rape as a pre-existing condition
Oct. 21st, 2009 09:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rmDo I need to say this is about to be triggery as hell?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html
Scenario 1: Woman is raped. Almost two decades go by. She is raped again. When she tries to get coverage for health services related to the rape, her claims are denied because her first rape made her second rape a pre-existing condition.
Scenario 2: Woman is raped. Woman takes HIV drugs as a precautionary measure. Woman is now uninsurable in most cases. If she is able to get or maintain insurance she most likely would not be covered should she contract AIDS or any STD in the future.
Just so we're clear, these scenarios (which have really happened to non-hypothetical, non-fictitious women) are more than barbaric. They both brand women as responsible for their rapes and therefore not entitled to care related to their sexual and emotional selves -- that's only for insurance-defined "good girls" apparently.
Pissed off yet? Well, wait, because there's more, because a host of other scenarios like this are out there (check out the comments to this post, which include "domestic violence as a pre-existing condition" and a woman who was inseminated so she could have kids with her female partner being denied health insurance on the grounds of the infertility she didn't have), and if they haven't happened yet, they probably will soon.
Here's the deal about health insurance and being female: Being female is effectively considered a disease by insurers, despite the fact that women have much longer life expectancies than men. Women are also dealt with as children who are incapable of making informed decisions about their own bodies; whether it's birth control, abortion or pregnancy-related services, insurers will tell you over and over again that they know better than you or your doctor.
Choosing to have an abortion? May not be covered if it's not "medically necessary" and what's "medically necessary" isn't decided by you or your doctor, but by your insurance company. If mental health is a factor, forget about it (I've seen this one in action repeatedly). My abortion was part of the RU486 trial, and I still had to pay $400 for it (about ten years ago); it was not covered by insurance.
Want birth control? It'll probably cost you more than Viagra or similar medications on many insurance plans. A man has a right to fuck, but a woman doesn't have the same right to not get pregnant, apparently. (Once again, see comments -- this may or may not now actually be less fucked than I remember it being; it's been a long time since I was on oral birth control and I know regulations on insurance companies regarding this has changed since that time -- people's experiences with this seem to vary, but there's still definitely a problem on at least some plans or in some regions).
Have you decided to be child-free? Well, that's nice, but chances are there's no way for you to decline coverage for pregnancy related services (even if you've had your tubes tied), because as a woman, you apparently don't really know what you want and are likely to change your mind (and hey, you might get raped!). And if you want a medical procedure to ensure your child-free status? As one commenter notes, good luck. Odds are your insurance plan will cover a vasectomy, but as a woman? Sorry, no procedures for you! Why? Well, you could change your mind.
Having a baby? Well, if you've had a c-section before, your insurance company is going to tell you, you have to have one again, even if you and your doctor are comfortable with you trying for a VBAC. That is if they don't, as noted in the comments, just quit insuring you altogether.
Need a mammogram before age 40 because of a family history of breast cancer? Well, most insurers will make you wait even if breast cancer killed one of your relatives at age 39. Maybe, if you're really lucky, you'll figure out how to get seen at a free-screening clinic in a low-income neighborhood -- if it exists, if you're eligible, and if doing that won't cause anything breast health related to be termed a pre-existing condition and be not covered by your insurance forever more. That's right, if you have a family history of breast cancer, you may not be able to afford to have the screenings that could save your life -- even if you are insured!
The bias in all this is exhausting, but so is the lip-service paid to women's equality by executives and politicians who think this is all just fine. Fuck you. Come out and say it. We're children and chattel to you. And if we're very good and beg hard enough and don't get raped, maybe, just maybe you'll insure us and then we can be worth some cash too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html
Scenario 1: Woman is raped. Almost two decades go by. She is raped again. When she tries to get coverage for health services related to the rape, her claims are denied because her first rape made her second rape a pre-existing condition.
Scenario 2: Woman is raped. Woman takes HIV drugs as a precautionary measure. Woman is now uninsurable in most cases. If she is able to get or maintain insurance she most likely would not be covered should she contract AIDS or any STD in the future.
Just so we're clear, these scenarios (which have really happened to non-hypothetical, non-fictitious women) are more than barbaric. They both brand women as responsible for their rapes and therefore not entitled to care related to their sexual and emotional selves -- that's only for insurance-defined "good girls" apparently.
Pissed off yet? Well, wait, because there's more, because a host of other scenarios like this are out there (check out the comments to this post, which include "domestic violence as a pre-existing condition" and a woman who was inseminated so she could have kids with her female partner being denied health insurance on the grounds of the infertility she didn't have), and if they haven't happened yet, they probably will soon.
Here's the deal about health insurance and being female: Being female is effectively considered a disease by insurers, despite the fact that women have much longer life expectancies than men. Women are also dealt with as children who are incapable of making informed decisions about their own bodies; whether it's birth control, abortion or pregnancy-related services, insurers will tell you over and over again that they know better than you or your doctor.
Choosing to have an abortion? May not be covered if it's not "medically necessary" and what's "medically necessary" isn't decided by you or your doctor, but by your insurance company. If mental health is a factor, forget about it (I've seen this one in action repeatedly). My abortion was part of the RU486 trial, and I still had to pay $400 for it (about ten years ago); it was not covered by insurance.
Want birth control? It'll probably cost you more than Viagra or similar medications on many insurance plans. A man has a right to fuck, but a woman doesn't have the same right to not get pregnant, apparently. (Once again, see comments -- this may or may not now actually be less fucked than I remember it being; it's been a long time since I was on oral birth control and I know regulations on insurance companies regarding this has changed since that time -- people's experiences with this seem to vary, but there's still definitely a problem on at least some plans or in some regions).
Have you decided to be child-free? Well, that's nice, but chances are there's no way for you to decline coverage for pregnancy related services (even if you've had your tubes tied), because as a woman, you apparently don't really know what you want and are likely to change your mind (and hey, you might get raped!). And if you want a medical procedure to ensure your child-free status? As one commenter notes, good luck. Odds are your insurance plan will cover a vasectomy, but as a woman? Sorry, no procedures for you! Why? Well, you could change your mind.
Having a baby? Well, if you've had a c-section before, your insurance company is going to tell you, you have to have one again, even if you and your doctor are comfortable with you trying for a VBAC. That is if they don't, as noted in the comments, just quit insuring you altogether.
Need a mammogram before age 40 because of a family history of breast cancer? Well, most insurers will make you wait even if breast cancer killed one of your relatives at age 39. Maybe, if you're really lucky, you'll figure out how to get seen at a free-screening clinic in a low-income neighborhood -- if it exists, if you're eligible, and if doing that won't cause anything breast health related to be termed a pre-existing condition and be not covered by your insurance forever more. That's right, if you have a family history of breast cancer, you may not be able to afford to have the screenings that could save your life -- even if you are insured!
The bias in all this is exhausting, but so is the lip-service paid to women's equality by executives and politicians who think this is all just fine. Fuck you. Come out and say it. We're children and chattel to you. And if we're very good and beg hard enough and don't get raped, maybe, just maybe you'll insure us and then we can be worth some cash too.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-22 02:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-22 03:28 am (UTC)Multiple abortions is the other way, but few people want to admit to having one, much less more than one.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-22 12:42 pm (UTC)I can't even get started on the whole rape thing. As a rape victim myself, I didn't have the option of turning down RU-486 (I think this evolved into Plan B)...I was forced to take it.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-22 02:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-22 02:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-22 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 12:43 am (UTC)I cannot speak to how RU-486 works but I can say unequivocally that plan B is not an abortion and will not work if administered to somebody who is already pregnant. The main mechanism is by preventing ovulation, but it also works as described above, to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum. It is not related to RU-486(source:http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.htm).
I mention this because so many people are confused about it and in the hopes that somebody who might need the information will run across it.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-22 05:46 pm (UTC)And that's the other paternalistic aspect of the whole thing: you really have to BE married to make that choice. I wasn't married until I was 36; I was asking about having my tubes tied in my late teens, all through my twenties, and into my early 30s.
When I was raped, RU-486 was still illegal in all circumstances, and no anti-HIV meds were available, and I paid for a therapist out of my own pocket. Therefore, I got to keep my coverage without any pre-existing conditions....
Also, another data point: in 1993, an abortion ran $300 at the local women's clinic in Raleigh, NC.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-22 12:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-22 05:18 pm (UTC)