HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If you have a vagina

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 12:51 PM

If you have a vagina

You have a pre-existing condition.

I don't care how much the opposition tries to spin it.

Nancy and Chuck and the DNC need to make it absolutely clear that normally healthy females will carry the burden of being female in the form of increased premiums.

Failure to convey this message should constitute Dereliction of Duty...

74 replies, 8204 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 74 replies Author Time Post
Reply If you have a vagina (Original post)
bluecollar2 Sep 21 OP
Hekate Sep 21 #1
Brainstormy Sep 21 #2
Weekend Warrior Sep 21 #3
Hekate Sep 21 #5
cwydro Sep 21 #6
Laffy Kat Sep 21 #7
pangaia Sep 21 #14
Ligyron Sep 21 #15
hamsterjill Sep 21 #32
bluecollar2 Sep 21 #37
onetexan Sep 21 #18
bluecollar2 Sep 21 #49
Joe941 Sep 21 #4
WillowTree Sep 21 #20
Joe941 Sep 21 #25
WillowTree Sep 21 #27
Warpy Sep 21 #51
Demsrule86 Sep 21 #52
WillowTree Sep 22 #57
Demsrule86 Sep 22 #64
WillowTree Sep 22 #65
7962 Sep 22 #66
classykaren Sep 22 #63
HuskyOffset Sep 22 #70
Major Nikon Sep 21 #55
classykaren Sep 22 #62
logosoco Sep 22 #69
WillowTree Sep 21 #26
PoindexterOglethorpe Sep 21 #29
WillowTree Sep 21 #30
PoindexterOglethorpe Sep 21 #31
WillowTree Sep 21 #34
PoindexterOglethorpe Sep 21 #45
druidity33 Sep 21 #50
JoeStuckInOH Sep 21 #35
Hekate Sep 21 #41
Joe941 Sep 21 #43
Matt_R Sep 23 #74
Sgent Sep 22 #59
MLAA Sep 21 #8
ehrnst Sep 21 #12
bluecollar2 Sep 21 #38
Snake Plissken Sep 21 #9
WillowTree Sep 21 #10
BigmanPigman Sep 21 #13
WillowTree Sep 21 #21
mercuryblues Sep 21 #36
Hekate Sep 21 #42
mercuryblues Sep 21 #47
Kaleva Sep 21 #54
Hekate Sep 21 #56
Kaleva Sep 22 #61
Hekate Sep 22 #71
Kaleva Sep 22 #72
Kaleva Sep 22 #73
snooper2 Sep 22 #58
Hekate Sep 21 #19
WillowTree Sep 21 #22
Lars39 Sep 21 #24
bluecollar2 Sep 21 #40
ehrnst Sep 21 #11
Hekate Sep 21 #16
ehrnst Sep 21 #33
BigmanPigman Sep 22 #60
redstatebluegirl Sep 21 #17
mercuryblues Sep 21 #46
dogman Sep 21 #23
TexasBushwhacker Sep 21 #28
JoeStuckInOH Sep 21 #39
Hekate Sep 21 #44
spanone Sep 21 #48
arthritisR_US Sep 21 #53
Honeycombe8 Sep 22 #67
rocktivity Sep 22 #68

Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 01:11 PM

1. They do make it clear. It's in the Party Platform. It's not a secret. The word is "woman" btw

We are more than a body-part, and when trying to make your point off-campus...

Look, I had a mother who taught me and my little brother the names of our body parts as she was teaching us to talk nearly 70 years ago. The thought of referring to a little boy's penis as a pee-pee made her gag. When a supposed doctor in a popular medical drama called her adult niece's vagina her va-jayjay it made me gag because it was so belittling of both women.

So I am not into body-shaming. But still. Save the shock-value (or whatever) for those who need the jolt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 01:22 PM

2. the shock value in what?

I'm mystified by your post. seems self-contradictory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brainstormy (Reply #2)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 01:24 PM

3. I think the shock value...

 

Comes by way of association. Adding Pelosi and Schumer to the post knowing they are already doing what is being stated that they better do. The op stands on its own without that divisive rhetoric.

I do like the op, overall. No need for the shot at Democrats for actions they are and have been taking. K&R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Weekend Warrior (Reply #3)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 01:29 PM

5. Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 01:31 PM

6. Thank you.


"If you have a penis" sounds wrong, but it's ok to call women by their anatomy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cwydro (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:00 PM

7. I try to take into account the spirit of the post.

I don't feel like that post was misogynistic but that's just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laffy Kat (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:33 PM

14. It's me also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pangaia (Reply #14)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:59 PM

15. and me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laffy Kat (Reply #7)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:20 PM

32. and me.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cwydro (Reply #6)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:43 PM

37. at no point in the op

Last edited Fri Sep 22, 2017, 12:33 PM - Edit history (2)

Were women called by their anatomy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:19 PM

18. agree, thread title should be "it's a preexisting condition to be a woman"

that sounds a whole lot better than refering to us women as a body part

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onetexan (Reply #18)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 06:54 PM

49. where are you referred to as

A body part?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 01:27 PM

4. Insurance companies discriminate - that is what they do...

Women pay more for health insurance - this is sexism.
Men pay more for car insurance - this is sexism.
The young pay more for car insurance - this is ageism.
Overweight people pay more for life insurance - weight discrimination.

We live in a society that discriminates in so many ways - nothing new. All these practices should be illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe941 (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:38 PM

20. Nonsense.

Women pay more for health insurance because statistically they incur more medical expenses.

Adult men do not generally pay more for auto insurance than adult women. Young men do pay more than young women because their statics are worse.

Young people pay more for auto insurance because statistically they generate considerably more claims expense than adults.

Overweight people pay higher life insurance premiums because statistically they don't live as long and, thus, pay premiums for shorter periods. Should we pay less than people who are not overweight?

These aren't examples of discrimination. They're examples of actuarial realities. Just like the premium to cover a new Tesla is more than to cover a 2011 Ford Fiesta because it would cost more to fix the Tesla and the theft rates for it would be considerably higher.

Not everything is a plot to screw people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #20)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:49 PM

25. Are you OK with women having to pay higher health care premiums?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe941 (Reply #25)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:56 PM

27. I am, actually. For the reason stated above.

We generate more health care costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #27)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 07:45 PM

51. Of course, because we all decided what sex we'd be born and what diseases we'd get

and all pregnancies are completely planned in plenty of time to pay triple premiums for family plans.

Your reasoning is an accountant's reasoning per actuarial tables. It has nothing to do with healthcare or humanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #27)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 09:28 PM

52. I call bullshit on that...I completely disagree and say this is a right wing idea and has no place

on this forum. Being a woman is not a pre-existing condition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #52)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 12:12 AM

57. I didn't say that being a woman is a pre-existing condition.

And it's apparent that you don't know what constitutes a pre-existing condition. Hint: It's not just paying a higher premium.

Nothing says that you have to agree with everything that everyone else says in this or any other forum. I happen to think that it's OK to charge me for something in proportion to how much of it I use. You apparently think otherwise, as is your right. Not crazy about the "right wing" slam, but apparently it makes you feel better so.......so be it.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #57)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 09:53 AM

64. Saying that women should pay higher premiums because they cost more because they are

women smacks of Republicanism and is discriminatory. I do not believe in forcing people to pay higher premiums for any pre-existing condition...especially one that comes at birth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #64)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 10:44 AM

65. One last time.......

......"being a woman" or "having a vagina" or any of the other ways people are trying to put it does not now nor has it ever met the insurance definition of a pre-existing condition.......has never been treated as a pre-existing condition. The term is being thrown around as if people think they know what it means and more often than not they don't. And doing that doesn't just adds confusion to the subject.

But, as is usually the case, people are going to believe what they want to, so I'm finished. Have a good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #65)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 11:16 AM

66. Bless you for trying. Tough room!

But everything you say makes sense.
Its just that a lot of people need to see a plot behind every bush

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #27)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 06:40 AM

63. Really? More than 150,000 for a heart bypass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe941 (Reply #25)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 01:53 PM

70. This answer should be no, and I'll tell you why

Because everyone needs health insurance, because we all need healthcare. You only need car insurance if you own & drive a car, you only need life insurance if you have dependents (and can afford to buy life insurance).

If we went to a single payer system the calculation wouldn't be how much your healthcare costs are going to be, but rather how able are you to pay (a tax based on your income.) As for the people who whine about paying for other people's healthcare: welcome to society, pal. We're all in this together. It's in society's interests as a whole if all it's members are healthy, educated, and productive members of the society, so we ask that those who have more to give more, for the good of the society as a whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #20)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 09:51 PM

55. All of those are examples of discrimination regardless of the reason

If you are blind, you can't get a drivers license. This is a form of discrimination, but is socially acceptable for obvious reasons. All of the things you cited are forms of discrimination. Whether or not they are socially acceptable is for society to decide. History is full of examples of forms of discrimination that were at one time socially acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #20)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 06:33 AM

62. Really? Then why do women pay more than men when men have the most heart attacks and the most

expensive heart surgery

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #20)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 12:27 PM

69. While I do agree with what you are saying here...

we do have to acknowledge that behind most pregnancies, there is a man involved.(I say "most" because I am not really sure if I can include artificial insemination with a donor). They may have the easier part physically, but they can contribute their share in the health care expenses that happen during pregnancy and childbirth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe941 (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:51 PM

26. Likewise.......

I had a friend whose fiancé bought her a car and had it titled in both their names. She was all POed because they couldn't find an insurance company that would cover the car at regular rates and she was sure it was some moral judgementalism because they weren't married. In reality, of course, the insurance companies didn't give a flip about the morality of their marital status. The reason is because, while a married couple can't be sued separately, two unmarried people can, which leaves the potential for double liability. I was kind of surprised that that hadn't occurred to her fiancé, who was a well-established attorney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #26)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:09 PM

29. At what point did the insurance company tell them

about this? I'd have never guessed that bit about the unmarried people being sued individually.

I'm guessing that in that case, they'd have been better off titling the car in only one name until they got married.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #29)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:12 PM

30. That's a standard industry rule.

They're not real keen about issuing a policy with a $100,000 liability limit and potentially having to pay out $200,000. Just makes sense. I'm the one who had to remind her fiancé about the dual liability issue. And they did take one of the names off the title as far as I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #30)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:16 PM

31. Thank you for this information. I absolutely had no idea.

Maybe they could have gotten a policy for $50,000, with both names on it. Oh, well, they did resolve the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #31)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:25 PM

34. No reason why it necessarily should occur to someone not directly affected.

But what you suggest wouldn't have solved the problem. They'd be paying the premium for a $50,000 limit but would still have the potential of a double payout or $100,000 if they were sued individually. But yeah, they managed to deal with it.

It just kind of bothers me when people automatically jump to the conclusion that they're being unfairly discriminated against without learning or caring about what's really behind things. In general, not just about insurance or health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #34)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 05:23 PM

45. That's very true.

I see examples in the non insurance world a lot. People who don't bother to actually find out what the requirements to get a degree from a college, for instance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #34)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 06:55 PM

50. your last bit there...

"It just kind of bothers me when people automatically jump to the conclusion that they're being unfairly discriminated against without learning or caring about what's really behind things."

really resonates with me as a Union steward. It's amazing how many logical, sane people somehow feel as if they've been Wronged and it's Personal, when it's really just business and Capitalism grinding away... regularly within Contract guidelines (Grievances notwithstanding).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe941 (Reply #4)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:37 PM

35. Is it sexism, though? People may have certain risk factors but costs of the factors is quantifiable

 

I'm a guy.

If actuaries scientifically and objectively determine that men are riskier drivers to insure... then men are disproportionality increasing the risk factor in a pool of insured people. That's not sexism. That's statistics/economics. Personally, I think it's fair that I pay more if there exists statistically significant probability I will cost the insurance pool proportionally more than most others. I don't think it's fair to ask the female contingent of that pool to subsidize the male contingent. I understand this and my feelings are not hurt by it. In fact, a situation/system where others are unduly burdened by me would upset me more than the current standard of just paying my fair share based on the statistics of the matter at hand.

Likewise, nor do I want to pay more to subsidize others' disproportionate risk/cost when it comes to age (driving), sex (health insurance), or weight (health insurance).

An alternate example: Taxes ...
This is EXACTLY how taxes work (or how they're supposed to work). If you make more money, you have a higher tax liability both numerically and by percentage tax bracket. Yet no one's out there screaming "Wealth Discrimination". That would be absurd. I don't want to equally foot the collective tax bill in a group of people where wealthier persons have disproportionate amount of capital.

For some reason, as soon as chromosomes get involved people seem to overcomplicate things and overlook critical thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeStuckInOH (Reply #35)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 05:02 PM

41. It only makes sense if you think health care is a commodity like a car or refrigerator...

...and not a basic human right like, for instance, food and water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeStuckInOH (Reply #35)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 05:09 PM

43. Would it be ok to pay women less than men because...

statistically women are more likely to leave to have a baby and then be gone for a month or possibly not return at all. This is an associated cost women employees have than men do not have. This practice is illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe941 (Reply #43)

Sat Sep 23, 2017, 06:56 PM

74. If we walk down the metaphor road

Will you contemplate the fact that being a Part Time Employee only counts for half a Full Time Employee when it goes to job experience. Do you think its fair when there are no full time jobs available?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joe941 (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 01:04 AM

59. Men pay more for health insurance

once you hit 50 or so. Women also pay less for life insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:06 PM

8. I appreciate the jolt from this post.

It makes us think about the fact that more than 50 percent of the population has a pre-exiting condition purely based on their gender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MLAA (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:28 PM

12. It's good for a jolt - however there are some issues with the

accusations concerning who is "derelict of duty" on the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MLAA (Reply #8)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:46 PM

38. thank you

The point of the wording was to give a jolt to the discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:07 PM

9. I don't have a vagina

But I would never vote for anyone who supporters punishing people simply because they have a vagina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:08 PM

10. How do you figure that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #10)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:30 PM

13. Because women have more parts than men do.

Therefore more parts are available to contract diseases and a million other illnesses . It's math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:40 PM

21. That does not describe a pre-existing condition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:42 PM

36. women's sex

organs are internal and men's are external. Men get testicular cancer, ED, and STD's. Men also get prostrate cancer, which is an organ that women don't have. So I am not buying what you are selling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #36)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 05:07 PM

42. Strangely enough, when I buy insurance my money goes into the pool that pays for men's...

...needs without question. Viagra? You men get it for free. The Pill? Hey lady, that's out of your salary, and what's more, if your employer has religious objections, we'll tattle on you.

See how that works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #42)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 05:54 PM

47. yup

the women tax.

I am sick of hearing only women can get pregnant, so why should I have to pay for maternity care? You would think they were hatched from an egg in a backyard coop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #42)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 09:42 PM

54. Many women want their husbands or boyfriends to get viagra if needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #54)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 11:56 PM

56. So? I suppose "many men" want their wives and girlfriends to not get pregnant...

...from their man's guaranteed orgasm as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #56)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 04:02 AM

61. In your other post, you sounded like it was just men who wanted Viagra.

Which isn't true. There are many women who are thrilled that part of your insurance premium goes to providing Viagra for their husband or boyfriend because of the benefit they receive from it. I get the sense that you don't think it's important for a woman to be sexually satisfied by their SO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #61)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 02:37 PM

71. There's nothing quite like a deliberate misreading of my posts on the subject

Psst: Many's the woman who climaxes during foreplay. But I'm sure you knew that, and other things, as well.

The topic of the thread was not sex, but gender discrimination in corporation-driven health care. Nice try at deflection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #71)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 04:17 PM

72. Read the post I first responded to

It was you that stated that "you men" get viagra for free. Ignoring the fact that untreated ED is a major source of stress in a relationship and that women too also benefit from viagra by having a more satisfying sex life with a commited partner who is suffering from ED but is being treated forit. Gay couples, where one or both suffer from ED, also benefit from Viagra. So you really can't use viagra as an example of gender discrimination. Maybe be more specific and state that you are only talking about heterosexual men and women when using viagra and birth control as examples of gender discrimination in our health care system.

Psst: Many's the women who enjoy coitus but you probably knew that amongst other things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #71)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 05:56 PM

73. BTW: I think birth control should be covered under all insurance plans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #13)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 12:35 AM

58. Roflmao

Thanks 😅😆

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #10)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:21 PM

19. Women get pregnant and give birth, and absolutely everything connected with that is eliminated...

...from GOP plans.

Contraception. Abortion (which has never been covered anyway). Fertility treatments (not just the massively expensive ones). Tubal ligation.

Prenatal visits. Childbirth. Postnatal visits. Well-baby visits.

Routine mammograms. Pap tests and other routine cancer screenings.

I don't think I've even covered everything, but that's all right because GOP plans cover nothing and women have to pay for all of this out of pocket.

We are over half the population, but our needs are regarded as an anomaly and not the norm. Being male is the norm.

We handle the health care decisions not just for ourselves but for our children -- so raise "women's needs" to being those of 3/4 or more of the population. But men's needs are the norm.

Viagra and Cialis are covered -- female contraception is not. But I hope you get the point by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #19)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:40 PM

22. That does not describe a pre-existing condition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #22)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:46 PM

24. When you as a female have to buy separate insurance in case you get pregnant.

That is categorizing female as having a pre-existing condition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #19)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:49 PM

40. well said

Women are discriminated against in health issues by virtue of their sex...it needs to be put front and center

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 02:27 PM

11. Duty:



1. The DNC is an administrative body, that can put out press releases, and send emails to those who are on their list about "vaginas being a pre-existing condition."

A quick look at the website indeed shows messaging concerning the truth within GOP bill on September 14 - no mention of "vaginas being a pre-existing condition," but they are indeed pointing out the consequenses:

https://www.democrats.org/Post/graham-cassidy-heller-johnson-would-have-devastating-impacts-on-americ

Women:

Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson would strip funding from Planned Parenthood.

NBC News: “The Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson bill is, in many ways, as sweeping as past Obamacare replacement legislation. Like the Better Care Reconciliation Act, which failed despite backing from Republican leaders, it would reduce and then end additional Medicaid funding that states receive through Obamacare and eliminate requirements that individuals buy insurance and that employers provide it. The bill would block federal funding to Planned Parenthood, which is reimbursed by Medicaid for non-abortion services.”

By allowing states to change the ACA’s essential health benefits, insurers could no longer be required to cover maternity care.

Vox: “States could allow for waivers that let insurers charge sick patients higher premiums and stop covering certain benefits required under the Affordable Care Act, like maternity care or prescription drugs. The health insurance marketplaces would no longer exist as they are envisioned to continue under other Republican proposals.”

Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson would prohibit the use of federal funds and health savings accounts on insurance that covers abortion.

Health Affairs: “It would prohibit premium tax credit or small business tax credit payments for health plans that cover abortions other than those that threaten the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest after 2017, impose strict penalties on health plans that violate current abortion restrictions, and prohibit 1332 waivers that would limit HHS enforcement authority.”

Health Affairs: “HSAs would not be allowed for high-deductible plans that cover abortions.”


Perhaps you aren't on their mailing list, or don't visit their website. But yes, they are indeed spreading the word. I say this as a long time activist for reproductive healthcare justice, both as a professional and a volunteer, and I don't expect that the DNC is the first place to go - primarily because there are other more efficient and effective sources of action campaigns than an administrative body. NARAL Pro Choice America, and Planned Parenthood have a much larger reach and partner with legislators to get the word out on the effects that legislation will have on health care specific to women.


There are also journalists who are much more effective at research pieces:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/09/20/the_gop_s_latest_obamacare_repeal_proposal_finds_new_ways_to_be_disastrous.html

http://time.com/4949573/graham-cassidy-obamacare-repeal-womens-health/

2. Chuck and Nancy are legislators, and not full time communications directors, but are hardly "derelict in duty" on this:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is telling colleagues that she wants "all hands on deck" to defeat the latest Republican effort to undo the Affordable Care Act.

Pelosi calls the bill a moral monstrosity. The Senate bill relies on sending block grants to the states to provide health coverage.

Pelosi says members are encouraged to participate in what she called a tweet storm against "Trumpcare" Tuesday afternoon from noon to 2 p.m.

She is also urging members in "this emergency request" to schedule town hall meetings and press conferences to speak out against the legislation. Senate Republicans must pass the measure by Sept. 30 to avoid a Democratic filibuster.

Pelosi says House Democrats will fully mobilize to lift up the voices of families who would be devastated by the legislation
.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/latest-mcconnell-praises-effort-repeal-obamacare-49950966


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Monday publicly underscored the harm that the legislation would pose to states represented by on-the-fence Republicans, including Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

“This is a red siren moment for the entire country,” Schumer declared.


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/18/obamacare-repeal-senate-democrats-242860

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:07 PM

16. Good info.I just wonder how many Dems' town halls are going to be disrupted by the likes of those...

...who went after Nancy Pelosi and claimed they were DACA and DACA-supporters, only this time claiming they are ACA and women's health supporters? I'm getting pretty jaundiced about attacks on Dems, is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #16)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:24 PM

33. I know what you mean.

When the "wrong" Democratic leaders accomplish something towards a progressive goal, then it's suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 01:13 AM

60. Alaskan Senator Murkowski actually said on TV that you SHOULD call her!

She wants people to tell her how they feel and she went as far as to say she wants out of state people to call her too. She is a big advocate for Planned Parenthood and wants that covered. If you do call anyone, call her and mention Planned Parenthood too. (202)224-312 1 THANKS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:14 PM

17. If that isn't the truth.

When I had a back issue, the insurance company kept saying it was stress (you know how we are). It wasn't it was a damaged spine. It took months for them to let me get a fusion which totally changed my life from 2 canes, to walking unassisted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redstatebluegirl (Reply #17)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 05:47 PM

46. My Mother

had an angioplasty done. Then she moved out of state and had to find a new DR. She tried telling him that she was having the same symptoms as she had before her procedure. He told her that the procedure cured her problems and now it is all in her head. She came home with a RX for Prozac. I kid you not. The next week she had a heart attack and almost died.

When I had my 2nd heart attack I had to make up symptoms for the male ER Dr to take me seriously. He implied I was having a panic attack. I told him I never in my life had a panic attack and asked if one would wake you up from a sound sleep at 4am? then I said very loudly to "give me a fucking nitro pill, if I'm not having a god damned heart attack it won't hurt me" I was pissed and let my heart Dr know exactly what happened. He was pissed and told me he would take care of it.

Despite all that, it was not as bad as how a male dr treated a close friend of mine for a consult for open heart surgery. She had at least 7 stents and was still having problems. She was sent for a 2nd opinion. The DR asked her if she was sure she had stents because you know sometimes Dr's tell you they did one thing and really did another. This despite having her medical chart in front of him.

So I question why women's health care cost are higher. Scenario #1 If the Dr had taken my Mom seriously to begin with, she could have had a simple out patient procedure. Instead she ended up having an emergency heart cath, with stents put in and a 2 day stay.

For me, if the DR had taken me seriously from the get-go, I would have had my stents put in ASAP and been home that night. Instead I had them put in later in the day, with an overnight stay.

For my friend insurance paid for a specialist that told her she pretty much was lying and gave her a back to work slip. Lucky for her, her main Dr sent her to another specialist who actually looked at her history before seeing her and was appalled by the other Dr's prognosis. She had open heart surgery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 03:44 PM

23. Conveying the message is the problem.

This whole GOP care has been promoted by free media, just like they gave T-Rump during the campaign. Sure the bring a Democrat on once in awhile, but my perception is almost GOP guests constantly. Maybe because I find lying annoying I just feel like there has been an excess of it. Generally it is on mute while I go online. Most do not have that convenience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:02 PM

28. You know what else is a pre-existing condition?

Being an organ donor.

Obviously being an organ recipient has a pre-existing condition because of their underlying disease and having to take anti-rejection drugs.

But I was really shocked to find that health insurance companies will charge higher premiums to organ donors. That's just wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasBushwhacker (Reply #28)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 04:47 PM

39. Why? Out of curiousity would an Organ Donor pay higher premiums?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeStuckInOH (Reply #39)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 05:15 PM

44. You should probably ask the almighty Blue Cross/Blue Shield about their actuarial tables...

My guess would be that the donor just had unnecessary (to them) and quite risky (to them) elective surgery that could have lifelong health consequences. The insurance companies frown on that sort of thing.

The media likes to pretend that living-donor surgery is routine and risk free these days, but that is not exactly true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 05:56 PM

48. Birth is a pre-existing condition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Thu Sep 21, 2017, 09:32 PM

53. I couldn't agree with you more! TY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 11:45 AM

67. ??? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluecollar2 (Original post)

Fri Sep 22, 2017, 12:14 PM

68. And now for an oldie but goodie

from the 2012 DU "Neil Munro Interrupts Famous Speeches" Thread



https://www.democraticunderground.com/1002815391


rocktivity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread