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.
![[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}
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.