Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In case you missed it, Senator Burr voted against insurance for victims of domestic abuse

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ccharles000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 02:57 AM
Original message
In case you missed it, Senator Burr voted against insurance for victims of domestic abuse
In DC and eight states, health insurance companies can deny coverage to victims of domestic violence because they have a "pre-existing condition."

While that statement alone is gasp-worthy, the story gets even more appalling: this issue had a chance to be ended - once and for all - in the Senate HELP Committee in 2006. At that time, an amendment was introduced to the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act of 2006 that would have forced insurance companies to stop ignoring state laws that provided protection for victims of domestic violence, specifically when it came to denying them insurance coverage.

Ten Republican Senators voted against it, including Senators Alexander, Burr, Ensign, Enzi, Frist, Gregg, Hatch, Isakson, Roberts and Sessions. Sen. Enzi put forth a particularly compassionate argument in support of his vote when he told CQ Today: "If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state."

While the very thought of domestic violence victims being denied health coverage in our own backyard is unbearable, the fact that ten Senators voted against stopping this practice is too much. Over the weekend, hundreds of people took action, telling Congress that we need health insurance reform now.

http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/rep-senators-voted-against-...

God I hate this man and can't wait to vote him out in 2010.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Please do, cc!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Undercurrent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 04:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. Disgusting!
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 04:09 AM by Undercurrent
Flat out, puke-inducing disgusting.

I can, at least, take some minor solace that the amendment was introduced by one of my Senators -- Patty Murray, WA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. Insure them under the same standard sordid politicians & CEO's get
Politicians & CEO's, executives etc. who are tarnished as corrupt, on the take, morally bankrupt are the ones who should be targeted with "pre-existing conditions"! Yet they're usually re-elected or selected to corporate boards or hired as advisors. And their positions are usually at taxpayer expense literally or legislatively!

How about if all the victims of domestic violence just hold a monthly group press conference, stand at the mike in tears, and invoke the forgiveness of Jesus? Then will they qualify for coverage like any sordid politician or bloated CEO???

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hileeopnyn8d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. I don't understand Enzi's statement
Is he saying only uninsured people are domestic violence victims?

Okay, I found more about the context of the quote:

At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people. "If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state," he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th, 2006.



I don't buy that, if the price of insurance were to increase because of such a regulation, GREED is the reason.

I really can't wrap my head around their way of thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC