With the other thread apparently nixxed for being a tad fast and loose with the specifics on Rape as a preexisting condition, here is where it currently stands.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-counts-pre-existing-condition-ahca-trump-obamacare-2017-5
Denying coverage for abuse, sexual assault or outright rape was common before the ACA, a practice which is now banned by law in several states, but as you can see the provisions include several ways by which Insurances could go in order to facilitate this practice, by a round about way.
With the new bill beeing pushed by the Gop, in theory only states that have a high risk pool may exempt themselves from the preexisting condition clause.
But
1) the pool is severly underfundded at $138b for 10 years, a nearly by a 3 to 1 ratio
http://www.businessinsider.com/ahca-high-risk-pools-healthcare-vote-obamacare-2017-5
2) high risk pools are nothing new. They existed before the ACA, and were doing next to nothing to help patients with serious conditions whose premiums were skyrocketing way beyond any reason.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/03/news/economy/high-risk-pools-obamacare-pre-existing/
3) it is also to note that under the new AHCA, being past 45, but particularly 60, would see huge increases in premiums.
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2017/older-adults-pay-more-with-age-tax-fd.html
And that's on top of the AHCA obviously considering being a Woman a preexisting condition, with its listing of Pregnancy (which they extended to both parents to be less obvious), but also "menstrual irregularities".
Now Rape isn't actually listed as a PEC, but with the lists above, and what has happened in the time before the ACA, I' m not sure it's a stretch to fear it's coming back, although the act reads that nothing in it shall allow to discriminaye based on gender.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/05/new-healthcare-bill-ahca-sexual-assault.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-counts-pre-existing-condition-ahca-trump-obamacare-2017-5
The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 27% of Americans under 65 have health conditions that could leave them without access to insurance. Some of the preexisting conditions that insurers declined coverage because of before the ACA, according to the foundation, include diabetes and heart disease, which affects millions of Americans.
These preexisting conditions include:
AIDS/HIV, lupus, alcohol abuse/drug abuse with recent treatment, severe mental disorders such as bipolar disorder or an eating disorder, Alzheimer's/dementia, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia and other inflammatory joint disease, muscular dystrophy, cancer, severe obesity, cerebral palsy, organ transplant, congestive heart failure, paraplegia, coronary artery/heart disease, bypass surgery, paralysis, Crohn's disease/ulcerative colitis, Parkinson's disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/emphysema, pending surgery or hospitalization, diabetes mellitus, pneumocystis pneumonia, epilepsy, pregnancy or expectant parent, hemophilia, sleep apnea, hepatitis C, stroke, kidney disease, renal failure, transsexualism.
Other conditions that could make it harder to purchase a health insurance plan, according to KFF:
Acne, allergies, anxiety, asthma, basal cell skin cancer (a type of skin cancer that doesn't tend to spread), depression, ear infections, fractures, high cholesterol, hypertension, incontinence, joint injuries, kidney stones, menstrual irregularities, migraine headaches, being overweight, restless leg syndrome, tonsillitis, urinary tract infections, varicose veins, and vertigo.
Denying coverage for abuse, sexual assault or outright rape was common before the ACA, a practice which is now banned by law in several states, but as you can see the provisions include several ways by which Insurances could go in order to facilitate this practice, by a round about way.
With the new bill beeing pushed by the Gop, in theory only states that have a high risk pool may exempt themselves from the preexisting condition clause.
But
1) the pool is severly underfundded at $138b for 10 years, a nearly by a 3 to 1 ratio
http://www.businessinsider.com/ahca-high-risk-pools-healthcare-vote-obamacare-2017-5
"Even under pretty conservative estimates, a minimally adequate high-risk pool could cost $25 billion per year nationwide," Levitt tweeted Wednesday.
Even an estimated from conservative analysts James C. Capretta and Tom Miller said that in order to operate functional high-risk pools in all 50 states, the federal government would need to provide $15 billion to $20 billion annually, leaving the AHCA short even with the proposed money from Upton's amendment.
A separate analysis from Emily Gee and Topher Spiro at the liberal Center for American Progress found that high-risk pools would need $327 billion over 10 years, leaving the AHCA well short under the current plan.
2) high risk pools are nothing new. They existed before the ACA, and were doing next to nothing to help patients with serious conditions whose premiums were skyrocketing way beyond any reason.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/03/news/economy/high-risk-pools-obamacare-pre-existing/
High-risk pools have long been a favorite tool of Republicans, but they have a very checkered past. They were typically severely underfunded, charged participants high premiums, excluded coverage of pre-existing conditions initially and had waiting lists for enrollment.
Some 35 states ran high-risk pools prior to Obamacare. In 2011, they covered 226,000, who racked up $2.6 billion in claims. But premiums covered only about half that amount, forcing states to kick in $1.2 billion to make up the difference, usually through assessments on insurers. However, these levies were usually offset by tax credits, so the funding effectively came from the state revenues.
And the pools only covered a small fraction of those who were potentially eligible, the Kaiser Family Foundation found. The strict rules and high costs dampened enrollment by those who were sick and needed coverage.
"Prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, 35 states operated high-risk pools, and they were not a panacea for Americans with pre-existing medical conditions," said Andrew W. Gurman, president of the American Medical Association. "The history of high-risk pools demonstrates that Americans with pre-existing conditions will be stuck in second-class health care coverage -- if they are able to obtain coverage at all."
3) it is also to note that under the new AHCA, being past 45, but particularly 60, would see huge increases in premiums.
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2017/older-adults-pay-more-with-age-tax-fd.html
Premiums for older people could jump to five times the amount insurers charge younger consumers, from the limit of three times the younger consumers rate under the current law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Such a change would significantly increase financial burdens on millions of older adults, but the shift in costs would do little to get more young consumers to enroll. Key points to consider include:
Significantly increasing premiums for older adults would only marginally lower costs for younger adults. The Joint Economic Committee paper incorrectly claims that weakening the limit on age rating to a 5-to-1 ratio would not penalize any age group. The burden of such a policy change would actually fall heavily on older adults, according to Milliman research commissioned by AARP. Under the AHCA:
Average premiums would increase for all ages starting at about age 46.
Premiums for 60- to 64-year-olds would increase by an average of $3,200, amounting to average unsubsidized premiums of almost $18,000 per year. Meanwhile, 20- to 29-year-olds are expected to see significantly smaller average savings, of only $700 per year, giving them average unsubsidized premiums of $4,010 per year.
And that's on top of the AHCA obviously considering being a Woman a preexisting condition, with its listing of Pregnancy (which they extended to both parents to be less obvious), but also "menstrual irregularities".
Now Rape isn't actually listed as a PEC, but with the lists above, and what has happened in the time before the ACA, I' m not sure it's a stretch to fear it's coming back, although the act reads that nothing in it shall allow to discriminaye based on gender.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/05/new-healthcare-bill-ahca-sexual-assault.html
The new MacArthur-Meadows Amendment allows states to apply for a waiver allowing insurance companies to raise premiums based on medical history. That would mean reverting to pre-Obamacare definitions of preexisting conditions, which are any medical condition that a patient has before signing up for insurance. However, all but six states have laws on the books forbidding the practice of discriminating against preexisting conditions related to sexual assault.
In addition to PTSD stemming from sexual assault and domestic violence, other conditions like postpartum depression and having gotten a cesarean section could also be considered preexisting conditions.