This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Hat tip to Joe Bartmann (sometimes I actually learn something from Twitter)!
While Dakota War College groans about Rep. Herseth Sandlin trying to take action to prevent problems that don't exist, let's take a look at a problem DWC will have an even harder time denying: health insurers treating womanhood itself as a pre-existing condition. An updated report from the National Women's Law Center finds that the individual health insurance market (insurance folks obtain themselves instead of through their employer's group coverag) commits rank discrimination against women.
In South Dakota, every major health insurance plan available in the individual market practices gender rating—i.e.,charging women higher premiums, just because they are women. 60% of those plans charge non-smoking women 4% to 18% more than they charge smoking men. In other words, South Dakota's health insurers view a uterus as less of a liability than cigarettes.
And South Dakota is supposedly a pro-life state. Yeah, right.
The NWLC report finds Montana is the only state so far with the wisdom and decency to ban gender-rating from any insurance plan. With good health insurance so vital to economic stability, we should follow Montana's lead and end this discrimination against women.
What’s going on at Dakotanews?
-
On Monday ‘KSFY’ posted this job ad; I have been suspicious for awhile that
the experiment they are running at DN will hit aground. Over the past
couple of...
15 hours ago
At least equally disturbing is a report some women are denied health coverage after a rape. If they take HIV medication as a precaution without ever testing positive, the company may deny them coverage:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html
John
ReplyDeleteIf the alleged rapist is aprehended, wouldn't be easier and cheaper to perform an HIV on him rather than start the victim on medication?
No, Firebird, it wouldn't. Anti-HIV medication has to be administered within hours of an assault in order to be most effective in preventing infection. Besides, what a travesty of justice it would be to make the proper care of a victim contingent on his or her attacker. And really, should cost be the motivating factor in treating victims?
ReplyDeletevictimhood shouldn't be a factor in treating victims. Treatment is for illness and injury, not justice. The fact that women represent a higher risk than men may be unjust but that doesn't make the medical expenses for them any cheaper. The whole premise thrusting social justice into American medecine is arrogant elitism. This is as foolish as the mission to bar using pre-existing conditions to determine insurability. You people are demanding a private company that exists by evaluating risk to ignore the information of their trade. Then you support the creation of a government entity capable of ignoring its own insolvency long enough to eviscerate private insurers and you name that "competition"
ReplyDeleteThis is not what the constitution intended when it empowered the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. The federal government doesn't even have the authority to do this. If you want to see how well this works, do it in South Dakota instead of subverting my rights.
If I develop liver cancer, I didn't do anything to deserve it so I'm just a victim too. Maybe the government should force some rich Lawyer down the street to offer me health insurance, it makes as much sense
ReplyDeleteErin:
ReplyDeleteYou are partly right. There is a 72 hour window after an exposure with which to give the prophylactic treatment. This gives plenty of time to determine the HIV status of both parties.