If there weren't already so many stories out there about people being denied or losing health insurance because of such serious pre-existing conditions like acne, having had C-sections, and -- GASP -- hay fever, the idea that people could be denied health insurance because of domestic violence would be completely unbelievable.
In reality, denying coverage because someone has been abused is allowed right here in South Dakota.
This is heartbreaking. Women and men who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse struggle enough with breaking the cycle of that violence -- alas, insurance companies know that it can take time to get out of those situations, and time is money, right?
I was disappointed to see Pat Powers claim that being denied insurance is no big deal, that people can still get treated. Apparently someone hasn't been doing all their homework, as it's often impossible to get on transplant lists if you're uninsured. Need spendy cancer treatment? Good luck getting that. Unless you're somewhere close to Steve Kirby Rich, you're simply not going to get treated. That's part of why 60 percent of bankruptcies in the U.S. are because of medical bills. People lose their homes, their farms, their businesses because they can't get or they lose coverage. I'd call that a big deal.
Obviously, getting and keeping health insurance is important. It's not just about telling people to "work harder." We're talking about people who can afford insurance and are denied it, or people who have been paying premiums for years and lose coverage the moment they get sick. President Obama's health care plan includes removing discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, including -- and I can't believe I have to freakin' say this -- domestic violence. If you haven't already, let Johnson, Herseth Sandlin, and Thune know how important it is to pass health care reform, including the removal of pre-existing abuses.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Angie -
I don't think your statement "In reality, denying coverage because someone has been abused is allowed right here in South Dakota" is necessarily correct.
As I noted to Cory at Madville times a few days ago when he wrote on this topic, From about 1994-1999 I was the person who handled the life and health insurance complaints received by the SD Division of Insurance.
In all my recollections, I received and fought some pretty goofy things. But I can assure you, I never once ran across a situation where someone was being denied coverage because they had been a victim of domestic assault.
I would agree that such a possibility shakes the conscience, were it to occur. However, as I said, I've never heard of it happening. NOT ONCE in 5 years did I receive a complaint on it.
Aside from your blog linking to a blog which linked to a website which has a report claiming that such a practice is allowable, can you point an example or two to whom it has happened in SD?
Going back to the source material, what it says is that ..."it is still legal in nine states and D.C. for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence." I take this to mean that there is no law that specifically outlaws the practice, with no further research into the topic.
And they're correct. There is no law outlawing the practice. HOWEVER, the language used in insurance policies (what is covered and what is not) has be vetted through the SD Division of Insurance, and much of the bad stuff is weeded out without the need for laws.
If anything, the media has come down in the past on the SD DOI being too aggressive, as opposed to being too lax.
The question you might want to ask of the division of insurance before everyone's knee jerks on this is "Are there any insurance policies approved for use in South Dakota which exclude domestic abuse victims from coverage?"
And/or "Are you aware of any companies doing business in SD which are allowed to disqualify domestic abuse victims from coverage as part of the underwriting process."
Unless you can point to some examples, the absence of a law does not mean that such things are allowed to occur in our fair state.
BTW... saying that I claim that being denied insurance is no big deal, would be like me saying you kick puppies for enjoyment.
I most certainly did not say that.
What I said was that neither socialized medicine nor socialized health insurance is the answer to this country's health care woes.
In fact, I believe Obamacare will make them worse.
Re: lack of domestic violence specific laws:
We know there's story after story after story out there of people losing or being denied health insurance because of pre-existing conditions -- even for small things we all get from time to time. In my opinion, for-profit insurance companies have proven themselves to be of bad faith when it comes to deciding what pre-existing conditions to cover or exclude, and I think we absolutely need clearer laws to prevent people from being mistreated by the systems that are supposed to be there for them when they get sick.
Re: consequences of losing/being denied health insurance: I was paraphrasing what I interpreted to be the tone of your post, to which I linked. Specifically, I took issue with the following:
"However, it seems as if insurance does, as I noticed one commenter talking about how a potential refusal to insure is somehow justification for socialized medicine. Insurance is no more than paying a fee to someone else (an insurer) for your participation in a pool (of people of similar situation) to assume the risk of paying claims.
No one says you have to get insurance. In that case, you pay your own way. It’s perfectly legal if you want to do that. The problem is that medical expenses have risen so much, it’s foolhardy to consider."
Saying people "consider" something implies they would only go without insurance through an intentional choice of their own. Since I guess we're in AnalogyVille tonight, saying not having insurance is something people choose is like saying that some people choose to
The problem with the current health care system that probably affects the most people is that people who *want* health insurance can't get it, or lose it when they need it most. I don't understand this ridiculous idea that the only people who don't have health insurance are those who *choose* to go without, even when most people filing medical bankruptcies have had insurance.
Angie -
Why do we need a law if it is not being allowed at this point? Because 'it might' happen?
We could use that same mentality and outlaw Godzilla. Why? Because someone *might* accidentally unleash a giant radioactive lizard.
That's the worst kind of legislation.
I think what Angie is saying is that if your state has already been attacked by Rodan and Mothra, making a law against a theoretic Godzilla doesn't seem that crazy at all.
Post a Comment