Define "pre-existing"

John 1 (Americans 0):

(via crosswalk.com)

ı In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

I can have been in multiple auto accidents - causing all of them through my own faults - have had my driving privilege revoked (temporarily), and still be able to purchase (government mandated) auto insurance (albeit at a higher cost).

I can purchase a home in southern California and many agencies would still sell me flood, mudslide and fire insurance, though it would be more costly than for someone in, say, Montana.

The point is, I could get it.

How does, "sorry, you had that before you got here," only apply when you're paying for medical care?

If I'm a woman and I've had a C-section or been the victim of domestic abuse, or if I was born with a congenital health issue and turn 18 and am no longer covered under my parents' plan, under all the circumstances I can find myself unable to acquire health insurance. They just won't sell it to me.

Or, having an insurance policy, if I change jobs and get a new employer-sponsored health plan or my current employer changes providers, or again am the above woman, I can, legally, be denied payment for necessary treatments.

Sometimes we need to pay for conditions we already have. And if we're paying for "just in case," we expect the case to be paid for, should the time arise.

Without payment there is no treatment. Without treatment, there is severe illness and death. And we allow this to go on.

The idea that something could have existed in some form before it became manifest is a debate for theologians, philosophers and quantum physicists. Not politicians and lobbyists. And if more insurers employed more theologians and philosophers, there wouldn't be much of a debate at all.

Word.

Thought for the day: God is a woman

I know I'm going to get myself into trouble by saying this out loud, but here goes:

Walking through the subway today, as I do almost every day, I was subjected to, as I am almost every day, the perhaps clichéd sidewalk preachers and signpost-wearers, warning of eminent doom, and that I must repent and follow God if I was to be saved eternal torment.

This one in particular, fairly new to this particular tube connecting the bus terminal with Times Square, wearing his "Fear God" hoodie and carrying his small, hand-lettered sign (but don't they all?), was again going on about the coming appocalypse (apparently the almighty has a timetable for withdrawal...). He says that Jesus is going to send all of us to eternal torment for not loving him. This got me thinking.

First, I never went to sunday school, but I'm pretty sure it's not Jesus who's going to be handing out the damnation red cards in the final days. (Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Everything I've read or heard about Jesus suggests he was a pretty forgiving and accomodating guy. If he can forgive the people publicly flogging him, I think he'd be willing to overlook the occasional lustful thought about my neighbor's wife.

It seems to me that the spirit of those sermons wasn't, "follow me explicitiy or I'll see to it you're tormented for eternity," so much as most of us are heading for a bad place, so grab your personal ethical floatation device so you don't end up there. Not, "follow me or I'll damn you," but "I'll help you if you do." A subtle difference, yes, but an important one.

Then I started to wonder who it was (deific or otherwise) that would choose to see you tortured for all eternity for not loving them completely? My mind went back to some relationships I've had.

And that's all I'm going to say about that.