Comments on: Domestic violence as a “preexisting condition”

By: All Denials of Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions Deserve Equal Outrage : The Curvature

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:28:14 +0000

[...] of domestic violence deserves explicit mention. Indeed, we’re seeing it get all kinds of special attention at various feminist blogs — and by our First [...]

By: Kim Wells

Kim Wells — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:29:08 +0000

I want to point out that Allstate and State Farm DO NOT deny life and health insurance to victims of domestic violence. That information was from 1995. Instead they have become proactive in addressing domestic violence as a workplace issue for their employees and for the public in general. Please visit http://www.caepv.org to learn more. It is important to see that these companies have seen the light on this important issue.

By: bethrjacobs

bethrjacobs — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:35:42 +0000

Essentially it is blame the vic. that isn’t told as in for example an auto accident to wait for the other party to pay the bill for domestic violence and rape kits or by comparison isn’t told she has a preexisting condition and no record. On the contrary and I haven’t had insurance in twenty years but as I learned about in my rape counseling training the Vic. Is going to be asked to submit the bill to the insurance co…And I would go as far as surmising that unless she wins a case against her abuser/rapist in court it will be a part of her medical record as is an auto accident even if you aren’t at fault.

By: Jillian

Jillian — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 03:10:09 +0000

While this post was focused on insurance companies’ treatment of victims of domestic violence–an issue that specifically, detrimentally affects women–I absolutely AM outraged over the treatment of those with preexisting conditions. And in fact I did speak to this outrage (in the second paragraph.) The piece is focused on domestic violence as a preexisting condition not only because this is a feminist blog, but because of the fact that it is a much less well-known form of discrimination by insurance companies.

I think my final sentence does an effective job of asserting that this practice is part of a larger, more systematic problem- which is the insurance companies’ objectification of human beings.

Finally, this article discussing deaths caused in large part by a lack of health insurance was posted on the front page of the Huffington Post yesterday. I hope I’ve made it clear that i was in no way attempting to diminish the seriousness of denying healthcare to those with preexisting medical conditions–it just was not the focus of this specific post.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

By: Cara

Cara — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:57:39 +0000

Yes, but all pre-existing conditions work the same way. It’s punishing a person for having diabetes. It’s punishing a person for having a mental health condition. It’s punishing a person for having cancer, or high blood pressure, or kidney problems, or arthritis, or whatever. All of it is about punishing people for being unwell and seeking care.

What a lot of people are objecting to in expressing special horror over domestic violence and previous c-sections being considered a pre-existing condition is that we don’t see those same people expressing such concern over people being denied treatment because of their chronic conditions or disabilities. And with so many people talking about this now, and again failing to talk about the rest, it makes it seem as though this is a cause that everyone can get behind and trumpet as an example of why people should oppose our current health care system specifically because it’s not associated with disability.

(A lot of that is a paraphrase of what Amandaw has said in other places, to give credit where credit is due.)

By: Jill

Jill — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:44:22 +0000

I’m not sure if this was what Jillian was getting at, and I won’t presume to speak for her, but one of the reasons I was particularly troubled by the “domestic violence as a preexisting condition” issue is that, from what I’ve read, some insurance companies don’t even require any sort of actual physical injury — all they look at is if you’ve ever filed a complaint for domestic violence, and then increase your premiums if you have. That puts it into a new category of not even knowing whether there were physical injuries, but treating you as if you have a physical condition anyway.

Obviously I agree that the “preexisting condition” qualification is horrible for any reason at all. I also find the “blame” framing problematic. But I think there is a fair argument that DV as a preexisting condition is particularly horrifying, at least in the way that it plays out here, because it’s effectively punishing women who try to get out of abusive situations.

As an aside, I actually wouldn’t be opposed to insurance companies penalizing abusers, in a manner of speaking. Make the insurance company cover the injuries, but then allow them to sue the abuser to recoup their losses. That wouldn’t keep me up at night.

By: abby jean

abby jean — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:32:28 +0000

so, jillian, are you suggesting that the insurance companies should penalize the abuser instead? that having committed an act of domestic abuse should disqualify someone from receiving health coverage? because otherwise i fail to see why the distinction between there being a specific individual to blame vs no specific person to blame for a pre-existing medical condition not caused by abuse is at all relevant to the issue. the problem is that women cannot get treatment for their medical care. period. distinguishing between types of medical care and whether one woman is more deserving of care (or denying care to one woman more morally abhorrent than denying care to another) will necessarily lead to blaming someone, or at least penalizing them, for their medical conditions. and like rachel says, nobody is to blame for any pre-existing condition.

By: Jillian

Jillian — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:50:41 +0000

To clarify, I wasn’t presuming that anyone is to blame for their preexisting condition. I was pointing out that in the case of domestic violence, there IS someone to blame: the person who committed the acts of violence. In the original version of this piece the phrase “when someone else is clearly to blame” was italicized, which might have made this point more clear, but that was lost in this version. The distinction is not that those with medical conditions are to blame and those in abusive relationships are not; the distinction is that there is no physical, living, breathing person to blame a medical condition on while there IS one to blame domestic violence on.

By: rachel

rachel — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:34:51 +0000

amandaw, i agree…as though anyone is “to blame” for ANY preexisting condition.

By: amandaw

amandaw — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:56:24 +0000

“But here’s where the two classifications are different; here’s where it becomes even more disgusting, even more dehumanizing than denying healthcare to those with preexisting medical conditions: by denying coverage to victims of domestic abuse, insurance companies blame the victim when someone else is clearly to blame.”

REALLY??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? I don't mean to be such a jerk on someone else's writing in a new area but REALLY?????????