The new Republican health care bill classes rape, PTSD, and domestic abuse as excludable pre-existing conditions


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/05/04/personal-responsibility.html


#2

So 1/4 to 1/3 of all women, and about 1/6 of all men, are automatically excluded from health insurance now?

MAGA, indeed.


#3


#4

He is!

Just, you know, in the “You want I should take care of that guy for you?” sense.


#5

MacArthur-Meadows Amendment => MMA. Coincidence? With these fucking alpha neanderthal wannabes? I think not.


#6

People are going to die, lives/livelihoods will be ruined all in the name of insurance profits.


#7

Post-Reagan America: one step forward, 10 steps back.


#8

Maybe even more like 2/3 of women, when you consider cesaraen and postpartum on top of the other “conditions”.

I imagine that fewer people will be willing to disclose past or present trauma to doctors out of fear of losing their insurance, or that it will gag doctors who suspect their patients may be suffering abuse.

This is a massive step backwards.


#9

Very much so. Just to be clear, the bill doesn’t explicitly class these things as pre-existing conditions, just returns things to the way they were before the ACA. Because things were so great back then…

Also, this bill allows states to waive the pre-existing protections, so there’s some solace that even if it passes, sane states will retain them.


#10

What is the point of paying for health insurance anymore if they aren’t going to cover you? Health insurance, for fuck sake all insurance should be simple. If something happens that affects my health then I should be covered. I’ll grant you that premiums may be adjusted according to how healthy you are but the point shouldn’t be to squeeze money out of people it should be a safety net to catch net if you should fall sick, if your in an accident etc. If you start poking holes in the safety net then it ceases to be beneficial and is just a waste of money.


#11

To Republican law makers, this is a feature, not a bug.


#12

No, let’s not grant that because this is really the problem. For the most part private insurance companies aren’t flat-out refusing to sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, they’re just charging exorbitant rates for doing so and thus putting insurance out of reach in practice if not in theory.


#13

My apologies in advance, but I just couldn’t help myself.


#14

Pre-ACA, I remember reading about a woman who was retroactively denied health insurance because she once had had a yeast infection. It wasn’t even relevant to anything, it was just an excuse to say, “Oh, you failed to disclose a previous health issue, so we’re rescinding your insurance and won’t pay for the treatment of your recent, unrelated, health issues.”


#15


#16

also…


#17

Or, seen from the viewpoint of GOP owners, er I mean donors, it is an efficient way of vacuuming money from the pockets of the millions of Americans while enriching themselves. So much winning!


#18

Except “state’s rights” is almost always coded language giving retrograde states the authority to enact their narrow-minded Christian agendas without interference from “big gubmint”. This is no consolation at all.


#19

Well, except under Trump, that would be grounds for deportation


#20

Do you get health care in prison in America? If you do then there may be more women driven to kill their abusive partners rather than trying to leave - especially if they are injured and the cost of treatment would bankrupt the family.