Active Users:431 Time:01/07/2025 07:02:19 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
I think we're understanding this article differently. Sareitha Sedai Send a noteboard - 16/09/2009 02:02:47 AM
And even if they're out of it....sorry, but insurance is about numbers, and statistics show that abusive relationships are a cycle. Many people find it difficult to leave these relationships....it may be an unpopular thing the insurance companies are doing, but they're doing it for a reason.


there are alot of reasons why women stay in abusive relationships, sometimes they do it for their children (bad reasoning, but nonetheless...) or most of the time they depend on the man for financial security and its hard to just walk away form that especially if you have no one to help you out. it may also be a cycle of abuse where they come from abusive parents and are used to it, but that doesn't mean insurance companies should have the right to cut off their coverage, if anything they should pay for them to go to therapy and counseling!

It says it charges them higher rates for health insurance, not that it cuts them off or prevents them from leaving the relationship or getting help. The statistics are there, and women who are victims of domestic violence are more likely to incur injuries and hospital stays than women who aren't. It's a rating factor, same as age, weight, family history, and many other things. You can call be sarcastic and try to belittle me all you like, but it doesn't make you right, it just makes you seem like you can't come up with a valid argument.



Erm. My understanding is that this article is, in fact, saying that women are denied coverage or have their coverage canceled for this reason.

With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions, administration allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits.


Typically, the phrase "pre-existing condition" is used to deny or cancel coverage, not as a rating variable. That's not proof of course, but I'm just pointing out the typical verbiage.


In 2006, Democrats tried to end the practice. An amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), now a member of leadership, split the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee 10-10. The tie meant that the measure failed.

All ten no votes were Republicans, including Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), a member of the "Gang of Six" on the Finance Committee who are hashing out a bipartisan bill. A spokesman for Enzi didn't immediately return a call from Huffington Post.

At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people. "If you have no insurance, it doesn't matter what services are mandated by the state," he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th, 2006.


This is the only mention I can find of a price increase, and he isn't talking about the price for policies written for victims of abuse. He's saying that requiring insurers to allow and cover pre-existing conditions will increase the price for everyone else, since that is a tool that insurance companies use, ostensibly, to minimize their exposure.


Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for an insurance industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has proposed ending the discrimination. "The NAIC has a model on this that we strongly supported. That model bans the use of a person's status as a victim of domestic violence in making a decision on coverage," he said.


"Making a decision on coverage" implies that this is a yes/no, will we cover you or won't we scenario. Not a differential pricing scenario.

In 1994, then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), now a member of Senate leadership, had his staff survey 16 insurance companies. He found that eight would not write health, life or disability policies for women who have been abused. In 1995, the Boston Globe found that Nationwide, Allstate, State Farm, Aetna, Metropolitan Life, The Equitable Companies, First Colony Life, The Prudential and the Principal Financial Group had all either canceled or denied coverage to women who'd been beaten.


This seems pretty clear to me ;)

The Service Employees International Union asked members to write letters to Congress regarding the exclusion and have quickly generated hundreds, says an SEIU spokeswoman.


Referring to it as an exclusion...meaning, again, that it's not simply a rating variable.

If you are from Betelgeuse, please have one of your Earth friends read what I've written before you respond. Or try concentrating harder.

"The trophy problem has become extreme."
Reply to message
Getting Beaten Up by Your Husband is a Pre-existing Condition Aisha - 15/09/2009 11:23:49 PM 835 Views
If true, that's pretty messed up. *NM* Rebekah - 15/09/2009 11:26:39 PM 131 Views
The Huffington Post? random thoughts - 15/09/2009 11:29:28 PM 350 Views
Do you have this on auto-reply? *NM* nossy - 16/09/2009 12:04:30 AM 137 Views
lol. *NM* everynametaken - 16/09/2009 05:42:16 AM 129 Views
No but I should random thoughts - 16/09/2009 02:32:00 PM 294 Views
there are plenty of other sources you could find if you like Aisha - 16/09/2009 12:52:51 AM 296 Views
If you want to link a real news source then it is worth looking into random thoughts - 16/09/2009 02:33:32 PM 298 Views
Umm....if the person is still in that relationship, then it seems like a pretty smart practice to me Brian - 15/09/2009 11:34:00 PM 322 Views
I had that thought at first too, nossy - 16/09/2009 12:03:58 AM 333 Views
Indeed Brian - 16/09/2009 03:13:04 AM 305 Views
wow if only all women were as smart and strong as you Aisha - 16/09/2009 12:48:26 AM 328 Views
And where exactly does this article, or my reply say anything about anything you just said? Brian - 16/09/2009 01:09:54 AM 323 Views
It's a "women's issue." Don't go bringing rational thought into it. Cannoli - 16/09/2009 01:33:21 AM 334 Views
I just don't get the whole Appeal to Emotion thing Brian - 16/09/2009 04:34:08 AM 293 Views
I think we're understanding this article differently. Sareitha Sedai - 16/09/2009 02:02:47 AM 326 Views
I think we probably are. Brian - 16/09/2009 02:56:46 AM 298 Views
That logic is ridiculous. I could make that claim about anything. everynametaken - 16/09/2009 05:45:08 AM 297 Views
Do you have any idea how insurance works? Brian - 16/09/2009 06:12:10 AM 285 Views
Yes, I do know how insurance works. Using that as an excuse for denial is still unethical and sick. *NM* everynametaken - 16/09/2009 06:58:36 PM 128 Views
I agree that battered women need help Brian - 16/09/2009 07:41:17 PM 297 Views
If I understand it, they can make that claim about almost anything. nossy - 16/09/2009 03:20:14 PM 300 Views
Exactly. *NM* everynametaken - 16/09/2009 06:56:38 PM 124 Views
The margins of profit in the health insurance industry are so razor thin that they have to do it Brian - 16/09/2009 07:59:18 PM 306 Views
This is a perfect example MightyYT - 16/09/2009 01:28:11 AM 309 Views
How completely stupid, ignorant or self-entitled are you? Do you even understand insurance at ALL? Cannoli - 16/09/2009 01:58:46 AM 456 Views
Awww, your righteous indignation is so cute! Sareitha Sedai - 16/09/2009 02:12:41 AM 317 Views
agreement LadyLorraine - 16/09/2009 02:28:03 AM 324 Views
Well the issue seems to be whether it's a pre-existing condition. Aemon - 16/09/2009 04:51:33 AM 290 Views
perhaps in that instance LadyLorraine - 16/09/2009 05:12:48 AM 290 Views
Ah! I was wondering when you would rear your ugly head on this board. everynametaken - 16/09/2009 05:48:14 AM 381 Views
Yeah, no. Dannymac - 16/09/2009 06:08:02 AM 315 Views
But I thought my Uterus made me Evil and Stupid? LadyLorraine - 16/09/2009 01:19:15 PM 284 Views
Nobody has been lying to YOU....now if other women were told the same..that's different. *NM* Brian - 17/09/2009 01:50:01 AM 118 Views
Which is exactly why we need a public option. *NM* rebelaessedai - 16/09/2009 03:14:03 PM 115 Views
I could understand an increased rate or altered benefits LadyLorraine - 16/09/2009 02:32:46 AM 308 Views
Re: I could understand an increased rate or altered benefits Isaac - 16/09/2009 03:25:58 AM 277 Views
just as a note, some companies do insure to a practically "unlimited" level LadyLorraine - 16/09/2009 03:47:34 AM 303 Views
Re: just as a note, some companies do insure to a practically "unlimited" level Isaac - 16/09/2009 03:54:02 AM 297 Views
entirely seperate LadyLorraine - 16/09/2009 04:06:01 AM 302 Views
Then I'd say it's a pretty decent plan Isaac - 16/09/2009 04:17:31 AM 288 Views
nonsense!! LadyLorraine - 16/09/2009 04:40:15 AM 369 Views
*NM* Isaac - 16/09/2009 07:42:25 PM 142 Views
Well since there was no actual rate of denial given we don't know how comon it is random thoughts - 16/09/2009 03:03:14 PM 271 Views
Yet another reason to get out of that relationship. Hmm. *NM* Mad Cow Bomber - 16/09/2009 05:38:21 AM 137 Views
This is horrible! The Shrike - 16/09/2009 03:08:29 PM 302 Views
a man? getting up in arms over a woman's issue??? LadyLorraine - 16/09/2009 03:22:49 PM 284 Views
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) States Why Public Healthcare Is Essential in Reform. Joel - 16/09/2009 03:57:01 PM 326 Views
The insurance industry is corrupt as hell SilverWarder - 16/09/2009 06:02:14 PM 314 Views
A friend of mine who worked for an insurance company once told me... globug0822 - 17/09/2009 12:35:46 AM 299 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes