Rape Victim's Choice: Risk AIDS or Health Insurance?

[Bob Hubbard]

Rape Victim's Choice: Risk AIDS or Health Insurance?

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.

Some women have contacted the Investigative Fund to say they were deemed ineligible for health insurance because they had a pre-existing condition as a result of a rape, such as post traumatic stress disorder or a sexually transmitted disease. Other patients and therapists wrote in with allegations that insurers are routinely denying long-term mental health care to women who have been sexually assaulted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html

 

[Carol]

The Huffington Post is not telling the whole story.

Pre-existing conditions are only accounted for when there is an extended gap in coverage.

http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/private-insurance/legal-rights/hipaa-definitions.html

 

[Xinglu]

This is still BS. A woman should not continue to be punished by her health insurance because she was the victim of a violent crime.

This is akin to telling combat vets they are uninsurable because they are damaged goods.

Gap in coverage or not, this is unacceptable.

 

[cdunn]

It is an industry based on gambling. Of course they are going to tilt the odds so that the house wins, no matter the consequences.

 

[Stac3y]

It is an industry based on gambling. Of course they are going to tilt the odds so that the house wins, no matter the consequences.

Hence the need for universal health CARE, not universal health INSURANCE.

 

[Xinglu]

Hence the need for universal health CARE, not universal health INSURANCE.

This is an important distinction that people are not making.

 

[arnisador]

The Huffington Post is not telling the whole story.

Pre-existing conditions are only accounted for when there is an extended gap in coverage.

I still find this absolutely unacceptable, even if it means fewer people are affected.

This is still BS. A woman should not continue to be punished by her health insurance because she was the victim of a violent crime.

This is akin to telling combat vets they are uninsurable because they are damaged goods.

Gap in coverage or not, this is unacceptable.

The reasoning is solid: Insurance works by spreading risk. Healthy people support the unhealthy under the theory that no one knows when they'll need health insurance and hence it's smart to have it waiting in the wings if need be. But if people voluntarily take a gap to save money on premiums and then get insurance only when they're sick and will draw out mor ethan they'll pay in, it isn't insurance at all--it's underpaying for a service.

Maybe the business/insurance model isn't the best way to handle issues affecting people's health?

Hence the need for universal health CARE, not universal health INSURANCE.

Bingo! I fully agree.

 

[Archangel M]

Thing is..like it or not..insurance companies are businesses. To force them to take and pay for pre-existing conditions is like the gvt. giving schools unfunded mandates. "You HAVE to do this BUT we are not going to give you any money for it" ...it has to come out of the schools (local tax) pockets.

Now. If I have been paying for insurance for years and my kid gets turned down...I have been paying in for years. They have made their money off of me. But if I am out shopping for insurance with a pre-existing conditions all I am is an expense from the "get go". In these cases I could agree on a "public option" to cover those people. Yes they need and deserve treatment. Forcing a private business to foot the bill though?

 

[Carol]

I still find this absolutely unacceptable, even if it means fewer people are affected.



The reasoning is solid: Insurance works by spreading risk. Healthy people support the unhealthy under the theory that no one knows when they'll need health insurance and hence it's smart to have it waiting in the wings if need be. But if people voluntarily take a gap to save money on premiums and then get insurance only when they're sick and will draw out mor ethan they'll pay in, it isn't insurance at all--it's underpaying for a service.

Maybe the business/insurance model isn't the best way to handle issues affecting people's health?

I'm more than willing to entertain that possibility. However, the implication to the story is that this woman would not have to face such an issue had we as a nation put different health care constructs in place. And perhaps they are right.

We can also point out individual cases from Massachusetts or other country's health care systems to illustrate their failings as well.

All models - public, private, hybrid - are going to have their strengths and weaknesses.

With both large numbers of citizens and the federal government depending on private sector insurance ("Use private insurance first, and make Medicare last"), it is easier to find faults with private sector coverage because of its wide penetration within our own borders.

Other models are not without faults. Lets use MassHealth as an example. The rape victim doesn't mention an immigration history so lets assume for sake of example that she is a legal U.S. Citizen. Perhaps if the rape victim had MassHealth, she wouldn't have faced the same issue, or she wouldn't have had the extended gap in coverage that put her pre-existing conditions back in to play.

However, coverage for her (and people like her) has meant that coverage for nearly all has resulted in other people falling through the cracks. 30,000 legal immigrants with green cards were denied coverage through MassHealth this summer.

BOSTON — The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage just as Congress looks to the state as a model for overhauling the nation’s health care system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/15insure.html?_r=2


Whatever system we add, or change to, is still going to be complex, bureaucratic, and with many price constraints. I don't think any system is perfect, and perhaps we need more than one model in place.

Regardless of how we go, I don't think there is a model that we can drag-and-drop in to place and *poof* all our problems will go away.

 

[Archangel M]

I think we should go back to the "old days". Cash payments for routine visits and insurance for major medical problems.

The question that will always remain...how big is the bill gonna be and how will we pay it.

 

[Xinglu]

What happens to the people who lose their job in a bad economy and can't find a new one? Unemployment only lasts so long... Let me guess, they're at fault for saving a buck? How about those that are self employed and just can't afford insurance and food for their families?

How about that single mother working 3 jobs just to make ends meet and can't afford insurance for herself?

How inconvenient of them to get raped... shame on them... How dare they NEED the help and not be able to afford it.

 

[Carol]

What happens to the people who lose their job in a bad economy and can't find a new one? Unemployment only lasts so long... Let me guess, they're at fault for saving a buck? How about those that are self employed and just can't afford insurance and food for their families?

How about that single mother working 3 jobs just to make ends meet and can't afford insurance for herself?

How inconvenient of them to get raped... shame on them... How dare they NEED the help and not be able to afford it.

Is it any more fair that 30,000 Massachusetts residents were receiving healthcare benefits under MassHealth, only to have that benefit taken away by the same government that gave them the benefit in the first place? These weren't 30,000 hypothetical examples, these are 30,000 real people that have full legal right to reside and work in Massachusetts.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Why not have a system that incorporates the idea that any premiums paid into a particular company that are not used during the insured period are transfered to the new company? That way they will have "paid into the system" when they first enroll. Or how about a "downpayment" for those with pre-existing conditions?

I can see issues with both ideas, but maybe instead of making a one solution type approach, we incorporate many ideas. You know, that whold "options" and "competition" think Obama keeps talking about.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I know 4 doctors who refuse all insurance and only accept cash. One is one of the highest earning doctors in WNY.

 

[arnisador]

I think we should go back to the "old days". Cash payments for routine visits and insurance for major medical problems.

Well, in the old days if you had cirrhosis of the liver you died and there weren't many expenses associated with the lack of available treatments. Nowadays you'd get X-rays, MRIs, drugs, and finally a liver transplant and all the after-expenses that come with living with a transplant. It isn't just inflation--these are fundamentally new technologies. No one used to get mortgages for their mud huts or car loans for their wheelbarrows. (Well, maybe not no one, but....) Different technologies that are newer can be disproportionately expensive, even without add-ons. Plus, nowadays you'd get an MRI to rule out things that before couldn't be detected and hence would be cost-free to you (to not know whether you were sick or not). The game has changed in big ways.

 

[Xinglu]

Is it any more fair that 30,000 Massachusetts residents were receiving healthcare benefits under MassHealth, only to have that benefit taken away by the same government that gave them the benefit in the first place? These weren't 30,000 hypothetical examples, these are 30,000 real people that have full legal right to reside and work in Massachusetts.

Of course not, and thank you for reminding me to shame them too: Shame on those 30,000 people for having the state take their insurance away, they were just trying to save a buck after all, they deserve to be turned down by the insurance companies...

How's that Carol? Did I fairly include them? :boing2: