We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Friday, October 22, 2010

Insurance Agent Noem Supports Denying Pregnant Women Coverage

Kristi Noem says the health care reform law has "some fatal flaws."

Funny—that's the same thing insurance companies say about hundreds of thousands of Americans to whom they want to deny coverage:

The nation’s four largest for-profit health insurers denied coverage to more than 651,000 people over a three-year period, citing pre-existing conditions, according to an analysis of insurer data detailed in a Congressional investigation.

Between Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint, that averages out to a denial of coverage for one out of every seven applicants, according to an Energy and Commerce Committee memo about the investigation.

...Individuals were denied coverage based on “an extensive list of medical conditions,” the memo noted. One company had a list of more than 400 medical diagnoses used to decline coverage to those seeking it, and common conditions such as pregnancy, diabetes, and heart disease were included on the list [Marian Wang, "Insurers Denied Health Coverage to 1 in 7 People, Citing Pre-Existing Conditions," ProPublica.org, 2010.10.13].

Pregnancy as a pre-existing condition. That's the status quo ante that President Obama and the Democratic Congress are changing. That's the status quo ante that purportedly pro-life Noem would return us to by repealing health care reform. If you get pregnant, Kristi Noem wants insurance agents like herself and her husband to be able to kick pregnant women, those darned financial risks, out of their office.


  1. Do you have any evidence that Kristi believes that?

    Or are you making it up?

  2. I can only take Noem at the words she says. She says she wants to repeal health care reform. Repealing health care means leaving insurers free to treat pregnancy like a pre-existing condition and exclude child-bearing women at will.

    Or wait, are you saying I can't take Kristi's words to mean what they say?

  3. When they're her words, you can take them however you choose.

    What you're saying here would be like me saying because you're for Obamacare, you're 100% behind stopping care for old people because it isn't cost effective.

  4. ...except for the nagging fact that "Obamacare" doesn't do that, whereas the status quo that Kristi defends with her repeal talk did and does treat pregnancy as a pre-existing condition, something "Obamacare" will put to an end for everyone by 2014.

  5. Cory,

    I've been thinking about getting a cancer rider which will will reimburse me for all travel expenses for me and my family associated with cancer care plus pay me a stipend equal to my salary while unable to work. Should I be able to wait to buy the rider until I get cancer?

  6. No: we should pass Kucinich-care so we all can help you and your family just as you will help ours in our time of need.

  7. Barbara Hall said...

    The problem with health care reform is that what was passed so far was health insurance reform.

    Speaking as a physician and a patient, those who insist that their old insurance was fine should see what happens when they develop any of a variety of expensive conditions - including a complicated pregnancy.

    It makes Troy Jones disability insurance look like a good idea. But disability insurance is not health insurance. And health insurance is not health care.

    We all pay for uninsured care now and we would all pay for insured care with reform like a single payer option - it would just be a lot more humane and cost us a lot less.

  8. Cory,

    This conversation is nuts. You make an assertion, I ask a rhetorical question which exposes the foolishness of your first assertion and you yell "Single payer and the question is mute." Maybe so but single payer isn't going to happen. You couldn't get it through when you had veto a veto proof majority. After this election, the Dem's will be meeting in a phone booth.

  9. After the election, for which industry will Noem become a lobbyist?

    If Bush43 was successful at anything it was throwing the economy under the bus to obfuscate its participation in war crimes. The Dems took advantage of policy within its command and chose to fund survivability rather than indict the Bush regime.

    Troy: wish in one hand...


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.