Another attack on women from the right

In case anyone here hasn't heard, due to the scant news coverage, the Senate has begun considering a bill introduced by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY). It's called the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization and Affordability Act, or HIMMAA for short. It is euphemistically described as:
Quote:
A bill to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act to expand health care access and reduce costs through the creation of small business health plans and through modernization of the health insurance marketplace.


Some of the ways this bill seeks to "expand health care access" are to allow insurance companies to:
- not allow women to designate an OB/GYN as a primary care provider
- force women to be screened by primary care doctors before they visit a gynecologist or obstetrician.
- refuse coverage for cervical cancer screening
- refuse coverage for contraception
REGARDLESS OF STATE LAWS. The whole point of this bill is to allow insurance companies to bypass state laws of healthcare coverage on certain issues. The problem with this, of course, is that you don't get to vote your insurance company's CEO out of power.

This is apparently a reaction to the 23 states that now require insurance companies to cover contraception; it gives insurance companies the right to override state laws on insurance coverage. Funny how all those allegedly "states' rights"-obsessed conservatives are quiet on this. Hey, how about we let Planned Parenthood decide whether or not to require parental consent for abortions regardless of state laws and see how quietly that one goes down.

I'm guessing that the removal of state-mandated coverage for cervical cancer screening would be because cervical cancer is linked with HPV, which is contracted sexually. Obviously, screening for -- not even treatment of -- it should be optional, given that it causes infertility and possibly death, and all. I mean, we've already seen conservative opposition to development of the cervical cancer vaccine, ( http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624954.500 ) which would need to be administered before sexual activity begins:

Quote:
In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.



We'd rather see women die of cancer than have sex and get away with it.

Here is a text of the bill if you're interested.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...?bill=s109-1955

Here is where you go if you want to urge your senator to vote against S. 1955 -- you can only send the e-mail if you are a constituent of one of the following:

Senator Lamar Alexander
Senator Jeff Bingaman
Senator Richard Burr
Senator Hillary Clinton
Senator Mike DeWine
Senator Chris Dodd
Senator John Ensign
Senator Mike Enzi
Senator Bill Frist
Senator Judd Gregg
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Orrin Hatch
Senator Johnny Isakson
Senator Jim Jeffords
Senator Edward Kennedy
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Jack Reed
Senator Pat Roberts
Senator Jeff Sessions

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/en...J1qZPrM13zC OW

I doubt I need to send an email, Patty Murray is awesome

Thanks for the info though.

hmm... and your link doesn't go anywhere.

It's good to see the United States Government leading the world again... backwards

Let's try this again.

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/enzi_bill2?rk=J1qZPrM13zCOW

Why do these psuedo christians have any say and they want to punish women for something that takes two? I don't see condoms under attack or vasectomies under attack yet if a female has to have a procedure to get rid of a tubal pregnancy because it is life threatening then in some people's eyes, that is still an abortion.

It's not about pre-marital sex, it's about blaming pre-marital sex on women and punishing just women for it.

Maybe all women should just leave and let the men have their perfect male dominated world. I wonder how long it would take before homosexuality is accepted with open arms if all women left. lol.

Insurance shoudn't cover medical protection aganst STDs.

Insurance shouldn't have to cover contraceptives.

Most insurances don't cover vasectomies.

Insurance doesn't cover current male chemical contraceptive.

Why should it cover womens?

EQUALITY. This is not an attack on women. You don't get special priviledges.

Insurance companies cover Viagra... why shouldn't they cover contraceptives?

They absolutely SHOULD cover costs for STD's, and all of the above. What are you on today anyways?

This is all about MONEY anyways.

Yeah but cervical cancer?? Give me a break. What about prostate cancer? It's in my understanding that you have coverage for that and right now women are covered for cervical cancer and I don't see people trying to get rid of coverage for prostate cancer.

Thats not the part Im disagreeing about. Thats more lax attitude on cancer than an attack on women though. And no, I don't feel insurance should cover viagra.

Yeah, Patty Murray is a pretty good senator, we are lucky to have her; Cantwell isn't bad, either. It never hurts, though, to call up your elected officials' offices and let them know how you feel about certain issues, though. I do it.

As long as insurance companies cover drugs which counteract male impotence (as many do), I see no reason why they shouldn't cover birth control. Preventing multiple unwanted pregnancies is in the best interest of our society as a whole, it's not just a women's health issue.

Thanks for the info, Azazel.

It is an attack on females with cancer because only females can get cervical cancer and if it were really just a lax attitude with cancer then all forms of cancer would not be covered by insurance.

Insurance resists all new cancer research and vaccines..even prostate and testicular. That part isn't really an attack one wpomen in my eyes..just wanting more money when it comes to cancers.

Provide proof with your statement. Is it just in some states or all?

This has nothing to do with EQUALITY - hell, Viagra is covered by insurance. Cervical cancer is an STD? interesting. What current male chemical contraceptive is available not as a trial (insurance companies do NOT cover trial medication)? I've looked and looked and most have been abandoned, mostly because they're trying to find something that will have NO side effects for men (women should be so lucky to have a chemical birth control available or even researched that has NO side effects.) Most insurances don't cover tubal ligation either.

Insurance companies pay a lot to make sure these laws go through. It's not just WOMEN who are affected, either.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-1955

Insurances first fought covering viagra. insurance -still- fight covering the symptoms and such of fibromyalgia.

Any new disease , medication, or prescription they fight..any way to keep their money they fight.

Insurance company interests are being served in Congress. I still think all our politicians should wear their sponsor's decals so we know who they *really* serve.

Here Jonas. 27 states cover prostate cancer.

In my opinion cancer of all forms should be covered by insurance but like someone else said it comes down to money but the way the healthcare system currently is, it's very difficult for the average person in America to pay out of pocket.

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/prostate.htm

Disease highlights

In 2002, an estimated 189,000 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed in the U.S.,
Prostate cancer is the leading cause of new cancer cases (excluding skin cancer) in men.
Prostate cancer is rarely diagnosed in men less than 50 years of age.
African American men are diagnosed with prostate cancer at a rate nearly 50 percent higher than white men, more than twice as high as Hispanic men, nearly three times higher than Asian/Pacific Islanders, and nearly five times higher than Native American men.
Survival rates for prostate cancer improved significantly from 1974 to 1994 for all men, and specifically for white and African American men.
Ninety-three percent of all men diagnosed with prostate cancer survive five years or more.
For more information on prostate cancer policy, click here on the PDF link to Prostate Cancer Screening: A Matter of Routine or Patient Choice? A Discussion for Policy Makers. This booklet, developed by national experts provides helpful information on the debates surrounding prostate cancer screening and treatment.

Below is a chart that summarizes all state prostate cancer screening mandates. To date, 27 states have enacted laws requiring insurers to include coverage for PSA testing. In addition, the state of Utah passed a resolution encouraging private insurers to include prostate cancer screening coverage.


State Citation Content
Alaska
Sec.22.41.395

H 416
Health insurer shall provide coverage for the cost of prostate cancer screening tests. Minimum coverage requires annual screening for two groups of patients: 1) a person who is at least 35 but less than 40 and is in a high risk group (defined as African American or with family history) and 2) for a person who is 40 or more.

California
Sec. 1367.64
Individual or group health care service plan contract must provide coverage for the screening and diagnosis of prostate cancer including PSA and DRE.

Colorado
C.R.S. 10-16-104
All individual and all group sickness and accidental policies shall provide coverage for annual screening for the early detection of prostate cancer in men over the age of fifty years and in men over the age of forty years who are in high-risk categories. Such coverage shall be the lesser of sixty-five dollars per prostate cancer screening or the actual charge for such screening.

Connecticut
HB 7032

Public Act No.99-284
Requires specified insurers to provide coverage for prostate cancer screening and diagnostic tests and provides coverage guidelines.

Delaware
18 Del. C. 3552
All group and blanket health insurance policies which are delivered or issued for delivery in this State by any health insurer or health service corporation and which provide benefits for outpatient services shall provide to covered persons residing or having their principal place of employment in this State and being age 50 or above a benefit for prostate cancer screening,

Georgia
Official Code 33-29-3.2.
Mandates coverage for annual prostate specific antigen tests for the covered males who are 45 years of age or older, or for covered males who are 40 years of age or older, if ordered by a physician.

Illinois
HB 1881
Amends the state employees group insurance act and education employees health insurance coverage and Medicaid coverage to include annual PSA.

Indiana
SB 126
Requires group insurance for public employees, group insurers and HMOs to provide annual PSA screening to a man who is at least 40 or whose treating physician determines screening is medically necessary.

Kansas
K.S.A. 40-2, 164
Health benefit society or health maintenance organization which provides coverage for accident and health services shall provide coverage for prostate cancer screening for men 40 years of age or who are symptomatic or in a high-risk category and for all men 50 years of age or older.

Louisiana
22:215.11
Mandates coverage for detection of prostate cancer, including digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen testing for men over the age of fifty years and as medically necessary and appropriate for men over the age of forty years.

Maine
24 M.R.S. 2325-C
All individual and group plans must provide coverage for early detection of prostate cancer.

Maryland
H 1040 (1997)

SB 428
Requires annual screening coverage for men between ages 40 and 75; when used for the purpose of guiding patient management in monitoring the response to prostate cancer treatment; when used for staging in determining the need for a bone scan in patients with prostate cancer; or when used for male patients who are at high risk for prostate cancer.

Minnesota
Minn. Stat. 62Q.50
A health plan must cover prostate cancer screening for men 40 years of age or over who are symptomatic or in a high-risk category and for all men 50 years of age or older

Missouri
HB 191
Requires individual and group health insurance and self-insured group arrangements to provide coverage for a prostate examination and laboratory tests for cancer for any nonsymptomatic man in accordance with ACS guidelines.

New Jersey
17B:27-46.1o
Mandates digital rectal examination and a prostate-specific antigen test for men age 50 and over who are asymptomatic and for men age 40 and over with a family history of prostate cancer or other prostate cancer risk factors.

New York
A 5037
Requires coverage of diagnostic screenings for prostate cancer.

North Carolina
NCGS 135-1

58-50-155
Requires that the standard health plan developed and approved under GS58-50-125 provide coverage for PSA. Requires benefit plans for teachers and state employees to pay 100% of allowable charges for routine diagnostic examinations and tests, including prostate exams.

North Dakota
ND S 2115 (1997)

26.1-36-09.6
Requires all health insurance policies to cover annual DRE and PSA for men 50 and over, black men 40 and over, and men 40 and over with a family history. Exempts insurers from providing coverage of PSA and other state mandates in basic health insurance policies delivered, issued, and received to employers with fewer than 50 employees

Oklahoma
36 Okl. St. 6060.8
Health benefit plans shall offer prostate cancer screening coverage for men 50 years and in men over the age of 40 who are in high-risk categories.

Rhode Island
RI H 7395 or S 2299
Requires every individual or group hospital or medical expense insurance policy or contract, nonprofit hospital or medical service plan and HMO plan to include coverage for prostate examinations and laboratory testing for all nonsymptomatic persons.

South Dakota
H 1088
Requires coverage for prostate cancer screening.

Tennessee
56-7-2354
Mandates coverage for the early detection of prostate cancer for men aged fifty (50) and over and other men if a physician determines that early detection for prostate cancer is medically necessary.

Texas
TX Ins. Code art. 26.45
Coverage for the following preventive care must be provided on an appropriate medical schedule without copayment or deductible: prostate cancer screening.

Utah
HCR 2
Encourages private health insurance companies and employers to include insurance coverage for the screening and detection of prostate cancer.

Vermont
HB 189
Established standards for health insurance coverage services including PSA.

Virginia
H 915 (199
Requires State Health insurance plans and Medicaid to include coverage to persons age fifty and over and persons age forty and over who are at high risk for prostate cancer according to ACS guidelines.

West Virginia
H 4039

Act. No. 168
Requires the Public Employees Insurance agency to establish an insurance plan that includes annual prostate cancer checkups for men age 50 and over.

Wyoming
H 26
Requires group coverage for prostate screening.



This site is made possible by program award U38/CCU814942-05 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Exactly Joy..sadly.

Instead of seeing what the people who voted them in want..they look to big companies who sponser their extraordinarilly large campaigns.

Congress should look to the people, remember the constitution, and be able to vote with big company lobbying.

Azazel: I didn't say they didn't say cover prostate cancer. I just said the insurance companies trying to avoid paying isn't an attack on women. its how they respond to EVERYTHING.

True and sometimes it takes hours on the phone dealing with insurance companies to get money. I used to work as a receptionist and know all about that however these insurance companies are about to be handed the power to override state laws.

Will cancer vaccine get to all women?
18 April 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Debora MacKenzie


http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/mg18624954.500

DEATHS from cervical cancer could jump fourfold to a million a year by 2050, mainly in developing countries. This could be prevented by soon-to-be-approved vaccines against the virus that causes most cases of cervical cancer - but there are signs that opposition to the vaccines might lead to many preventable deaths.

The trouble is that the human papilloma virus (HPV) is sexually transmitted. So to prevent infection, girls will have to be vaccinated before they become sexually active, which could be a problem in many countries.

In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.

Meanwhile in developing countries, where 80 per cent of deaths from cervical cancer occur, social taboos may be even more powerful. The head of the Indian Council of Medical Research, N. K. Ganguly, says it will take a big educational effort to convince parents. Vaccinating men could be the best way to prevent the spread of HPV among women.

HPV is extremely common. Half of all sexually active women between 18 and 22 in the US are infected. Most cases clear up, but sometimes infection persists and can cause cancer decades later.

Deaths in the west have plummeted thanks to widespread screening to detect cancers early. But such screening is not widely available in developing countries. In many, populations are ageing: in India the number of women over 60 is projected to rise from 40 million now to 168 million in 2050. The International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, calculates that by then deaths from cervical cancer will reach a million a year in poor countries if rates of infection, and of cancer detection and treatment, do not improve.

While vaccination could slash infection rates, its cancer-preventing benefits will not be evident for decades, as it will take that long for vaccinated girls to reach an age when they might otherwise have developed cancer. Meanwhile, millions of women who are already infected must be screened and treated. If there is widespread resistance to vaccination, it will take even longer for its benefits to become clear.

Vaccines are producing good results in clinical trials, and the first could be licensed as early as next year. GlaxoSmithKline announced in November 2004 that its vaccine, which contains two strains of HPV thought to cause 70 per cent of cervical cancers, had prevented 90 per cent of new infections and all persistent infections. The US-based firm Merck announced similar results last week with its vaccine, which contains the same two cancer-causing HPV strains plus two strains that cause genital warts.

“Vaccinating men could be the best way to prevent the spread of the cancer-causing virus among women”Merck's official reason for including the warts strains is that they can confuse screening tests, leading to unnecessary scares. But another reason, says Anne Szarewski of the charity Cancer Research UK, who is helping to organise one of the vaccine trials, is that men who get vaccinated to prevent disfiguring warts will no longer transmit the cancer-causing strains to women. That might be the key to getting vaccines accepted in cultures where trying to prevent sexually transmitted infections is equated with promiscuity.

"We found that some Asian women in Britain are afraid even to get tested for HPV infection, because they say if it is positive they will be killed, never mind that their husbands probably gave it to them," says Szarewski. She feels that such attitudes may mean that HPV vaccination may be a non-starter in such communities.

Greg Zimet of Indiana University in Indianapolis is more optimistic. His surveys in the US show parents overwhelmingly favour getting their daughters vaccinated. "Doctors tend to fear the worst," he says.

But some problems have already surfaced. India is planning to do its own clinical trials, but will not test the vaccine in young girls. "This is not possible until around the age of marriage in India," Ganguly says.

Once licensed, the vaccine should be given to younger girls, he says. "But people will say 'My girl is very virtuous, why vaccinate?' It will be a real challenge, not like other vaccines."

Last but not least is the cost. Ganguly is trying to arrange for an HPV vaccine to be produced cheaply in India. But there are fears India's new patent laws will make licensing deals difficult.

From issue 2495 of New Scientist magazine, 18 April 2005, page 8

They should, but they don't. They forget that the people who voted for them are the *real* reason they are there.. not the people who gave them money to buy favors

I planne don contacting congressmen to state my opposition Azazel, have form the start. Just see it as an insurance company's greed rather than an attack on women.

1. Health insurance should cover whatever the hell the person is paying for. If I want my insurance to cover my penis enlargement and I'm willing to pay the premium, they should.

2. Since when is Hillary Clinton on the Right!?

3. The people fighting the HPV vaccine are idiots who happen to be Christian. God loves all His children...even the imbeciles.

This Christian would be the first in line to get both his daughters vaccinated. I don't think a vaccine is suddenly going to turn them into Paris Hilton.

-Kiamat Dusk

Thanks Jonas

A tubal pregnancy is a FAILED pregnancy. It's not a fucking abortion! It's a damn surgery because of the risk to the woman. It WILL kill the woman if left to "grow". And by the way, no placenta grows to nourish the embryo. It just gets larger until it bursts the tube and ends up killing the woman.


IT'S NOT A FUCKING ABORTION!!!



get a goddamn clue.

Actually, it is an abortion strictly speaking insomuch as you are ending the pregnancy. HOWEVER...it's a necessary one that falls under the whole "life of the mother" clause and should be covered by health insurance.

-Kiamat Dusk