Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry


On Monday (yes, that long ago and I can still remember it), my husband informed me that his company was taking suggestions for changes to their insurance plan. They have decent insurance, but they don't cover birth control. Not even the prescription kind. So I suggested that to him to pass along, as something they could improve to make their coverage more complete.

Well, one thing led to another and we started debating whether their coverage of pregnancy and birth but not birth control was discriminatory. He didn't think that it was, since they were covering pregancy related issues. I contend that it is because they're only supporting one side of my reproductive health. What makes an employer think they can pick and choose amongst those things? In addition, it's a prescription. My employer/insurer does not get to tell my doctor what to do. That's stupid and against Title 9 (as far as I know).

During the course of our debate, I got a little excited and lecture-y. I hate it when he does it, but I did it to him. So now I feel bad about that. But (I think) we finally came to the agreement that it was none of an employer/insurers business *what* the prescription was, that it existed ought to be enough. In fact, he seemed to think that there were other limits on prescriptions (beyond the brand name/generic limitations). For example, he thought there were limitations upon the level of coverage for terminal illness prescriptions. I told him that his policy was only limited by a dollar amount, and that seemed to change his mind. Especially when I said that I didn't want his boss to rule in my bedroom.

That was the first time I can remember that we actually had a productive discussion about something like that. We don't normally talk about philosophy, mostly I think because we don't agree at all. It's just easier if we don't get a riled up about it. OK, if I don't get all riled up, because I'm the one who gets really excited about that stuff. Maybe this will open that door for us.

  • 1
That's great that you guys can talk like that.

The thing that bugs me, that I think is discriminatory, is when insurance will cover Viagra and not birth control. Viagra isn't even necessary. If you can't get your weiner up, maybe that's a sign from nature that you shouldn't be sticking it around.

But I digress.

I just think it's weird that they get to make those decisions at all. Who is the insurer to decide if a doctor actually knows what they're talking about? I could see forcing a second opinion before a major procedure, but other than that? Who the heck do they think they are?

Stinking cheap sexist Nazi pigs, that's who.

Insurance is a scam anyway, so don't get me started on it.

Oooh, we'll have to talk about it sometime. I'd like to see what it's like to "debate" with you.

mangle card!

i have a card to refute that!

See? That's what I mean. I flaunt my card at you! I write furiously and shoot evil glances!

I like how we have our own private conversation in public. We could just talk, but no.

How would we carry on 3 different subject like this if we were to just talk? I mean, really.

True. That does get confusing on messenger.

Have you two considered walkie-talkies?

That would be a little distracting at work. I don't think I want my students to be in on these conversations!

Oh, it's like being given a second education. *grin*

Don't they need a first education first?

Think of all the time you could save by doing both at once!

HAHAHAHA! Oh, that was good. They might even admit she's human then and that would be a shock!

Did you read that whole thing?

Uhm. Was I not supposed to?

No, I'm just suprised. It was... long. And meandering.

So does this mean you think insurance is a wonderful and wholesome institution?

No. But I could take that position.

Well, I could take that position, too.

Is this going to involve debate boxes? Do we need to have a "Be it resoved..." statement?

  • 1