Rape victim denied health insurance

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

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?

DO YOU, JOHN KALLEND, understand plain English?

Quote

Do not confuse understanding of the situation with support of it

I understand that you UNDERSTAND the behavior of the insurance company. Nothing I have posted suggests that I don't understand that you understand.

However, if you understood plain English you would know that is NOT what I asked.

So how about answering my question instead of weaseling around it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[riddler 0]

Quote

If you are, go back and read what I said again, because you obviously can't understand it.

I apologize - I did not understand whether or not you support an insurance companies right to drop insurance for a rape victim based on the supposition that she might have HIV after being raped.

I think I didn't understand, because I did not read an actual answer from you, and so far you haven't really said yes or no.

So I noticed you were kinda leaning that way, with "understanding" their position. I was wondering if you support their decision?

And as far as "beating my wife", I don't really understand (or condone) spousal abuse from anyone else, and I don't believe I ever said so.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[billvon 2,434]

>Then why not tell the whole story. Why try to sensationalize it?

?? It did tell the whole story.

>The real issues here is the insurance companies will not sell NEW polices
>to people that were prescribed Anti-Aids Meds.

Right. That's the point of the article.

>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!

See, that's the problem. Health care isn't like a big screen TV. If Best Buy won't sell you a TV you won't die. If a hospital refuses to treat you you just might. That's the difference, and that's why health care is not just another product sold by a private company.

>Yes, I would like to see a Public option available people that can not get
>Insurance elsewhere.

I think that would be an excellent solution. People like the people in the above story would then be covered by the public option, and everyone else can use their chosen private option.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

an insurance companies right to drop insurance for a rape victim based on the supposition that she might have HIV after being raped.

I hope you do realize that is NOT what happened at all here (although the purpose of the article is to make people think that)
Her insurance Company did NOT drop her because of any of this.
She lost her insurance, But the reason for that was not mentioned in this article. It was when she went to a DIFFERENT company that this company would not sell her a new policy because she had been prescribe anti-aids meds at some point.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

?? It did tell the whole story.

Why not mention why she Lost her Insurance??
Why write the story in a way so people would likely misunderstand what really happened?
Why use "Rape Victim" in the title?

All of this is how they sensationalized the story.

the real truth is that "Insurance Company denies NEW coverage for people that have been prescribed Anti-Aids meds.".

Quote

>Yes, I would like to see a Public option available people that can not get
>Insurance elsewhere.

I think that would be an excellent solution. People like the people in the above story would then be covered by the public option, and everyone else can use their chosen private option.

We probably agree more than we disagree on most of this. My issue here is all the Bullshit being spewed trying to get people fired up by twisting the truth.

[billvon 2,434]

>Why not mention why she Lost her Insurance??

"Months later, when she lost her health insurance and sought new coverage, she ran into a problem."

>Why use "Rape Victim" in the title?

Because she was a rape victim.

>"Insurance Company denies NEW coverage for people that have been prescribed Anti-Aids meds.".

And some people with current policies are denied coverage as well:

"A 38-year-old woman in Ithaca, N.Y., said she was raped last year and then penalized by insurers because in giving her medical history she mentioned an assault she suffered in college 17 years earlier. The woman, Kimberly Fallon, told a nurse about the previous attack and months later, her doctor’s office sent her a bill for treatment. She said she was informed by a nurse and, later, the hospital’s billing department that her health insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, not only had declined payment for the rape exam, but also would not pay for therapy or medication for trauma because she “had been raped before." "

(The reason the insurance company will give here is that she "lied on her application" i.e. did not initially disclose the sexual assault in college.)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

So how about answering my question instead of weaseling around it?

Professor, you of all people have no business posting the above.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

And some people with current policies are denied coverage as well:

"A 38-year-old woman in Ithaca, N.Y., said she was raped last year and then penalized by insurers because in giving her medical history she mentioned an assault she suffered in college 17 years earlier. The woman, Kimberly Fallon, told a nurse about the previous attack and months later, her doctor’s office sent her a bill for treatment. She said she was informed by a nurse and, later, the hospital’s billing department that her health insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, not only had declined payment for the rape exam, but also would not pay for therapy or medication for trauma because she “had been raped before." "

(The reason the insurance company will give here is that she "lied on her application" i.e. did not initially disclose the sexual assault in college.)

So what does a prior victimization have to do with treatment for a new condition not related to a prior incident? I (unfortunately) have BCBS through my employer. They certainly never asked me about prior violent encounters.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[FallingOsh 0]

Do you want to go tit for tat on horror stories from the medical field? I'm sure we could find plenty of articles about people suffering on waiting lists from other countries, but those are just anecdotal, right?

If you want to drag out stories for people to cry over then drag them out from both sides. Of course there are flaws in the system. I'm personally in favor of serious tort reform to get medical costs under control. However, for each one of these horror stories, there is one to match from government run systems. For each one of these insurance injustices, there are are thousands who do fine with their health insurance.

If you want reform then bring something realistic to the table. Anecdotal evidence from you is no different than anecdotal evidence from the other side.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

If you want reform then bring something realistic to the table. Anecdotal evidence from you is no different than anecdotal evidence from the other side.

Agreed - so statistical evidence is needed.

Like national comparisons of life expectancy for males and females, infant mortality rates, etc.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Under our current system, people - sometimes very responsible people - sometimes have gaps in coverage, or need/want to get "new" insurance. That's where so much of the mischief of the "pre-existing condition" demon is wrought. Get rid of that demon, and with that one act you'd be doing a lot to humanize the system.

Most of the other Western industrialized countries have exorcised that demon via some system of universal health care. If someone has a better alternative of keeping health care mostly privatized the way it currently is in the US, and completely doing away with the "pre-existing condition" exclusion, I'm all ears.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Agreed - so statistical evidence is needed.

Like national comparisons of life expectancy for males and females, infant mortality rates, etc.

Like cancer survival rates, length of waiting periods before treatment, access to diagnostic equipment, etc...

Oh, wait...someone's ALREADY done that...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,648]

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.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

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?

I'll get my crayons.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

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?

I'll get my crayons.

Make sure you color within the lines. It will challenge you while you think of other ways of evading a simple question.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,434]

>DO YOU, MNEALTX, think that it is perfectly fine to deny a woman health
>insurance coverage as a result of her being raped?

He can't answer that question, because he can't see anything beyond his party's position papers - and on this subject there is some serious dissonance in those positions.

[billvon 2,434]

>Do you want to go tit for tat on horror stories from the medical field?

If you like. There are plenty of stories from both sides.

> Of course there are flaws in the system.

Agreed. I would prefer to fix them. This highlights a serious problem in our current system - people who, through no fault of their own, cannot get health insurance. Whether you were a fat baby, or were raped, or had PTSD due to being in a war zone, there should still be an avenue to get health insurance.

>If you want reform then bring something realistic to the table.

A public option that guarantees a minimal level of care, available to anyone without regard to pre-existing conditions. Alternatively, a health care exchange that any private company can enter, and that is supported by a small amount of government funding - but companies who participate may not exclude pre-existing conditions (like rape.)

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Under our current system, people - sometimes very responsible people - sometimes have gaps in coverage, or need/want to get "new" insurance. That's where so much of the mischief of the "pre-existing condition" demon is wrought. Get rid of that demon, and with that one act you'd be doing a lot to humanize the system.

Most of the other Western industrialized countries have exorcised that demon via some system of universal health care. If someone has a better alternative of keeping health care mostly privatized the way it currently is in the US, and completely doing away with the "pre-existing condition" exclusion, I'm all ears.

In this we are in agreement. Our existing system does need reform. There are better ways we can be doing things. The disagreement comes in what things we need to do.

I feel the real root of most all problems with Health Insurance relies in the Group Policy concepts combined with the fact that most people do not have any real choice in their health insurance. People simply take whatever their employers offer. I support any measures that will give people more choice and will encourage Insurance providers to become more competitive for individual business.

I believe that if we do away with Group Policies (So that Insurance Companies have to do away with their current business models of selling to employers instead of Individuals) and have a Public option for those that can not get insurance else where, most current problems will solve themselves.

Any measures that would create any type of "Single Payer" or use tax payer money to compete with or take away business from private companies (Forcing them out of business) and give consumers fewer choices are bad in my opinion.

Also "Free Healthcare" for any group is a bad idea. If you think waits are ridiculous in Hospitals and ER`s now, Just wait till people can run top the doc for any little hangnail any time they want. It will be a nightmare for people with legitimate health concerns.

Doing away with preexisting condition clauses will cause all of our premiums to go up significantly. Someone has to shoulder the cost of the care of people that currently are not eligible for most policies. I am OK with this. I don't mind paying more to help cover others as long as they are doing all they can to also contribute. It is the ones that demand something for nothing that annoy the hell out of me.

Competition is good. Competition from health care providers to provide better service and better healthcare is good for us. Competition between Health Insurance companies to provide better coverage at a more competitive cost is good for us.

The Government trying to set costs and being the single payer is Bad for all of us as it discourages these things.

Simple solution:
Abolish Group Policies.
Abolish Pre-existing condition clauses.
The Government to offer Insurance for individuals that cannot get insurance elsewhere. Cost based on individual Income but only available to people that can NOT get Private Insurance elsewhere (Of course with pre-existing condition clauses gone, this will be a very small group). Also have some form of small co-pay with ALL visits to discourage abuse of the healthcare system.
Give Choice back to the people in who provides their health insurance and where they go for health care.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

A public option that guarantees a minimal level of care, available to anyone without regard to pre-existing conditions.

Why does it have to be a public option? Can't there be some tort reform and a few new laws regarding pre-existing conditions instead?

Quote

Alternatively, a health care exchange that any private company can enter, and that is supported by a small amount of government funding

$1T is not a small amount of government funding. Nor would a small amount ever fund a public option. Hawaii's program was concelled because so many peopled dropped their coverage for the so-called free option. Throwing money at the issue doesn't fix it.

Quote

- but companies who participate may not exclude pre-existing conditions (like rape.)

And there you go throwing in rape as a pre-exsting condition to garner a little more sympathy and call the other side insensitive. Rape is not a pre-existing condition. Some possible effects of sexual assault such as PTSD and STD's are possible reasons for denial and that should be seriously considered under tort refrom.

It's been said several times so far, we don't know why this woman lost her coverage. We don't know what policy she wanted or what other options she had after she was denied. It's sensationalized for the same reasons you keep saying rape... for the same reason you left out the last sentence in the paragraph you copied and pasted.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

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.

Does the principle of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" mean anything to you?

Does the principle of "fair and equal treatment for all" mean anything to you?

At what point do the rights of a "private business" that is selling a service to the public end?
When the owners decide that they will require you to use a different entrance, and certain areas of the establishment, due to the color of your skin?
When the owners decide that they will not sell their products to people who can't prove US citizenship?
When the owners decide that due to previous events in your life, they won't do business with you now, even though you had no control over those events?
Like being raped, for example? Or hit by a car when riding a bicycle when you were 12?
When does the government have the responsibility to step in and make the rules fair and balanced?

In my opinion, at this point in the history of the USA, providing a basic level of health care to all, actually is a societal responsibility, not an option. The horror show that is the current system is totally broken and cannot be sustained.

To start with, private health insurers must be forced to become non-profit organizations. No other first world country allows for-profit health insurance companies to operate. NONE.

Just for the record, if the person in the story was to come down with AIDS and required treatment, who should pay for it?

If it was your wife, your sister, or your mother, does that change your answer?

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

To start with, private health insurers must be forced to become non-profit organizations.

Then why exist?? The businesses would just fold and people would have to pay their own health care like they did in the past before someone came up the idea of offering "Insurance" to begin with.

Quote

Does the principle of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" mean anything to you?

They mean everything to me. But no where does that say I should expect other to prove a service to me at no cost.

Quote

No other first world country allows for-profit health insurance compies to operate. NONE.

And that is why they are all seconds rate compared to what we are capable of here.

Competition drives innovation.
People can make a good living providing a higher quality of health care, So people do that. When you take away people ability to make a good living doing something, They will find something else to do.

I want our smartest and brightest mind working in healthcare. I want these people to be well compensated for their contributions and hard work. If one person can do something better than someone else, They should get more for the effort.

Same for people that find innovative and better ways to finance this level of healthcare.

Once again, I support change and improvement in the system, I just dont think "free" anything is a good idea and absolutely oppose anything that removes incentive for doing things better. I want choice for everyone in both who they buy insurance from and who they go to for heathcare.

I agree the current system is flawed but single payer and is NOT the way to fix it. the major problem is that Insurance companies sell to employers and NOT to individuals. Their entire business models are based on this.

Outlaw Group Policies thereby forcing the insurance companies to compete for individual business.

Offer Government supported Insurance for those that cant get insurance elsewhere.

Outlaw pre-existing condition clauses in Policies.

Do this and most all problems will go away.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Given the cost of treatment for AIDS, I can completely understand the insurance company not wanting to provide coverage to her.

Just want to make sure you understand that according to EXISTING laws, she WILL get treatment if she's sick - to be paid by you and other taxpayers. So in this case, as with anyone who denied insurance because of pre-existing condition, it is YOU who is actually losing a chunk of money saved by the insurer. In fact you're losing more than insurer saves (mostly because treating everything in ER is more expensive), but since it's "my money" vs "taxpayer money", it's understandable why the insurers don't care, but it's not understandable why you don't care.

People tend to confuse health insurance with other insurance policies, like home insurance. This is a mistake. If you have no home insurance and the home burns to the ground, you're on your own - there is no "home ER" which would rebuild your home and provide all your belongings for free. But if you have no health insurance you'll receive the same service as if you had it when you need it, and the service will be paid by taxpayers instead of you. That's why a) everyone who cannot get coverage because of "pre-existing condition" is basically a taxpayer's direct payment to the health insurance company, and b) we cannot afford people having no insurance, no matter if they think they will never get sick (unless of course they sign waivers stating that as soon as he/she gets to ER, they should be immediately subjected to euthanasia and their organs should be extracted to cover the cost of euthanasia). Otherwise they WILL get sick, and we again will be paying for them.

Quote

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.

You're avoiding an answer like a politically correct liberal!
Aren't you men enough to stand up behind your opinion, even if it pisses off someone?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

$1T is not a small amount of government funding. Nor would a small amount ever fund a public option. Hawaii's program was concelled because so many peopled dropped their coverage for the so-called free option.

Am I right assuming you did not read any healthcare bills yourself, and therefore confusing "public option" and "free healthcare"?

"Public option" is NO more free than any other option. The government will provide credits for those who cannot afford healthcare. Those credits might be used to buy either "public option", or a private plan - which means MORE business for the insurance companies, not less.

Quote

And there you go throwing in rape as a pre-exsting condition to garner a little more sympathy and call the other side insensitive.

You didn't understand the point. The point is that such behavior is EXPECTED from the companies, because they are not in the business of providing healthcare. They're in the business of maximizing profit, and the easiest way for them to do it is to cherry-pick the healthiest, and drop everyone else on taxpayers' support. And this is not kind of business model I would like to support with my taxes.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[billvon 2,434]

>Why does it have to be a public option? Can't there be some tort reform
>and a few new laws regarding pre-existing conditions instead?

Tort reform would be a good idea; something of a separate issue though. A law that said "you could not exclude any pre-existing conditions?" Might work as well. I'd be interested in seeing how you imagine such a law would be worded/implemented.

>$1T is not a small amount of government funding.

I agree. I do not think an insurance exchange should cost a trillion dollars.

>And there you go throwing in rape as a pre-exsting condition to garner a
>little more sympathy and call the other side insensitive. Rape is not a
>pre-existing condition.

The medical risks that result from rape, though, are. It's like claiming that you're fine covering someone with AIDS as long as they don't have HIV. Sort of a meaningless qualification.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

Quote

A public option that guarantees a minimal level of care, available to anyone without regard to pre-existing conditions.

Why does it have to be a public option? Can't there be some tort reform and a few new laws regarding pre-existing conditions instead?
.

How much do you think would be saved by tort reform?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.