Don’t Tell the Doctor
It has recently come to our attention that domestic violence can be considered a pre-existing condition by health insurance providers in North Dakota, and can therefore be grounds for denial of coverage.
According to the nationwide study, North Dakota is one of nine states in the U.S. to use such an unscrupulous practice. In essence, if you have a history of domestic abuse, insurance companies in this state can deny you coverage because you are an unacceptable risk to their profit margins. Not only are you bruised and bewildered, but now you’re also stuck with the hospital bills.
Apparently the moral of this story is to lie to your doctors when your better half is beating you. Should you find yourself in such a situation, we strongly encourage you to tell the police, counselor, or any professional that can help, and most importantly you should leave that person. But whatever you do, don’t tell the doctor.
This serves as yet another example of the dysfunctionality of a broken system. Here are some other “pre-existing conditions” from around the country:
-cancer
-pregnancy
-expectant fatherhood
-heart disease
-sickle cell anemia
-acne
-arthritis
-diabetes
-depression
-obesity
-fibromyalgia
-ADD
In a 2006 survey conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and other organizations, it was found that one in 10 Americans with cancer could not get health coverage, and six percent said they lost their coverage as a result of having cancer.
To be fair to insurance providers, these practices do make good business sense, and we’re sure their investors are quite pleased. But therein lies the problem: our health care ethics are being dictated by business ethics instead of morality and genuine concern for public health. Meanwhile, countless decent people across the nation are going bankrupt and dying from lack of coverage, and all the while we sit around and argue about the implications of being socialists.
Like it or not, conservatives, socialism has and will always be intricately threaded throughout the fabric of our great capitalist society. Here’s a brief history lesson on American socialism: Anti-trust laws, welfare, medicare, corporate bailouts, highway construction and maintenance, national parks and preserves, FEMA, unemployment, farmer co-ops, government subsidies, churches, non-profit organizations, marriage, public schools and universities, and the list goes on….
Even our own Bank of North Dakota is a national icon of socialistic commerce. It is the only state-owned and -operated bank in the U.S. We wonder how many conservative North Dakotans who oppose health care reform based on its “socialist” implications received student loans for their education from the only socialized state bank in the nation. Can we say hypocrisy?
If there was a natural disaster killing Americans, our government would have no problem stepping in to save lives. Evidently it’s okay to be “socialist” and intervene when people are dying by the score… just not when politicians’ apathy is the cause of death.
We want a public option. NOW. The longer we debate about it, the more deaths will be on the hands of our elected officials.
Downtown Parking Revisited
Last week the Fargo Parking Commission convened to discuss a number of issues, most notably revisiting the new Saturday 90-minute parking enforcement on Broadway.
Over 600 signatures from Fargo residents who were unhappy with Saturday enforcement were presented to the Parking Commission. In an instant, the voices of over 600 residents were brushed aside because the phrasing of our petition was apparently too vague. HPR’s petition read, “This petition represents Fargo residents who are against enforced 90 minute parking on Saturdays Downtown.” The Commission’s semantic argument was that our petition discussed “downtown” parking on Saturdays, instead of the more specific “Broadway” parking. As far as we know, Broadway is the only area with 90-minute enforcement on Saturdays, so we are having a hard time seeing what is misleading about calling it “downtown” parking.
HPR co-owner John Strand asserted that the Parking Commission’s survey was skewed and vague—to the point where several business owners surveyed were clearly mislead by the survey’s phrasing. In the Parking Commission’s survey, aside from the fact that less than a third were for Saturday restrictions, a number of those who did vote for said restrictions had written responses that seemed to contradict their vote. Their survey had less than a third approval out of a mere 50 surveyed. And our survey that yielded over 600 signatures was misleading?
Parking Commission Chairman Rick Engen asked Strand if he would consider publishing a revised survey in HPR. Strand’s response was that he would gladly publish a revised survey under the condition that the Parking Commission place a moratorium on Saturday enforcement while we collect the data to make an informed decision. The Parking Commission was less receptive to that concept.
In addition, it was pointed out by those who favor Saturday enforcement that tickets weren’t being issued nearly enough. The Commission’s response to this was that there was only one CSO (community service officer) ticketing on Saturdays, and that realistically tickets could only be issued every three hours or so. Thus began the negotiation of a compromise.
Those who believed Saturday enforcement to be unnecessary were upset with 90 minute parking in general, and those who were for it were upset by the lack of enforcement. So, the question was raised, why not just call Saturday enforcement what it truly is in practice: 3-hour parking? The Parking Commission seemed very receptive to this concept, although no official decision has been made for or against it at this time.
It was also decided by the Parking Commission last week that the same-block parking ordinance would be reduced to four hours. Previously, parking on the same block downtown twice in an 8-hour span was a ticketable offense. Now, at least it’s been reduced to four hours, which is considerably more reasonable, albeit still a deterrent to shoppers coming downtown, we contend.
At the very least, what did seem to come out of this Parking Commission session was some positive headway in terms of constructive dialog. While all parties concerned may never come to a unanimous agreement, the faint inclination of a compromise is at hand, and the Parking Commission was more than respectful toward any voiced opinions. In that regard we tip our hats to them and their willingness to listen to the concerns of citizens. Let’s keep this conversation rolling.
Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
- Members only features
- Members can email articles, add articles as favorites, add tags to articles and more. Register now to unlock additional features.
