Eight States Still Allow Insurance Companies To Use Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition

McClatchy:

Eight states and the District of Columbia don't have laws that specifically bar insurance companies from using domestic violence as a pre-existing condition to deny health coverage, according to a study from the National Women's Law Center.

Read the whole story: McClatchy

Comments

[Carol06095]

Just saw the AMA's comparison of denial of claim by insurance companies. Guess who was first on that list- Medicare.

[dukeuch]

Are you sure about that? Because the AMA has Medicare ranked much higher than the 7 other nationla payers studied in terms of their report card.

[GoDems2012]

More good reasons not to visit or live in the south.

[DSteel]

Birth is a prerequisite to all injury and illness, and therefore is a preexisting condition.

[RightWingMarine]

it would seem that many posters here don't bother to read the entire article before blindly letting Michael Moore do their thinking for them.

The article doens't claim that insurnace companies are denying claims and citing domestic abuse as a pre-existing condition (and if one were to do so particurally in the current climate that situation would probably make more news than this.) but that people that have a pattern that could be indicitive or domestic abuse are not being permitted to renew the policy or are denied coverage to begin with. This is still deplorable but it is not what is implied by the article title.

As another poster opined earlier that we all have a pre-exsisting condition to getting shot or hit by a car but they seemingly neglected to think through the problem they presented. If a person had a habit of getting shot or hit by cars it would seem reasonable that insurance companies would decline to insure that person or drop their coverage once the term was complete. This is what insurance companies are doing in regards to domestic violence. A person has frequent hospital visits for injuries so the insurnace company declines to insure them. Why would the company take on a client they suspect will continue to have hospital costs?

[SierraL]

First of all, I respect your service (I am an Air Force veteran....ok don't laugh).

It would seem to me that you are arguing in favor of the practice of insurance companies. And that is where my disagreement begins with your post. Why shouldn't all other citizens have the same access to health care that we had/have as active military members (don't know your status)? When one argues "that we all have a pre-exsisting condition " the point is insurance companies will go to great lengths to finds reasons not pay claims. I hope you are never in a situation where you, or a family member, is in need of care that you can't afford. With all do respect, If you believe that this system is just, has your service been for your/our contries citizens or corporations? Please respond....

[RightWingMarine]

All Americans have the same access to care that the military provides, they just have to pay for it and the cost is more easily seen. They can buy insurance or pay for their treatment out of their pocket but the healthcare is there. They may not be able to afford the insurance or the out of pocket expense but that is not what this article is about.

this article details that some insurance companies choose to not offer insurance or renew insurance to persons that are or may be the victims of domestic violence. If a person is a frequent visitor to the hospital and states that their injuries are from various accidents that is all the insurance company has to go on. The insurance company doesn't investigate to see if their client is being abused, that is the job of the police. From the insurnace companies point of view this is simply a client that becomes injuried on a regular basis and is therefore an unattractive client. Just as someone that has a regular hobby of rock climbing, boxing, MMA would make unattractive clients because the potential for injury is high. There has not been a case of an insurance company denying payment on a claim and citing past physical abuse as a reason.

[DSteel]

Alot of minds would be changed if the V.A. or Medicare started pulling this crap.

I agree their are alot of people out there who are in situations that are counter productive to their health, some by choice, some not. So where do we draw the line with the insurers. Every time you drive, the odds being in an accident are pretty high. So with this process it isn't to big of a stretch to assume getting into the vehicle created a pre existing condition leading to an accident

[RightWingMarine]

If the VA stopped covering injuries that one received as a result of service I can agree that it would upset many people and not just veterans. After all why have a VA if they are not going to treat veterans that were injured in war?

Insurers now how much they want to insure someone given their age other factors that relate to what they are insuring. Young male drivers pay the highest insurance because they are inexperienced and history tells us that they will be more wreckless as drivers than any other demographic. Insurance premiums reflect that. Individuals that frequently get in wrecks where they are at fault or where no fault can be determined will see their premiums increase and eventually get dropped altogether. This is well known and the cause of drivers to argue over who was at fault in a wreck. This article decries that the same thing happens with health insurance. A person is a frequent vistor to the hospital, their premiums go up. Eventually they are dropped from coverage. The insurnace company doesn't know that the person was a victim of domestic violence and it's not their job to investigate, that's why we have police. From the insurance companies point of view the insured is frequently engaged in activities that result in treatment. If the cost of treatment exceeds the income made from insuring that person then that person is dropped from coverage. There is nothing sinister about it, just business.

[dfranz]

Why does it not suprise me that these are Republican states? (DC is basically run by congress.)

They must figure that if a woman get's beat up by her husband she made some bad decisions so that's her tough luck. Ah, Republican logic.

[Tyler-Durden]

this is why we need a public option. contact your congressmen today!

[duxguts]

Hey, those Taliban really treat their women bad don't they?

[rissole]

Next time your state lawmakers are up for election, remember this.

[jjgg5]

Well, if women didn't make their husbands angry, this wouldn't even be an issue.

[Tyler-Durden]

that's not funny. not even a little. it's obnoxious. you thought so highly of it, you couldn't keep it inside your little pea brain? you had to share it with the public?

practice thinking before speaking. it will help. if not you, those around you.

[vascopyjama]

See you in church on Sunday creep.

[TJCole]

We all have a pre-existing condition being susceptible to bullets too...and being hit by an automobiles as well...!

We're slaves to our corporate masters, they control our government own it, we're not a democracy anymore, we're a bribeocracy...

Once the corporations and banks can get between the people and their elected officials, then you've lost your democracy...

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Can you imagine the hue and cry if a non-female-likely crime were considered?

[Neophile]

Not to diminish any woman's experience with domestic violence, but people need to realize that it's not only a women's issue. When I was hit with a baseball bat by my first wife, the police laughed at me. They laughed! My injuries weren't severe, but still, I was stunned at the response.

I fully acknowledge that physical spousal abuse tends to injure women more than it does men, but I'd venture that is not because more men abuse women. Rather it is because men are often more resilient to [physical injury.

[techjockey]

I think most people would agree that your spouse should have it on her record as well as any man who beats their spouse. The same mental issues are at work.
It is also reasonable to state that men that are victims of domestic violence should not be precluded from medical care because they are victims also.

[lmvd3]

That is truly sick and sexist.

[PetrBuben]

Shocking state of male owned and controlled society - an already deeply troubling crime - domestic terrorism epidemic of male violence against women, is now an excuse to make more money off women by private wild capitalism insurance and medical corporations and bureaucracies and their criminal, medical fascism healthcare profit-over-lives private biggest fraud on earth healthcare extortion racket system. .....

Wake up America. .....

Healthcare is a human right, not only for rich. At least in all western developed countries.

shouldn't rather that criminal violent male be arrested, and stripped of HIS medical care? ..rather than lady victim being denied healthcare after being attacked by violent animal male?....

This is an act of overt criminal republican conservative feudalism post slavery policy .....

shouldn't male attacker pay medical bills of his victim? rather than conservative lawmakers helping criminals to assault women?

[darthmaul]

Forget about the male-female issue here. It's all about the money. If the insurance company finds some behavior that they can use to discriminate against men, they will do it if it improves the bottom-line.

For example teenage boys pay, on average, twice as much for car insurance as teenage girls

[tierone]

Wow.