Treating Domestic Violence as a Preexisting Condition is Only One Example of the Rampant Sexism in t

http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/904


Treating Domestic Violence as a Preexisting Condition is Only One Example of the Rampant Sexism in the Healthcare Debate


After hearing so many miserable stories on the practices of rescission and denying coverage to "high-risk" individuals, I thought I could no longer be all that shocked by how dastardly and despicable private insurance companies could be. But that was before I was told that domestic violence is a preexisting condition.

-snip-

The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is bringing attention to the fact that it is legal in eight states and the District of Columbia for insurance companies to deny coverage due to previous instances of domestic violence. This is not merely a legalistic exercise, either: SEIU also notes that half of the largest insurers have used domestic violence as a reason to limit and/or deny care to customers in the past.

When you remove the public relations element, it makes sense that insurance companies would do this to minimize risk. After all, 35 percent of all calls to emergency rooms are related to domestic violence, and 37 percent of women making emergency room visits do so because of abuse from their current or former partner. Surely it gets expensive.

-snip-

But the study also found that individual insurance is more expensive for women due to the practice of "gender rating," even though women are generally healthier -- and engage in more cost-saving preventative care -- than men. Also, they found affordable maternal health insurance is notoriously difficult to obtain, leading this cartoonist to quip that just "being a woman" a preexisting condition.

The realities of the job market for women also means fair reform of health insurance may effect women more than men. Women are more likely to work part-time and in undervalued "pink collar" industries, both of which commonly lack healthcare insurance coverage. Furthermore, though there's no broad scientific data on this, at least two studies I found confirmed my suspicion that women tend to work at smaller companies, which routinely have less secure health insurance profiles on the whole due to their limited bargaining power.

Even before they enter the job market, women are discriminated against in access to affordable healthcare. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 gave drug companies an economic incentive to stop offering birth control pills to colleges and other low-cost providers at a discount, meaning that a month's worth of pills that once cost from $3 to $10 skyrocketed to somewhere between $30 and $50.

-snip-

While everyone left of Rush Limbaugh is willing to stand up for battered women, the only people I can find still willing to touch the abortion issue as relates to the healthcare reform effort is the occasional pro-choice or women's organization. National Organization of Women President Terry O'Neill issued a statement last week in response to Obama's speech that said in part:

We will not tolerate the use and abuse of women's health care needs to achieve other political ends. Marginalizing women's health care marginalizes women as a class.

For far too long, family planning, pregnancy care and abortion have been marginalized as something "other" than basic health care, which NOW believes implicitly contributes to right-wing demonizing of abortion providers. Legislators continue to ban federal health care dollars from abortion, which directly opposes the will of the majority of the public that believes that abortion services should be covered in any health insurance reform plan.

-snip-

So when Congress hammers out its plans for healthcare reform, I'm guessing victims of domestic violence will probably get a break as preexisting conditions fade out of favor. But a truly fair approach to healthcare coverage -- one that would not discriminate against poor women -- is not politically feasible. At that point we should ask ourselves this question: Is it more defensible to discriminate against poor people and rape victims than victims of domestic violence?
---------------------------


there are more women in the United States then men.

there are more women in the World then men.

when are we going to assume our Power and stop the men and religiously insane women from standing on our necks?

nt

This is outrageous, makes my quarrels with BCBS seem triffling -

I must add to your thoughts -
Men are victims of domestic violence, too, whether less often than women -

Family violence is a cycle that has to be broken, children witnessing violent behavior come to think of it as normal and a way to express opinions, wants, needs, and become ticking time bombs.

and as a victim of domestic violence - talking about it is the best prevention; I had no idea such a thing happened until my household went out of control and all the blame was on me. I suddenly feel fortunate that the injuries looked like something else - I didn't have to explain myself at the hospital (this is ancient history for me, yet causing current problems for adult child...)

here's one example that jumped out at me.

"After all, 35 percent of all calls to emergency rooms are related to domestic violence, and 37 percent of women making emergency room visits do so because of abuse from their current or former partner. "

absolute rubbish. i would hope there were some ER nurse/docs here who would know from experience that this is just ridiculous.

this is the ACTUAL stat:

"•One in four women seeking care in the emergency department for any reason is a domestic-violence survivor."

"•Some 2-5% of women who are treated in a hospital's emergency department are there for an injury from domestic violence."
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/domestic_violence/article_em.htm
so, the article only inflates the occurrent by AT LEAST 7 TIMES (5X7=35) or as much as 18 times.

that's ridiculous.

and anybody who reads this article should INSTANTLY have their bullshit meter go off when it claims that THIRTY FIVE PERCENT of ER calls are DV related.

that's just insanely dumb. and yet, the writers of this article didn't research it.

crap journalism from the buzzflash blog

and you sound rabid

but apparently evidence doesn't matter when you have an agenda. how "progressive"

i refuted their claim with a cite (plenty more) and it is patently absurd on its face. i can provide several more cites to corroborate that they are off by a factor of approximately TEN.

and i noted you completely glossed over their factual error i pointed out.

Rather than attacking the messenger? If you have numbers which disprove anything the poster you responded to said, then provide them. But to attack someone simply because they're posting factual information is beyond the pale. There is no doubt that domestic violence is an incredibly serious issue, but who gains from posting completely inaccurate statistics regarding it?

recall the pernicious 'super bowl' myth in re: domestic violence. when people see a statistic they WANT to believe because it supports their metannarrative, they rarely bother to vet it. they repeat it as if its gospel. and the lie spreads

it was shockingly wrong, but repeated by NUMEROUS MSM sources NONE of whom bothered to try to confirm it's validity.

everybody is entitled to their opinion, but facts are facts.

i have great sympathy for DV victims. i've arrested scores of DV offenders and helped scores of victims. it doesn't mean i accept bogus stats.

nt

there stats are off by a factor of approx. 10 as i proved via citation.

you can accept lies if it makes you feel better, or check the ACTUAL cites and realize that buzzflash can't even get the facts right.

...of DV was NOT denied coverage on the basis of this "pre-existing condition" then take them to pieces with a nice simple gender discrimination suit.

Just the bad PR of the existence of such a suit could well be enough to convince them to annouce that this is one legal loophole they won't be taking advantage of in the future. And perhaps even reevaluate past claims.

I agree with the original statistics stated by the poster, however even if Paulsby believes they're exaggerated, do we conclude that any insurance company should EVER have the RIGHT to list victimization as a freakin' pre-existing condition???

MenWeb may have different stats but I personally don't care!

The CDC has some excellent stats on domestic violence which include men, women & CHILDREN. Look to them for an eye-opener!

Except for obscene greed, there would not BE pre-existing condition exclusions of anything! AND there shouldn't be! If we're lucky enough to have insurance it's probably through an employer and they can change the plan every bloody year!

I don't live my life in installments - we need unbroken GD coverage, regardless!

ones..

buzzflash is off by approx a factor of 10. to claim that 35 % of ER calls are DV related is absurd on its face, unsupported by cites, and the ACTUAL stats are 2-5%.

i posted ONE link. i can post MORE if you want them.

i 100% think that it is WRONG that insurance companies treat DV victimization as a pre-existing condition.

and i fucking hate guys that beat women. i've spend a career (or a good part of it) helping DV victims and bringing offenders to justice and treatment

but i don't accept FALSE data to support a good cause

if you want more cites, ask for them.

That still does not address the point of this article.

Do these victims suffer from insurance discrimination also? What about injuries from DV which may fall under the radar because victims refused to cite DV but chose instead to say "they fell" or whatever?

Just curious.

i think it's disgusting (and should be illegal) for insurance companies to treat crime victimization as a pre-existing condition.

my point was tangential to that.

what is revealing is that buzzflash can print such BLATANTLY ridiculous DV stats, and people don't even blink an eye, nor does buzzflash realize their stats are fabricated.

that speaks to blind ideology, which is never a good thing, even if for a good cause.

...no abortions, no BC pills, and if you are beat up and injured, fuck off, eat shit and die.

Unbelievable! :grr:

There are still some here, apparently, who believe that sexism has eradicated from the face of the earth, if it ever existed in the first place.

Even if the figures are not exact, just the fact that it happens AT ALL is outright sexism at its very best!

the difference between 35% and 2 to 5 % is hardly just "not exact"

if i said the population of the USA was 3 billion, would that be "not exact"?

it's the same range of error.

YES!