Heartless Logic: Getting Beaten by Your Husband Is an Excuse to Deny Ins. Coverage

News Type: Event — Seeded on Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:09 PM EDT

Article Source: AlterNet.org

business, insurance, health-insurance, domestic-violence, denial, spousal-abuse, actuarial-tables, no-coverage, victimized-twice

Seeded by MinnieApolis

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.

In human terms, it's a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.

Published to:

MinnieApolis's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Gut Check America, Health Care Policy, HealthVine,
Regions: none

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

4.0

{"commentId":9535736,"authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

MinnieApolis

Further down are some details:

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

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.

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.

{"commentId":9535736,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

5 votes

#1 - Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:11 PM EDT

{"commentId":9537718,"authorDomain":"eric-albert"}

Eric AlbertDeleted

{"commentId":9538215,"authorDomain":"v-shious"}

Zoolopolis

This is the result of the sociopathic reptilian brain of the GOP. They voted down a measure to get rid of this.

{"commentId":9538215,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"v-shious"}

6 votes

#1.2 - Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:12 PM EDT

{"commentId":9563260,"authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

MinnieApolis

@Eric:

Thanks very much for the link. I always appreciate related material & info. However, please try not to get too far off the track and start in about Bush's *&^%@# so-called Patriot laws. (Any progress on getting those off the books, BTW?? Not that I've heard.)

-- Love, Minnie

{"commentId":9563260,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

#1.3 - Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:09 PM EDT

{"commentId":9535838,"authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

MinnieApolis

Insurance companies' victimizing women (or men) who are on the receiving end of spousal abuse is just not acceptable. If you have a moment please write a letter. If you are unfortuante enough to live in one of the states that permits this victimization -- write your governor or state senator or insurance commissioner.

{"commentId":9535838,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

9 votes

#2 - Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:16 PM EDT

{"commentId":9537966,"authorDomain":"fireside"}

Sheila-714080

Just when I think that insurance companies could not possibly sink any lower into the bottom of scum-suck swamp; I read an article like this. Way to go, boys...you must have had to dig deep to set the bar even lower than it already was.

{"commentId":9537966,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"fireside"}

6 votes

#3 - Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:57 PM EDT

{"commentId":9538044,"authorDomain":"the-gunshark"}

The Gunshark

And this makes sense... how?

We need a public option or a single payer system.

{"commentId":9538044,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"the-gunshark"}

5 votes

#4 - Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:02 PM EDT

{"commentId":9538429,"authorDomain":"treemanyo"}

Hugh G. ReckshenDeleted

{"commentId":9538900,"authorDomain":"nweiss7"}

grouse14Deleted

{"commentId":9539222,"authorDomain":"adklugherz"}

UnAmericanLiberal

I wonder if they'd deny a child coverage because their parent beats them. Same thing right?

Keep in mind insurance companies are in the business of denying healthcare. They're in the business of taking people's money and denying them coverage when they need it. Health insurers do the same thing that Bernie Madoff did, only on a much larger scale. They take in hundreds of billions per year and try to pay as little back as they can. I'm sure Bernie had some good excuses why he didn't want to give people their money back when they needed it, just as the health insurance industry always has an excuse for why they deny coverage. But Bernie is one guy. In America, because of the practice of lobbying, if you can't blame a problem on the poor (who don't have lobbyists) you are only allowed to blame one person. Blaming an entire group of rich people is not allowed, rich people obviously run health insurance companies. therefore blaming the healthcare problem on the health insurers is not allowed. How predictable that the insurance lobby is now passively implying that the healthcare problem is caused by the poor. Haven't you heard the "most people can get insurance, they just choose not to" argument? Yeah that translates into "if the poor weren't so stupid they'd go get themselves insurance and this problem wouldn't exist." If an entire fradulent industry is the problem we pussy out and don't go there. Oh but we make sure we make some examples out of a few individuals along the way.

If we banned lobbying these problems would go away. ACORN, Sierra Club, NRA, Christian lobbyists, Israel lobby etc would all just go away. If the politicians weren't being paid to spew their lobbyist propaganda they may actually accomplish something for once.

{"commentId":9539222,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"adklugherz"}

7 votes

#7 - Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:05 PM EDT

{"commentId":9548038,"authorDomain":"h-kuehn"}

Holly-348328

This makes me spitting mad. I wish the article had mentioned all the states who have this policy, because I would be happy to write all the governors and tell them how messed up this is. I am going to write a letter to the Insurance Regulation Board, which is federal and oversees all insurance companies.

{"commentId":9548038,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"h-kuehn"}

2 votes

#8 - Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:00 AM EDT

{"commentId":9563081,"authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

MinnieApolis

@Holly:

The roll call, please: The eight states that still allow it are Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming.

(AKA the Hall of Shame)

{"commentId":9563081,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

3 votes

#8.1 - Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:55 PM EDT

{"commentId":9570535,"authorDomain":"h-kuehn"}

Holly-348328

Thanks, Minnie. I will express my displeasure to the governors of those states, although they have no reason to care what I say. Some of these states fall into my province for church though, and since I'm a delegate to the convention I will definitely be bringing this up to the Bishops of those states. Women's rights are one of our Millennium Development Goals.

{"commentId":9570535,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"h-kuehn"}

3 votes

#8.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:33 AM EDT

{"commentId":9593064,"authorDomain":"marypwillis"}

Ellen-740117

You know MinnieApolis, North Carolina has a female governor.

{"commentId":9593064,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"marypwillis"}

1 vote

#8.3 - Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:45 PM EDT

{"commentId":9625957,"authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

MinnieApolis

@Ellen --
RE the fact that NC has a woman gov: Let's help that governor stand up for her sisters in the great state of North Carolina so that they will get fully covered for prenatal and maternity care. Send her office a letter or email.

{"commentId":9625957,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

1 vote

#8.4 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:37 PM EDT

{"commentId":9548780,"authorDomain":"rayadaps1954"}

raymond-392453

Has your spouse STOPPED BEATING YOU YET ?????!!!!!!!! Its a LOADED Question that plays right into the heart of the Insurance industries Profit margins---MORAL Implications have NOTHING to do with it !!!!!!!!! What does this say about the Ethical framework of business in this country??? EVERYTHING is for SELL----Even anothers HELL !!!!!!!!!

{"commentId":9548780,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"rayadaps1954"}

3 votes

#9 - Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:31 AM EDT

{"commentId":9593374,"authorDomain":"marypwillis"}

Ellen-740117

Question---how would this even be on an insurance questionaire? Most victims that I've known would never admit it, and tend to cover for their abuser due to mental reactions to situation. Some by denial, some by shame, some by fear or any combination of those and many more results of abuse.

Also if a company, that is in part funded by state or federal dollars, has knowledge of abuse-which is a crime how would they not be complicit in the crime itself? Any insurance denied based on this measure should be promptly followed with a report to local law enforcement and abuse prevention and elimination agencies or that company should be liable as accomplices. It would have to be a partially funded company as private citizens are not required to get involved.

As far as dollar sense, it is a sound financial decision to deny coverage or increase rates to any person with a lifestyle or situation that increases the chances of increased medical expenses if you are a medical insurance provider. I'd be surprised if people's insurance rates aren't different based on home address/crime rate, family medical history/another item beyond applicant's control.

The ugly side of business. This sadly is also, not a great enough burden to encourage escape from an abusive situation. How often is this rider used? That would be interesting to know.

{"commentId":9593374,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"marypwillis"}

1 vote

#10 - Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:02 PM EDT

{"commentId":9603165,"authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

MinnieApolis

No this is not likely to be on an insurance questionaire. It will however come up with the submission of a service claim to the insurance company, from the hospital/clinic. The claim form may have some diagnosis codes related to being a victim of an assault. The doctor's notes would likely have something about the fact that the patient was beaten by X (husband, boyfriend, other). The insurance company has the right to request copies of the physician's notes for any visit or any period.

{"commentId":9603165,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

2 votes

#10.1 - Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:12 AM EDT

{"commentId":9606026,"authorDomain":"marypwillis"}

Ellen-740117

That would affect a submission of a presented service. Every person's history affects thier insurance. This particular topic is sensitive due to nature of the victimization. My rates will likely go up due to my position/job.

When my life is in a relatively low stress cycle, my weight is no problem. High stress has the opposite affect. My job ties me to a desk 8-10 hours a day, the corruption in the organization results in a majority of that time spent ensuring at least 2 if not 3 levels of male supervisors appear more competent than they are all making 20k to 60k more a year than I creating stress for which now the job is going to penalize me. (Yes I search often for other employment, not very abundant opportunities now.)

The answer is very difficult to find. Is it unfair to penalize a victim of domestic abuse due to her increased medical costs? Seems unfair to me. Is it unfair to penalize people who are overweight whether they have increased medical costs or not? Can't say that is unfair because we are all just lazy and overweight because we won't get off our fat a@@es and do something about it. (Regardless of circumstance)

On the other hand, is it unfair to increase costs to those who have no red flags associated to excess medical? Yep, that's unfair too.

The problem is in excessive medical costs of providers, excessive and exorbitant monetary payouts in medical lawsuits and insurance flaws.

I don't have a problem with personal responsibility though. I see no problem with a habitually poor driver paying a higher insurance rate than a good one, which makes topic difficult for me. It feels like playing both sides of the fence. How can I support higher insurance rates for poor drivers over good drivers and not support higher insurance rates of higher risk medical cases over lower risk medical cases without being discriminatory?

{"commentId":9606026,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"marypwillis"}

1 vote

#10.2 - Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:18 AM EDT

{"commentId":9635620,"authorDomain":"outthere4"}

outthere

MinnieApolis: I have a question???? If the GOP option of purchasing insurance across state lines in passed, and I live in a state that does not have this law now but find a cheaper health insurance in one of these 8 states, would I then be under this pre-existing clause? If so, THAT IS SCARY!!

{"commentId":9635620,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"outthere4"}

1 vote

#11 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:48 AM EDT

{"commentId":9651144,"authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

MinnieApolis

That's a good question. The laws of the state where you reside are going to have precedence, I would think.

Another matter is whether the agent who sells you the insurance is licensed in the state where you live. Normally the agent has to have a license in any state where he/she expects to sell insurance. Now, if say you live in North Carolina and the agent is licensed only in South Carolina, that agent is in violation of the laws if he sells you insurance. I am not sure but that may nullify the policy.

So I do not see any real benefit from the GOP proposal UNLESS they expect the insurance companies to begin selling insurance over the internet. Maybe someone has that in mind but is not sharing that with the pubic at this time.

{"commentId":9651144,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

1 vote

#11.1 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:17 PM EDT

{"commentId":9651525,"authorDomain":"An-uncommon-scold"}

Loretta Kemsley

That proposal is a smoke screen designed to keep the insurance companies happy. What difference does it make if you by Blue Cross in one state or another? They're both the same company. But if enough of the public is fooled into writing to their representatives, then the insurance companies win again.

{"commentId":9651525,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"An-uncommon-scold"}

3 votes

#11.2 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:41 PM EDT

{"commentId":9651810,"authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

MinnieApolis

I know it may surprise you but there are some differences in policies sold by the same company in different states. The state insurance commissioner's offices regulate the companies, agents, and determine what policies and riders will be offered and at what prices.
A company may be able to offer a given policy with a return-of-premium rider in one state but not in a neighboring state. The difference is the ins. comm. offices. I know, it sounds rather anti-consumer. It is not like buying a car from GM in Texas and another one in Cleveland.

{"commentId":9651810,"threadId":"678398","contentId":"3279449","authorDomain":"MinnieApolis"}

2 votes

#11.3 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 9:04 PM EDT

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"678398","isPrivate":false}

MINNIEAPOLIS

Backyard

Heartless Logic: Getting Beaten by Your Husband Is an Excuse to Deny Ins. Coverage

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF:

Anti-Choice Floridians Peddling Constitutional Amendment to Criminalize Birth Control Pill	AlterNet.org	Wed Sep 16	49
The Snowe Job, and Why a "Trigger" for a Public Option is Nonsense \| Robert Reich's Blog	Talking Points Memo	Thu Sep 17	0
Enjoy your $30,000 Health insurance Policy	Sick for profit	Wed Sep 16	3