There are so many problems with our health care system, but articles like this remind us there are so many things right. Having lived with children without OHIP and with then with it, it makes a world of difference to peace of mind. Even on a daily basis.
There was an attempt in 2006 to pass a law so that this was not possible. The attempt failed, and it is still legal for insurance companies in those 8 states and D.C. to do this.
Whether they actually ARE or not, I'm not certain. Regardless, they shouldn't be PERMITTED to, and they are.
that's a reasonable suggestion. but the claim being bandied around is that they are currently denying access to insurance on this basis, and if that is not happening, then you have to ask why they stopped denying access to insurance *even though they were allowed to do so*.
we have no information either way, and that bothers me, that nobody knows whether they stopped of their own accord or are still merrily denying access to insurance.
i also am curious about the insurance company argument which directly rebuts the DV advocate argument that getting into the clinic/ER results in women leaving abusive situations. the insurance company argument for denying access to insurance is that women don't leave and keep going back, costing thousands a year against hundreds in premiums.
however, there is no mention of if this is just a theory they have about it to justify the denial or if they bothered to gather data. that would also be really useful information to have.
easy way to adjust that clause - make sure the insured that has suffered domestic violence uses the 10 mental health visits. if they opt not to get the counseling, THEN they waive the right to be covered for further domestic violence related medical issues
This is what happens when you let for-profit corporations handle health coverage.
Imagine if the people making these decisions were rewarded for making people healthier instead of generating more profit. Might work out a little differently, hmm?
i am not pro-insurance companies (kill em all i say!), but considering the seismic shifts in what constitutes a measure of health, it is quite impossible to chase 'healthiness' by metrics that doctors can use.
low cholestorol-- not really the best measure of healthiness.
weight-- not necessarily a useful measure of healthiness. bodyfat is best, but very inconvenient to measure regularly.
heartrate-- a lot of individual variance. even ranges are not applicable given the unreliability of cheap measuring methods.
a lot of people with poor endurance, large-shaped cholestorol (the shape is more important than the count and large is worse), no muscle mass and caffeine dependence put up low cholesterol numbers. and they are really sure they are 'healthy'.
as well, carb-heavy diets are awful for vast numbers of people, as are low-fat diets (diet in the 'daily eatins' sense, not weight-loss sense), but that is considered healthy by some doctors and by many people.
whether the government or an insurance company (for or non profit) cuts the check to pay, you can't rely on 'making people healthier' when doctors are as likely to sign off on wildly unhealthy things (like massive amounts of cardio, which is demonstrably not great for you) as they are healthy things (like eating lots of saturated fat-- the 'meat only' diet used to be something that was prescribed for health).
who gets to draw the line in the dirt and determine what constitutes making folks 'healthier' when there is a lot of debate about what constitutes 'healthier and always will be?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-16 11:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-16 12:32 pm (UTC)There are so many problems with our health care system, but articles like this remind us there are so many things right.
Having lived with children without OHIP and with then with it, it makes a world of difference to peace of mind. Even on a daily basis.
it happened 14 years ago.
Date: 2009-09-16 01:07 pm (UTC)all the references in those articles are from 14 years ago, not any time more recently.
Re: it happened 14 years ago.
Date: 2009-09-16 06:01 pm (UTC)Whether they actually ARE or not, I'm not certain. Regardless, they shouldn't be PERMITTED to, and they are.
Re: it happened 14 years ago.
Date: 2009-09-16 11:04 pm (UTC)we have no information either way, and that bothers me, that nobody knows whether they stopped of their own accord or are still merrily denying access to insurance.
i also am curious about the insurance company argument which directly rebuts the DV advocate argument that getting into the clinic/ER results in women leaving abusive situations. the insurance company argument for denying access to insurance is that women don't leave and keep going back, costing thousands a year against hundreds in premiums.
however, there is no mention of if this is just a theory they have about it to justify the denial or if they bothered to gather data. that would also be really useful information to have.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-16 02:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-16 04:17 pm (UTC)Imagine if the people making these decisions were rewarded for making people healthier instead of generating more profit. Might work out a little differently, hmm?
healthier is a moving target.
Date: 2009-09-16 10:53 pm (UTC)low cholestorol-- not really the best measure of healthiness.
weight-- not necessarily a useful measure of healthiness. bodyfat is best, but very inconvenient to measure regularly.
heartrate-- a lot of individual variance. even ranges are not applicable given the unreliability of cheap measuring methods.
a lot of people with poor endurance, large-shaped cholestorol (the shape is more important than the count and large is worse), no muscle mass and caffeine dependence put up low cholesterol numbers. and they are really sure they are 'healthy'.
as well, carb-heavy diets are awful for vast numbers of people, as are low-fat diets (diet in the 'daily eatins' sense, not weight-loss sense), but that is considered healthy by some doctors and by many people.
whether the government or an insurance company (for or non profit) cuts the check to pay, you can't rely on 'making people healthier' when doctors are as likely to sign off on wildly unhealthy things (like massive amounts of cardio, which is demonstrably not great for you) as they are healthy things (like eating lots of saturated fat-- the 'meat only' diet used to be something that was prescribed for health).
who gets to draw the line in the dirt and determine what constitutes making folks 'healthier' when there is a lot of debate about what constitutes 'healthier and always will be?
(no subject)
Date: 2009-09-16 06:00 pm (UTC)