Domestic Violence Is a Pre-Existing Condition

One knows all's fair in love and war—unless you toss health care into the mix. Under the prevailing practices of American health insurers, getting punched by a lover makes you a liability. Ryan Grim has the details:

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.

It's appalling to see any opposition to this common-sense reform—especially the same week as the 15th anniversary of Joe Biden's Violence Against Women Act.

Here, the sexism is obvious, but it also heralds the fundamental unfairness of restricting individuals based on pre-existing conditions—and a big part of why the reform debate is not solely over a "public option" to hold profiteering companies accountable. President Obama has made it a priority to break down the system of repeatedly denying coverage to Americans, based on both trivialities like acne—as with the woman he mentioned in his Congressional address last week—and deadly serious issues such as domestic violence.

Over at TAPPED, Dana Goldstein also adds a crucial bit of info:

[I]t's important to point out that insurance company discrimination against domestic violence victims applies regardless of whether the woman is still married to or living with the abuser. In other words, women who have successfully left an abusive relationship and turned their lives around continue to be punished for a crime that was committed against them.

Right. I'll hold my breath for the news of men denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, like impotence, that actually have something to do with human physiology.

Comments

We all want who is sale Louis

By: Replica | Sun, 09/27/2009 - 00:00

We all want who is sale Louis Vuitton Replica because all the popular discount louis vuitton purses offer them to have the most superior in design at costs that make it a reality. I did some searching and most of Louis Vuitton sale go for no more than $1 000! They are very cheap louis vuitton outlet
We all like louis vittion web site Let’s go to buy louis vuitton outlet

Domestic Violence

By: Xando | Mon, 09/21/2009 - 12:11

The first punishment referenced is punishment for making a bad decision about your partner.

But the second punishment is for a completely different reason: making a bad decision not to leave that partner.

I don't see any problem here. Why should people who refuse to leave an abusive be accorded any more favoritism than people who refuse to quit smoking?

مترجم انجليزي عربي برامج

By: beckham_250 | Sun, 09/20/2009 - 03:06

مترجم انجليزي عربي
برامج n73
مترجم
مترجم عربي انجليزي
ترجمة
تنزيل ماسنجر
تنزيل ماسنجر بلس
تحميل ماسنجر بلس
برامج كمبيوتر
برامج نوكيا
برامج مجانية
برنامج محول الصوتيات
برنامج لفتح المواقع المحجوبة
برنامج الفوتوشوب
برنامج الماسنجر
برنامج فلاش
رسائل عيد ميلاد
نغمات اسلامية
برنامج فتح المواقع المحجوبة
برنامج لفتح المواقع
برنامج لاستعادة الملفات المحذوفة
برنامج لفتح اكثر من ماسنجر
برنامج تسريع التحميل
برنامج تورنت
تحميل ثيمات n73
تحميل ثيمات n70
تحميل ثيمات n95
تحميل ثيمات جوال n73
تحميل ثيمات
تحميل ثيمات نوكيا
رسائل رومانسية
برنامج تقطيع الاغاني
برامج n95
برامج n70
برامج نوكيا n95
محول صوتيات
لفتح المواقع المحجوبة
hotspot shield
رسائل حب
تعليم الفوتوشوب
تحميل برنامج الفوتوشوب
مسجات عتاب
مسجات عيد ميلاد
برامج نوكيا n73
ثيمات n70
فتح المواقع المحجوبة
برامج الجوال
ثيمات الجوال
ثيمات نوكيا
ثيمات نوكيا n95
ثيمات نوكيا n73
تحميل ثيمات الجوال
نغمات الجوال
نغمات الجوال اسلامية
نغمات نوكيا
تحميل برامج فوتوشوب
تحميل ماسنجر
تحميل برامج كمبيوتر
تحميل ثيمات
يوتوب
نغمات رومانسية
تحميل الفوتوفلتر
autodesk maya 2010
antirap برنامج
anti rap برنامج
برنامج تحويل الصوتيات
تحويل الصوتيات
برنامج تحويل الصوتيات الى mp3
برنامج تحويل صوتيات
برنامج خاشع
برامج تحويل الصوت
برامج الجيل الخامس
mp3 sound cutter
mp3 cutter
تنزيل ماسنجر
hotspot shield launch
msn 2009
msn 2009 download
messenger 2009

I don't see that it makes

By: you know it is | Tue, 09/15/2009 - 16:40

I don't see that it makes that much of a difference to the main point of the original post even if one supposes that domestic violence occurs equally to men and women, or even if it were to occur primarily against men.

Unrelatedly, I think the term "preexisting condition" is a little odd. "Risk factor" or "predictor" would make more sense. But that's semantics.

I am skeptical about the implicit assertion in the last sentence that insurance companies would be less likely to deny coverage for preexisting conditions that affect men disproportionately. It was not my impression that insurance companies were known for exhibiting reluctance to deny coverage (or raise premiums) for preexisting conditions. I suspect they are equally happy to do it to everyone to the extent that regulations let them. Indeed, it would be a bad business decision not to have premiums reflect known risk factors; it would be throwing money away. (Because of this reason, I suspect the insurance companies might have some statistics-based reason to think that having left an abusive relationship doesn't substantially reduce a person's future risk. It doesn't make sense to deny coverage to people when their risk isn't actually increased, because you make profits from covering people, just as it doesn't make sense not to increase premiums when the risk really does increase or deny coverage when it increases too much.)

Why do you alienate people who would support you Dayo?

By: bobroberts | Tue, 09/15/2009 - 16:29

"Right. I'll hold my breath for the news of men denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, like impotence, that actually have something to do with human physiology."

Once you can acknowledge the truth of domestic violence, that it has little to do with gender, then you can begin to see how unhelpful and antagonistic this last sentence is.

The enemy is not men, though you have some need to make men the enemy. The enemy is the insurance company and preexisting conditions.

But congrats, just who did you help here today? Did you convince anyone new to support you? Did you speak *truth* to power? Or did you alienate people who would have been your natural allies?

cough *sexist dipshit* cough.

Which stat needs checking?

By: bobroberts | Tue, 09/15/2009 - 16:24

Lesbian couple domestic violence:
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianhealth/a/DVFactsMyths.htm

Men as victims of domestic violence:
http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm

Women initiate domestic violence:
http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/abusiverelationships/a/male_abuse.htm

Perhaps I have been doing the googling, perhaps you should be fact checking.

The truth is that Dana Goldstein, and Dayo have been told this and shown this and know this, and they for their own agenda, have been framing it differently.

That's not good for women, that just sets women and men AGAINST each other. It's not good for progressive causes, it just makes people who know that it's not black and white understand that women like Dayo, and Dana and places like Double XX are full of shit and agenda driven.

If Dayo really wanted to reform healthcare, there is no need to drag in phony stats or her agenda into it. There is plenty of reform needed, she should grab a shovel and start helping.

If Dayo really wants to end domestic violence, adhering to reality is the way to go. Not by dismissing almost half the victims.

Other than that, she leaves herself open to be called a lazy journalist, and a sexist pig.

Domestic violence and health care

By: Foobs | Tue, 09/15/2009 - 15:47

There are two tragedies for male victims of domestic violence. The first is that no support network exists for them. They are alone in a society that considers them comic, pathetic wimps. The second is that most of the people who make noise on their behalf are people like bobroberts who have an axe to grind and are using victims as ideological weapons (to be fair, I think a fair amount of the advocacy for female victims is similarly offensive).

As long as our health care industry is driven by private insurance, things like this will happen. The insurance companies must assess risk and price accordingly. It isn't their job to be fair, it is their job to be right (the same can be said of the financial industry; one hopes the health insurance people are better at their jobs). If you believe that raising the cost of and decreasing access to health insurance (which, in the current system, is the same as decreasing access to health care) due to pre-existing conditions is unfair, then you shouldn't be trying to reform or regulate private health insurance, you should be trying to decrease its role in the health care system. That really is the only way.

Stat check in aisle one, please

By: Tanneseph | Tue, 09/15/2009 - 15:14

I'm somehow gleaming from your comments, bobroberts, that you -might- think the writer is a bigot (seriously, calm down on the labels, sir). Obviously, domestic violence happens to men as well, but your statistic sounds a -bit- inflated, and I have to call your bluff. And just because you exaggerated a statistic doesn't make Dayo wrong for considering this to be a crime against women.

Also, if you don't like hearing a female-slanted bend on things, maybe going to a site called double-x was a bad choice.

Sexism, Dayo, you're soaking in it.

By: bobroberts | Tue, 09/15/2009 - 13:28

Dayo, I see the sexism that both you and Dana Goldstein indulge yourself in.

As you well know, Domestic Violence victims can be both male or female. As you well know, Domestic Violence is a significant problem in 30% of lesbian relationships. As you well know, Domestic Violence is initiated by females in male/female relationships between 40 and 60% of the time.

As you left out, because you are a sexist bigot, this discrimination against domestic violence victims strikes men and women.

The discrimination against domestic violence victims is bad enough. You serve no purpose except an evil, bigoted, sexist agenda, to dismiss, delegitimatize, disenfranchise the male victims of domestic violence and to turn this into a strictly male on female crime, when you know damn well it's not.

You and Dana are disgusting, ignorant, bigots.