Quantcast
your £$ support needed

part of a small rebellion | by maryann johanson

watch it: “Peggy Robertson’s [sic] tells her story of insurance denial”

Tue Nov 03 2009, 10:07pm | 6 comments

Another example of why the U.S.’s health insurance paradigm must die:

I’d like men to think very carefully about this: Imagine you were told you could get health insurance only if you were to have a vasectomy…

(via Feministing)



Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/flick/public_html/wptest/wp-content/themes/FlickFilosopher/loop-single.php on line 106
explore:
|
  • LaSargenta

    …and to top it off that C-Sections are waaaaay more common in this country than any other, and our infant mortality is higher than most industrialized countries and I haven’t heard very good things about our statistics on post-partum complications … does this mean that US women are ‘faulty’ somehow? Hmmm?

    Or, could it possibly mean that our whole medic-pharmaco-industrial complex is a mess and the people who set the ‘needs’ need to be gone after by a pack of citizens armed with flails persuing them in their corner offices up in the buidings and forcing them onto the streets?

  • Kate

    So the company will insure the HUSBAND, who we assume is the father of her two children…but not her. Because apparently this woman got HERSELF pregnant.

    Why not make the husband get a vasectomy? I mean, he’s the one who knocked her up, which led to her eventually getting a C-section?

    Or, I know, the insurance company could murder one of this couple’s existing kids, since wiping out that child’s lifelong medical care should counter-balance the costs of this woman potentially needing another c-section down the road if they decide to have another child.

    Yeah that should work for the insurance company. And if for any reason this woman has complications with her health and costs the company more than they bargained for (after all, it’s not like they are selling INSURANCE or anything), they can kill the other kid to make up for it.

    Problem solved.

  • CB

    Why not make the husband get a vasectomy? I mean, he’s the one who knocked her up, which led to her eventually getting a C-section?

    Because making it physically impossible for him to impregnate a woman would not make it physically impossible for her to get pregnant.

    Which is a very cynical thing of me to say, but that barely scratches the surface of the cynicism that is behind these decisions. Seriously, our health insurance industry is sociopathic, and we put these sociopaths in charge of our well-being. Because we’re idiots.

  • Accounting Ninja

    Yes’m! I faced a bit of this myself, though not as bad as her. At one point, I looked for independent health care. I am young and in perfect health. Well, a plan without maternity was reasonable (and by “reasonable” I mean it was still very expensive!). Buying an identical plan, only with maternity, was insanely more expensive. I don’t want any more kids right now, but I might later…(maybe not though, lol). So I *guess* I could accept a no-maternity plan, but what if an accident happened? Well, I’d pretty much be fucked…twice. ;)

    The REAL kicker was, if I got the no-maternity plan, they did not cover long term or alternative birth control! Basically, only pills were covered. I HATE pills and they mess me up. Horrid things. I’d much rather have an IUD. And hey, they work for 5-12 years, depending on the type! No expensive babies for years, Insurance Company! But no, it isn’t covered.

    No logic whatsoever. I ended up going uninsured for most of my 20s.

  • CB

    The REAL kicker was, if I got the no-maternity plan, they did not cover long term or alternative birth control! Basically, only pills were covered. I HATE pills and they mess me up. Horrid things. I’d much rather have an IUD. And hey, they work for 5-12 years, depending on the type! No expensive babies for years, Insurance Company! But no, it isn’t covered.

    No logic whatsoever.

    Seems coldly logical to me. If they aren’t covering your pregnancy, why should they care if you get pregnant? It’s your problem! And if you can afford to have the kid then you’ll have to pay for their insurance too. Why they provide even token support for birth control I don’t know. Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a regulation, and if not that then they have some chart that shows they get more money in extra premiums from saying they cover birth control than it costs to provide.

  • MaryAnn

    Buying an identical plan, only with maternity, was insanely more expensive.

    Of course. Because if you’re actually going to *use* the services insurance is supposed to cover, they’re gonna make sure you pay through the nose for it. Which sort of defeats the entire point of insurance, which is to spread the risk and the cost around to everyone.

    Which is the only reason I can think of, actually, for dental and vision coverage to be considered separate from medical coverage (as if your eyes and your teeth weren’t part of your body): because almost everyone will take advantage of dental help at some point, even if it’s just a cleaning or a filling, and almost everyone will need glasses eventually. With other medical insurance, it’s possible that you’ll skate by never breaking your leg or getting cancer, and the insurance companies win in that case. But they can’t win when almost everyone will be getting reading glasses in their 40s.

Pin It on Pinterest