billvon 3,176 #1 October 22, 2009 That's right - rape (and the resultant treatment for it) is now a "pre-existing condition" that makes you uninsurable. At least it saves insurance companies some money. ============== Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month’s worth of anti-AIDS medicine. Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable. Turner had let the men buy her drinks at a bar in Fort Lauderdale. The next thing she knew, she said, she was lying on a roadside with cuts and bruises that indicated she had been raped. She never developed an HIV infection. But months later, when she lost her health insurance and sought new coverage, she ran into a problem. Turner, 45, who used to be a health insurance underwriter herself, said the insurance companies examined her health records. Even after she explained the assault, the insurers would not sell her a policy because the HIV medication raised too many health questions. ================ http://huffpostfund.org/stories/2009/10/rape-victims-choice-risk-aids-or-health-insurance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2 October 22, 2009 You have to read pretty far into this article to see that this happened at least 3-4 years ago. It's certainly no coincidence it's headlining now. The insurance industry certainly doesn't help itself with this denials of kids for being 17 pounds or only 22 pounds. But this sort of case - denying a rape victim - is intended to sway opinion. Some of the latter examples are as recent as last year, and others date back to ~2000. I think the industry will have to offer a more constructive solution than: those people don't get policies. If they can't or won't, then its a matter of time before the feds do take over. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #3 October 22, 2009 OMG these insurers are just begging for reform. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #4 October 22, 2009 QuoteYou have to read pretty far into this article to see that this happened at least 3-4 years ago. It's certainly no coincidence it's headlining now. The insurance industry certainly doesn't help itself with this denials of kids for being 17 pounds or only 22 pounds. But this sort of case - denying a rape victim - is intended to sway opinion. Some of the latter examples are as recent as last year, and others date back to ~2000. I think the industry will have to offer a more constructive solution than: those people don't get policies. If they can't or won't, then its a matter of time before the feds do take over. The "intent to sway opinion" is a correct conclusion. Why is it a bad thing that the stories formerly NOT covered by any form of mainstream media are now being covered? Do you have a problem with the with the exposure of "the usual tactics", when it comes to insurance companies and their business methodology? Is your preference that these facts should continue to be withheld from the public knowlege? Does this new information outrage you? Why not? Is there something rotten in the "health insurance industry"? It is time for thr USA to join the rest of the first world and move to single payer. Sooner than later. Losing 30-40% of revenue to administrative costs, excessive compensation for insurance industry executives, and profits for shareholders is not working out for us, the people of the USA. There is no logical argument that the situation is fine as it is. Major reform is needed. Lets not screw around with tiny steps that do nothing meaningful. Single payer NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #5 October 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou have to read pretty far into this article to see that this happened at least 3-4 years ago. It's certainly no coincidence it's headlining now. The insurance industry certainly doesn't help itself with this denials of kids for being 17 pounds or only 22 pounds. But this sort of case - denying a rape victim - is intended to sway opinion. Some of the latter examples are as recent as last year, and others date back to ~2000. I think the industry will have to offer a more constructive solution than: those people don't get policies. If they can't or won't, then its a matter of time before the feds do take over. The "intent to sway opinion" is a correct conclusion. Why is it a bad thing that the stories formerly NOT covered by any form of mainstream media are now being covered? Do you have a problem with the with the exposure of "the usual tactics", when it comes to insurance companies and their business methodology? Is your preference that these facts should continue to be withheld from the public knowlege? Does this new information outrage you? Why not? Is there something rotten in the "health insurance industry"? It is time for thr USA to join the rest of the first world and move to single payer. Sooner than later. Losing 30-40% of revenue to administrative costs, excessive compensation for insurance industry executives, and profits for shareholders is not working out for us, the people of the USA. There is no logical argument that the situation is fine as it is. Major reform is needed. Lets not screw around with tiny steps that do nothing maningful. Single payer NOW. Not "NOW".... I would like it done RIGHT. There are BIG problems with the insurance business. But I don't know that I believe that the government will manage it much better. Those are tragic examples of exclusions... but those individuals can then go to a different carrier and apply for a different plan. If it's a government only situation...you might not be "excluded" but your treatment might be. The system IS broke. (Trust me, I know... it was easier for me to just pay some bills that the insurance company "claimed" was excluded - which after re-reading the policy, I could prove that it wasn't - than it was to deal with the paperwork of resubmitting with re-coding of "proper" ICD-9 and blah blah blah.... It is broke) But let's take the time to do it RIGHT. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #6 October 22, 2009 Quote The system IS broke. (Trust me, I know... it was easier for me to just pay some bills that the insurance company "claimed" was excluded - which after re-reading the policy, I could prove that it wasn't - than it was to deal with the paperwork of resubmitting with re-coding of "proper" ICD-9 and blah blah blah.... It is broke) But let's take the time to do it RIGHT. The main problem so far I see is that "doing it right" would likely require 3,000-pages bill - and people already have problem with a 1,000 bill.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 October 22, 2009 Quote It is time for thr USA to join the rest of the first world and move to single payer. Sooner than later. Losing 30-40% of revenue to administrative costs, excessive compensation for insurance industry executives, and profits for shareholders is not working out for us, the people of the USA. There is no logical argument that the situation is fine as it is. Major reform is needed. Lets not screw around with tiny steps that do nothing meaningful. Single payer NOW. That's the purpose of the story - single payer NOW, not necessarily RIGHT. Given the importance of it, I do have issues with any entity that wants to make it emotional rather than rational. And yes, it would be great to achieve cost savings. That's a much more compelling argument for some than some people don't have (either by lack of option or by choice) insurance. Unfortunately, thus far, how to get the cost savings are TBD and aren't part of the discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #8 October 23, 2009 I agree with what's been said so far. Why is it that stories about people waiting months to see a doctor in canada or some woman dying while on a cat scan waiting list in Britain are just anecdotal evidence and don't hold any weight, but stories like this are drug out for everyone to cry over? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 October 23, 2009 QuoteI agree with what's been said so far. Why is it that stories about people waiting months to see a doctor in canada or some woman dying while on a cat scan waiting list in Britain are just anecdotal evidence and don't hold any weight, but stories like this are drug out for everyone to cry over? "It's for the CHILLLLLLLRennnnnnnnn", part two. Get the emotional response/support so they can get the bill passed, even though they know it's shit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #10 October 23, 2009 QuoteGet the emotional response/support so they can get the bill passed, even though they know it's shit. So, just for argument's sake - do you think the insurance company was justified in denying her insurance?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #11 October 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteGet the emotional response/support so they can get the bill passed, even though they know it's shit. So, just for argument's sake - do you think the insurance company was justified in denying her insurance? Funny where Bill chooses to clip off his quote - right before this line: QuoteThey told her they might reconsider in three or more years if she could prove that she was still AIDS-free. Given the cost of treatment for AIDS, I can completely understand the insurance company not wanting to provide coverage to her.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,644 #12 October 23, 2009 I think the problem is that some folks see insurance companies as part of the medical system, and others see them as part of the business system. Back when treatments weren't that expensive, it wasn't all that bad to do without insurance, and insurance didn't have as many preconditions. And the insurance companies want to be seen as whatever will make them the most money , duh. I think that we, as a country, need to decide what our medical system needs to look like so that everyone has reasonable access to necessary medical care. That means defining (or re-defining) both "reasonable access" and "necessary medical care." And no one wants to be the first to do that. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #13 October 23, 2009 QuoteGiven the cost of treatment for AIDS, I can completely understand the insurance company not wanting to provide coverage to her. So, just to be clear, if a woman is raped, and the insurance company suspects she might have HIV after being raped, then you think it's perfectly fine for them to deny her health coverage. I only wanted to clarify, because I would find such a conclusion from anybody - shocking.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 October 23, 2009 Quote Back when treatments weren't that expensive, it wasn't all that bad to do without insurance, and insurance didn't have as many preconditions. I remember reading an article talking about how medicare actually caused the rise in prices. I wish I could find it again, it was an interesting piece, as I recall. Quote And the insurance companies want to be seen as whatever will make them the most money , duh. They're sort of in a gray area in between business and medicine - neither fish nor fowl. Quote I think that we, as a country, need to decide what our medical system needs to look like so that everyone has reasonable access to necessary medical care. That means defining (or re-defining) both "reasonable access" and "necessary medical care." And no one wants to be the first to do that. Nobody wants to be pay the price of being the first to do that, I think.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xtravrtsoul 0 #15 October 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteGet the emotional response/support so they can get the bill passed, even though they know it's shit. So, just for argument's sake - do you think the insurance company was justified in denying her insurance? Absolutely NOT!! Sorry this one is personal for me and I feel that insurance companies are just trying to take over the country.You create life, life does not create you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 October 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteGiven the cost of treatment for AIDS, I can completely understand the insurance company not wanting to provide coverage to her. So, just to be clear, if a woman is raped, and the insurance company suspects she might have HIV after being raped, then you think it's perfectly fine for them to deny her health coverage. I only wanted to clarify, because I would find such a conclusion from anybody - shocking. Are you still beating your wife? Done putting words in my mouth? If you are, go back and read what I said again, because you obviously can't understand it. I said that I UNDERSTOOD the reasoning of the insurance company. Do not confuse understanding of the situation with support of it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #17 October 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteGiven the cost of treatment for AIDS, I can completely understand the insurance company not wanting to provide coverage to her. So, just to be clear, if a woman is raped, and the insurance company suspects she might have HIV after being raped, then you think it's perfectly fine for them to deny her health coverage. I only wanted to clarify, because I would find such a conclusion from anybody - shocking. Are you still beating your wife? Done putting words in my mouth? If you are, go back and read what I said again, because you obviously can't understand it. I said that I UNDERSTOOD the reasoning of the insurance company. Do not confuse understanding of the situation with support of it. I UNDERSTAND why the criminally insane behave in antisocial ways, but I don't approve of it. Now, DO YOU, MNEALTX, think that it is perfectly fine to deny a woman health insurance coverage as a result of her being raped? Yes or no?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #18 October 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGiven the cost of treatment for AIDS, I can completely understand the insurance company not wanting to provide coverage to her. So, just to be clear, if a woman is raped, and the insurance company suspects she might have HIV after being raped, then you think it's perfectly fine for them to deny her health coverage. I only wanted to clarify, because I would find such a conclusion from anybody - shocking. Are you still beating your wife? Done putting words in my mouth? If you are, go back and read what I said again, because you obviously can't understand it. I said that I UNDERSTOOD the reasoning of the insurance company. Do not confuse understanding of the situation with support of it. I UNDERSTAND why the criminally insane behave in antisocial ways, but I don't approve of it. Now, DO YOU, MNEALTX, think that it is perfectly fine to deny a woman health insurance coverage as a result of her being raped? Yes or no? What part of "do not confuse understanding of the situation with support of it" didn't you get, professor? I'll be more than happy to break out the crayons and draw you a picture.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #19 October 23, 2009 Another biased stupid position piece trying to pass it self off as News. As usual, The truth is distorted and sensationalized (Just like the Fat baby story). She was NOT dropped because of the rape or even the Ant-aids drugs. She "Lost her health Insurance", The article does not say why she lost her insurance but it was NOT because she was raped or was on Anti-Aids meds. She went to ANOTHER company and they decided not to cover her based on their criteria. Again.. Just like the last time someone posted one of theses sensationalized stories that only tells part of the story, It was ONE company that she went to that denied her. Did she try any others? Why did she Loose the insurance she already had? Insurance is NOT a god given right. It is a product that is sold by private companies. Not all products are right for all people. What happened to her was tragic and I hope they find the assholes that did this to her cut their balls off or execute them myself. But a Private Business that offers a Product (Insurance) can set the condition upon which that product is offered. Saying that if have ever been on Anti-Aids Meds make you ineligible for THIS particular policy seems reasonable to me. If the exclusions are too broad, People will not buy the policies. I will once again say I think is the ENTIRE problem with Insurance right now. Group Policies and employer provided Health care. Most people do not have any real choice in their health insurance because they will just take whatever their employer is offering. Insurance companies know this. They are geared 100% towards selling to employers, Not to individuals. Want to Fix almost all problems?? Simple, Outlaw group Policies and make insurance companies have to start selling to individuals again. Give people a real choice in health insurance and the Companies will have to change the way they do business to be more customer centric. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,230 #20 October 23, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGiven the cost of treatment for AIDS, I can completely understand the insurance company not wanting to provide coverage to her. So, just to be clear, if a woman is raped, and the insurance company suspects she might have HIV after being raped, then you think it's perfectly fine for them to deny her health coverage. I only wanted to clarify, because I would find such a conclusion from anybody - shocking. Are you still beating your wife? Done putting words in my mouth? If you are, go back and read what I said again, because you obviously can't understand it. I said that I UNDERSTOOD the reasoning of the insurance company. Do not confuse understanding of the situation with support of it. I UNDERSTAND why the criminally insane behave in antisocial ways, but I don't approve of it. Now, DO YOU, MNEALTX, think that it is perfectly fine to deny a woman health insurance coverage as a result of her being raped? Yes or no? What part of "do not confuse understanding of the situation with support of it" didn't you get, professor? I'll be more than happy to break out the crayons and draw you a picture. I understand your weaseling reluctance to answer a very simple question. You can answer my simple question without any reference to those posed by previous posters. DO YOU, MNEALTX, think that it is perfectly fine to deny a woman health insurance coverage as a result of her being raped? Yes or no?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,176 #21 October 23, 2009 > Do not confuse understanding of the situation with support of it. Fair enough. You stated you understood it, but added that that does not mean you either support or don't support it. So the logical next question is - do you support their decision? Is it OK for insurance companies to deny rape victims coverage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #22 October 23, 2009 Quotethink that it is perfectly fine to deny a woman health insurance coverage as a result of her being raped? Of course not. But that is NOT what happened here. She HAD Insurance. For some unknown reason she lost that insurance and went looking for ANOTHER policy. This Particular OTHER Policy had an Exclusion that said "If you ever been on Anti-Aids Meds, You cant buy THIS policy". OK, Did she look at other policies?? Did she talk to other companies? What happened to her was horrible but trying to spin her tragedy into a position piece for Insurance regulation is pretty pathetic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 October 23, 2009 QuoteDO YOU, MNEALTX, think that it is perfectly fine to deny a woman health insurance coverage as a result of her being raped? Yes or no? DO YOU, JOHN KALLEND, understand plain English? QuoteDo not confuse understanding of the situation with support of itMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,176 #24 October 23, 2009 >This Particular OTHER Policy had an Exclusion that said "If you ever been >on Anti-Aids Meds, You cant buy THIS policy". No. ALL other policies had an exclusion that said "if you have ever been on Anti-AIDS Meds you can't buy ANY policy." From the article: "Insurers generally categorize HIV-positive people as having a pre-existing condition and deny them coverage. Holtzman said that health insurance companies also consistently decline coverage for anyone who has taken anti-HIV drugs, even if they test negative for the virus. “It’s basically an automatic no,” she said." Not one single particular insurer or one particular policy. >What happened to her was horrible but trying to spin her tragedy into a >position piece for Insurance regulation is pretty pathetic. Ignoring it and pretending things like this don't happen is even more pathetic. It would be fun to see the screams of rage from the right if PTSD is ever used as a pre-existing condition, and the VA was privatized. "Sorry, I see here you were in a war zone, and so were at high risk for PTSD. We can't cover you. NEXT!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos340 1 #25 October 23, 2009 Then why not tell the whole story. Why try to sensationalize it? The real issues here is the insurance companies will not sell NEW polices to people that were prescribed Anti-Aids Meds. I am still curious if that is true of ALL companies or Just a Few. I don't know the answer to that. Quote>What happened to her was horrible but trying to spin her tragedy into a >position piece for Insurance regulation is pretty pathetic. Ignoring it and pretending things like this don't happen is even more pathetic. Insurance is a Product sold by Private Companies. Somewhere along the line, People began to think they have a god given right to this product. They DONT!!! They have no more right these companies products as they do to any other companies products. Yes, I would like to see a Public option available people that can not get Insurance elsewhere. It is wrong to Force a private business to sell a product they don't want to sell. A product they feel they will loose money on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)