In our current health care system, women often face higher health care costs than men and multiple other barriers to obtaining health insurance. In the individual insurance market, women face discrimination — often being charged substantially higher premiums for the same coverage as men or being denied coverage for such “pre-existing conditions” as pregnancy, having had a C-section, or being a domestic violence victim. Fewer wom
en have access to insurance than men, since many are ineligible for employer-based coverage. As a result, many women are under- or uninsured, and simply can’t afford the services they need. In a recent study, more than half of women — compared with 39% of men — reported delaying needed medical care due to cost.
Ending Discrimination
Women are charged up to 48% more than men in the individual market
In 2008, 14.5 million American women purchased health insurance through the individual market. According to a recent study, these women pay up to 48% more in premium costs than men. An insurance industry practice known as “gender rating” means men and women are often charged different premiums for the same coverage. The practice is allowed in all but 12 states.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act makes it illegal for insurance companies to use “gender rating” –charging women more than men for the same coverage.
Women are denied coverage or charged more for “pre-existing conditions” such as pregnancy, c-sections, or domestic violence
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: In eight states and the District of Columbia, it is perfectly legal for insurance companies in the individual insurance market to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence. One survey found that at least eight major insurance providers would not provide health, life or disability coverage to victims, with one industry advocate arguing that insuring a victim of domestic violence would be akin to covering “a smoker who doesn’t stop smoking.”
C-SECTION: As a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans explains, a number of health insurance companies treat having had a C-section as a pre-existing condition, or charger higher premiums or deductibles.
“’Sometimes the coverage will come with a rider saying that coverage for a Caesarean delivery is excluded for a period of time,’ Ms. Pisano said.” [New York Times, 6/1/08]
PREGNANCY: Many American women have had pregnancy treated as a pre-existing condition. For example, a Georgia woman who conceived a child after she had started work at small downtown firm had her employer’s insurance company label the pregnancy a pre-existing condition and refuse to cover pre-natal care and the delivery. [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 6/7/92]
The Affordable Health Care for America Act makes it against the law for insurance companies to deny coverage or charge higher premiums on the basis of a “pre-existing condition.”
79 percent of women with individual market policies do not have any maternity coverage
In a 2008 report, the National Women’s Law Center analyzed 3,500 individual market insurance policies and found just 12% included comprehensive maternity coverage and another 9% provided coverage that was not comprehensive. Only 14 states currently require maternity coverage in policies sold on the individual market.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act includes coverage of maternity services in the essential benefits package in the Health Insurance Exchange, and over time, plans outside the Exchange would be required to do so, as well.
Expanding Access
Many women have no access to employer-provided coverage
Currently, less than half of America’s women can obtain affordable health insurance through a job, partly because more women tend to work for small businesses and/or part-time.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act creates a new Health Insurance Exchange or marketplace, for the millions who do not have health insurance through their employers. The Exchange will give America’s women new insurance security -- guaranteeing choices of quality, affordable insurance (at rates large groups get) if they lose their job, switch jobs, move or get sick. Premium assistance is provided to those with incomes up to 400% of poverty.
Even employer provided coverage is in decline
Most Americans still get their health insurance coverage through their job and 60 million women currently have health insurance through an employer – but this system is continuing to erode. Between 2000 and 2009, employers who offered health insurance fell from 69% to 60%.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act stabilizes and strengthens our current employer-provided health insurance system – including increasing competition for better prices. Lowering costs in our health care system requires shared responsibility, and the bill requires large employers with annual payrolls above $500,000 provide coverage to their employees or pay a fee.
Making Health Care Affordable
Women more often face unaffordable out-of-pocket costs
Any medical event can place a woman at risk for potentially devastating financial costs, even
when she has insurance. In a recent study, more than half of women reported delaying needed medical care due to cost – compared with 39% of men.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act expands access to affordable health insurance to all Americans, provides premium assistance to make it affordable, and puts a cap on what insurance companies can force you to pay in out-of-pocket expenses, co-pays, and deductibles.
Preventive services are often unaffordable for women and children
In many cases, even women and children with insurance do not receive key preventive care –from mammograms to well-baby and well-child care – because they cannot afford the co-pays. Partly due to costs, one in five women over age 50 has not had a mammogram in the past two years.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act eliminates all co-pays and deductibles for recommended preventive services.


Comments: 32
Technology is becoming exponentially faster, but politics is in political gridlock.
I hope for any change for the better soon.
I want change, thank you very much!
In my opinion, this is reason enough for health care reform. It proves that we need more competition and that many companies don't have the best interests of the American people in mind, only profits.
Thanks for posting this wonderful article to our group, Barack Obama's Presidential Appointments, Bills and Policies.
http://obamasupporters.gather.com/
Its now our latest FEATURED article.
Such as the statement saying "In the end, we are not Republicans, Democrats, Independents or Libertarians, we are people -- women, men, young, old in this big community we call America."
However I do only see one political party being supported here. Need to get the jabs in, hoping people do not notice.....?
We are all just people (who cares what side your on). I can see both sides to this issue...... trickery will be out in full force while this debate continues.
No reason for any customer to be happy that the stakeholders are happy, though.
I obtained an itemized statement from the hospital and got out "Ozzie", my Osborne 1 computer which had a tiny screen and two floppy drives but no hard drive. I set up a dBase2 database and entered each charge, indicating whether it was usual or related to care for a special problem--right down to the BandAid and gauze pad. We printed out a report and sent it to the insurance company. They paid for the "extras" by return mail.
So a woman-owned service has not been an option, and this to me is one of the reasons we have so much lop-sidedness.
I would like it if the legislation would address the present restriction of the first amendment concerning herbs, diet, and other lifestyle remedies.
The famous lawsuits against Howard Lyman and Oprah still chill speech concerning diet and lifestyle, and a university recently experienced pressure to restrict the speech of Michael Pollan, who was scheduled to appear there.
Many of us have watched the depressing movies like Food, Inc., and the World According to Monsanto. A French woman made the latter of these movies. I doubt it would have been possible to make for an American woman.
I would love to see changes that free those lucky individuals who still have jobs from feeling indentured because of our present illness-maintenance system.
I would also like to us to focus on helping people to thrive rather than on preventing named illnesses that we probably increase the incidence of by naming them. It would be better if we could focus on health and individual goals of what that would look like for each of us given our ascribed differences and bone structures. Not everybody can be pretzels and back-benders, but everybody can improve strength, balance, coordination, etc.
When I go to a gathering, I can tell who works out, and if they look really good, I often ask them where. It's not that I just want to flatter them (healthy people tend to look rich), but it's also that a grocery checker once said that to me, "You look healthy, where do you work out?"
That question made my day in rough times. My cheeks may have been flushed because I had been crying, but I also did throw myself into working out as a result of a long series of painful losses.
I'm not the only one who worked out in response to pain that seemed insurmoutable if I stayed home and thought about it too much.
When I go to gyms, I can just about tell who's trying to kill themselves with a workout because they need to be distracted from other things. I know what that look feels like, from the inside.
Putting community health centers in places that do other community things, such as schools and pools, makes sense along this line because it doesn't sequester illness in some huge, car-park-infested smelly ghetto with people coughing as they wait three hours.
I so dread that sort of environment. We could be putting uppers in places where a person is asked to sign papers saying I know I could die. Before my double mastectomy I felt compassion for the intern whose hands were shaking as he handwrote in that he had asked me that. I grinned, took the pen and wrote it myself, reassuring him I knew I could die. Jeez, I was 50 already. Dying had occurred to me plenty of times. Given my health challenges, I was pretty surprised to still be there to succumb to the knife.
I know people are afraid of the seriousness of these issues.
An FDA letter threatening Dr. Weil with drastic stuff for talking about an herb he sells is now making rounds on the internet.
The habitual use of draconian threats by such agencies is one reason people get into advanced defense mode.
Government has a history of doing some pretty bad things under authority of strange and inscrutable fine print.
If you are really rich, you can probably hire good enough lawyers to pretect you from incarceration.
But it is unwise to minimize the risk if you interact with specific government people. It isn't easy to tell on the surface whether you are dealing with a good cop or some other kind.
The ability of hospitals and others to take your property is enforced by specific government persons who are often protected from being sued for harm done to individuals.
In discussion of health care, we will still have negotiation about care in individual states. The states differ vastly in how things are done, and they wield a lot of power in that respect. Persons wanting good care should contemplate that issue carefully before moving. Some states allow adequate pain care routinely, and some do not, as just one example.
Young girls will never know the prosperity that past women have enjoyed because of the massive amount of debt the current administration has left them.
Young girls will never know the freedom that past generations of women have know, that is it valueing freedom is a good thing.
The youth of today, he says, need to be employed. A generation starting their working career on the dole is a tragedy, compared to the old farts like me making up the category.
I should write an article. See what other people think.
The CBO score calculations show that the bill’s savings would exceed spending by $104 billion.
Sessions and others like him are perpetuating the stereotype of the Republican party -- old, white, and male. Totally out of step with women. Totally out of step with today.
The Stupak amendment would restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for the premiums with their own money. This amendment reaches much further than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortion in most instances since 1977. It was added in response to the Catholic Bishops' appeal and pressure by pro-life groups.