In Trump’s America, Rape Is a Preexisting Condition[W:57]

Mr Person said:

The headline? The crux of your argument is that you read a headline and made some assumptions that turned out to be wrong?

A headline is it?



Honestly....

Most people would just admit they messed up.






:lamo :moon: :2wave: :moon: :lamo

Click to expand...

I'd say you apparently didn't read the first paragraph, even though I quoted it and made it extra-large for you, but then you wouldn't have known to edit it out of the quote so it would look more like I was citing only the headline.

This is juvenile, childish stupidity, which is par for your course.

Harshaw said:

I'd say you apparently didn't read the first paragraph, even though I quoted it and made it extra-large for you, but then you wouldn't have known to edit it out of the quote so it would look more like I was citing only the headline.This is juvenile, childish stupidity, which is par for your course.

Click to expand...

Grown-up personal attacks aside, your posts are getting more and more dishonest. This was your original text:

Harshaw said:

:lamo "Digging"? You say this in a thread called "In Trump's America, Rape Is A Pre-Existing Condition," which is the headline of the story in the OP, which begins, as quoted in the OP: You're not exactly crowning yourself in glory here.

Click to expand...

This is how I quoted it:

Harshaw said:

"Digging"? You say this in a thread called "In Trump's America, Rape Is A Pre-Existing Condition," which is the headline of the story in the OP, which begins, as quoted in the OP: You're not exactly crowning yourself in glory here.

Click to expand...

Every single word you typed was the same.





Are you complaining that I didn't include the entire conversation? Are you trying to troll me into an infractable spam violation? Anyone who cares can read the thread and see that your entire criticism has been a lie. These articles make clear in their text - not their headline, which you focused on - that when a headline says 'rape is a pre-existing condition', it's shorthand for stuff like this:

Mr Person said:

Google search: rape pre-existing condition

First result:

Rape and domestic violence could be pre-existing conditions - CNN.com

From the opening paragraphs:

She is relatively healthy, but before Obamacare, she had a hard time getting insurance because of what some companies considered a pre-existing condition: She is a domestic violence survivorBefore Obamacare, some insurance companies used to consider medical treatment related to domestic violence and rape a pre-existing condition that would preclude survivors from getting insurance.

Second result.

"Before Obamacare, rape survivors who sought treatment for physical and mental injuries could be denied health care later on,"

Sexual Assault Could Make Your Insurance More Expensive

Click to expand...

And of course, your own link:

Mr Person said:

Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of anti-AIDS medicine. Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable.Turner had let the men buy her drinks at a bar in Fort Lauderdale. The next thing she knew, she said, she was lying on a roadside with cuts and bruises that indicated she had been raped. She never developed an HIV infection. But months later, when she lost her health insurance and sought new coverage, she ran into a problem. Turner, 45, who used to be a health insurance underwriter herself, said the insurance companies examined her health records. Even after she explained the assault, the insurers would not sell her a policy because the HIV medication raised too many health questions. They told her they might reconsider in three or more years if she could prove that she was still AIDS-free. . .

. . . Turner's story about HIV drugs is not unusual, said Cindy Holtzman, an insurance agent and expert in medical billing at Medical Refund Service, Inc. of Marietta, Ga. Insurers generally categorize HIV-positive people as having a pre-existing condition and deny them coverage. Holtzman said that health insurance companies also consistently decline coverage for anyone who has taken anti-HIV drugs, even if they test negative for the virus. "It's basically an automatic no," she said.


Some women have contacted the Investigative Fund to say they were deemed ineligible for health insurance because they had a pre-existing condition as a result of a rape, such as post traumatic stress disorder or a sexually transmitted disease.

Click to expand...

Rape Is a Pre-Existing Condition? The Heartlessness of the Health Insurance Industry Exposed | Alternet


You derailed the thread by lying about what the articles say, which again, is that insurance companies were citing treatments provided following rape, domestic violence, etc, as indicative of a "pre-existing condition" that would likely cost more money, and denying insurance.

:shrug:

And if someone reads past the headline and first sentence of that link in the OP, one sees:

Correction: This story originally stated that rape is considered a pre-existing condition in the AHCA. It has been updated to reflect that conditions stemming from sexual assault and domestic violence, such as PTSD and certain STDs, could be considered preexisting conditions, not sexual assault itself.

If you weren't so quick to attack a perceived political enemy and done a tiny bit of research, you'd see that pretty much every other article says the same damn thing, regardless of what its headline says.










So much for the "abject lie" claim, Harshaw. Again, I bid you...

:moon: :moon: :2wave: :moon: :moon:

Mr Person said:

Grown-up personal attacks aside, your posts are getting more and more dishonest. This was your original text:



This is how I quoted it:



Every single word you typed was the same. I didn't omit anything you said.

Click to expand...

In which I quoted you more than just the headline. :roll: I quoted from the body of the article. But you say I only referred to the headline.

Are you complaining that I didn't include the entire conversation? Are you trying to troll me into an infractable spam violation? Anyone who cares can read the thread and see that your entire criticism has been a lie. These articles make clear in their text - not their headline, which you focused on - that when a headline says 'rape is a pre-existing condition', it's shorthand for stuff like this:

Click to expand...

Those articles were not in this thread before you Googled them. My posts have been about the article in the OP, which is the subject of this thread, not the articles you Googled.

And of course, your own link:

Click to expand...

So what? That link is not the article which is the subject of the thread or the OP.

You seem to have successfully derailed your thread

Click to expand...

It's not my thread. Is your illiteracy really that acute?

by lying about what the articles say

Click to expand...

I didn't lie about what any article said. Please quote me as doing any such thing.

which again, is that insurance companies were citing treatments provided following rape, domestic violence, etc, as indicative of a "pre-existing condition" that would likely cost more money, and denying insurance.

Click to expand...

Good God.

Article in OP, as quoted in the OP:

An amendment in the GOP health-care-reform bill will allow states to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, including sexual assault.

The new MacArthur-Meadows Amendment will allow states to discriminate based on medical history, reportedly without addressing the subsequent high cost of health care for millions of Americans.

In addition to rape, postpartum depression, Cesarean sections, and surviving domestic violence are all considered preexisting conditions.

Click to expand...

NOTE: The actual article at the link has been changed SINCE it was quoted in the OP. When I responded, it read as quoted in the OP.

WHICH MEANS that the publisher recognized that the article, as it was written, was false, and required changes.

What has NOT been changed is the article cited by article in OP, upon which it relied for its own assertions:

According to Raw Story, the bill's recently added MacArthur Meadows Amendment would ditch the ACA's protections for pre-existing conditions — sexual assault being one of them.

Click to expand...

Nor has the Raw Story article relied upon there:

Prior to the passage of Obamacare, survivors of sexual assault who sought medical attention for injuries sustained during the assault could be denied coverage later on because rape was considered a pre-existing condition.

Click to expand...

Only THEN are we linked to the Alternet story, which STILL has the headline:

Rape Is a Pre-Existing Condition? The Heartlessness of the Health Insurance Industry Exposed

Click to expand...

So yeah, I was TOTALLY lying, and no article actually said rape itself is a pre-existing condition. :roll:

Learn to think.

Mr Person said:

And if someone reads past the headline and first sentence of that link in the OP, one sees:

Correction: This story originally stated that rape is considered a pre-existing condition in the AHCA. It has been updated to reflect that conditions stemming from sexual assault and domestic violence, such as PTSD and certain STDs, could be considered preexisting conditions, not sexual assault itself.

Click to expand...

Which not only wasn't there at the time I posted my reply, as I said above, it proves that it DID say RAPE is considered a pre-existing condition, and it proves to you that they got it wrong.

So, no; I didn't lie about anything. YOU were wrong. And ridiculously childish.

But thank you for posting proof yourself.

Nilly said:

So is being pregnant!

And people don't think sexism is alive and well...

Click to expand...

I personally think being a women, homosexual or transexual should be a preexisting condition.

I understand that countries are different and that you in USA can have your reason for being against universal health care. Still it’s totally crazy that victims of crimes can be denied heath care. That even if you are cold hearted you may think of your own wallet. That victims of horrific crimes may need health care and other support to recover and if they don’t get it they can be force to live on wealthfare instead of contributing to society.

It’s also crazy that people having dangerous and spreadable disease like AIDS can be denied health care coverage. Because even if you only care about yourself you would want people with spreadable diseases to get health care so the risk of you getting infected will be reduced.