Just when you think that insurance companies can't get any lower than scum on this whole pre-existing condition mess, think again. As we've posted before, several states allow for domestic violence to be listed as a pre-existing condition. Some recent data (also in the link) reports:
An informal survey by the House Judiciary Committee in 1994 found that half of the 16 largest insurers in the country considered domestic violence in deciding whether to approve health coverage. The Pennsylvania insurance Department reported a year or so later that nearly one out of four insurance companies factored in domestic violence when deciding whether to issue or renew policies.
Ryan Grim at Huff Po has updates on the measures that some state reps have taken to stamp out this kind of discrimination. He also sums the issue up here:
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.
I wonder what else we don't know that counts against us as women. Talk about a double disadvantage. The good news? Democrats have vowed to ban on the practice in the health care reform legislation.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gender and Insurance Discrimination.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16502
Cigna considers menopause to be a pre-existing condition. I ran face-first into that when I started a new job a year and a half ago and had my claims for hormone replacement therapy turned down unless I could produce proof of prior coverage (which thankfully I had)
Wait, what? How can a natural predictable will-happen-inevitably-to-everyone-with-two-X-chromosomes process be a "pre-existing condition". My brain hurts.
To play devil's advocate, if you had to pay for someone's healthcare and their current partner had put them in a hospital twice, you might want to charge more or deny them coverage. If people do something that's likely to result in higher medical bills, why wouldn't you want a premium for that? It seems fair with obesity and smoking.
I think that "fair" would be to make it a double edged sword. If they can treat it as a preexisting condition they should also be willing to pay to get it fixed. How much does it cost to get someone out of a dangerous situation compared to treating them in a hospital? I'll bet it's much cheaper. I think that that would definitely be cost effective preventative care.
Last time this came up a few weeks back I wrote that it was cruel. Then I read some of the other posters & a legitimate actuarial question came up. Are women who've been abused more likely to need medical care than women who haven't? If they are at higher risk of needing medical treatment who should pick up that cost? You? Me? The insurer? The bf/husband???
Just questions folks. This insurance stuff isn't necessarily straightforward.
Insurance companies use cold logic and statistics to make a lot of decisions. I seriously doubt that they are trying to make any political statements here - they're simply making cold calculated decisions based on statistics.
This sucks for a lot of people, I am all for changing the entire system. However, persons with a variety of conditions are just as deserving of healthcare. Insurance companies have so many pre-existing conditions that I wonder how anyone manages to get coverage without fibbing on the application. Women may feel stuck in bad relationships because they know they will be denied health insurance based on various ailments regardless of whether the abuse itself is a pre-existing condition.
What if, as a result of abuse, a victim has to have a major surgery; should she get protection from being denied when a person who had that surgery due to being assaulted during a robbery can be denied? Is that "fair?"
I simply wonder how much sense it makes to start singling out "pre-existing conditions" for legislative protection. Most of the time denial of coverage is cruel.
The *entire* systems needs to be fixed or we aren't really helping anyone.
When I read the headline I thought you meant house/car insurance. Then I remember that the most advance country in the world leaves its healthcare in the hands of wall street. Do get yourselves sorted out.
As for insurance companies pricing risk into policies, I find it a fascinating insight into the human condition. The little lies we tell ourselves. For instance, car insurance costs more for the young and more for men. If an alien were to come down, you had to explain this to them, it would be easy. The young are more inexperienced, men are more reckless, so they pay more. Easy, until are the alien asks about race. Do insurance companies profile customers based on race. You would outraged why that would be unthinkable, racist. Our alien would naturally ask why it is OK to profile age and gender; yet not race.
What does this have to with the above article. Similar situation, if you live in a neighbourhood which has more crime, insurance of all types costs more. Nobody cares, it is a none issue, even though it could be argued that this gets racism in by the back door. Yet if you price insurance higher because someone gets into dangerous relationships, everybody is outraged. Yet the people in the high crime neighbourhood are no more responsible for their plight, than those in abusive relationships. My point seems to be that insurance companies work with numbers, not people. And that to think about these things too much can leave you tied in knots. Still in Britain we have the NHS, so we don't have to think about this.
"To play devil's advocate"
Because what the world really needs is more people mainsplaining to us how rational and valid the arguments of healthcare rationers are! We don't see them nearly often enough. Thanks for the sorely needed enlightenment.
("Mansplaining", obv. No comment edit facility.)
Ooh, using someone's gender to disqualify their argument, how ingenious of you.
Sorry if you felt that I was somehow being condescending in that first post. I get irritated by the way that political issues get to a point where people only want to listen to the side that supports their preconceived notions and they don't fairly consider the other side. I don't have to demonize everything that the health insurance industry does in order to disagree with almost everything that they'd like to do with our nation's healthcare. I don't think that it's a masculine trait to feel that issues should be presented fairly rather than repackaged to pander to audiences' preconceived notions.
Of course, I understand that you had to perceive me in a hostile manner. Posting on here, I don't expect my thoughts to be judged on their own merits, but through the lens of my gender. Someone had to do it, so it was good of you to step up. On that note, I wish you well.
My "preconceived notion" is that victims of violence, people with disabilities, and other oppressed groups within society deserve to not be told, literally, to fuck off and die by an evil system that caters only to the wealthy and able-bodied.
According to you, Sex Toy James, I'm not giving the other side of that argument a "fair" hearing. And I'm supposed to not feel "hostile" toward that flavour of douchebaggery. Gotcha.
It's not the lens of gender, it's the lens of privilege. Which is kinda the basis of any progressive analysis. What are _you_ doing here, if not that? (Before you answer, you might like to go look up "devil's advocate".)
lauredhel, I think it's because quite few people don't seem to understand that human rights apply to all humans, no exception because they have the wrong kind of illness or are the wrong kind of person.
I'm pragmatic and I don't believe in dogma. I don't believe in black and white situations. If you present this argument as "The evil such and such is doing such and such, so we should stop them." then we're being led to a conclusion. In this case the conclusion is that restrictions should be in place so that we all have to pay equally to support the lucrative battered women industry. I just don't like supporting that industry, and would like an option that treats the domestic violence issue rather than arguing over who pays for it.
I'm here because I'm interested in feminist issues, and would like to see everyone better off. I just don't cast as many value judgments as you, and have different ways of looking at problems. I'm guessing that we agree on a lot of issues.
Please don't defend women who willingly choose to stay in a relationship where they are abused. There are many organizations out there in which they can seek assistance. They choose not to find help and stay in an environment where violence is done to them. At that point it is a recurring condition.
Honestly, it makes sense for insurance companies to have such a policy in place. They aren't a government entity, they are a business. They exist to make money, not hemorrhage it.
Don't forget that domestic violence isn't specific to women.
Where are the family and friends of these victims when they are in a hospital for the third, fourth, fifth time?
Wow. This is plain sick.
This reminds me of stories of soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan being tossed into jail for drug dependency.
Last I heard those organizations that provide services to battered women are currently underfunded and dealing with more demand than they had to when the economy was good.
I am not a sensitive dude, but my understanding that even if the services were easily available there are a lot of social and emotional pressures that make it hard to just leave. People will come up with all kind of excuses to persist in terrible situations. Abusive relationships are not black and white situations. I'm sure that many people who are in them don't realize it.
"People will come up with all kind of excuses to persist in terrible situations.... I'm sure that many people who are in them don't realize it. "
Is this supposed to be empathy? Because it sure doesn't sound like it to me. It sounds like the same old blaming in a different package.
Seriously? I have to emotionally relate to victims of domestic violence? It isn't enough to understand that people have coping methods that tell them that everything is okay and things aren't as bad as they are? It's not sufficient to understand that it's not as simple as just leaving one's partner and that there are all kinds of entanglements?
I'm a dude, conversing on a feminist blog. Clearly I don't have any sense of fear or conflict avoidance. I can relate to rationalizations because I'm good at them. I'm great at empathizing with women being tried for murder that might have been a response to domestic violence, but I'm privileged enough not to be able to relate well to living in fear. Relating to emotions clearly isn't one of my strong points.
It's not about having to imagine emotions (you know, since you're a guy that makes it totally impossible). It's about not being a disrespectful, patronizing jerk to people in seriously bad situations.
I didn't say that women will come up with excuses and rationalizations for being in bad situations. I said people, and I meant people in general. I truly mean that in a broad sense, and that victims of domestic violence are no different in that regard. I'm sorry if I came across as a patronizing jerk. I don't suppose anyone is reading this comment string anymore, but it matters to me that you understand that I didn't mean to be patronizing.
I'm not bad at emotions because I'm a guy, it's just my particular anomaly. I'm actually pretty good at positive emotions, but I lack fear and caution compared to the other guys I know. I'll try to be more sensitive in the future.
Holy hell, people, how much fail can you have in one comment section?
BTW, I *still* hate that we're sitting here pretending that certain preexisting condition exclusions are more outrageous than others. There is only one reason for it, and it starts with "a" and ends with "ism."
amandaw
Being from PA, I was very upset to see that as recently as 1996 the state was still allowing insurance companies to get away with this. I contacted a friend at the PA Dept of Insurance to get an update and better understanding of what the situation was. I got the following response:
Yes, in 1996, the Unfair Insurance Practices Act was amended to prohibit insurance companies from denying, canceling or refusing to renew an insurance policy, or restricting coverage, adding a surcharge, excluding benefits or applying an adverse rating factor to an individual's policy because the individual has been a victim of domestic violence.
===
Here is also a link to a notice that the Unfair Insurance Practices Act had been amended:
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol26/26-18/737.html