Everyone knows that health insurance business can be, well, vile and reprehensible. If you’re not aware of that, I recommend you watch the film documentary Sicko. Before I go on, I must be honest. I have had health insurance — excellent health insurance, in fact — my entire life. My parents were both educators as I am, and despite the relatively low salaries we receive for our professional services and mandatory grad school (and no, we are NOT compensated for that), a tiny tradeoff is that we get great insurance and great pensions (and 20% discounts at bookstores, office supply stores, craft stores… haha). Like everyone else in the US we have recently had to start paying more than in past years, but I currently have NO copay for doctor visits and pay $5 for generic prescriptions, 20% for brand name prescriptions. So obviously, this post is not about that particular debacle in our health care coverage system. Let’s get to the point: I recently received Medical Mutual’s new coverage booklet for 2008. I skimmed through it, just because it was readily-available reading material, and as usual got very fired up over the general overtone that my insurance company is BLATANTLY biased against young unmarried women. Hear me out. When I, a consenting adult, changed jobs over the summer, my insurance company (actually the same company I’ve had for 12 years; just a different group number) stopped covering my oral contraceptives. Although they had one from a few years ago, they wanted a letter from my gyno stating that it was MEDICALLY NECESSARY that I be on them. I am bitter about that. Very. As soon as Viagra hit the market a few years ago, insurance companies started covering it right away. To them, it is apparently more important for a middle aged man to maintain an erection than it is for me to be able to postpone (or forego altogether) motherhood until I am emotionally, economically, domestically, and spiritually ready. And let’s think for a second. Are there more societal problems due to sexually-frustrated husbands, or due to children being raised by people who are not prepared to be parents? It’s a no-brainer. And furthermore, last time I checked it would be easier to cover a $35 pack of pills each month for a few years than to cover nine months of prenatal care, delivery and hospitalization, and then up to 23 years worth of medical services for the baby. This part of the mini-conspiracy I was already aware of, BUT WAIT! There’s MORE! I happened to notice that my plan (which is actually in the Consumer Reports top 20 health plans) does NOT cover birth control devices (diaphragms, IUDs, Cervical Caps…) or any service related to them, but here’s the kicker (and I quote directly) they DO cover “therapeutic and elective abortions.” I actually laughed out loud when I read this. So no, they won’t pay for your birth control, but if your lack of access to effective birth control leads to an inevitable unplanned pregnancy, they’ll rev up the vacuum and take care of that for you right away. Check please! I’m not bothered that they cover abortions — I have been pro-choice as long as I’ve been old enough to understand such things — it’s the convoluted way they seem to pick and choose what is covered. I’ll take an educated guess and say that the reason they’re hesitant to cover oral contraceptives and refuse altogether to cover other safe and dependable forms of birth control is because when women — especially young, single women — use them they are more likely to consent to sex sans a condom, thereby making them more susceptible to a buffet of STIs (blisters and discharge and growths, oh my!). Fair enough. But then why don’t men, who statistically speaking have more sexual partners throughout their lives, get challenged by their insurance companies when they seek a prescription that indicates they are sexually active? I suppose though that what this gets me about this is how it is indicative of a MUCH larger problem. It may be 2008, but some people with a great deal of power seem to think we are living in Victorian England, and the resulting ignorance of our citizens is costing us dearly. Women have been using various forms of birth control, from the rhythm method still loved by Catholics to the more practical barrier and hormonal methods, for THOUSANDS of years. Let’s get with the program, people. Here’s an alternative idea: how about we actually teach our young people about this stuff so they can stand up and make informed decisions, not only at the pharmacy but at the voting booth, too? Now there’s a novel idea. Let’s stop keeping our heads in the sand while various interest groups with sneaky names like “Focus on the Family” control our state and federal funding for sex education, forcing my state (and many others) to adopt an Abstinence Only program (statistically, yes, kids in such programs typically wait a year or two longer to become sexually active, but when they do, they are MUCH more likely to contract an STI and/or become pregnant unintentionally due to the fact that they were taught in school that one of the reasons they should never have sex before marriage is that birth control doesn’t work anyway) in all public schools… how about we stop treating this like a social taboo and just DEAL with it. In a world that is so crowded and there are already so many children who need love and nurturing that they simply do not get, doesn’t it sound like a GOOD idea to let people make decisions about these things without their health insurance company looking over their shoulder? Hmmmph. That’s my rare but passionate tirade from the soap box. Did I mention I minored in Health Ed as an undergrad?
Filed under: bitching, education, family, health, life coming at me fast, politics, random, ranting, relationships, sex, women's issues | 8 Comments »