A Good Example of Why We Need Reform "When Getting Beaten By Your Husband Is A Pre-Existing Conditi, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 15-9-2009 @ 08:45 AM by Animal

The Link

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.

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.

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

Yes, I can see how in cold logic getting beat by your spouse is a 'pre-existing' condition. However it highlights the incredible flaws in the current health insurance system.

It also highlights why the insurance companies are so terrified of a public option. While so many in the USA love to the idea of unfettered capitalism and competition this is just a bit too much competition for the insurance companies. I mean, wow, a plan that would actually PAY for your illnesses and medical needs, how would they compete with that.

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.

No big surprise here. Remember this too. They will make you all sorts of promises today about what and how they will fix insurance, but once the publci option is dead they are just going to sell you to the highest corporate bidder and not do crap to help you. That is after all what they do best.

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.

Straight from the horses ba-dunk-a-dunk. Isn't one of the prospects being put forth as an alternative to the 'public option' making laws against 'pre-existing conditions'? Well if making spousal abuse a no go for the pre-existing condition would make health care too expensive what would happen if pre-existing conditions were removed all together? More BS I guess.

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.

Did not happen then and it will not happen now. Wake up people you are getting played.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Animal]

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 09:01 AM by Violet Sky

That's awful. I wonder what other things are considered 'pre-existing conditions'.

We do need reform, especially in regard to the whole 'pre-existing' notion.

The people that need insurance the most SHOULD be able to get it, not the other way around.

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 01:09 PM by RRconservative

Getting beaten by your husband is not a health care issue. It is a criminal issue.

This is no different from someone paying higher car insurance because of multiple accidents. If you stay with someone abusive to you, you are an accident waiting to happen.

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 01:16 PM by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Violet Sky
That's awful. I wonder what other things are considered 'pre-existing conditions'.

We do need reform, especially in regard to the whole 'pre-existing' notion.

The people that need insurance the most SHOULD be able to get it, not the other way around.

Well, along that same line of logic:

1. Sporting Injury (higher premiums if you've ever been injured in a sport)
2. Communicable disease by proximity (daycare, school, office, etc.)
3. Occupation (Hi stress=hi blood pressure, heart attack, alcoholism, etc.)
4. Geography (Coast line, tornado ally, earthquake zone, hard winter, tropical, etc.)

So basically, anything that has ever made you sick or injured and can be logically extrapolated to happen again could increase your insurance rates or exclude you from coverage!! (Of course, they will accept your premiums until you become sick, and then deny the claims because you didn't disclose that you had surfed as a kid and live within 50 miles of a shark.)

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 01:20 PM by ZeroKnowledge

From our experience here, no laws are really needed. Just a little public pressure. When there were heavy rockets barrages on Shderot town several years ago , insurance companies raised their fees on everything - from cars to houses ,in that area. So there was a huge public outrage and boycotts and it quickly changed.
People pay those companies so people have power to influence them. Just a little solidarity is needed.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by ZeroKnowledge]

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 01:27 PM by amazed

Originally posted by Violet Sky
That's awful. I wonder what other things are considered 'pre-existing conditions'.

We do need reform, especially in regard to the whole 'pre-existing' notion.

The people that need insurance the most SHOULD be able to get it, not the other way around.

Animal is correct, taking away pre existing conditions will really do nothing to help people be able to afford insurance. The one thing it will do is make sure more people will not be able to afford it. Remember the credit card reform that just went through? What happened? The banks increased their rates on everyone they could before the new regulations went into effect. The exact same thing will happen with health insurance companies, they will increase the cost. Meaning more people will not be able to afford health care insurance.

We have to have a public option, it is the only way to "fix" the problem, tort reform and more regulations will not change anything. These companies will just find another way to "stick it" to the people so they can gain more money for their share holders. Bottom line, pocket book not the health of this country.

Harm None
Peace

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 01:28 PM by groingrinder

reply to post by Animal

I have to pretty much agree with you on this. But I think that these people do have a pre-existing condition though that makes them stay with people who beat them. Either way they should receive treatment paid for by insurance if they have it.

I am all for reform. I believe that the insurance companies try to use the pre-existing conditions and the act of God thing to deny people care.

I also think there needs to be caps on the cost of medical procedures based on your income for poor people. It sucks that I will have to spend every penny I make for the rest of my life to get my heart operation.

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 01:38 PM by Animal

reply to post by amazed

it is sad but true.

there is really nothing we can do to make the insurance companies make insurance affordable other than completely take over their operations.

that is except for a public option that will create a type of competition that will force them to make changes themselves.

The insurance companies care about one thing and one thing only, profits.

they will always opt for what increases or maintains profits and that is all there is to it.

if we were to develop a functional public option their profits would be in danger of disappearing so they would be forced to become competitive or die.

_______________________________________________________________

tot he others who were talking about spousal abuse (men get abused too) as a 'pre-existing condition', do you believe this means they should NOT be able to get insurance? Do you believe this means their insurance can refuse to pay for care?

Higher premiums is one thing a refusal to cover them is another. Sadly today 'pre-existing conditions' today means NO coverage.

This needs to change.

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 02:11 PM by Anjin

Originally posted by Animal
there is really nothing we can do to make the insurance companies make insurance affordable other than completely take over their operations.

Groceries, gas, cable TV, cell phones, electricity, movie rentals, sporting events and clothes are getting too expensive also. The Government needs to take over everything because that's obviously the only option. Too bad they couldn't regulate instead.......

reply posted on 15-9-2009 @ 02:19 PM by Animal

Originally posted by Anjin

Originally posted by Animal
there is really nothing we can do to make the insurance companies make insurance affordable other than completely take over their operations.

Groceries, gas, cable TV, cell phones, electricity, movie rentals, sporting events and clothes are getting too expensive also. The Government needs to take over everything because that's obviously the only option. Too bad they couldn't regulate instead.......

Shall we put the quote from above BACK into context?

there is really nothing we can do to make the insurance companies make insurance affordable other than completely take over their operations.

that is except for a public option that will create a type of competition that will force them to make changes themselves.

The amount of 'regualtion' it would take to make insurance companies make insurance affordable and to prevent being 'dropped' for almost any reason would be so all encompassing as to be 'government control'. In which case why not just have a 'public option' that consumer can choose to subscribe to and that forces private carriers to be competitive?

Pages: ^^TOP^^