🚀 go-pugleaf

lisarea@netcom.com (Elisabeth Higgins) wrote:

>In article <50qb4o$7117@michiganj.intr.net>, rex@access.digex.net says...

>>If this were typical, there would be no "violence against women laws".
>>It would be "violence against people laws" only.

>I am not aware of any "violence against women laws." Please provide some 
>citation for this.

Um, the violence against women law that Clinton signed back in May.
That is the name of the act which was signed into law - "The violence
against women act".  It was widely publicized on TV, and in
Newspapers.  I am sure you can find the citation yourself if you do a
net search.

I am not aware of the exact text of the law.  The title appears to be
self-explanitory.  Anybody know the URL for the full text?

>>***

>Yes, it is. And the roles ARE reversed, in the case of health insurance. I'd 
>say the outcry is roughly equal on these issues, as it probably should be. 
>You weren't even aware of the health insurance issue, were you?

Well, let's see.  My wife and I pay the exact same for coverage.

The  price quotes that I got from 5 different Health Insurance
companies just last month (August 1996) all had rates broken down as
follows:

Individual Subscriber
Subscriber + Spouse
Subscriber + child
Family

In all of these instances, rates were clearly quoted, without reguard
or knowlege of the gender of the subscriber.  It was stated that
pre-existing conditions could result in a higher payment, but nowhere
did any of these information packets mention gender as the sole basis
for a higher premium.

If you would like me to scan, and send you the lists, let me know.

Some HI company is apparently screwing you, if they charge you more
simply for being a female.  I have never heard of such a thing.
Therefore, in answer to your question: no, I wasn't aware of the
Health Insurance inequality issue, especially since I just researched
it extensively last month.

Are you absolutely sure that you are aware of it?

Are you speaking of Maternity benefits perhaps?  That is optional for
both individual, supscriber+spouse, and family plans.  That is the
only thing I know of that you could be speaking of.

>-- 
>"Sometimes, I think about how Don King once kicked a guy to death because 
>that guy owed him twenty bucks. I don't even think he did it for the money. 
>I think it was the principle of the thing. Man, I wish some guy owed ME 
>twenty bucks!"                --Reid Rottach

>Quality Time with Lisa!  http://www.tfs.net/~lhiggin




--
Rex
rex@intr.net