. The same story applies further down ballot, where most elected attorneys general, insurance commissioners, secretaries of state, and so forth are Republicans.” http://www.vox.com/policy-and-…..ile-rubble
Hmm.. And yet before Obamacare, my two daughters could not get coverage in California, because their mother died of breast cancer. And, I’m betting that women with a history of difficult pregnancies may well find themselves on that list. The problem is that when you blithely insert a one sentence clause, without detailing your intention, that it becomes whatever the Health Insurers want it to be down the road.
Dont expect any empathy from them. They’re soulless monsters who only care “ABOUT *THEIR* WALLET!!!!!”
And they assume NOTHING can *possibly* happen to *them* because they feel very secure in *their* privilege.
I’m waiting once this apocalypse hits, for the flood of articles as one by one THEY find themselves in a “high risk pool” and then SUDDENLY “get it”.
??????O Bentley . true that Ashley `s blurb is good… last week I got Lotus Esprit sincere getting a check for $5815 this-last/five weeks and-even more than, ten/k lass-month . without a doubt it is the easiest work I’ve ever done . I began this seven months/ago and almost immediately started earning minimum $77… per-hour . more tips here..??????? ?????____BIG…..EARN….MONEY..___???????-
??????O just before I saw the paycheck which was of $9068 , I did not believe …that…my father in law was like they say actually taking home money in there spare time on their computer. . there brothers friend haze done this for less than seven months and at present paid the loans on there apartment -.??????? ?????____BIG…..EARN….MONEY..___???????-
Nice propaganda, Beth. The fact is that under this putrid bill, it is possible for a state to decide to throw out the regulations that currently prohibit insurance companies from considering a rape victim as having been raped as a pre-existing condition. The fact that we are far away from this bill becoming law does not make this fact disappear. (Interestingly, there is another Reason article that says that even if this putrid bill passes, even the hardest-core of anti-ObamaRomneyHeritageCare states will most likely not make any meaningful changes.)
Rape and domestic violence as pre-existing conditions won’t be found in the proposed bill. What people are referring to is if the ACA is repealed pre-existing conditions will revert back to pre-ACA regulations. It had been shown that in 8 states women were denied coverage for rape/domestic violence according to National Women’s Law Center. Kaiser foundation is a non-partisan source of reliable information regarding pre-existing conditions, and they refer to the Women’s Law Center in this case.
Rape and domestic violence as pre-existing conditions won’t be found in the proposed bill. What people are referring to is if the ACA is repealed pre-existing conditions will revert back to pre-ACA regulations. It had been shown that in 8 states women were denied coverage for rape/domestic violence according to National Women’s Law Center. Kaiser foundation is a non-partisan source of reliable information regarding pre-existing conditions, and they refer to the Women’s Law Center in this case.
“And if [previously taking HIV medication is an insurance-denial worthy pre-existing condition is] a bad policy, then why not work to change it for all health-care consumers […]??”
… um, we did. That’s pretty explicitly what the waivers are for. To make pre-existing condition denials/up-charges a thing again.
I just zoom threw all the comments but no one seem to mention that men are cover for pregnancy too, I remember that the last time I had to pay for health insurance they said I was covered for pregnancy like it or not, and I’m male. Or did the feds finally drop that requirement.
Does this mean that Ronald Bailey and Nye da Gye are pushing this in addition to the cult of Global Warming? I hope so. The Congressman who moved to impeach Brazilian president Dilma for signing a Plan B bill for rape victims is serving a 15-year prison sentence. The prison term is or other stuff, but the schadenfreude is just as delicious.
??????O Do you know everybody can make $500 to $600 per day for just easiest work from home. I have made $634 Today and $18623 last month by just doing an easy job online from home. I am vey happy that I have this job now and am able to earn Thousands Dollars online. Every person can join this job now by just click on the link given below ..??????? ?????____BIG…..EARN….MONEY..___???????-
If you think it’s bad that the company wouldn’t insure people who had previously taken medication to prevent HIV, then let’s talk about that policy!
It is definitely bad policy, given that anyone who was prescribed HIV antiretrovirals as post-exposure prophylaxis and avoided HIV infection as a result would have completely eliminated the risk of HIV-related illness and the need for lifelong treatment with those same antiretrovirals.
Insurance companies that punish an applicant for seeking a two-week supply of HIV meds to prevent infection (thereby eliminating the need for a 50-year supply of meds to keep an HIV+ person alive) are ludicrously out of touch with current HIV care and prevention strategies. Even in 2009, post-exposure prophylaxis following a sexual assault should have been interpreted as a smart decision made by a patient taking responsibility for her own long-term health.
Excellent website, excellent post as well!
I genuinely love how it is simple on my eyes and the data
are well written.I’m wondering how I could be notified if a new post has been made.
I’ve subscribed to your RSS which should do the trick!
http://www.programshall.com/do…..-for-free/
http://www.programshall.com/ph…..photoshop/
Great post , thanks for sharing
http://www.theorcaeg.com/
As long as the rape or domestic abuse victim doesn’t visit the ER or get checked in to the hospital, or get any other recorded healthcare, you’re right.
I can see it now.
Insurance guy: Well, we cannot cover you. You’ve been raped.
Woman: No I haven’t.
Insurance guy: …yet.
so good post Thanks
?????
????????
Hiv disease for the last 3 years and had pain hard to eat and cough are nightmares,especially the first year At this stage, the immune system is severely weakened, and the risk of contracting opportunistic infections is much greater. However, not everyone with HIV will go on to develop AIDS. The earlier you receive treatment, the better your outcome will be.I started taking ARV to avoid early death but I had faith in God that i would be healed someday.As a Hiv patent we are advise to be taking antiretroviral treatments to reduce our chance of transmitting the virus to others , few weeks ago i came on search on the internet if i could get any information on Hiv treatment with herbal medicine, on my search i saw a testimony of someone who has been healed from Hiv her name was Achima Abelard and other Herpes Virus patent Tasha Moore also giving testimony about this same man,Called Dr Itua Herbal Center.I was moved by the testimony and i contacted him by his Email.drituaherbalcenter@gmail.com We chatted and he send me a bottle of herbal medicine I drank it as he instructed me to.After drinking it he ask me to go for a test that how i ended my suffering life of Hiv patent,I’m cured and free of Arv Pills.I’m forever grateful to him Drituaherbalcenter.Here his contact Number +2348149277967…He assure me he can cure the following disease..Hiv,Cancer,Herpes Virus,Epilepsy, fibromyalgia ,ALS,Hepatitis,Copd,Parkinson disease.Diabetes,Fibroid…
I know! I knew the bitch back in the day, and she was raped, so the pregnant, and then OOPSIE DOOPSIE POOPSIE BABY! For real?!? Is that libertarianism?!? Because insurance? Rape insurance? No rape baby insurance?!?!?!
This iwas happens when peppie lepoo and MAGA dogs come sprookle up to your Paulistas and try to be “reasonable”!
OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH!
Where’s your precious freedom now, biatches?! Huh? How free can you be without the healthcare for the rape babies, Huh?
You didn’t think of that, did you, liberTARDIANS!
Huh? Why would insurers treat women from rape different from women pregnant otherwise? What exactly do you imagine your point is?
Why do you hate rape victims, you retarded twats?!?!?
Just can’t stand the rape babies, can you, reasonators!
Who is the doofus that let you in?
Wacko bird righties!
Up plus negative down = double up, bitches, and that’s where I am relative to you Drumpftkins.
“If she is denied insurance because she’s pregnant, then she is denied because she was raped.”
So? If your house is on fire, does it matter if it was caused by something the homeowner did or by an arson? You’re still going to be denied. You don’t get insurance coverage for something, guess what? You don’t suddenly get to buy insurance coverage for that issue, just because that issue is someone else’s fault, Hinny poo.
“If she is denied insurance because she’s pregnant, then she is denied because she was raped…”
No. She was denied coverage because she was pregnant. She was pregnant because she was raped. You are demanding that rape victims get special treatment. That’s fine, say that. Stop lying about anyone being denied coverage specifically because they are raped.
Also, if you’d read the article, you’d know this is almost certainly something that would never happen if the AHCA gets passed, but whatever, someone’s gotta spread moral panic I guess.
You need to get some help, man.
It was incomprehensible bitching. Weren’t you even listening?
More willful ignorance from a “culture warrior”
EVERY state is going to “seek a waiver” as long as it has a strong pharma lobby in it.
And the “high risk pool” will be $10,000/mth
Hopefully you land in it, that way you can FINALLY find empathy
I am genuinely curious, Hihn. Do you actually think you’re changing anyone’s mind with how you communicate with everyone? Anyone disagrees with you, and you immediately attack them as dumbfucks, childish, liars, etc. You really think your constant foaming at the mouth approach wins anyone over to your point of view?
“Unprovoked attack, cyber-bullies, assault.” Very odd description for words on the internet. There’s no such thing as a cyber-bully you dumbass. The only person whose had their “ass kicked” around here is you. You really are insane. Well, it’s been fun catching up with you, Hihnny.
‘WORDS EQUALS VIOLENCE” screams SJW Mikey.
“So? If your house is on fire, does it matter if it was caused by something the homeowner did or by an arson?”
Depends on if you’re using a moral or financial argument to argue for pre-existing condition denials.
If you’re using a financial argument, then no, it doesn’t matter.
If you’re using a moral argument, then yeah, the fact that your argument boils down to “responsible women buy get rape insurance” is pretty bad.
Because generally speaking, it’s hard to argue that people have a moral responsibility to provide for other people doing evil to them.
Mind if I pick up some of those pearls wastefully cast before the good-faith Ree-publicans?
The exception to this is when a woman is pregnant and gets a new job, requiring new insurance coverage. Pregnancy should not deter a person from seeking better employment, and in a free market, would not necessarily do so. Since health insurance works based upon pooling of funds to cover claims, the small percentage of women who need to move, get a new job or apply for new health insurance for some other reason while pregnant should not financially impact the insurance companies so greatly as to deny coverage. The money she might spend paying into the healthcare with that company over the years she is insured is still likely greater than what they pay out for one pregnancy, barring any complications.