Active Users:355 Time:01/07/2025 04:28:00 AM
Ah! I was wondering when you would rear your ugly head on this board. everynametaken Send a noteboard - 16/09/2009 05:48:14 AM
Yay for Republican Family values!

With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions,
That is what insurance companies DO!!! Insurance is not a right, and the rates you pay are based on the liklihood of succumbing to what you are buying insurance against! Sick people are more likely to need their insurance to pay, so they have higher rates. People in dangerous jobs have higher rates, and people in dangerous lifestyles or circumstances have higher rates.

administration allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits.

It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.

Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.
And that expense is spread to the rest of the insurance companies' customers when it is not charged to the idiot who won't leave her abuser.

In human terms, it's a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.
8} Oh, please. That's a fact of life. Injuries are not free because you did not deserve them.

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.
About time they've done something sensible. I was just about ready to write the party off as worthless too. Of course, this suggests actually, that some Republicans voted yes, or they would have mentioned a split down party lines. If there WERE Republicans who voted yes, that would mean it is the DEMOCRATS who vote as a block, while the Republicans are open to a more broad range of views. Which is the real party of assholes?

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.
A fact that completely escapes most lawmakers. By forcing insurance companies to cover practices, the rates have to be raised to provide the money for all of these services, which prices health insurance out of the reach of many.

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.

During the last health care reform push, in 1993 and 1994, the industry similarly promised to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.
Well, they've lost MY business. I don't want insurance companies that are going to raise my rates to cover expenses I am not so stupid as to incurr. I don't need domestic violence insurance, so why do I have to pay for it? I'll give a tiny little rat's ass about other groups' needs when the Democrats are willing to pony up the bucks for something they don't like, such as faith-based initiatives or private firearms subsidies.

Murray pushed to include the domestic violence concern in this year's comprehensive health care bill. "Senator Murray continues to believe that victims of domestic violence should not be punished for the crimes of their abusers. That is why she worked to include language in the Senate HELP Committee's health insurance reform bill that would ban this discriminatory and harmful insurance company practice," said spokesman Eli Zupnick.
Then let Senator Murray raise some funds for the cause herself, and stop indulging her "generous" impulses with other people's money.

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.
So? Do they cover the activities of people who repeatedly do stupid things and keep it up even after being injured?

The Service Employees International Union asked members to write letters to Congress regarding the exclusion and have quickly generated hundreds, says an SEIU spokeswoman.
So THIS is what they do when they aren't beating up protesters at town meetings! They try to mandate insurance coverage for beating victims! So by SEIU standards, a person dumb enough to sleep in the same bed as someone who beats her to the point of needing medical treatment is a derserving victim, but people who participate in the democratic process have it coming?

The relevant provision:

SEC. 2706. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.

'(a) IN GENERAL.--A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan or coverage based on any of the following health status-related factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual:

(1) Health status.

(2) Medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses).

(3) Claims experience.

(4) Receipt of health care.

(5) Medical history.

(6) Genetic information.

(7) Evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence).

(8) Disability.

(9) Any other health status-related factor determined appropriate by the Secretary.
These are all highly relevant factors! A person who files a lot of insurance claims is going to be someone who costs the company money, and thus is someone they are perfectly justified in charging more money! Genetic information, disablilites, health status and medical conditions are all extremely relevant criteria for establishing someone's coverage and rates! Otherwise, an application for an insurance policy is basically government-backed robbery of an insurance company. If you can't set a customer's rate based on how much they will cost you, why not simply force them to hand over a wad of cash to anyone who walks in the door and demands some money? In principle this is no different than demanding that doctors charge the exact same fee for a routine checkup and major surgery, that restaurants charge the same for steak and hamburger, that airlines charge the same for coach, business and first class seats, and so on.

UPDATE: The eight states that still allow it are Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming, according to a report by the National Women's Law Center.
The 42 states that do NOT allow this practice are partially responsible for the high costs of insurance today.
But wine was the great assassin of both tradition and propriety...
-Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
Reply to message
Getting Beaten Up by Your Husband is a Pre-existing Condition - 15/09/2009 11:23:49 PM 834 Views
If true, that's pretty messed up. *NM* - 15/09/2009 11:26:39 PM 131 Views
The Huffington Post? - 15/09/2009 11:29:28 PM 347 Views
Do you have this on auto-reply? *NM* - 16/09/2009 12:04:30 AM 136 Views
lol. *NM* - 16/09/2009 05:42:16 AM 128 Views
No but I should - 16/09/2009 02:32:00 PM 292 Views
there are plenty of other sources you could find if you like - 16/09/2009 12:52:51 AM 295 Views
If you want to link a real news source then it is worth looking into - 16/09/2009 02:33:32 PM 296 Views
Umm....if the person is still in that relationship, then it seems like a pretty smart practice to me - 15/09/2009 11:34:00 PM 321 Views
I had that thought at first too, - 16/09/2009 12:03:58 AM 331 Views
Indeed - 16/09/2009 03:13:04 AM 304 Views
wow if only all women were as smart and strong as you - 16/09/2009 12:48:26 AM 327 Views
And where exactly does this article, or my reply say anything about anything you just said? - 16/09/2009 01:09:54 AM 321 Views
It's a "women's issue." Don't go bringing rational thought into it. - 16/09/2009 01:33:21 AM 331 Views
I just don't get the whole Appeal to Emotion thing - 16/09/2009 04:34:08 AM 292 Views
I think we're understanding this article differently. - 16/09/2009 02:02:47 AM 324 Views
I think we probably are. - 16/09/2009 02:56:46 AM 296 Views
That logic is ridiculous. I could make that claim about anything. - 16/09/2009 05:45:08 AM 295 Views
Do you have any idea how insurance works? - 16/09/2009 06:12:10 AM 283 Views
Yes, I do know how insurance works. Using that as an excuse for denial is still unethical and sick. *NM* - 16/09/2009 06:58:36 PM 128 Views
I agree that battered women need help - 16/09/2009 07:41:17 PM 297 Views
If I understand it, they can make that claim about almost anything. - 16/09/2009 03:20:14 PM 299 Views
Exactly. *NM* - 16/09/2009 06:56:38 PM 123 Views
This is a perfect example - 16/09/2009 01:28:11 AM 308 Views
How completely stupid, ignorant or self-entitled are you? Do you even understand insurance at ALL? - 16/09/2009 01:58:46 AM 455 Views
Awww, your righteous indignation is so cute! - 16/09/2009 02:12:41 AM 316 Views
agreement - 16/09/2009 02:28:03 AM 322 Views
Well the issue seems to be whether it's a pre-existing condition. - 16/09/2009 04:51:33 AM 290 Views
perhaps in that instance - 16/09/2009 05:12:48 AM 289 Views
Ah! I was wondering when you would rear your ugly head on this board. - 16/09/2009 05:48:14 AM 379 Views
Yeah, no. - 16/09/2009 06:08:02 AM 314 Views
Which is exactly why we need a public option. *NM* - 16/09/2009 03:14:03 PM 114 Views
I could understand an increased rate or altered benefits - 16/09/2009 02:32:46 AM 308 Views
Re: I could understand an increased rate or altered benefits - 16/09/2009 03:25:58 AM 274 Views
just as a note, some companies do insure to a practically "unlimited" level - 16/09/2009 03:47:34 AM 302 Views
Re: just as a note, some companies do insure to a practically "unlimited" level - 16/09/2009 03:54:02 AM 296 Views
entirely seperate - 16/09/2009 04:06:01 AM 299 Views
Then I'd say it's a pretty decent plan - 16/09/2009 04:17:31 AM 285 Views
nonsense!! - 16/09/2009 04:40:15 AM 369 Views
*NM* - 16/09/2009 07:42:25 PM 141 Views
Yet another reason to get out of that relationship. Hmm. *NM* - 16/09/2009 05:38:21 AM 137 Views
This is horrible! - 16/09/2009 03:08:29 PM 301 Views
a man? getting up in arms over a woman's issue??? - 16/09/2009 03:22:49 PM 281 Views
The insurance industry is corrupt as hell - 16/09/2009 06:02:14 PM 311 Views
A friend of mine who worked for an insurance company once told me... - 17/09/2009 12:35:46 AM 299 Views

Reply to Message