With critiques and praise flying from every direction, it can be difficult to understand how the current debate on health care will affect you as an individual and, most importantly, as a woman. You may be unaware that as a female, you are currently at a severe disadvantage when it comes to getting fair health insurance coverage and treatment. For years, women have been paying significantly more than males for the same level of coverage and experiencing increasingly higher rates of refused coverage by the insurance companies. Finally, these issues are being addressed in the current legislative debate. However, not all prospective changes will be positive. We’ve hashed out the good, the bad and the potential of the reforms making their way through Congress to allow you to make smart decisions about where you stand.

The Good
Elimination of Pre-existing Conditions
In October of this year, the Huffington Post ran an article on Florida woman Christina Turner, who was denied health care coverage because she had been raped. After the horrific incident, Turner went to her doctor who, per normal procedure, offered Turner an HIV test and prescription medicine if her tests came back positive. After being unexpectedly denied coverage repeatedly over the next year, Turner discovered that it was because of the mentions of HIV (even though she was negative) on her health records. Not only can this situation make women nervous about reporting rape for fear of losing coverage, it also turns HIV testing, something that every sexually active individual should take advantage of, into something negative.

Turner’s story is a prime example of the dangers of discrimination against those with perceived pre-existing conditions. The guidelines for pre-existing conditions in our current health care market are extremely flawed and sexist. Not only do women pay more on average for coverage because the ability to become pregnant, but they can also be denied if they have had a C-section or other pregnancy complications (as it is incorrectly assumed that it means they will have more).
The health care bill passed by the House and the Senate bill currently being debated will eliminate the notion of pre-existing conditions in the National Health Care Exchange (the health care market of private plans and the public option) thus making the acquisition of health care a more fair and just process.

Free Preventative Care
This month the Senate passed the Mikulski amendment to its version of the health care bill. If the reconciled bill is enacted into law, it will create profound change for women in receiving preventative care. This includes free mammograms for women over 40, free Pap smears and screenings for cervical, ovarian and lung cancer, heart disease, diabetes and post-partum depression.

The Bad
Stupak-Pitts Amendment
Added at the last minute to the House health care bill, the Stupak amendment will essentially set back reproductive rights to the Pre-Roe v. Wade era. Currently, many private insurance plans cover abortions for any reason (as opposed to the health care plan offered to federal employees which only covers the procedure in instances of rape, incest, or endangering of the woman’s health). If the health care bill is signed with this amendment intact, any private insurance company that enters the National Health Care Exchange will be prohibited from offering any abortion coverage and those women whose current private plan includes abortion will lose their coverage of the right to choose unless they choose to purchase a rider (an add-on to an insurance plan for an additional fee) to their coverage. However, this is entirely nonsensical as no one plans for an unplanned pregnancy.

Regardless of your own feelings towards abortion, the reality is that this is health care discrimination at the most blatant level that disgraces the work of the women’s movement of the past 30 years.

Birth Control Coverage
Despite lobbying by a number of women’s groups and female politicians, birth control coverage has not yet made its way into the health care bills. Despite the fact that an insured male can get Viagra for next to nothing, many women find themselves paying over $50 a month for a pack of pills. Considering pregnant women are already discriminated against, it would only seem logical to help women prevent unwanted pregnancies and avoid the problem.

On a positive note, the Mikulski amendment in the Senate bill may give enough leeway in deciding what qualifies as preventative care that if enough health care plans on the market decide to cover birth control, it will only be logical and competitive for all to follow suit.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/health/policy/04health.html?_r=1&ref=p...

http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2009/SanityInSight.asp

http://www.doublex.com/section/news-politics/why-doesnt-health-care-cove...

http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?id=12062

http://huffpostfund.org/stories/2009/10/rape-victims-choice-risk-aids-or...