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.  

   Log in to Reply

   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.

      Log in to Reply

      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?  

         Log in to Reply

      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.

         Log in to Reply

      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.

         Log in to Reply

   2. whether ArapaGOP has any capacity for original thought . . .  

      Log in to Reply
      1. Log in to Reply

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.  

   Log in to Reply

   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.

      Log in to Reply

3. And every major health insurer in the US treats it as such.

   Log in to Reply

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.

   Log in to Reply

   1. leads to a Payday loan page…was gibt?

      Log in to Reply
      1. Log in to Reply
         1. Log in to Reply

5. I was not disappointed.

   Log in to Reply

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.

   Log in to Reply