Thursday, March 18, 2010

Health Care and Domestic Violence?

I could write a lot on how the current efforts to expand federal government involvement in health care and insurance is even more unfair financially to men than other expansions of government. (It is also harmful to the independence of women and to women who earn higher incomes.) But as noted on The Playful Walrus, there are nine states that allow insurance companies to treat domestic violence as a preexisting condtion, and some people, including the current administration, find that troublesome and are presenting it as a womens' right issue. Never mind that women commit domestic violence as well - is it never reasonable for an insurance company to turn someone down who has a history of being abused?

Why should an insurance company be forced to take on someone who voluntarily subjects themselves to a situation that has already proven to be unnecessarily dangerous? And yes, it is voluntary. Dating is voluntary. Being alone in private with someone is voluntary. Shacking up is voluntary. Getting married is voluntary. Staying married is voluntary.
Should all insurance companies should be forced to insure someone (male or female) who keeps going back to someone who beats the crap out of them, or regularly assaults them? To me, it is a problem that only nine states allow insurance companies to treat this as a preexisting condition.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please no "cussing" or profanities or your comment won't be published. I have to approve your comment before it appears. I won't reject your comment for disagreement - I actually welcome disagreement. But I will not allow libelous comments (which is my main reason for requiring approval) and please try to avoid profanities. Thanks!