Beauty and Style
Senate Health Deal Readmits Gender Bias by Insurers
Women"s rights leaders already embittered by lawmakers" compromises on abortion coverage in health reform say Senate negotiators have further hurt women by allowing gender bias--or the practice of charging women more than men--to continue in their version. NEW YORK With the nation"s interest in health care reform growing in intensity, even influencing election outcomes, the National Women"s Law Center in Washington, D.C., warned on Jan. 15 that the Senate health care reform bill would not end gender rating, the practice by which insurers charge women higher premiums than men for the same coverage. In contrast, the House version would ban the practice. Larger employers with predominantly female work forces--such as child care providers, visiting nurse associations and even some smaller school districts--would continue to be charged higher premiums "simply because of the demographics of their work force," Judy Waxman, vice president for Health and Reproductive Rights at the National Women"s Law Center, said in a Jan. 15 message to their members. The Senate bill eliminates gender rating for companies with fewer than 100 employees. Spurred by this further disappointment with the Senate"s Reid-Nelson health reform bill--which joins the House version in restricting abortion coverage--the new president of the National Organization for Women is threatening to join those opposing passage of health care legislation in its current form. "It"s beyond outrageous that our friends in the leadership in the House and Senate and the White House did not call me to tell me this," said Terry O"Neill, who was elected in June to succeed the term-limited Kim Gandy as president of NOW. "As it is, if the Reid-Nelson compromise passes, after a period of years, women in this country will have no private or public coverage for abortion care. And then they"re going to sneak in the continuation of gender rating and they expect us to sit back and not call for the bill to be completely killed? They"ve got another thing coming." O"Neill said the nonpartisan group NOW would support pro-choice candidates regardless of party affiliation, from independent candidates to GOP members willing to go "back to the way it was before it was taken over by extremists." Coakley Race Crucial The disaffection of pro-choice advocates from Democrats and the political compromises they have accepted on health reform coincides with the Tuesday loss of pro-choice Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley in the special senate race for the seat vacated by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. Coakley"s victory was considered crucial for retaining the solid 60 votes necessary for health reform passage. Scott Brown, the victor in the Massachusetts race, campaigned on his opposition to the health care bill. The Republican Majority for Choice did not endorse Brown because the group wasn"t able to scrutinize his full voting record on reproductive issues. Kellie Ferguson, executive director of the Washington-based group, said Brown has expressed support for Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruling preserving abortion as part of a woman"s right to privacy. Ferguson added that Brown, as a state senator, also voted for emergency contraception for rape victims. However, he voted for parental consent for abortions too and possibly other restrictions. Because of his record, Ferguson said she believes Brown "will be someone they can work with." The industry-friendly concession on preserving insurers" right to gender bias is part of the Senate"s Reid-Nelson compromise, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. That duo has left Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, calling for changes to the Senate filibuster rule that she said makes it possible for one senator--such as Nebraska"s Nelson or now Massachusetts" Brown--to block legislation and appointments. "How can we be in this position where we are constantly fighting to prevent further restrictions?" Smeal said. Insurance companies claim that higher overall average costs for women"s health care justify the practice but women"s advocates call it discriminatory. Women pay up to 48 percent more for health insurance than men, Smeal said. *1 *2 *Next *LastSame Day Loans commented:
I am shockd to hear such gender bias attitude of insurance sectors .It should be abolished as soon as possible otherwise it can give a hit to women\'s rights in other sectors too in future I think .
04.01.2012
Same Day Loans commented:
The best thing about this page is all the information on senate health deal is totally up to date and there is no false statements in this post
23.03.2012