Hi Saturn, RE: "So I am sure that if the female employees make everyone aware of the problem the inequities will be removed."
It's easier for talented women to simply work in more women-friendly States, where legislature demands equal health rights. CA is near the bottom for women in this regards (not in other ways though.) It's really easy to find out which States have the progressive laws by way of the Internet. Businesses don't always have the power to negotiate for the rights of women health care with the insurance providers who control Congress, but they certainly have the power to open branch sites in other States with better equality laws in health.
Though I will say, I hear even the health care plan we have at our small business (Blue Cross PPO for small businesses) is much better for women than what I understand any of Intel's plans are, so some of this error sits squarely on Intel. Though why should a corporation be forced to get in the middle of all of this? The consumer should be free to pick whatever insurance offerings they want from the public market and they should be given the equivalent premium cash to do so. It's wrong to force people onto a plan that isn't gender friendly, and then provide no venue to the public insurance where better gender friendly plans exist.
RE: "However the entire health insurance is such a mess ! The consumer is unhappy because of unexpected exclusions, the medical practioners are in arms about the ridiculously low reimbursements, and the insurance providers are the ones coming out like bandits."
Someone on this thread said Doctors haven't had a raise in 10 years, which is ridiculous. An article once said 40% of your medical bill is being paid out to administrative overhead. Additionally, there are huge inefficiencies in the system - a lack of technology for preventative care, or technology to avoid problems. For example, my friend's relative who is a doctor said something like 88,000 cases of mistakes happen due to issuing the wrong Rx dosage, something that simple software would catch. (Haven't confirmed #.) There's a lawsuit in MN (per a CNN article) for a woman whose doctor didn't test her for Fragile X, even though she previously had a mentally retarded child with Fragile X. So she now has two mentally retarded children, thanks to her doctor not testing for Fragile X. But I think this is really the fault of not purchasing technology that should have been there to catch this error. A sign-in chart at an OBGYN shouldn't be a piece of paper women fill out, but should be a computerized tablet, where if the women checks "yes" to "do you have a child, sibling, or any other relative with retardation?", then the softare should throw a red flag, "You must be tested for Fragile X."
But here are my issues with health insurance:
1. Same as John Fowler's point. The consumer should choose.
The consumer doesn't have any control over selecting their options, only the corporation does. And trust me on this one, corporations do not want that heavy responsibility to choose for you. Consumers know better than corporations, what they want in coverage, so corporations should get out of the way to make it happen.
2. Different prices for the same procedure for different people, should be outlawed.
Your post's example is perfect. Another example according to a doctor who is really annoyed about this scenario, is how the costs for heart operations are so hammered down by the insurance industry, meanwhile a simple IVF procedure that is not covered is outrageously billed approximately 3X's more than a heart surgery he said, only because individuals have no large corporations hammering the price down for them, as they should be. This means double pain for the consumer - not only does the consumer not get the coverage when a corporation doesn't offer this in their plan, but it also means they don't get the benefit of a "negotiated rate" that other large corporations get who do cover it. In otherwords, the consumer gets screwed twice. They not only pay for what should be a covered benefit, they pay many times more than the true cost because they are not given cheap "negotiated rates."
3. I think the law should simply state: there can be no gender inequality in health care insurance coverage.
Insurance providers should also be held accountable for providing more than simply 'bikini' medicine to women. A women's heart issues are wildly different than men's (men can get angioplasty to undue blockage, meanwhile according to a CNN article women do not typically have blockages in only specific locations but a gradual buildup over the entire vascular system which an angioplasty (a procedure my oldest brother and a couple others were responsible for bringing to the NW coast in the 80s according to a newspaper) isn't going to fix it for women as it does for men, and the medical coverage should allow for these types of gender differences in care. I mean, it was only until this year that the AMA released for the very first time, guidance for the heart attack symptoms for women! I mean, duh! Meanwhile, the male heart attack symptoms have been released for more than 30 years! Go figure !!! Medical equality does not exist in this country.
4. It should be illegal to prohibit coverage based purely upon the size of the company.
Currently, Blue Cross is targeting small businesses, so the plan is better. But we still remember the days back when I had to tell people in interviews, "there is no plan in the State of California that gives small businesses insurance coverage for diabetes, so if you are diabetic, it's important you know that California legislatures refuse to make it possible for small businesses to buy this coverage for diabetes from any provider in this State which means we can't offer it to you, which is horrible. It's horrible, it's a sham, but it's how California's legislature works. Only the large corporations have the power to negotiate for diabetes coverage." THAT is an example of poor legislation.
5. It should be illegal for insurance providers to decline individuals insurance, if they have continuous coverage.
They are paying into the system, so they should be allowed to be in it. Just heard of a horror story from a friend in the CA insurance business: her client opted to responsibly fix her marriage thru couples counseling rather than divorcing her husband. The price of this responsible decision: she is unable to purchase individual insurance because of their decision to fix it. If she wants insurance, she has to buy the CA State's plan, which is meant for cancer victims and is horribly cost prohibitive as a result. Side note, frankly, why should even cancer victims be prohibited from individual insurance from the major providers? Another story: a doctor had short post mortem depression from giving birth. She never had a single incident of this in her life, but she is now prohibited from getting insurance - every carrier has declined her because of this single short incident that was due to giving birth. Ironically, she is a doctor that spends her life treating people, meanwhile she is unable to buy insurance coverage for herself in CA from the providers. It's not against the law for people with continuous coverage to be declined insurance from the major providers. The law only protects "group coverage". The State's laws do not protect consumers because it doesn't guarantee coverage from the insurance providers even for those with maintained continuous coverage. That usually shocks hightech consultants too.
6. The system shouldn't be biased against hightech consultants, middle class and the rich --- women or men. My immigrant friend received free insurance from Kaiser (State paid) when she first arrived in this country. Meanwhile, if you retire early from hightech, you may not be able to purchase health insurance from any of the insurance providers. Additionally, many women hightech consultants are not able to get individual insurance from the major providers due to a gender specific condition such as post-mortem depression from giving birth. (Good grief, there truly are not enough women in the govt's legal system to fix yet another gender-disparity health insurance item.)
7. The State of CA should pass a law that requires insurance providers to cover everything corporations may want to buy as well as everything consumers may want, IVF for example, but certainly allow insurance providers to do so at a higher premium price. For example, women would probably prefer to pay 25% more in premiums if it means they can get gender-equality care - hurray, whoopie!!
Regards,
Amy J
|
