The rape as a pre-existing condition rumor

[KingsGambit]

The claim has been going around that the House's Obamacare repeal defines rape as a preexisting condition, generally without any citation.

One local news station fact checked it and couldn't find any evidence of this: http://www.khou.com/mb/news/local/ve...bill/436915827

Has anybody seen anything from a more reliable site than a local news station? I'm considering the claim to be false until anybody can demonstrate it (I seriously doubt anybody would actually put a clause in the bill that specifically targets rape victims, though I do understand that insurance companies have in the past charged higher premiums to rape victims).

[Psychic Missile]

From what I could find, the issue is that insurance companies would be able to consider pre-existing conditions when someone applies for new coverage if there is a coverage gap. It is not the practice of insurance companies to assess the cause of conditions, just that they exist, so it would be theoretically possible for a rape victim with HIV or PTSD to be denied coverage or given a higher premium.

[rogue06]

The rumor appears to have originated in an article by Sarah Spellings in New York Magazine but has since been pulled and completely buried by the magazine (all links get redirected to another story although it can still be seen via Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=us).

As Reason.com said of this baseless claim: "None of this is true. Like, not even a little bit."

Just another fake news story that the MSM ran with without bothering to do even a cursory look solely because it paints Republicans and Trump as ogres.

[Cow Poke]

From what I could find, the issue is that insurance companies would be able to consider pre-existing conditions when someone applies for new coverage if there is a coverage gap.

So, let's say somebody had coverage, then decided they couldn't afford their premiums AND their new iPhone 7, cable TV, and comforts of home, so they dropped the coverage. Subsequently, they get seriously ill, and apply for coverage. Should the insurance company be forced to cover the preexisting condition? (Not arguing, just seeing where you stand on this)

[Psychic Missile]

So, let's say somebody had coverage, then decided they couldn't afford their premiums AND their new iPhone 7, cable TV, and comforts of home, so they dropped the coverage. Subsequently, they get seriously ill, and apply for coverage. Should the insurance company be forced to cover the preexisting condition? (Not arguing, just seeing where you stand on this)

Yes. I would prefer a universal coverage system and if that were to happen then my answer would be "no".

[Sparko]

So, let's say somebody had coverage, then decided they couldn't afford their premiums AND their new iPhone 7, cable TV, and comforts of home, so they dropped the coverage. Subsequently, they get seriously ill, and apply for coverage. Should the insurance company be forced to cover the preexisting condition? (Not arguing, just seeing where you stand on this)

I would say yes. If I lost my job I couldn't afford high risk insurance, even if I moved into a shack and used a tin can phone to get on the internet. the medications I have to take would cost about $50K per year without insurance. and from what I read, they could either just deny me insurance altogether, or I could have to pay up to $25K per year on premiums. Same with your wife since she had cancer.

[Darth Executor]

I would say yes. If I lost my job I couldn't afford high risk insurance, even if I moved into a shack and used a tin can phone to get on the internet. the medications I have to take would cost about $50K per year without insurance. and from what I read, they could either just deny me insurance altogether, or I could have to pay up to $25K per year on premiums. Same with your wife since she had cancer.

If you want a private company to basically cover your substantial medical expenses (you can't even call it insurance at that point) why not just support socialized medicine instead?

[Sparko]

If you want a private company to basically cover your substantial medical expenses (you can't even call it insurance at that point) why not just support socialized medicine instead?

because the government would run it and screw it up like they do everything else.

what they should do is stop the drug companies from charging outrageous rates by limiting the time they have exclusive patents on them. or give them upper limits.

[Teallaura]

So, let's say somebody had coverage, then decided they couldn't afford their premiums AND their new iPhone 7, cable TV, and comforts of home, so they dropped the coverage. Subsequently, they get seriously ill, and apply for coverage. Should the insurance company be forced to cover the preexisting condition? (Not arguing, just seeing where you stand on this)

Insurance? Yes. Warranty? No.

Insurance isn't supposed to cover every contingency - it's supposed to protect against devastating loss. If divided accordingly, it's a manageable risk for insurance and premiums are saner.

A health warranty would cover doctor office visits, prescriptions, et al not related to an insurance claim (once the expensive dx comes in, insurance takes over the entire financial burden).

Most people expect the warranty and don't realize what it does to premiums. But healthy people really don't need the warranty unless they are M'caid eligible.

What I don't agree with is allowing insurers to deny warranties indefinitely. Six months, tops. But you don't get a brand name option unless it's still under patent or your doctor certifies that the generic isn't working for you but the brand does.

Also, open enrollment and requiring year round coverage must go. It's a product - either you sell it or you don't.

[Teallaura]

because the government would run it and screw it up like they do everything else.

what they should do is stop the drug companies from charging outrageous rates by limiting the time they have exclusive patents on them. or give them upper limits.

17 years is fair - but the clock shouldn't start running until it's ready for human trials and they should have a 'reset' for drugs that have to go back to an earlier phase.

Once in human trial, clock begins to tick.


As far as the pricing is concerned, companies should be required to provide their products in the US at the lowest provided price to any other Western Industrialized nation (excluding those in extended disasters). That would bring prices down - the US shouldn't have to foot the entire research bill. And yes, it would mean Canada would pay more - companies would no longer be willing to supply at knock off prices.

[Darth Executor]

because the government would run it and screw it up like they do everything else.

With your proposal there would be no more insurance companies at all.

what they should do is stop the drug companies from charging outrageous rates by limiting the time they have exclusive patents on them. or give them upper limits.

This is a two edged sword. Medical research in and of itself is not very profitable. The outrageous rates are what keeps it going. If you kill the profits you will simply either have to have the government cover that research or grind it to a halt. Either way I just don't see how your plan can work in the long term without putting the government in charge of something, whether it's health care or medical research.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a series of Manhattan Project type initiatives on important and expensive issues (like a faster than light engine or cancer research) but with liberals destroying human capital over the last few decades I'm not sure how far they would get.

[Sparko]

With your proposal there would be no more insurance companies at all.



This is a two edged sword. Medical research in and of itself is not very profitable. The outrageous rates are what keeps it going. If you kill the profits you will simply either have to have the government cover that research or grind it to a halt. Either way I just don't see how your plan can work in the long term without putting the government in charge of something, whether it's health care or medical research.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a series of Manhattan Project type initiatives on important and expensive issues (like a faster than light engine or cancer research) but with liberals destroying human capital over the last few decades I'm not sure how far they would get.

I definitely don't have all the answers. I know I just don't trust the government to fix it, and I already know the free market is not working in the medical industry. Instead of prices being drawn down, they have skyrocketed.

[Catholicity]

The two things obamacare did right: not charging a higher premium due to a preexisting condition, allowing dependent children to stay on their parents insurance. At this point the repeal/replace is a disaster and I'm Really hoping the senate makes enough changes not to have a better bill. At this point everyone is absolutely screwed over unless you make over a million dollars a year. I know this will po people but health care is a right its a basic human need to be healthy. but the way trumps posse's designed it, you can't get it unless you make millions. Congratulations Trump voters. I hope you are happy.

[Cow Poke]

The two things obamacare did right: not charging a higher premium due to a preexisting condition, allowing dependent children to stay on their parents insurance. At this point the repeal/replace is a disaster and I'm Really hoping the senate makes enough changes not to have a better bill. At this point everyone is absolutely screwed over unless you make over a million dollars a year. I know this will po people but health care is a right its a basic human need to be healthy. but the way trumps posse's designed it, you can't get it unless you make millions. Congratulations Trump voters. I hope you are happy.

I voted for Trump simply to stop Hillary and to guaranty (as much as possible) a conservative SCOTUS. With that, I'm happy.

[demi-conservative]

Obamacare bound to crash, not least 'cos of stupid stuff like 'not charging a higher premium due to a preexisting condition'.

Ryancare might crash for all we know too, but at least we get triggered libs out of it!!!