U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 31, 2012 11:04 PM UTC

Perlmutter politicizes Aurora shootings to push Obamacare

  • 16 Comments
  • by: ArapaGOP

Kelly Maher at Revealing Politics:

Colorado Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter Monday night cited the July 20 mass killing in an Aurora, Colo. movie theater as one justification for passing President Obama’s Affordable Care Act in 2010.

The health care overhaul law, deemed “Obamacare,” by conservatives will “stop the discrimination against people with prior illnesses or injuries – or, say, some of the folks who were shot in the theater,” Perlmutter said during the meeting, conducted via Facebook and over a teleconference.

“They would be uninsurable now that they’ve had that wound, but under the Affordable Care Act they can’t be discriminated against starting in 2014.”

I didn’t know that a gunshot wound left one uninsurable. In fact, I’m not sure that’s even true. But is this the way to sell your precious health care reform? Capitalizing on tragedy?

I await your excuses, liberals.

Tweet
Share

Comments

16 thoughts on “Perlmutter politicizes Aurora shootings to push Obamacare”

  1. Not really.  And not because its you, and you fail to impress, here, there, time and again.  

    Mostly because there are four complete sentences and one fragment of original thought.   And two of those are uninformed speculation, a fact you blissfully cop to.

    Thus the entirely of your diary, apparently all the original thought you were capable of, minus the rank speculation and off-handed admission of how terribly uninformed you are (not to stop you though!) we get:

    But is this the way to sell your precious health care reform? Capitalizing on tragedy?

    I await your excuses, liberals.

    So, may I ask how you think a ‘pre-existing condition’ was defined (for the purposes of exclusion) prior to the ACA?  

    I await your well-reasoned, sourced, and accurate argument, troll.  If you make it a real diary (with sources and cites and actual decently-written original thought) I might even promote it.  Because I can.  

    1. I’ll keep writing them.

      There are a wide variety of pre existing conditions. Some are a barrier to insurability, others not. I seriously doubt that many of the more minor injuries, and even a lot of the major ones, will not render the victim uninsurable.

      Insurance is risk management. If you take away the ability to manage risk, insurance companies can’t function. Obamacare’s goals do not factor this, and will break the market for health care.

      None of which has A THING to do with the tragedy in Aurora. Perlmutter should be ashamed.

      1. and exclude the ‘pre-existing’ condition.  

        I seriously doubt that many of the more minor injuries, and even a lot of the major ones, will not render the victim uninsurable.

        Rather than ‘seriously doubt’ why don’t you do some research.  See that machine in front of you as you read this.  Its called a ‘computer.’  It allows you to look things up and actually present yourself as (at least more) informed rather than a mindless party-bot.  BCBS denied coverage of my one pre-existing condition which was even more minor than the ‘more minor injuries’ of bullets.  

        Here’s a fine quote from one of your clan:

        Under Oni**erCare are gunshot wounds a pre-existing condition?

           Why should my tax dollars got to pay for victims of some nutcase with a gun?

           There should be insurance agents in ambulances signing persons up for coverage before they reach the hospital.

           Think about it, just pay the fine until you are shot then purchase insurance.

        http://downloadpolitics.com/sh…

        The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center defines a pre-existing condition as a “medical condition that occurred before a program of health benefits went into effect.

        ”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…

        Conditions can be broken down into two further categories, according to Lisa Smith of Investopedia:

           Most insurance companies use one of two definitions to identify such conditions. Under the “objective standard” definition, a pre-existing condition is any condition for which the patient has already received medical advice or treatment prior to enrollment in a new medical insurance plan. Under the broader, “prudent person” definition, a pre-existing condition is anything for which symptoms were present and a prudent person would have sought treatment.[5]

        Which definition may be used is sometimes regulated by state laws. Some states require insurance companies to use the objective standard, while others require the prudent person standard. Currently, 10 states do not specify either definition, 21 require the “prudent person” standard, and 18 require the “objective” standard, according to http://www.statehealthfacts.org.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…

        So post something, anything, that demonstrates that Rep. Perlmutter is incorrect in his assessment?  Or are you saying that a congressman needs to lie and cover things up?  

      2. I’m basically repeating CT here, but it bears it. “Serious Doubt” isn’t the same as “actual knowledge.”

        You ought to be ashamed, but I’m positive you’re far too cynical to feel it.

      3. assuming that Perlmutter is correct, then his non-hysterical, truthful use of the facts proves this isn’t “politicization.” An example of that would be your pal Scott Gessler trying to make wholesale changes to voting rules based on a statistically insignificant number of improperly registered voters.

  2. Unlike Congressman Coffman, Ed Perlmutter actually knows the people he represents. He actually goes out door-to-door and talks to them every single week. He has done supermarket visits for years. In contrast, Mike Coffman only sees people who give big donations to his campaign, or people whose photo will help him with his favorite demographic groups (Vets, for example — incidentally, I support Vets and am glad at least one group actually gets face-time with their Congressman).

    For Ed Perlmutter to mention how his constituents will benefit from the Affordable Care Act, and approximately 70 of them happen to be victims of the horrible shooting tragedy, he is showing his continuing concern and compassion for them. Mike Coffman should take a break from schmoozing with oil billionaires and shaking down corporate lobbyists for donations, to learn from Ed about being a real servant of the people.

    And ArapaGOP — when Coffman actually does a real Town Hall with real people in real life, who haven’t been pre-screened and pre-selected based on their voting history, please let me know. I’d be thrilled to get the word out for him.  

    1. Ed Perlmutter is one of the most caring, approachable, sincere, respectful, down-to-earth legislators I have ever met. The video you posted is just one more way to show what a stand-up guy he really is — thanks for posting it, ArapaGOP.

  4. I am glad about this act. I just can’t accept the fact that we still have to wait for this kind of incident to make such lays. In addition to this, the Federal Trade Commission is warning individuals to be cautious about giving to Aurora shooting victims relief organizations because some will likely be scams. I read this here.

  6. A mentally ill dude walks into a movie theater and starts shooting, and you morons on the right start saying that we “must respect the victims” and “this is not the time to talk about guns.”  

    I understand you say that now simply because you don’t want to discuss your policies when the consequences of those policies (defunding mental health programs, allowing anyone to own a fully automatic weapon if bought at a gun show), are on full display.  Good politics does an asshole make.

    Why is it not the time to talk about this, but as soon as 9/11 happened, a GOP controlled government went nuts and started giving away out freedoms (cf. the Patriot Act)?

    This diary is, if you’ll pardon the term, ignorant, hypocritical, douchebaggery.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

96 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!