I was just reading huffpost, and the front page there is about how Obama called Kanye west a Jackass.. I guess that story produces lots of bytes and hits, but, there is a story buried somewhere below, that could send chills among many of us here.
It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.
Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.
I was born in a loving family. My father lived with my mother all her life, until she passed away in 2004, I have never seen him putting a hand on her. Other than occasional argument about money, etc... I never seen my parents fight.
However, it was never the same with my childhood friend. Every time he knocked on my door, during the night, I knew that his dad came home drunk, and he is probably beating his mom. In the morning, his mother would try to hide it, cover it up, and never say a word. It was almost like she felt it was her fault to have been beaten up.
But, for some women in Africa, there was no choice. They could not support themselves, and so, they had to absorb all the beatings. Their husbands often came home drunk, often finished all the money in the bar. They asked for food, the wife says, there was no food because there was no money, and they guy starts beating her up.
I have lots of sisters. 6 to be exact. I was born among girls. I always felt, if my sister gets married, and a guy beats her up, I swear to God I will go there and kill him. Of course I never did such a thing. It was what I felt when I was a kid.
But, I always felt that men who beat women are usually cowards who can't pick on those who have the same strengths as them.
In human terms, it's a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.
In 2006, Democrats tried to end the practice. An amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), now a member of leadership, split the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee 10-10. The tie meant that the measure failed.
All ten no votes were Republicans, including Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), a member of the "Gang of Six" on the Finance Committee who are hashing out a bipartisan bill. A spokesman for Enzi didn't immediately return a call from Huffington Post.
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.
So, when Republicans say that they are now ready to reach a bipartisan deal on health care reforms, why hasn't anybody asked them why they opposed this amendment? Even more so, why hasn't the Obama administration noted this in the current health care debate?
I am really amazed that there are "people" still defending this kind of behavior.