The last link didn't work. Here it is in simpler form: http://tinyurl.com/yjv7cwz (again, not intentionally political, just a news item about an effort to close this loophole)

I wonder if the govt will be able to close this loophole, the insurance industry has the best bunch of lobbyists in the country! I just got a letter from my insurance company regarding my eye injury a few months back, asking all sorts of questions. I just told them I woke up with it...no need for disclosure as far as I'm concerned. My fall was questioned too, but left alone when it turned out the schools insurance will cover the medical treatment.

That is disgusting, they should not be denied coverage for their abuse. I do think it should be kept at a state level though, I have a hard time believing that the feds are going to put better policies in place with these insurance companies than the states would. (SOOOO not trying to make this a debate at all.) I just think it would be more effective to leave it up to state legislature, it would pass quicker.

I know for a fact it would NOT pass here if left to the state of Oklahoma. I know this because three years ago there was bill introduced that would protect rape victims from job losses during their medical recovery. The bill protected a limited number of days in which women could recuperate without fear of being terminated for job absence. We had packed the sate capital with women (rape survivors) who told their stories, and the Coalition organized a massive phone and letters campaign. Many other states have this law, so it was hardly radical.

What actually happened is that the senators rudely portrayed the women as "self-serving" victims who were seeking a "government handout" and "entitlements." The bill was defeated because it was seen as pitting the medical care of rape victims against the financial incomes of businesses, since it would ask businesses to honor women's employment after rape. It was seen as an "anti-business" measure. Rape victims lost--again.

Once more, leaving it up to the locals to decide just didn't work. When profit and rape trauma compete, profit wins. It will take a change in policy form above, because my state has already made it choice not to advocate for rape victims.

When the federal government wants something to happen, they make it happen. They can deny federal funding for things as simple as road construction grants to states who oppose passing the law on their own. I've seen it happen here in the state not wanting to provide medical coverage to illegal immigrant (undocumented workers).

The federal government obviously has to get involved, but they have the power to force the states hand into making the decision "for themselves". I would rather see them take that road than passing it at a national level

The Rep from OK was a real tool a the hearing last week....Rep Caputo..a woman...she was a jerk!

I am new to this legislation around rape. I never really paid attention before; I guess that it was not on my radar until recently. I am seeing that it comes down to money and not the victim. That seems to be the bottom line. I must say that I find it completely troubling.

Now, I have been working on some issues in education. That, too, seems all about the money and not really the children.

I am just thinking out loud if you don't mind. I am seeing a common theme here. I may have more to say here, but I need to think about it a bit more.

If I ran the world, and if I was the insurance company, not only would I pay for a DV victims medical bills, but I would sue the person responsible for the injuries (if known). Then, I'd drop THEIR sorry asses from medical coverage related to assault injuries.

yeah, I know it would never happen, but sounds good to you too, right ;)

Havent these people heard of Stockholm's Syndrome for pete's sake? Documented phenomenon. I'd be throwing that around pretty heavily to get them to pay. C'mon, insurance companies, open your eyes. They are always looking for new ways not to pay. We have ultrasound technitions here at our hospital who are forced to get additional certifications just so the hospital can get paid for the exams. As an US tech, you do many exams, but not every exam has a specific governing test you have to take in order to do it. It's general education stuff. Like being a mechanic w/o having to take a seperate test that you know how to pump gas kinda thing. Bad example, but anyway.

Here are these techs who have been techs for years and know their stuff and are stressing having to study in depth physic's principles just so they can take test so insurance companies will pay for exams from "certified techs" when they are already certified to practice. It truly is amazing that we keep bowing down to what their demands are...

Heres an article on Stockholm's Syndrome. To me, its absolutely fascinating. It gives an example of how severe it can be in interpersonal relationships that abuse victims have actually attacked police officers that have been called. They are protecting their abusers. I have seen this personally and its very weird... The sad thing is that case is then guess who's going down to the ground in cuffs for jumping on their backs? It's a no win situation...

http://www.mental-health-matters.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=167

Isn't Stockholm's Syndrome usually when you are kidnapped?
I am just sayin cuz I made a joke about it in yearbooks last year

I wrote:
"If you ever get abducted by aliens I hope you develop Stockholm's Syndrome to make the time go by easier. STAY Gold PonyBoy
love, Kardy"

lol

Isn't Stockholm's Syndrome usually when you are kidnapped?
I am just sayin cuz I made a joke about it in yearbooks last year

I wrote:
"If you ever get abducted by aliens I hope you develop Stockholm's Syndrome to make the time go by easier. STAY Gold PonyBoy
love, Kardy"

lol

This topic reminded me of an article I read recently on the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html

Bottom line -- woman had been drugged, thought she might have been raped. Her doctor put her on meds for HIV prophylaxis. She took the meds for a month. Fast forward a few months. Woman goes to get new insurance. DENIED. Why? Because she had followed her doctors orders and taken meds to prevent contracting HIV. The insurance company was unwilling to insure her thinking she was HIV positive and believing that she thus had a pre-existing condition. They told her that if she came back in three years and could prove that she wasn't HIV positive, they might reconsider their denial of coverage.

The insurance companies have an appeals process that upon a more detailed review and examination of the circumstances surrounding her treatment, the ruling could and likely would be reversed.

Insurance companies are notorious for denying first and asking questions later.

Kardy, read the article. It talks about stockholm in relationships. I think people dont recognize it for what it is. I think they might just write it off as codependence or whatever. IDK, just my guess on that, but it does exist in that capacity... Matt would know a hell of a lot better than I would if you want specifics :)