Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Florida Woman's Rape Called A "Pre-Existing Condition" By Insurance Companies

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 01:46 PM
Original message
Florida Woman's Rape Called A "Pre-Existing Condition" By Insurance Companies
A Florida woman, who is a victim of sexual abuse, claims that rape was called a "pre-existing condition" by several health insurance companies, which would have disqualified her for care.

In 2002, Chris Turner, a health insurance agent from Tampa, Florida, was drugged and raped during a business trip. When she conferred with a doctor after her assault, Turner was prescribed preventative anti-HIV drugs, and she later entered counseling to help deal with the residual psychological effects of her rape.

A few months later, when Turner was forced to buy new insurance on the individual market, she suspected, based on her knowledge of the approval process, that she may no longer qualify for coverage. She called a series of insurance underwriters and asked them about a hypothetical client who had been raped, and every insurer she called had the same response: "Nope, we won't take her." Turner's treatment for her rape, it turns out, constituted a pre-existing condition that the companies said would disqualify her from coverage.

Turner spoke about her situation at the launch of the National Women's Law Center's "Being A Woman Is Not A Pre-Existing Condition" campaign yesterday. Amanda Stone recapped her story:

As an insurance agent, Chris knows how the system works: "If you're rejected for coverage once it can put a black spot on your insurance record and keep you from getting health insurance in the future." So, why did the insurance companies she consulted refuse to cover a hypothetical rape survivor? Because the hypothetical rape survivor had sought treatment for her rape! Her use of preventative anti-HIV medication and her attendance in much needed counseling---steps that were necessary to Chris's health and well-being---became obstacles to her future health and well-being, as they were cited for reasons why insurance companies refused to insure her hypothetical applicant. In order to qualify for insurance coverage at all, her hypothetical applicant would have had to have tested negative for HIV for two to three years and have completed counseling for one to two years (depending on the specific insurance company and plan). If Chris, an insurance agent who knows the ins and outs of the insurance market, was unable to obtain health insurance following her assault, what chance do the rest of us have?


Turner says that she went without health care for several years, until she got married and joined her husband's employer-based policy:

As a Florida resident, my only other option was to get insurance coverage in Florida's high risk insurance pool. This coverage would cost more than my rent, so I went without health insurance for about three years. I had to pay for everything on my own--the counseling, the antidepressants, any other health needs that I had. This whole time I was still working in the health insurance field. I sat with clients, explaining how their health policy worked--and the fact that I didn't have coverage myself was like a big, dark secret hanging over me.

I was only able to get health insurance after I married my husband and he eventually got a job that included coverage for spouses. The day that I finally had health insurance again was so fantastic. To know that I could finally get a check-up or a mammogram was a huge relief.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. Best healthcare system on the planet!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftHander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Best WEALTHcare in the world. ...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
2. Goddam!
These fucking insurers need to be sued out of existence. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
3. There is no "bottom" to the depths these bloodsuckers will sink to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Alan Grayson is right.
Everyone thinks he's exaggerating but if anything he's actually not saying enough about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. Public option NOW
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Amen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. A public option wouldn't likely do anything about this.
If anything, the existence of a PO would actually encourage insurance companies to drop people for pre-existing conditions. Competition means cost-cutting, and dropping coverage is the insurance industry's favorite means of cost control. That's why any public option needs to (and will be) be accompanied by legislation limiting who can be denied or dropped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I thought the whole idea was to outlaw pre-existing conditions
That way, nobody loses coverage due to circumstances beyond their control, and private insurance will have to compete that much more with a public plan in order to stay profitable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue State Blues Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. I have a pre-existing condition: Outrage Exhaustion
The problem isn't just that examples like this are egregious, the problem is that they are completely typical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. How many more typical examples do people need to hear
to be convinced that major reform is necessary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. An infinite number it would seem.
It isn't that they don't know the insurance companies are scum. The anti-reform side just doesn't give a damn.
Especially if it's a woman or a minority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. Outrageous.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shell Beau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
14. Just when you think you have heard the worst about insurance companies,
shit like this pops up. Really WTF???????? This is so beyond gross.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ardent15 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. This is fucking atrocious. To hell with the insurance companies.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
16. And the Republicans wonder why we hate private healthcare
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-21-09 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
17. And yet.... she continued selling health insurance... her "secret" kept.
Somehow, I don't feel so much sympathy for her as I do for others.

Her intregity was/is lacking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-22-09 07:18 AM
Response to Original message
18. Unbelievable
And she speaks of a "black mark" on her health insurance record.

Exactly as if it were a criminal record.

Death panels are here and now. And they're in the boardrooms of the bloodsucking insurance companies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC