This is perhaps one of the more disturbing accounts of the abuse that the Health Care companies do to their paying clients. In what civilised world can women be treated in such a way that, not only do they suffer abuse, but are then stricken from their healthcare fund due to someone abusing them and calling it nothing more then a pre-existingcondition.

Its scenarios like this that should make everyone stop and realize there is a better way.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Top House Democrats on Tuesday slammed insurers who claim that domestic violence is a pre-existing condition that can be used to deny coverage to battered women.

They pledged to incorporate a ban on the practice in the health care reform legislation winding its way through Congress.

Forty-two states have passed such a prohibition, according to a recent report from the National Women’s Law Center. Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming and the District of Columbia have not, however.

“Think of this,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. “You’ve survived domestic violence, and now you are discriminated [against] in the insurance market because you have a pre-existing medical condition. Well, that will all be gone.”

The ban would be part of a broader prohibition against the use of pre-existing conditions to deny care, a component of all the reform bills now under consideration.

Washington Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat, told CNN that she heard about the issue several years ago while talking to women who trying to escape abusive relationships.

One of the women “told me that she did not report her domestic violence because her health insurance company would drop her. I [initially] didn’t believe” the woman, Murray said.

Murray introduced an amendment banning the practice in 2006 but was unable to get the measure approved.

One Republican opposed to the amendment, North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, argued that it’s “deplorable to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence. However, states should be responsible for regulating insurance markets.”

On Tuesday, a spokesman for an association representing health insurance companies backed the proposed change.

“No one should be denied coverage because they are a victim of domestic abuse,” said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans.

It is unclear how many women are now being denied coverage because they are stuck in an abusive relationship. Women’s Law Center Vice President Judy Waxman conceded that there are no current examples.

“We do not know the extent to which this practice actually happens,” she said. “But our point is, it’s the kind of thing insurance companies look to do. … They will find ways in the current situation to deny people care if they find anything wrong with them.”

Some reform advocates say the proposed federal action, though a positive step, does not go far enough.

“We have to go further and take affirmative steps to reach out to battered women who may have been denied coverage to let them know the landscape has changed and there may be insurance options available to them,” said Shelley Senterfitt, a representative of the Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

“We need to fix the damage that’s been done,” she said.

Source: CNN

Bookmark It

Related posts:

1. Health Care Passes The House #hcr
2. Must Read Blogs And Op-Ed’s — September 13, 2009
3. Clinton Promises Womens Rights Focus as Sec of State

More Breaking News:

6/30/09 — 4PM  Norm Coleman concedes to Al Frankin.

Breaking News:

It is being reported on MSNBC that Norm Coleman will hold a press conference at 4:00 PM followed by Al Frankin at 5:15 PM.  Could Coleman finally concede?

— AC

ST. PAUL, Minn. – The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that Democrat Al Franken be certified as the winner of the state’s long-running Senate race.

The high court rejected a legal challenge from Republican Norm Coleman, whose options for regaining the Senate seat are dwindling.

Justices said Franken is entitled to the election certificate he needs to assume office. With Franken and the usual backing of two independents, Democrats will have a big enough majority to overcome Republican filibusters.

Coleman hasn’t ruled out seeking federal court intervention.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said the earliest Franken would be seated is next week because the Senate is out of session for the July 4th holiday.

Coleman’s appeal hinged largely on whether thousands of absentee votes had been unfairly rejected by local election officials around the state.

The unanimous court wrote that “because the legislature establishedabsentee voting as an optional method of voting, voters choosing to use that method are required to comply with the statutory provisions.”

They went on to say that “because strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting is, and always has been required, there is no basis on which voters could have reasonably believed that anything less than strict compliance would suffice.”

Courtesy of the Associated Press

Bookmark It

Related posts:

1. Scott Brown (R-MA) Wins US Senate Seat
2. Obama Wins Dixville Notch, NH
3. Senate to vote Thursday on rest of bailout

I have been pondering a lot lately.   I am starting to wonder whether or not the filibuster is really effective in our current political climate.   Regardless, of what side of the political fence you are on, I believe that we agree that the founding principles of the United States and our Constitution is the continued basis of what “we” (that is all inclusive of Democrats, Republicans, and other political parties) stand for and wish to preserve.   However, recently this tool has been used to prevent the majority will of the people to be enacted.  

Jean Edward Smith wrote an incredible blog (linked below) this week in the NY Times.   I agree with the basis of the material wholeheartedly!   If the Supreme Court of the United States came to the conclusion that democratic government as majority rules based on the principle of one person one vote is the be fully implimented, then we need to remove the filibuster from the Senate rules.   

Many are fearful of such actions, because if the Democrats removed the filibuster rule, then they might eventually “hurt” their own idealisms, if/when the Republicans again take control of the Senate.  Yet, shouldn’t we allow the people to speak regardless of what the affiliation is?  If we are truly a country ruled by one vote/one person, shouldn’t the choice of the people be respected?  The time for the people to take this country back has arrived — we invite you to defend your vote!

– Angelina C

A Campaign. An Idea. A New Political Paradigm.  – The Nation

America’s New Base In Asia — RealClearPolitics

Filibusters:  The Senate’s Self Inflicted Wound — Jean Edward Smith

Stress-Testing the Banks — NY TIMES

A Better Bobby Jindal — Kathleen Parker

Bailout II:  Obama’s Hardest Sell — Ruth Marcus

Bookmark It

Related posts:

1. Must Read Blogs and Op-Eds — March 17, 2009
2. Must Read Blogs and Op-Ed’s — March 29, 2009
3. Must Read Blogs and Op-Ed’s — March 2, 2010

Delay in Holder Confirmation Illogical and Unreasonable, Whitehouse Says

January 23, 2009

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a former U.S. Attorney and Attorney General for Rhode Island, today sharply criticized the argument some Republican members of the Committee are making for delaying a vote on the nomination of Attorney General-Designate Eric Holder:

“Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have asked Eric Holder to make a commitment, before he is even confirmed, that he will not prosecute any Bush Administration officials for their involvement in acts of torture during the last administration.

“Anyone familiar with the criminal justice system – especially those with experience as prosecutors or judges – should know that a prosecutor should make no determination about who to prosecute before he or she has all the facts, and particularly not in response to legislative pressure.

“After all we have recently been through at the Department of Justice, I would hope and expect that upon calm reflection, no one on our Committee would expect the Attorney General of the United States to make prosecutive decisions based on legislative pressure.”

Source:  Senate Press Release

–

I have three letters for this:  WTF

– AC

Bookmark It

Related posts:

1. Senior Bush official says Gitmo detainee was tortured
2. Eric Holder Becomes America’s First Black Attorney General
3. Treasury Secretary Scandal Hits Obama Administration

Here is the transcript of Hillary Clinton’s confirmation hearing in front of the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13text-clinton.html?sq=Hillary%20Clinton&st=cse&scp=4&pagewanted=print

Bookmark It

Related posts:

1. Hillary Clinton is Sworn In Secretary of State
2. CNN: New secretary of state inherits unpredictable world
3. Clinton Promises Womens Rights Focus as Sec of State