Did you read the full article? There's a lot of examples of victims being denied therapy specifically connected to their sexual assault, insurance companies not listening to doctors about what is necessary treatment (including prophylactic administration of AIDS drugs), and even people in the industry itself saying "this needs a hard look".
Denial based on pre-existing conditions is a major reason I support a public option or different regulation of the insurance industry (a la Switzerland). The fact that rape victims have to choose between seeking treatment (for possible STDs, for PTSD, whatever) and keeping their health insurance is wrong, no matter what the underlying reasons for it. I'm not going to lambast any individual insurer, but it's a prime example of why our current system is totally FUBAR.
I don't disagree; I've been bouncing around inside our industry for 4 years now and its a little bit like licking horse balls while it's at full gallop.
Both distasteful, and exhausting.
But there is the question that has to be asked (And is being asked right now)... Yes, it is morally reprehensible to deny a rape victim non-emergency care stemming from her rape, just as it is morally reprehensible to deny a soldier care because he has PTSD.
But, and this is sort of my devils advocate point here; do we want 'morality' to be a factor in our health care policy? Is not Insurance, the art of covering risk (Big thing here. Insurance is built on the idea that the gamble between those who will roll craps and those who will not, will come up at least even), based on making astute decisions on who to cover?
Can we, as a people, reasonably afford to demand coverage for everyone, regardless of lifestyle, income, ability to pay, culpability of condition?
Do you want to pay for the 4th bypass for the man who won't stop chowing down on cheeseburgers? Do you want to pay for the 10th childbirth for a 24 year old single mother?
I don't. But someone must. And someone will. It will be all of us in the end. The only question, is how do we make the math work. Can we make it work with moralistic imperative (Feeling based), where in things are covered because we cannot countenance the moral repercussions of -not- covering them?
Or can we only make it work if we take a more ethical (Rules based) position of cold, unfeeling actuary tables where shit like the above can happen?
I favor a middle road: Actuary tables mixed with oversight panels who have the ability to appeal egregious cases, but the understanding of the workings of the system enough to not abuse it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-24 03:37 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-24 04:21 (UTC)This had nothing to do with rape, but with the need for a battery of anti-Aids medications that arose from a rape.
Is it less fucked up? No. But it's not about victimizing a rape victim. It's about making a decision based on someones medical history.
Where's the line to draw, in causation and effect?
no subject
Date: 2009-10-24 04:37 (UTC)Denial based on pre-existing conditions is a major reason I support a public option or different regulation of the insurance industry (a la Switzerland). The fact that rape victims have to choose between seeking treatment (for possible STDs, for PTSD, whatever) and keeping their health insurance is wrong, no matter what the underlying reasons for it. I'm not going to lambast any individual insurer, but it's a prime example of why our current system is totally FUBAR.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-24 04:53 (UTC)Both distasteful, and exhausting.
But there is the question that has to be asked (And is being asked right now)... Yes, it is morally reprehensible to deny a rape victim non-emergency care stemming from her rape, just as it is morally reprehensible to deny a soldier care because he has PTSD.
But, and this is sort of my devils advocate point here; do we want 'morality' to be a factor in our health care policy? Is not Insurance, the art of covering risk (Big thing here. Insurance is built on the idea that the gamble between those who will roll craps and those who will not, will come up at least even), based on making astute decisions on who to cover?
Can we, as a people, reasonably afford to demand coverage for everyone, regardless of lifestyle, income, ability to pay, culpability of condition?
Do you want to pay for the 4th bypass for the man who won't stop chowing down on cheeseburgers? Do you want to pay for the 10th childbirth for a 24 year old single mother?
I don't. But someone must. And someone will. It will be all of us in the end. The only question, is how do we make the math work. Can we make it work with moralistic imperative (Feeling based), where in things are covered because we cannot countenance the moral repercussions of -not- covering them?
Or can we only make it work if we take a more ethical (Rules based) position of cold, unfeeling actuary tables where shit like the above can happen?
I favor a middle road: Actuary tables mixed with oversight panels who have the ability to appeal egregious cases, but the understanding of the workings of the system enough to not abuse it.