The GOP wants women domestic violence victims to get penalized by health insurance

[Le Jacquelope]

They certainly don't want this to be changed. And the GOP has previously voted to keep penalizing women for being domestic violence victims.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/when-getting-beaten-by-yo_n_286029.html

When Getting Beaten By Your Husband Is A Pre-Existing Condition

First Posted: 09-14-09 01:36 PM | Updated: 09-15-09 10:25 AM

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.

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.

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.

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for an insurance industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), said that the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has proposed ending the discrimination. "The NAIC has a model on this that we strongly supported. That model bans the use of a person's status as a victim of domestic violence in making a decision on coverage," he said.

During the last health care reform push, in 1993 and 1994, the industry similarly promised to end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.

Murray pushed to include the domestic violence concern in this year's comprehensive health care bill. "Senator Murray continues to believe that victims of domestic violence should not be punished for the crimes of their abusers. That is why she worked to include language in the Senate HELP Committee's health insurance reform bill that would ban this discriminatory and harmful insurance company practice," said spokesman Eli Zupnick.

In 1994, then-Rep. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), now a member of Senate leadership, had his staff survey 16 insurance companies. He found that eight would not write health, life or disability policies for women who have been abused. In 1995, the Boston Globe found that Nationwide, Allstate, State Farm, Aetna, Metropolitan Life, The Equitable Companies, First Colony Life, The Prudential and the Principal Financial Group had all either canceled or denied coverage to women who'd been beaten.

The Service Employees International Union asked members to write letters to Congress regarding the exclusion and have quickly generated hundreds, says an SEIU spokeswoman.

The relevant provision:

SEC. 2706. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.

'(a) IN GENERAL.--A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan or coverage based on any of the following health status-related factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual:

(1) Health status.

(2) Medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses).

(3) Claims experience.

(4) Receipt of health care.

(5) Medical history.

(6) Genetic information.

(7) Evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence).

(8) Disability.

(9) Any other health status-related factor determined appropriate by the Secretary.

UPDATE: The eight states that still allow it are Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming, according to a report by the National Women's Law Center.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I see a lot of Republicans saw this and then decided they were too scared to talk.

 

[bronzeage]

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=30653740&postcount=41

http://thxforthe.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/women-just-have-to-shut-the-fuck-up.jpg

 

[Songcatcher]

No1 cause of African American deaths is abortion.

Obamacare covers abortion.

What does that tell you about Obama?

 

[MeeMie]

What the GOP really wants...

Health Care Reform – The Right Way

by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL)


Over the last eight months, I worked to build a coalition in Congress to reduce health care costs and expand insurance coverage without increasing spending, raising taxes, rationing care, or putting the government between you and your doctor.

After months of hard work and consensus building, the Republican Tuesday Group developed the centrist Medical Rights and Reform Act to dramatically reduce the cost of health insurance for all Americans without bankrupting the country and without compromising the doctor-patient relationship.

Our plan would end lawsuit abuse, expand electronic medical records, allow Americans to buy health insurance across state lines, and give individuals who buy their own insurance the same tax breaks we give corporations.

And, most importantly, our plan would prohibit the government from rationing care or overruling the judgment of your family physician.


Before the President’s most recent address, I released four key questions I hoped the President would address.

First, how would the Democrat health care bill lower the deficit?

The Congressional Budget Office scored the Speaker’s bill at over $1 trillion, including a $160 billion cut for Medicare, a $587 billion tax increase, and a $295 billion increase to the deficit.

This Congress already gave us a $1.8 trillion deficit. America cannot afford to spend another trillion. We need to lower health care costs without spending money we don’t have and without raising taxes.


Second, since other countries restrict care to save money in their big-government health care programs, how will the Democrat plan protect the practice of medicine in America?

Democrats in Congress claim that any health care reform plan must include a “public option” to increase “competition” and help bring down costs.

Let us be clear – a government-run insurance program will not compete with the private sector; it will replace it.

By the laws of economics, the private sector cannot fairly compete with the U.S. Treasury. Once a government-run health care system is in place, costs will be controlled by squeezing the suppliers of health care – that is, by rationing care to all Americans.

In a government-run health care system, the government decides what tests and treatment you need – not your doctor. This plan is unacceptable.


Third, since the Democrat plan cuts $160 billion from Medicare, how will it prevent harm to seniors?

H.R. 3200 cuts reimbursements for medical technology, especially imaging, which is vital in the early detection of disease. The U.S. would soon follow trends in Canada and Britain where access to medical technology is in short supply.


Last, since litigation and defensive medicine adds $300 billion annually to America’s health care costs, how will the Democrat plan reform lawsuits?

The Speaker’s bill has no lawsuit reforms for America.

Recently, the former head of the Democratic National Committee reported that Congressional leaders could not include such reforms for political reasons.




Unfortunately, the President left my questions unanswered and ignored common-sense alternatives that could achieve many of his objectives without spending a trillion dollars, raising taxes, rationing care or cutting Medicare.

Alternatives like our Medical Rights and Reform Act.

Without the government-run option and the 52 other programs established by the Speaker’s bill, our plan’s cost would be centered on the $300 billion widely recognized as needed to prevent the scheduled “Sustainable Growth Rate” cut for doctors practicing under Medicare. And it would be paid for by unobligated balances from the stimulus bill.

The Medical Rights and Reform Act would prohibit government rationing of health care. The main pillar of the Act protects the doctor-patient relationship in statute by banning action by Congress to interfere with medical decisions.

Our proposal would defend Medicare and prevent the scheduled 21% cut in reimbursements for doctors treating seniors.

Finally, our plan would contain extensive reforms to cut the $300 billion spent annually in defensive medicine and litigation.


Last month, while many of my colleagues were hiding from their constituents, I hosted two public health care town hall meetings in the largest city in my congressional district. I traveled across the State of Illinois visiting 40 cities in 27 days. At every stop, health care was at the top of the agenda.

All Americans – Democrat or Republican – agree with the President that health care costs are exploding and that we need reforms to lower health insurance costs and expand coverage to more Americans. The people I talked to want reform – but they don’t think the Speaker’s bill is the right approach.

In my view, there are a series of common-sense reforms that would dramatically reduce the cost of health care in America and expand insurance coverage to millions of our fellow citizens.

Instead of pursing a partisan, trillion-dollar, big-government plan, it’s time to consider centrist proposals like the Medical Rights and Reform Act and get something done for the American people.