Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Domestic violence a 'pre-existing condition' for insurers in some states
In nine states as well as the District of Columbia, it is legal for insurance companies to reject individual health coverage for people because they are survivors of domestic violence.
Among those states are four in the South -- Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina. The others are Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming, as well as the District of Columbia.
The problem was examined in a report released last fall by the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C. Titled "Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women," the report examined the so-called "gender gap" -- the difference in premiums charged to male and female applicants of the same age and health status -- as well as other insurer policies related to gender.
It found that women often face higher premiums than men, that it is difficult and costly for women to find insurance that covers maternity care, and that insurers can reject applicants for a variety of reasons particularly relevant to women -- including domestic violence.
The Service Employees International Union, which is pressing for reform of the health insurance system, wrote about the domestic violence insurance issue at its blog on Friday:
Words cannot describe the sheer inhumanity of this claim. It serves as yet further proof that our insurance system is broken, destroyed by the profit-mongering of the very companies [whose] sole purpose should be to provide Americans with access to care when they need it most. In 1994, an informal survey conducted by the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee revealed that 8 of the 16 largest insurers in the country used domestic violence as a factor when deciding whether to extend coverage and how much to charge if coverage was extended.
Now that is sick but unsurprising.
.... and other, gender-related insurance issues that should give many at least a pause between anti health-care reform protests. Read and weep.
ISS - Domestic violence a 'pre-existing condition' for insurers in some states
Domestic violence a 'pre-existing condition' for insurers in some states
In nine states as well as the District of Columbia, it is legal for insurance companies to reject individual health coverage for people because they are survivors of domestic violence.
Among those states are four in the South -- Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina. The others are Idaho, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wyoming, as well as the District of Columbia.
The problem was examined in a report released last fall by the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C. Titled "Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women," the report examined the so-called "gender gap" -- the difference in premiums charged to male and female applicants of the same age and health status -- as well as other insurer policies related to gender.
It found that women often face higher premiums than men, that it is difficult and costly for women to find insurance that covers maternity care, and that insurers can reject applicants for a variety of reasons particularly relevant to women -- including domestic violence.
The Service Employees International Union, which is pressing for reform of the health insurance system, wrote about the domestic violence insurance issue at its blog on Friday:
Words cannot describe the sheer inhumanity of this claim. It serves as yet further proof that our insurance system is broken, destroyed by the profit-mongering of the very companies [whose] sole purpose should be to provide Americans with access to care when they need it most. In 1994, an informal survey conducted by the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee revealed that 8 of the 16 largest insurers in the country used domestic violence as a factor when deciding whether to extend coverage and how much to charge if coverage was extended.
Insurance companies main concern is not the welfare of their customers. Their profit is the only motivating factor. Any risk at all is not worth taking on. And the idea that we need more insurance companies to compete against each other doesn't play out well either, as it would just increase administrative costs for doctors and hospitals with even more plans to deal with.
why am I not surprised?
I had to go on state medical when I was pregnant because there was no way my companies insurance was going to cover me because I was already pregnant when the sign up time came around. My son would have been covered the day he was born but I would have had to wait another few months until the next sign up period. Luckly I was able to choose a public option.why am I not surprised?
Because you've grown used to it over the years.
Many people from Western European countries consider this to be tantamount to crimes against humanity. In some cases it really is.
The grass is green and a pregnant woman dare not even think of applying for health insurance (in the U.S.A.).
It makes me sick.
Is the U.S.A. the home of the willingly ass-fucked by insurance companies? Or will we see a rise in self-respect and compassion towards the less fortunate of us?
This shall be seen ...
