LikeTheDew.com

Eve had a pre-existing condition. She has passed it down to women in America, and it has nothing to do with you-know-who’s rib. My suspicion is that it’s about Eve’s plumbing. Most civilized countries overlook the Eve stigma, but not here in America, where “I Am Woman,” translates to “I Pay More” for health insurance (never mind being paid less for equal work). Through an insurance industry practice known as “gender rating,” women pay 30-48% more than men for the same policies on the individual market.

The right to bear children

Second amendment activists loudly proclaim their right to bear arms, yet the right (and affordability) to bear children is endangered by some health insurance companies as evidenced by the recent disclosure by a Colorado woman who was denied individual coverage after leaving an employee provided plan. Golden Rule Insurance turned down Peggy Robertson due to a pre-existing condition of having had a C-section (over 30% of births are delivered by C-section), but offered to insure her if she were to be sterilized. This draconian “offer” was actually made in a letter to Ms. Robertson after she filed an appeal related to her rejection by Golden Rule. (This concept is so shameful to me that it’s difficult to imagine any company would say this, much less actually put it to paper for posterity – and the Internet.)

Sometimes, irony is downright delicious

Even if painful and unjust. In this case, I’m referring to the name of the insurance company: Golden Rule. Seriously? They dared to brand their company with a moniker that is synonymous to the ethic of reciprocity. Do unto others (you know the rest), a basic tenet of civility and human rights, the real Golden Rule would then suggest that only men who have had vasectomies would be covered by their insurance plan. What then is next? Voluntary mastectomies because Eve’s plumbing also came with ready nutrition for the children she might bear, but put her at risk for breast cancer?

In all but five states, it is legal for insurance companies to discriminate against women who have had C-sections, as if these surgeries are usually elective, and tantamount to a facelift. Never mind that most C-sections are performed for lifesaving reasons for child or mother, or birth defect preventing reasons for the child. (“Please Mr. [or Ms] OB/GYN, pretty please cut my gut open! I’d really like to stumble around in pain with my newborn and get that new grey stitch line above my bikini.”)

Domestic Violence and Abuse – Another pre-existing condition.

According to a recent study by the non-partisan, non-political National Women’s Law Center, eight states allow insurers to deny individual coverage to women based on the so-called “pre-existing” condition of domestic violence. Give me a break --  and I don’t mean of the arm or leg. More irony – isn’t that what insult to injury is all about? Interestingly, the states involved are either in the “Wild West” (Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming) or the South (North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Mississippi).

Thankfully, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) is taking on the issue of Health Care Equality. Women – and men, need to tell congress how grossly unfair these discriminating practices are to all people, male or female. Get loud; get very, very loud. Do this for yourself, your wife, your daughter, your friend, or man and womankind. Or, at least quietly (and easily) become involved by being just another number – this time with some power.

It's very easy and quick. Become a number with power. To get involved, click here.

1. Terri Evans says:

   October 20, 2009 at 1:05 pm

   Another pre-existing example that I just learned of and am compelled to share: Jenny U. from Missouri did what any parent would: When her son needed a kidney, she donated one of hers. But she didn’t realize insurance companies would use her kindness as an excuse to never cover her again, calling her donation a “pre-existing condition.”

   Reply
2. Lee Leslie says:

   October 20, 2009 at 1:15 pm

   These same states, sans Wyoming and North Dakota (Idaho & South Dakota rescinded ratification before the deadline), are the reason we don’t have an equal rights amendment and may well be the reason we won’t have true health care reform or a public option. Perhaps this remnant of the red state coalition could go for an equal wrongs amendment – “Equality of wrongs under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

   Reply
3. Brenden says:

   October 20, 2009 at 7:32 pm

   Public option will hit women the hardest. Ob-gyn is one of the most susceptible practices to legal liabilities, with entire groups of practitioners leaving whole states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Delivering babies is incredibly expensive and freighted with legal minefields — which is why it’s so expensive to cover. If you want more access to such care, support tort reform to lower practitioner legal costs. Support nationally normalized regulation of medical legal liabilities to lower costs. And of course support portable private competitive medical insurance. (Won’t hold my breath, though). Public option will merely ration care and push good doctors into a cash system for the folks who can afford it. Women in difficult economic circumstances can look forward to long, long waits. Qualified Ob-gyn doctors are now pinched very hard by potential legal liabilities and will be the first to depart to a private system. Just sayin’…

   Reply
4. Lee Leslie says:

   October 21, 2009 at 7:04 am

   Brenden – there you go, spreading the virus of misinformation again – if there were just a vaccine for your parroting flu – we can wash our hands, but not our minds.
   High malpractice cost is a myth. Actual costs are minute (nationally from 1/3 of 1 percent to a high of 2 percent) and 48 states have already passed your tort “reform”. Hardly worth asking patients to give up their rights when the remedy most often sought is payment for health care costs and lost wages of the malpractice (of course, the malpractice condition would be considered a preexisting condition and victims would be denied private insurance).
   Rationed care is also mythological distortion. Private insurance rations at a much higher rate than current public plans – ask any doctor. The private insurance companies routinely ration care by denying procedures as unnecessary or pre-existing, rescinding care, requiring providers demand unaffordable co-payments or having no doctors in a specialty area in their networks.
   Long waits is another fabrication – unproven in 50 years of experience in our the public system. My experience in your private system is that it takes from 30 to 90 days to get most appointments in Atlanta and then a wait in a physician’s office of 1 to 3 hours.
   “Just sayin’” you are wrong.

   Reply
5. eleanor ringel cater says:

   October 21, 2009 at 8:45 am

   Terri— that’s one of the best leads I’ve EVER read.

   Reply
6. Mary Lee (aka Bootsie Lucas) says:

   October 21, 2009 at 10:01 am

   Great story, Terri. And excellent rebuttal to Brenden’s comment, Lee.

   Hey, folks. You’ve heard this before: Call your senators! Call your representative! Tell them what you think about this situation. If your kind of shy, just e-mail them. Don’t know who they are or how to get in touch? Go to http://www.senate.gov or http://www.house.gov. If you call every day, maybe they’ll get the message.

   Reply
7. elaine in mississippi says:

   October 21, 2009 at 11:22 am

   We (our Republican house and senate + gov), in Mississippi, passed tort reform on the premise that it would lower healthcare costs and therefore insurance premiums. Neither of this came to pass. Insurance premiums have continued to rise ,and in terms of quality of care MS ranks 51 out of 51. (Evidently they count Puerto Rico.)
   Many legitimate plantiff firms have closed putting hundreds out of work. And now…the legislature is contemplating raising the caps on damage awards because it has come to their attention, albiet belatedly, that people who have been damaged have no viable source of redress. Tort reform is a favorite straw man of the GOP.
   It’s but a side show.

   Reply
8. Brenden says:

   October 21, 2009 at 2:40 pm

   I guess I will plead to a certain about of misinformation. The notion I admitted to that there is a private, competitive insurance functioning business model in this country is false. Insurance companies are monopolistic profiteers because the gov’t wants them that way. Federal and state gov’t wouldn’t regulate the industry with 50+1 gov’t entities, flavors of legislation and court systems if they wanted a real competitive alternative.

   Lee, depends upon how you define costs. If you’re saying liability costs for doctors are = 10%. That’s the front-end costs. I assume you’re talking about back-end frivolous lawsuits and the like. Not to mentioned economic demands on the court system. I’m not sure about that figure but I’m confident you’re lowballing. Virus of misinformation, indeed.

   As to rationing, the gov’t system works (sort of) because physicians pass costs of below-cost Medicare patients onto their private insurance companies and patients who can otherwise afford it. When you go ask the doctors about their malpractice rates, be sure to follow up with them if they’d like to double their Medicare patient load at the expense of private insurance payors. I think you’ll hear a lot of coughing and puking on the other end.

   Since I’m too lazy to do the actual research required to refute the rest of your Uncle-Sam-please-save-us arguments, I will simply ask this: Since the gov’t spends more than $2 trillion now on healthcare and cannot solve your problems, what makes you think writing them a blank public option economic and regulatory check will make it any better?

   Reply
9. Brenden says:

   October 21, 2009 at 2:44 pm

   Note to users: don’t attempt to use mathematical inequalities in your posting. Second paragraph should read (don’t want you to miss all the misinformation!):

   Lee, depends upon how you define costs. If you’re saying liability costs for doctors are less than or equal to 0.333 to 1.0 percent, I’m afraid I will have to call bullshoes on that one. Ask any doctor what malpractice insurance costs — especially for OB-GYNs — and dollars to donutholes that figure will be at least 10 percent. That’s the front-end costs. I assume you’re talking about back-end frivolous lawsuits and the like. I’m not sure about that figure but I’m confident you’re lowballing. Virus of misinformation, indeed.

   Reply
10. Lee Leslie says:

    October 21, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    The figures I stated are percentages of total US health care costs and were included to debunk your assertion that tort “reform” would lower costs. Sure, the cost to practitioners to purchase malpractice insurance has skyrocketed, but not because of jury awards, increased risk or costs – the private insurance company policy increases are a natural and cynical occurrence of using capitalism to influence lawmakers into tort “reform.” Seems to have worked well.

    Reply
11. Brenden says:

    October 21, 2009 at 9:35 pm

    “the private insurance company policy increases are a natural and cynical occurrence of using capitalism to influence lawmakers into tort “reform.””

    This is my whole point: capitalism has never worked in the health insurance business. Your statement implies a subversion of market principles; capitalism doesn’t use lawmakers, lawyers or torts as inputs to produce outputs. They only add cost. In healthcare the gov’t allocates resources directly through medicare or indirectly through legislation. The lack of price discovery, a notion I think you’ve agreed with in principle, indicates that competitive markets don’t function in this industry. And that’s because of gov’t influence. When you ask for more gov’t involvement, you’ll only make it worse.

    Lee I think you’re view of capitalism is nearly entirely political. The real definition is simply a market where producers and consumers come together to freely exchange. When producers offer goods/services at price consumers can afford, the market clears. That’s it. Inputs and outputs, and a willingness by producers to undertake risk for reward. There’s no politics in that (maybe there is, if so let me know). When you lard up the system with gov’t mandates and imputed motives of corrupt fatcats, all you’re doing is adding cost. This is self-evident.

    I’m advocating for removing the fatcats and the gov’t because they sustain each other.

    Reply
12. S Baggett says:

    October 22, 2009 at 12:34 am

    “free exchange”- Is that a system is inherently absent of coercion, cheating and brutality?

    Reply
13. Brenden says:

    October 22, 2009 at 9:47 am

    Yes. A capitalist never coerces, cheats or brutalizes in pure competitive markets because efforts to do so direct scarce resources away from production.

    Reply
14. Flora Dodders says:

    October 24, 2009 at 8:45 am

    You’ve been reading way too much Ayn rand – and believing it.

    Reply
15. Brenden says:

    October 24, 2009 at 10:40 am

    Thank you for that insightful commentary.

    Reply
16. Terri Evans says:

    October 24, 2009 at 11:04 am

    Flora, Ayn Rand wrote some exquisite fiction.

    Reply