State of Things

Ganymede

wut?

Ganymede

Double-posting because of lunacy.

Until today, I did not realize that a woman could be denied health coverage because she had been sexually assaulted in the past.

I saw this headline after the GOP passed the American Health Care Act, which repeals key parts of the PPACA. I didn't believe it, so I did research.

And it's true, folks.

Excuse me a second.

SG

@Rook I don't want to generalize, but my office did go for drinks at lunch today.

Rook

Fuck I miss Canada.

Meg

Every time I think of dangerous careers, I think of my uncle who worked on a farm. He fell into a grain silo and drowned as his kid watched. Silos, man.

surreality

@Ganymede Bonus horror to consider:

Any condition you don't report can potentially screw you over with insurance companies, or that was the old standard -- even ones you don't know you have or don't know are relevant somehow, just in case there's some tangential link you may be wholly unaware of. (Edit: As in, you'd need to disclose this to EVERY medical professional you deal with. Podiatrist, dentist... )
Is this only for sexual assaults reported to the police? (Think of the percentages... )
Would not reporting sexual assault to the police then constitute an attempt to defraud the insurance company?

Go on. Try an' keep that beer down, I got the bucket handy.

Ganymede

@surreality said in State of Things:

Any condition you don't report can potentially screw you over with insurance companies, or that was the old standard -- even ones you don't know you have or don't know are relevant somehow, just in case there's some tangential link you may be wholly unaware of.

This is still the standard. Fraud or negligent misrepresentation can render a policy void.

Is this only for sexual assaults reported to the police? (Think of the percentages... )

No. Sexual assault is sexual assault.

Would not reporting sexual assault to the police then constitute an attempt to defraud the insurance company?

No, if you report the sexual assault to the insurance company.

I think the horrible thing to consider is 1 in 5 women in the U.S.A. has reported sexual assault at some point in their life. So that means that 20% of women, regardless of circumstance, may not be covered. Consider that estimates of actual sexual assault are around 1 in 3. That means 33%.

Consider also that a woman may be denied for domestic violence too: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/21/michelle-obama/michelle-obama-claims-domestic-violence-counts-pre/ So, you have to increase the number for victims of domestic violence that were not the victims of sexual violence.

Over 1/3 of women may end up being uninsurable if their coverage lapses. This will keep women close to their abusers, for fear of being uninsured forever.

Think about that.

surreality

@Ganymede Shit like this keeps up, they'll just decide none of us qualify for coverage, after what this will do to our livers.

Ganymede

@surreality

Good news! Domestic violence and sexual assault aren't alone! Senator Brown reports that the following are also considered pre-existing conditions:

Anorexia
Anxiety
Bipolar Disorder
Breast Cancer
Bulimia
Cervical Cancer
Depression
Eating Disorders
Hysterectomy
Mental Health Issues
Obesity
Panic Disorders
Restless Leg Syndrome
Seasonal Affective Disorder
Skin Cancer

(Amusingly not on Brown's list -- SMOKING.)

Basically, the only way that you get coverage without a pre-existing condition denial or rate bump is hitting the Goldilocks standard.

Excuse me.

surreality

@Ganymede Welp. That covers the rest of the class, pretty sure, somewhere or other in there.

Cheers. <clinks glass>

Ganymede

@surreality said in State of Things:

Welp. That covers the rest of the class, pretty sure, somewhere or other in there.

Other pre-existing conditions:

FUCKING BEING ALIVE. BECAUSE IT LEADS TO DEATH.

surreality

@Ganymede 100% chance of death, too.

kitteh

@Rook said in State of Things:

I have come to this one conclusion about racism (from this one angle) from knowing a lot of police. Police officers of both sexes, of at least six races, and all of the ones that I'm thinking of are very against the habitual criminals. I don't call them racist, because these same individuals respect upstanding citizens, they segment them differently than they do the criminal element, the ones that they've booked and jailed time and time again. That is something that compounds the problem is personal experience with some of the perpetrators of the crimes that they are investigating and/or called to. Each one of these racially diverse cops uses the 'N' word, and what might surprise you is that it isn't just against the black segment of their 'clientele'. The word (at least amongst that very small segment that I know) is applied to anyone who is (heavily simplified) hell-bent on a life of crime because they don't want to pursue any other life.

I have a friend who is a cop in a relatively poor part of a large city. He's about my age and still at the point in his career where he's regularly on the street. His job is not easy and is often dangerous, and additionally he faces a lot of targeted harassment for being a member of law enforcement (including things like vandalism at his home etc). This has, not surprisingly, increased in the last several years with the prevalence of #blacklivesmatter and related policing practice debate in local government.

All of that said, he is, or has become, not surprisingly... very opinionated on these issues and the people behind them, in ways that sometimes make me uncomfortable. Like you say, I would in no way think of him as inherently racist (his wife is hispanic, and I've been invited to local cookouts and things that are pretty diverse affairs), but some of the ways he refers to the people on the 'other side' is pretty dehumanizing. I've never heard the 'N-word for anyone' thing, but to say he thinks of and refers to these people as less than human would not be a stretch.

It's not an easy thing to deconstruct, because I feel both sympathy for his position while also fearing what his attitude promotes.

ArmedCarp

@kitteh My opinion, racism is kind of a joke these days. Has been for years. Sure it still exists, but wolf has been cried so many times, that there's a certain numbness to it now.

Arkandel

@ArmedCarp said in State of Things:

@kitteh My opinion, racism is kind of a joke these days. Has been for years. Sure it still exists, but wolf has been cried so many times, that there's a certain numbness to it now.

I dare you to read youtube comment sections on any kind of popular link. Holy shit the unfiltered, raw racism there.

Now if we only define racism as actions rather than words written on the internet, I'd say it depends on geography.

Rook

Eh, I dunno. I think that the "racism" that you refer to is coming from a very, very miniscule segment of hateful people (which isn't a society issue, it is a personal issue, the types I'm thinking of). I mean, come on, I think people love stirring the shit in an anonymous format. The old adage is true, that the keyboard makes people invulnerable. These people, I am willing to bet, are not at all like that "in real life" and around a real crowd of people.

surreality

@Rook The big problem with the type you're describing -- people basically just trying to rile others in ways they know they'll rile them regardless of whether they actually believe other races/sexes/etc. are inferior -- is that their vocal behavior gives tacit support to the people who have quietly believed those things, but recognize that society generally does not agree with their view or find it the ideal to embrace.

It's basically cheerleading and empowerment for the actual hatemongering shitheads, and that it's hollow trolling doesn't really matter to the actual hatemongering shitheads.

Packrat

Racism does not have to mean somebody shouting the N word, all of those keyboard warriors can still manifest prejudice without saying anything and almost certainly do if they are eager to spill bile online.

Think how differently the same person is treated if they are say, dressed like a homeless person or dressed in a smart suit, that makes a genuine difference to quality of life and access to services or employment. Race has a similar impact when dealing with racists regardless of it they are open about it.

Rook

@surreality
Oh hey now. I didn't say that I thought it was right or correct or should be allowed! I am 100% agreement with you. It pisses me off that you cannot have a positive impact in these types of situations. Personally, I have an addon in my browsers that removes all comments from any YouTube page, and it is precisely because of bigotry and racism that it is one of the first things in a new Chrome install.

The problem I have with today's issues is that social media and media attention on them is not helping the issue/conversation in any way. It is exacerbating the problem. Thus, it is not contributing in a positive way. I personally am much more impacted by movies of the plight of others than I am rants on Facebook, as an example. I react so much more logically, am loads more likely to shift my perspective, when presented with a calm, fact-based presentation about whatever it is you want me to care about. I know, I'm weird.

surreality

@Rook I don't disagree.

What ultimately frustrates me about it is that what are generally a bunch of childish shits trying to stir the pot end up stirring up real negative consequences.

And those consequences are almost never, ever for them. Which is intensely frustrating.