MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

No, the AHCA Doesn't Make Rape a Preexisting Condition

Geezus, people.

Erik McGregor/Sipa USA/NewscomErik McGregor/Sipa USA/NewscomThe 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.

Photo Credit: Erik McGregor/Sipa USA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

    And yet these people are okay with the AHCA's raping of my paycheck.

  • DJF||

    Your paychecks should not walk around in skimpy wallets.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your paychecks should not walk around in skimpy wallets.

    Blame the fucking poor!!

  • juris imprudent||

    I heard your paycheck consented, enthusiastically and repeatedly.

  • Chipper Mourning Somali Roadz||

    I wouldn't mind an affirmative consent standard for all new taxes.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    The catchphrase would reform to "No means Yes!"

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

    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.

  • Delius||

    One does not preclude the other.

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

    Duh doy.

  • JudeB||

    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.

  • Fancylad||

    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.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I can't think of a rape victim being denied services because they were raped? OP you must have an idea, yeah?

  • Michael Hihn||

    I can't think of a rape victim being denied services because they were raped? OP you must have an idea, yeah?

    It's fairly simple. GOP goobers say her employer should not be forced to include pregnancy coverage, as explained in the article. The dipwads think that makes the coverage more costly, to a meaningful extent. (It doesn't)

    She gets pregnant by rape. Republicans -- the wacky ones -- say, "tough noogie, she should not be covered." And that's just one way they committed suicide ... by shitting on free market outcomes (along with many libertarians).

    When we were allowed a free market in health care -- before LBJ for low incomes, and before FDR for everyone else -- the pregnancy and childbirth would be provided, at no cost if needed. Regardless, It's not just proggies who confuse treatment with coverage.

    And this is not the only place where free markets are defended by anti-government goobers, instead of by pro-liberty libertarians. But health care is one of the most obvious examples of their failure to defend free markets, because attacking gubmint is more important to them

    And it's why 91% of libertarian REFUSE to be labeled as ... libertarians. (Cato survey).

  • Michael Hihn||

    Pregnancy is a pre-existing condition. So insuring a pregnant woman, for pregnancy and childbirth, is like selling fire insurance on a burning house. It would reward her for not buying insurance until she needs it. That's the reason.

    But if she's raped, then she has pregnancy and childbirth expenses she never intended, so she's not gaming the system, and the moral argument is much weaker. Also, assume she IS insured, but the coverage does not include pregnancy, as the GOP stupidly argues. She's raped. How can you deny coverage, morally or rationally?

  • afk05||

    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.

  • JudeB||

    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.

  • John Galt II||

    Sleep well, manipulated one.

  • Gorbag||

    Can we define progressivism as a pre-existing condition? That should drain the swamp.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Post truth America!

  • Microaggressor||

    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.

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

    the less fewer headaches

    Get it together.

  • Microaggressor||

    Shit, I've been Crusted.

  • Rhywun||

    Eeew.

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

    Someone's peanut butter and jealous.

  • vertibird||

    I created an account just so I could thank you for introducing me to the term "Autistic screeching". :)

  • Vernon Depner||

  • Vernon Depner||

  • Michael Hihn||

    Only in trannies.
    /sarc

  • Fat Stanley||

    "...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.

  • Zeb||

    Relax, buddy. There is plenty of time to whine about all of these things.

  • Not a True MJG||

    It's happening.

  • Microaggressor||

    You want Elizabeth to just reiterate the same points Suderman has been emphasizing the last few days? Why not something original?

  • StephWills||

    "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...

  • Rhywun||

    Birth is a medical disorder than needs to be corrected, you monster.

  • StephWills||

    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.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    They want cake.

    NOW and paid for by you.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Second, do these people know tubal ligation is covered?
    Unless your employer is Catholic.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Not monster, momster.

  • B.P.||

    "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?

  • B.P.||

    Er... make that $20 a month.

  • Microaggressor||

    A dystopian hell hole where insurance means protection against unpredictable financial risk, and therefore costs a reasonable amount?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    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.

  • Chipper Mourning Somali Roadz||

    No, but may be police stations should stock coffins.

  • Sigivald||

    $20? Overpaying.

    I've seen it advertised under $10 at WalMart, etc.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yes, $10 at several places. But that's for the pill, which is declining as a percentage.
    And, of course, they all reduce the number of more costly pregnancies. Even greater decline in abortions -- but don't tell the folks who've been brainwashed on Planned Parenthood.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Unless the guy taking Viagra is gay, it is arguable thst at least one woman benefits from a man taking Viagra.

  • Michael Hihn||

    If you need Viagra to pleasure a woman, I feel sorry for your wife!

  • Azathoth!!||

    What about a system where a woman's birth control is totally paid out-of-pocket, while a man's birth control is totally paid out-of-pocket?

    FTFY

    When you start with lies, you've already lost.

  • Eric Bana||

    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.

  • Hunthjof||

    Viagra is only usually covered when it is used and perscribed for it's original purpose as a drug to prevent hypertension.

  • Hunthjof||

    Viagra is only usually covered when it is used and prescribed for it's original purpose as a drug to prevent hypertension.

  • Hunthjof||

    Viagra is only usually covered when it is used and prescribed for it's original purpose as a drug to prevent hypertension.

  • Sigivald||

    "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.)

  • colorblindkid||

    "Geezus, people." is my response to basically everything that comes out of The Resistance.

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    I put that in as a placeholder subtitle but then decided to keep it. I really don't know what else to say

  • colorblindkid||

    It is absolutely perfect!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I can't wait until her gender finally excommunicates this traitor.

  • Chipper Mourning Somali Roadz||

    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.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    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.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    "And on the third day,
    Geezus rose from the pond,
    And honked out his message,
    To his waiting flock."

  • Crusty Juggler aka "Chad"||

    Wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't wouldn't would wouldn't.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    ^Sign 13 of the End Times.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Oh wait there is a 'would' in there. Crisis averted. We can lower the threat level back to orange.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Orange? I thought we were still at Mahogany.

  • Chipper Mourning Somali Roadz||

    The next four years are automatically threat level orange. But when it comes to Crusty, it's threat level purple skittle.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    ORANGE.

    As in Cheetos.

    Get with it people.

  • Chipper Mourning Somali Roadz||

    Liar.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    insurance pools to try and help defray

    You meant "try to help", right?

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    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

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Under the bludgeonings of the commentariat,
    Your subconscious is bloody, but unbowed.

  • StephWills||

    I could care less about it.

  • Chipper Mourning Somali Roadz||

    That means you do care.

  • Rhywun||

    Irregardless, you should.

  • Random Axe Of Kindness||

    That literally made my head explode.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    English motherfuckers. DO YOU SPEAK IT?

  • Sigivald||

    "English Motherfuckers" is plainly a plural.

    DO YOU SPEAK THEM?

  • Sigivald||

    "There is a spectre haunting Elizabeth Nolan Brown - the spectre of her subconscious!"

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    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.

  • SparktheRevolt||

    because they would probably die?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Eternal life is not a natural right unless you're a JW.

  • Sigivald||

    Did they all die in the dark, barely remembered age of ... early 2010?

  • lap83||

    Maybe they're concerned that false accusations of rape could be considered a preexisting mental condition?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    "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*

  • mortiscrum||

    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.

  • Sigivald||

    Loophole always literally means "a deliberate facet of the law that the speaker dislikes".

  • Uncle Jay||

    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.

  • Zeb||

    No, rape is an activity. Having been raped is a preexisting condition.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Please forgive me.
    I'm just so stupid.

  • Ricardo De||

    Yes, that is immensely clear from the idiocy of your posts.

  • Chipper Mourning Somali Roadz||

    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.

  • Sigivald||

    I don't care what sentient trees do in their private time!

  • damikesc||

    I can see it now.

    Insurance guy: Well, we cannot cover you. You've been raped.

    Woman: No I haven't.

    Insurance guy: ...yet.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Heh Heh Heh

  • Redcard||

    Say Liz, can you address something more substantive than a meme?

    Like the AHCA?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I personally enjoy reading ENB. She is able to go places that penis people might fear to tread.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    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.

    Well, what about the rest of the 57???

  • Ricardo De||

    The rest of the 57 were destroyed during the Bowling Green Massacre, which Andrew Jackson foresaw.

  • Sigivald||

    (And, seriously, Reason?

    Can no easy Bayesian spam detector clean out this pathetic and obvious spam commenting?)

  • MaleMatters||

    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

  • Michael Hihn||

    Democrats ought to watch their excessive over-reach just a little bit, lest they worsen this in 2018

    Ummm, you just reminded us how badly Democrats fucked themselves by passing stupid legislation.

    No denying the power of blind tribal loyalty. The same thing that destroyed Democrats will now destroy Republicans -- both parties of asswipes committing suicide ... thus further shrinking the minority of Americans who cling to be manipulated by either party.

    Left minus right STILL equals zero!!

  • John B. Egan||

    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.

  • janon||

    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".

  • Michael Hihn||

    Or when we had a free market which provided universal treatment, all paid voluntarily by Americans.
    As humans had done, without government, since the 1500s.

  • Michael Hihn||

    What of a woman who seeks health insurance ONLY because she was raped?
    Without the rape, she would not have CHOSEN to become pregnant until much later in life, if at all. OOOPSIE
    Sucking up to the wacko right Paulistas can be treacherous to "free minds and free markets"

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    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!

  • MarkLastname||

    Huh? Why would insurers treat women from rape different from women pregnant otherwise? What exactly do you imagine your point is?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Well, two dumbfucks have proven my point. (Mark was not the craziest for once)

    If she is denied insurance because she's pregnant, then she is denied because she was raped. Because -- one more time for the mentally retarded -- she we would not have otherwise needed the insurance. Thus, she did not intentionally "wait until she was sick" to seek the insurance, the LEGITIMATE justification to deny coverage on pre-existing conditions.

    liberTARDIANS!

    Wipe the egg from your face yet?

    What exactly do you imagine your point is?

    Howzat?

    Sucking up to the wacko right Paulistas can be treacherous to "free minds and free markets"

    As proven last November 8th.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Called out as a retard, he ... sinks even lower!! (sneer)

  • Brian||

    The retard knows NO BOUNDS!!!!111!!!!
  • Michael Hihn||

    The retard knows NO BOUNDS!!!!111!!!!

    Most cowards commit aggression like that, when they've totally lost on the facts and issues. They MUST show loyalty to their tribe. It's the authoritarian mind I addressed by opening the thread.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Once more (the third time) for the PROUD incomprehensible bitch

    "If she is denied insurance because she's pregnant, then she is denied because she was raped. Because -- one more time for the mentally retarded -- she would not have otherwise needed the insurance. Thus, she did not intentionally "wait until she was sick" to seek the insurance, the LEGITIMATE justification to deny coverage on pre-existing conditions."

    I can't dumb it down any further. Find a 12-yeard-old to read and explain the article.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide.

  • OregonB||

    You need to get some help, man.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (laughing)

  • The Elite Elite||

    "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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So? If your house is on fire, does it matter if it was caused by something the homeowner did or by an arson? Dumbfuck doesn;t know what arson is.

    Hinny poo.

    Dumbfuck is also childish.

    Back when we had a free market, the delivery would have been provided at no cost.
    That was never true for burning houses.

    You're one of the dumbfucks who confuses treatment with coverage ... just like the equally dumbass proggies.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "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.

  • MarkLastname||

    "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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Also, if you'd read the article, you'd know this is almost certainly something that would never happen if the AHCA gets passed

    Kissing GOP ass all his life. And a serial liar.

    You are demanding that rape victims get special treatment.

    Fuck you, liar.
    I'm the one saying the outcomes should match those of a free market. LEARN WHAT THAT WAS HERE; IMMEDIATELY ABOVE ... THREE HOURS BEFORE YOUR LATEST KISSASS.

    "Back when we had a free market, the delivery would have been provided at no cost."

    special treatment

    TWO free-market fuckups in a single sentence!

    "Thus, she did not intentionally "wait until she was sick" to seek the insurance, the LEGITIMATE justification to deny coverage on pre-existing conditions"

    When you become informed on the issues involved, you'll know what that means. Maybe.
    (But you could still kiss ass for GOP wingers)

  • The Elite Elite||

    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?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Behold the whiny, precious snowflake, AGAIN

    Anyone disagrees with you, and you immediately attack them as dumbfucks, childish, liars, etc

    It's called self-defense ... dumbfuck ... like when I kicked your ass here .... in DEFENSE of your unprovoked attack, aka aggression
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/05.....nt_6837615

    You are CHILDISH because you called me "Hinny Poo" like a 12-year-old throwing a hissy fit. And now you WHINE... precious snowflake ... and fuck a dead thread ... because I DARED to talk back? How totally pathetic.

    You actually think you're changing anyone's mind with how you communicate with everyone?

    NOT THIS WAY WITH EVERYONE, just cyber-bullies like you. The fact that you assault people you disagree with -- only a damn fool would think your infantile mind was even open to change. So spare us the bullshit. (sneer)

    (My attitude and boldface in DEFENSE OF ASSAULT by this pathetic piece of shit. FiRST he launches an unprovoked attack. THEN he attacks me because I DARED to give him backtalk. And his ilk will probably now CONTINUE stalking me for weeks, because I violated his Safe Zone, just like he "punished" me here. (vomit))

    Love and kisses,
    Hinny Poo

  • The Elite Elite||

    "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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Prove the dumbfuck a liar ... and the goober attacks ... with another opportunity to PROVE how fucking stupid he is (snicker)

    There's no such thing as a cyber-bully you dumbass.

    No challenge at all. Three dictionaries join me in ridiculing the lying sack of shit aggressor

    the electronic posting of mean-spirited messages about a person often done anonymously

    to bully online by sending or posting mean, hurtful, or intimidating messages, usually anonymously

    Cyberbullying or cyberharassment is a form of bullying or harassment using electronic forms of contact. Cyberbullying has become increasingly common, especially among teenagers?blockquote>And adults with infantile minds -- like any dumbfuck who would PROUDLY call me "hinny poo" (sneer)


    Note also that cybers-bullties are totally devoid of shame or conscience -- the clinical definition of a psychopath -- and will keep attacking, repeatedly -- even when PROVEN to be a lying sack of shit. (like what he responded to!)

    It's ONLY about attacking and shouting down anyone they disagree with.
    Like a cyber-Stalin and all authoritarian "minds."
  • Michael Hihn||

    P.S. The "Elite Elite Goober" also denies that VERBAL aggression exists, as part of the severe denial it suffers. (sigh)

    This links to the RESULTS of a search for the definition -- 59,400 listings for a phrase the "Elite Elite" claims does not exist!.

    The same guy (or gal) who giggles while calling me "Hinny Poo" and "Hihny. ... because I DARED to give back talk to a cyber-bully (defined above).

    Love and Kisses.
    Hinny Poo
    Hihny

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    'WORDS EQUALS VIOLENCE" screams SJW Mikey.

  • Palatki||

    It was incomprehensible bitching. Weren't you even listening?

  • Michael Hihn||

    It was incomprehensible bitching.

    As I noted.
    And why I kept ignoring and/or ridiculing it as such.

    Weren't you even listening?

    Can you even read?

  • swampwiz||

    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.)

  • Michael Hihn||

    This is the unholy alliance between Reason and Ron Paul, who promotes a notion originating in the Confederacy, then by the Ku Klux Klan, and joined by Alex Jones. That states are superior to SCOTUS, which means we have NO protection of Constitutional rights, The Ninth Amendment was never actually adopted. State GOVERNMENT has no restrictions on its power. And Ron can even BRAG that he sponsored a bill to forbid SCOTUS from hearing any challenges to DOMA -- making homosexuals the first group denied any constitutional protection since Emancipation freed dem darkies, and look how America was destroyed by granting equal rights to nigros! And there is NO balance of power, NO checks and balances and only TWO co-equal branches.

    We need MOAR laws authorizing actions that nobody would ever want to do.
    And -- imagine this -- some of these assholes even proclaim that the world is ROUND!

  • I bow to no party||

    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.

  • Michael Hihn||

    What people are referring to is if the ACA is repealed pre-existing conditions will revert back to pre-ACA regulations

    Not even close. NOTHING changes unless the individual states seek a waiver.

    I bow to no party

    Not intentionally, perhaps.

  • janon||

    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

  • Michael Hihn||

    More willful ignorance from a "culture warrior"

    (laughing at the bigoted fool)

    EVERY state is going to "seek a waiver" as long as it has a strong pharma lobby in it.

    TOTALLY irrelevant to anything said in the entire thread.

    And the "high risk pool" will be $10,000/mth

    TOTALLY irrelevant to anything I said in the entire thread, And to the issue.

    Hopefully you land in it, that way you can FINALLY find empathy

    So, everyone who's not a GOP kissass like you ... MUST be a culture warrior? (smirk)

    Umm, culture warriors are on the left ... not the far right. Here's the web archive of my published writing. Check the ones summarized here for taxes and healthcare.

    http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

    Then remove the egg that you splattered all over your puss.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Mind if I pick up some of those pearls wastefully cast before the good-faith Ree-publicans?

  • I bow to no party||

    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.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "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.

  • BlueStarDragon||

    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.

  • Hank Phillips||

    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.


    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.

  • AKN||

    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.

  • برامج كمبيوتر||

    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/

  • عيون||

    Great post , thanks for sharing

    http://www.theorcaeg.com/

  • grandfather||

    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.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online