Insurance Companies Considering Domestic Violence a Pre-Existing Condition
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.
If the bastard has a history injuring you to the point where you require medical attention, but you still let him or her hang around, then I think the insurance company has a valid complaint. However, they should just make a restraining order a prerequisite, not just issue a blanket denial of coverage.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"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"
I agree. Why would you suffer for having an abusive spouse.
wedding chair covers
here's further proof why Capitalism is better than Socialism -- they already have "death panels"...
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 "sticky" is that some times this is self-inflicted and some times it isn't. The hard part is the insurance companies don't seem to take that into account - they just want an easy out when you become more of a liability than an asset. You talk about "death panels" - seems to me that's more the mindset of big insurance than big government. Even when your upkeep becomes costly to the .gov, you can still vote. At least while they're still holding elections....
Perhaps this would offset a person's financial and custody incentives to make false claims of domestic abuse.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
all 3 will kill you way before smoking does
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.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
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 to here to here and finally to here. 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 car accident (through someone else's fault), you can be excluded for preexisting conditions based on those injuries; but if you are beat up by your spouse, you can't be. I disagree with this approach. If you are going to get rid of preexisting condition exclusions, just do it. Don't try to treat some preexisting conditions as somehow special, moreso than others.
"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..."
Well, if by "new" you mean "since 1994," I suppose this classification is "new." That's FIFTEEN YEARS ago, by the way -- during Bill Clinton's FIRST term.
Damn straight it's a 'Pre-Existing Condition', if you knew about it before signing the contract, and expect to get payed for it after you signed!