Is "Domestic Violence" a Pre-Existing Medical Condition?

Um.... (0.00 / 1)

I don't know how to address this. In a commercial insurance world the lady in the first case would get treatment through the insurer of record during the event. This is what happens when trial lawyers drudge up cases from 30 years ago - they sue the insurance companies of record at the time of the risk, not who is insuring the company at the moment. I also agree that someone who remains in an abusive relationship is a higher health risk than someone who picks better men and feel like getting health coverage for her injuries without any catch is just enabling the abuse to continue.

The other side of me just wants to find a way to care for these people given what they've been thru.

---

by: Mikee @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 09:27:21 AM CDT

Question (0.00 / 0)

So has this set precedence, or already exists, that if a child is in a foster home for physical, sexual, or any abuse and this is found out by the insurance company when these individuals are adults are their rates higher?????
Further, if someone has scars from childhood of which the individual does not remember FOR ANY REASON can this raise their rates? The scare could of come from a fall or abuse?
I almost don't want the answer.

---

by: jean @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 11:45:52 AM CDT

Typo (0.00 / 0)

Scar not Scare

---

by: jean @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 11:54:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

WTH?! (0.00 / 0)

What's going to happen to the girls I took care of when they turn 18? This p***** me off!

---

by: suzihussein22 @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 17:14:45 PM CDT

if they live in the deep south, they best not need help (0.00 / 0)

all those good christian bible thumping republicans seem to forget to open the good book and read it...

god help us all

---

by: UplandPoet @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 20:22:00 PM CDT

Um... (0.00 / 0)

That's a pretty silly comment. The Bible is pretty clear that individual Christians should look out for orphans and widows in their distress (James 1:27), but actually doesn't say anything about insurance companies or underwriting for domestic violence or recision.

This would actually be fixed if health insurance was able to be purchased across state lines so we could get away from dumb state insurance commissioners and their silly rules.

Do we have any idea the number of times that this actually happens? What is it that prevents a simple fix that any "underwriting" issues stemming from domestic violence is immediately dropped as soon as the person is not in that situation? It would be like someone with a high risk occupation getting underwritten normally once they get a new job which happens all the time.

---

by: Mikee @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 12:51:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

State lines (0.00 / 0)

How would crossing state lines solve this? If you didn't know, the whole concept of buying insurance across state lines is a giveaway to the insurance companies, as some states impose tougher restrictions on private insurers. By allowing insurance companies to operate outside of state boundaries, insurance companies could escape tougher state laws and be LESS regulated.

And by the way, if this domestic violence issue happens ONCE it is still wrong. This isn't a matter of quantity, it's a matter of morality. Your comment is also "silly" that since the Bible doesn't mention insurance companies specifically, it couldn't possibly have something relevant to say. It seems to me you've just been trying to start a fight all day.

"Is profit and greed the only conceit on a scale between mere prosperity and inhumanity? It may well be." -Bad Religion

---

by: wecanhope08 @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 17:39:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not trying to start a fight (0.00 / 0)

Being able to buy insurance from a provider in another state means the victim would be able to go to a state that doesn't allow consideration of these attacks in underwriting.

If you think regulating health insurance state by state makes sense I don't know what to say. It is the only kind of insurance I know of with that restriction and prevents competition from smaller, hungrier companies. It establishes big companies with a foothold from ever being displaced by a big company in the adjacent state and the competition that would bring. It forces all consumers in the state to buy some really dumb coverage they don't want or don't need just because a state insurance commissioner says so.

My question about the number of cases was a genuine one. If you don't know the answer you could just say so. I actually thought DocJess might know as she does tons of research on this kind of stuff.

I'm sure you know the Bible well and could explain how it addresses this issue. I guess I missed the passage Upland Poet was referring to with the accusation that "good bible thumping republicans should open the good book and read it".

---

by: Mikee @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 21:01:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You ARE trying to start a fight (0.00 / 0)

First off, many of the stats, albeit old ones, are in the links in the post.

The math is simple: 100% of ALL domestic violence victims don't get health insurance coverage if they are subject to direct underwriting in the states cited, as well as by the 50% of insurance companies in the other states. So the question becomes how many people are victims of domestic violence?

Forgetting about survivable abuse, according to the Bureau of Justice 3 women A DAY are MURDERED by their husbands or boyfriends. More stats here: http://www.abanet.org/domviol/...

So the numbers are HUGE.

As for the crossing state lines -- it isn't going to happen because the law states that individual states are responsible for insurance laws in their states. A state like NY will NEVER lower their standards to what occurs in other (non-consumer) states. It's a specious argument.

And finally - on the issue of "good bible thumping republicans should open the good book and read it". This is a POLITICAL site, not a RELIGIOUS site. But if you want to use a religious analogy:

Mike, this is a Democratic site. We hold and espouse a certain set of deeply held beliefs. To the best of my knowledge NO DCW READER would EVER go to someone's church and disrespect the beliefs of those people. NONE of us would run into a Christian Church, for example, and bring up the Crusades. Nor run into a Catholic Church and ask how many of the current priests were child abusers.

So with as much decency and respect as I can possibly muster, I say this: in a certain way, this site (and many others like it, the fundamental beliefs thereof and therein) ARE our church. We are proud, liberal, progressives.

Show us the same respect that we would show if we went to your church. If you have some statistics from a legitimate source, cite them. But PLEASE cease denigrating things we all know objectively to be correct.  

---

by: DocJess @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 06:04:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hold it! (0.00 / 0)

in a certain way, this site (and many others like it, the fundamental beliefs thereof and therein) ARE our church. We are proud, liberal, progressives.

If that's true, I'm out of here. I don't identify myself as a progressive. Many other Democrats who have commented here also did not self-identify as liberal or progressive.

This is a Democratic site, to my understanding, not a progressive one.

---

by: SarahLawrence Scott @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 09:57:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

scott, your posts belie that you are not progressive (0.00 / 0)

in fact, if you are a democrat, and stand by the party platform, you are progressive. if you are opposed to clean air and water, to hunam rights, to safe working conditions, if you support the capitalistic robber baron mentality that permeates much of wall street and the banking industry, and yet you call yourself a democrat, as some blue dogs do, then you are pretty much lost and need directions to the local GOP HQ. I dont think you fit in any of those categories, so you are, by comparision a progressive, you may not be as lefty as some folks, like me and the good doc, but you are still left of newt gingrich... and hes a moderate GOPer these days.....

---

by: UplandPoet @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 10:30:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Scott (0.00 / 0)

Sorry -- line should have read "For many of us, in a certain way..."

Not all, many.  

---

by: DocJess @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 10:35:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

VoteMatch (0.00 / 0)

Well, I tried the VoteMatch quiz again, this time actually clicking through to see what they thought each stance meant. I came out 85% on their "personal" scale, and 39% on their "economic" scale, which they say makes me a libertarian-leaning liberal. That's about how I'd self-identify.

Given that, if you want to call me a progressive, I'll take that as a compliment. :)

---

by: SarahLawrence Scott @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 14:52:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

id call you an enlightened conservative, which (0.00 / 0)

in these days, makes you a progressive:)

---

by: UplandPoet @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 14:55:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mikee, your arguments are not based on fact (0.00 / 0)

A little primer on domestic violence for Mikee, and anyone else who holds the attitude that "someone who remains in an abusive relationship is a higher health risk than someone who picks better men and feel like getting health coverage for her injuries without any catch is just enabling the abuse to continue."

First of all, while the stereotype of DV is husbands abusing wives, victims also include husbands, live-in partners, same sex partners, parents, grandparents, siblings, adult children, and people who have never lived together, but have had children together.

Abusers don't come with warning labels.  Early in relationships they are very often romantic, thoughtful and caring in the extreme.  Any sign of controlling behavior is very subtle.  The first episode of physical abuse may not happen until after marriage, and may be minor - a shove or "accidentally" hitting the person with a thrown object.  Very contrite afterwards.  Physical attacks increase in severity and frequency over time.  Meanwhile, a campaign of domination and isolation is waged over time.  It includes assaults on self-esteem, poisoning of all other relationships, and control such as not allowing access to car keys or money.  By the time a victim realizes he or she is in an untenable situation, there seems to be no escape.  Often there are now children involved, mortgages and other debts, and no place to turn for help.

Some victims do manage to escape an abusive marriage, but if there are children, contact with the abuser can never be fully severed.  And abusers don't stop once the victim attempts to end the relationship.  Statistics show that a victim is at the highest risk for physical harm at the time of leaving and after.

So let's say you're a victim of DV, and suffer from a medical condition.  Maybe MS, or cancer, or high blood pressure.  All of which are made worse by stress.  Your health insurance is tied to your abusive spouse.  A divorce settlement may or may not require the ex-spouse to continue coverage.  And it would not be out of character for an abuser to quit a job for the express purpose of cutting off access to health benefits and child support for an ex-spouse/victim.  Yet another circumstance binding a victim to his or her current situation, abusive though it may be.

Or maybe you get out, you find a job or remarry and the insurance company learns of the previous DV.  Even if the insurance says it will cover you, but not anything that was a result of the DV, a case could be made for almost any physical ailment a victim may suffer to be tied to the earlier abuse.  Arthritis - broken bone; back pain - pushed down the steps; aneurism - blow to the head; blood pressure - high stress.

Now, substitute any family relationship for romantic one, and play out the same scenario.  "We see here that your 35 year old son punched you during a drunken argument 10 years ago.  Is he still your son?  Do you still have contact with him?  We're sorry, but that's too much of a health risk, we won't be able to cover you."

And finally, if we accept the premise that a DV victim is enabling his or her harm, substitute any medical condition that may be tied to a life choice.  Coal miner - black lung disease; chronic reckless driving - car accidents; hiker - blisters; sunbather - skin cancer.  Are you willing to have this standard applied to you, Mikee?

---

by: Linda @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 18:36:48 PM CDT

This is helpful (0.00 / 0)

Why can't all posts be so respectful? Very good background on the complexities of the issue.

To answer the question, yes Linda I do believe that people's life choices are their responsibilty generally. I don't think that people who made choices when knowledge was hidden from them are responsible for them (e.g. smokers pre-warning labels) and we have civil courts for those rememdies.

Chronic reckless drivers do have their car insurance underwritten by the additional risk they pose. People who have suspicious house fires can't get homeowners insurance.

I just believe personal responsibility is important and if people don't have any consequence for really bad decisions they keep making them.

---

by: Mikee @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 21:09:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can't help it... (0.00 / 0)

your last sentence just made me think of Joe Wilson.  So it seems the censure in the House of Representatives was appropriate!

---

by: LindaS @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 00:34:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

He broke a rule (0.00 / 0)

He ought to have the penalty for it.

The problem is how ridiculous the rules are (it's okay to call the President a halfwit but not a liar??) and how unequally applied they are. I'm still waiting for the censure against Charlie Rangel for lying on his financial disclosure forms for most of this decade in clear violation of the House Rules Code of Conduct.

---

by: Mikee @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:21:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You still don't get it (0.00 / 0)

I agree that taking personal responsibility for one's choices is very valuable, and all too often people somehow escape full consequences for their actions.  But the issue becomes very dicey when talking about health care.

Vaccinations will soon be available for H1N1.  If you choose not to get vaccinated, and then get the flu, should you be denied health care for your illness?  Or forced to cover the costs yourself?

A person with multiple moving violations may have to pay increased car insurance premiums, but would you deny that person health care coverage for injuries sustained in a car accident?

And again, becoming a victim of domestic violence, or a victim of any crime, is not a personal choice.

I believe it makes good financial sense for insurance companies to provide incentives for healthy decisions by covering things like vaccines and stop-smoking programs.  But illness is capricious.  There are predictors, but never any guarantees of health and freedom from illness or injury.

This is why the availability of health insurance for all is a fundamental issue of fairness and justice.  And this is exactly where my religious beliefs and political beliefs intersect.  

---

by: Linda @ Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 08:07:46 AM CDT