XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.rape   
   XPost: alt.politics.media   
   From: weberm@polaris.net   
      
   Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 15:33:56 -0400   
   X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.12N (x86 32bit)   
      
   A CNN editor scolded liberals this week for spreading a conspiracy   
   alleging the new Republican health care bill would make rape and   
   other sexual assaults a pre-existing condition.   
      
   Interestingly enough, CNN itself is largely responsible for making   
   the bogus claim go mainstream.   
      
   At around the time Congress passed the American Health Care Act, the   
   GOP's response to the Democratic Party's Affordable Care Act, its   
   critics alleged the Republican bill would make it more difficult for   
   victims of sexual assault to get health insurance.   
      
   "Not so," CNN's Chris Cillizza wrote this week in an article titled,   
   "Donald Trump is turning liberals into conspiracy theorists."   
      
   It's unclear whether he meant to criticize his employer, because CNN   
   definitely published a news report on May 4 titled, "Rape and   
   domestic violence could be pre-existing conditions."   
      
   Oh.   
      
   "[The Affordable Care Act] ensured that tests for HIV and sexually   
   transmitted diseases, plus domestic and interpersonal violence   
   screening and counseling, would be completely covered by insurance   
   companies," wrote CNN's Jen Christensen.   
      
   "That may not be the case in the future. Under the current bill,   
   states could seek waivers that would let insurers sell plans that   
   don't include all the essential health benefits mandated by the   
   ACA," she added.   
      
   This scaremongering has no basis in fact, according to Reason's   
   Elizabeth Brown and the Washington Post's Michelle Ye Hee Lee, the   
   latter of which awarded the conspiracy theory an unflattering four   
   Pinocchios.   
      
   Brown wrote, "Nothing in the new Republican health care bill   
   specifically addresses sexual assault or domestic violence   
   whatsoever. What it does say is that states can apply for waivers   
   that will allow insurance companies, under certain limited   
   circumstances, to charge higher premiums to people based on their   
   personal medical histories—that's it. (States that are granted the   
   waivers must also set up special high-risk insurance pools to try   
   and help defray costs for these people.)"   
      
   "Under Obamacare, no such price variances based on preexisting   
   conditions are permitted," she added.   
      
   Lee, who Cillizza leaned on heavily in his own article debunking the   
   rape claim, explained that, "The notion that AHCA classifies rape or   
   sexual assault as a preexisting condition, or that survivors would   
   be denied coverage, is false. … this claim relies on so many factors   
   — including unknown decisions by a handful of states and insurance   
   companies — that this talking point becomes almost meaningless."   
      
   As for the scolding the press and other political activists deserve   
   for spreading this particularly vicious rumor, we'll let Brown, who   
   was first to unpack the controversy, have the last word.   
      
   "If Democrats and progressives would just stick to actual details of   
   the AHCA, they would still have plenty of material to make   
   Republicans look bad (and the same goes for traffic-thirsty   
   bloggers)," she wrote.   
      
   Brown concluded, "But once again, that's not enough for them. In   
   their zeal to portray Donald Trump and the current GOP as worse than   
   Nazis, the actual details of the bill don't matter—and if that   
   terrifies a ton of sexual-assault survivors and terrorizes American   
   women in the process, so be it."   
      
   --   
   Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd   
   have to audit liberals  & wire tap reporters' phones.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)