Insurance Companies Considering Domestic Violence a Pre-Existing Condition 25
An insurance company using a pre-existing conditions clause to deny a claim is nothing new; but classifying a victim of domestic violence as having a pre-existing condition is. Half of the largest insurance companies have used domestic violence as a factor when deciding whether to extend coverage. I look forward to a time when I can spend my days perfectly still, inside a box of packing peanuts to avoid higher insurance premiums.
Not so insane (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a saying: the first time she hits you you're a victim. The second time she hits you you're an accomplice.
In essence, encouraging victims to stay silent. (Score:1, Insightful)
"I'd like to call someone for help, but I don't want to be denied insurance coverage when the bastard is finally out of my life. Let"
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, as a part of the divorce judgement you can require that he pay your health insurance bills until such a time that whatever health complaints you have are resolved. It could be part of an assessment process or a stated time period.
So... Step up ladies, and garnish that man's wages... Or dude's, "Beer money for beatings" (If your wife beats you.)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Oh yes, because domestic violence always is the guy's fault and the woman is the target...
Re: (Score:2)
Another excuse to deny coverage (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally you should pack your stuff and leave as such time that the spouse or significant other becomes a abusive. Now I KNOW this isn't always the case (I have several friends who for God-knows why are continuing to remain in abusive relationships), but it SHOULD BE. I'll not say that any woman (I think I'm safe saying women here) ever DESERVES to be abused, but if she remains in an relationship afterwards then I can't see an insurance company being expected to pick up the tab. If she won't leave they sh
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When I first read the summary, I thought it was the worst thing I've ever heard, but as I think about it, I can't help but agree with you.
I don't think the first time a woman goes to the hospital for injuries from an abusave spouse, the incurance company should be able to deny that claim, but once there is a pattern, yes.
Why should someone else help pay for your problem? You could have left, but chose not to. Maybe knowing that the next time this happens you will have to foot the bill will help give peopl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no, I know very well in one case that this isn't the issue. One of the people in question is my sister. She currently has a child, but didn't when the abuse started (she didn't get pregnant until nearly a year afterwards). She's been offered a place to stay with me, our brother, or our parents. No rent, no obligations whatsoever. Her "boyfriend" already got his ass kicked the first few times he hit her. She threatened to kill herself if we ever touched him again (despite him still beating h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Feel safe as much as you want, but I wouldn't.
Friend of mine married another friend (this time female) of mine. She 'playfully' hits him regularly. Frankly, I'd have smacked her by now. So what do you think would happen if this marriage took a dive? What happens when the atmosphere turns negative and he starts seeing this in a new light?
Frankly, I believe women are much more likely to strike their husband than the other way around. Just because, usually, they are weaker and the pain thus becomes 'negligible
Re: (Score:1)
They were married for nearly 10 years, I've been friends with "Bob" for about 6 now and have never seen him get angry. He's the kind of guy that would get T-Boned by someone running a red light and his first instinct would be to make sure
Re:capitalisim socialism (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't really understand the outcry against death panels. Any insurance program, government or private has to have a process whereby coverage is denied to people who will die without it. For the fast majority of people every dollar spent could increase quality/length of life, likely with logarithmic return.
So...you can have the (potentially corrupt and inefficient) government decide when you die, or you can have a for-profit corporation do it. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Box of Packing Peanuts Strategy Flawed (Score:1)
You will no doubt be denied coverage based on obvious pre-existing peanut allergy and by extension allergy to any foods. Or styrofoam. Or cardboard. Or air....
Seriously, I'm human (or so I'd have you believe), as such I am susceptible to getting sick, injured, and eventually dying. Sooner or later this applies to all of us. Likewise in the past I've been sick and injured. This also probably applies to everyone. Granted some are more likely than others to be sick or injured. I guess where it gets "st
Restoring balance (Score:2, Interesting)
I Disbelieve (Score:2)
I can find no evidence that anyone is denied coverage for preexisting conditions based on the fact of being a victim of domestic violence. I welcome it, if it exists.
I followed the links from here [seiu.org] to here [healthreform.gov] to here [nwlc.org] and finally to here [womenslawproject.org]. No evidence is given.
What seems to be the actual case is not that anyone is excluded for being abused, but that some people are being excluded for actual health problems that were CAUSED BY domestic violence.
So according to what these people are pushing for, if you are in a c