Women of Domestic Violence Can be Denied Health Insurance Because It Can Be Considered a Pre-existing Condition

Why am I not surprised? Insurance companies are run by men -- pay for Viagra but argue about contraceptives. The next argument will be that women are choosing to participate in risky behavior. How do we move out of this medieval mindset and into the 21st century?

Yeah, we sure don't want the federal government to have a role in providing health care coverage, because the private sector has done such a bang-up job providing these services in a cost-effective manner to all people in need.

The problem inherent in the private health insurance industry, being controlled by bean counters rather than physicians, is that the people who most desperately need coverage are the people who are least likely to

a) have their medical treatments be approved for coverage by their HMO, or

b) be accepted into an insurance program.

The health insurance industry is suffering from "Goldilocks Syndrome" ... they only provide coverage to people who they deem to be "just right".

Hi Powerisknowledge,

Good seed. Clipped to my column.

Women of Domestic Violence Can be Denied Health Insurance Because It Can Be Considered a Pre-existing Condition

Two links for you. :)

Hope you don`t mind.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FACTS

... domestic violence in her lifetime. 1 An estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner each year. 2 85% of domestic violence victims are women. 3 ...

• Growth in violence against women feared as recession hits ...

  Government offers women advice on how to deal with domestic violence and discrimination from employers ... that there has been a slight increase in domestic violence in the past year ...

PastNikeVet

Only in your world Kathleen if you really had an goal of breaking it down to show that point ot intertwined you would have pointed to Alpha Males not the entire male population.

But hey whom am I to interupt your male bashing carry on.

I agree with SG and well as with you; it is a control issue. The need/desire to control is a universal trait. Hell's bells, even babies want to control their surroundings. However, the title of this seed referred to women being denied coverage and I responded to that.

It was never my intent to do any male bashing, but since you brought it up: When I worked as a lowly clerk for insurance companies 50 years ago, ownership and management was all in the hands of men. The majority of corporate owners are men. The majority of our religious and political leaders are men. Women obtained the right to vote less than 100 years ago. Up until that time, the social, political and religious agendas were all set by men.

Even without the right to vote, wealthy women set up aid societies to help widows and orphans. In 1846 women founded the Society for the Relief of Destitute Children of Seamen. Clara Barton founded the American Red Cross in 1881. Jane Addams founded the first Hull House in 1889.

Women have become increasingly active since the Civil Rights Movement and have achieved great gains, WITH the help of many men. However, patriarchal attitudes, the need to control, and the necessity to relinquish some degree of power all die hard. The truth is that men still wield most of the power and not all of them use it wisely or fairly.

Wow.

The excuses these companies will come up with so they can maintain and grow their profit margins. I guess it's a slight irony that health insurance companies make me sick.

Sorry, LTKiwi, that's a pre-existing condition and for that reason, we must deny you coverage. :-)

Why do we assume that a gov't run "health commission panel" would be any different than the bean counters and admin that run the private industry? The legislation only calls for ONE doctor to be included in a addition to the SG. The rest of the commission is made of a bunch of number crunching bureaucrats. Look what has already happened with mammograms. CA has quit covering them before 50 already.

I'm not saying the ins. industry isn't crap. It is. It ticks me off to no end that the people making decisions of health care provisions OR about what procedures doctors are allowed to perform in hospitals are not actual health care providers. But I just don't see how trading one set of them for another is any better.

The other thing is the "no pre-existing" clause in the reform legislation is a bit shady. When you start following out all of the "except as stated in..." references it turns out there is still a good bit that can be excluded. It is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Follow the paths of the "pre-existing" clauses all the way out.

What was unclear about my instructions? READ the bill and FOLLOW the chain of "except as stated in" caveots. You will see what I mean. It takes a good bit of time to actuall read the legislation, but it's all right there.

Start here:

A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act) or otherwise impose any limit or condition on the coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependent based on any health status-related factors (as defined in section 2791(d)(9) of the Public Health Service Act) in relation to the individual or dependent

Look up the PHSA and then follow that around a while and you'll see what I mean. They will still be able to cover and not cover as well as limit the amount of benefit for certain ailments you may happen to have (otherwise known as pre-existing conditions).

Great seed. I clipped it to Mental Health and Wellness. I remember reading about this several months ago and still can hardly wrap my head around such a ridiculous notion that women could be denied coverage for having been a victim of domestic violence, a victim of sexual trauma, or having had a C-section. And people really believe that women have equal rights?

PNV & LTKiwi:

(And we DO need a sarcasm button or a wink or something!)

I started to write something to both of you carrying on the sarcastic mode, but it got really ugly toward the insurance companies. I realized most of us don't really want to face the realities of the outcome of many insurance company decisions. We shudder, turn our faces away and pray to God it never happens to us. We recognize the abuse of power by the IRS, big corporations, Wall Street, and feel very small and helpless.

We admire St. George and Don Quixote going out there and slaying dragons, but it feels too overwhelming and hopeless to pick up our own spears, as it were. Maybe we all need to pray, "God, grant me courage. . . ." I don't know.