Insurance Companies Denying Women The Right To BECOME Pregnant?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Makedde, Aug 18, 2011.

  1. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This woman had an IUD implanted. An IUD is an effective method of birth control, and her insurance company paid for it. However, when she was ready to start a family, her insurance company refused to remove the device, saying it wasn't medically necessary. She filed a complaint, and won. She is now the mother of a six month old baby:

    http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2011/08/the-right-to-ch.html

    Why on earth would anyone refuse to remove the IUD? And if they can refuse to remove a birth control device, can they refuse to implant one?
     
  2. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,837
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Money? Many insurance companies will refuse any payout if they think they can get away with it.
     
  3. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Why on earth would doing so be considered medical treatment a major medical insurance policy should pay for? :roll:

    The glaring question is why did they pay to have it implanted in the first place. That wasn't medically neccessary either!!!
     
  4. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    They should pay for everything right? But they's better not raise my premiums!!!!

    :rolleyes:

    This is like making a homeowners insurance policy pay for your kitchen remodel.
     
  5. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Um...What was stopping her from just going to a random doctor to get it removed?

    Insurance companies have no veto on what you can do with your body. You can have anything done to your body you want and insurance companies cant stop you from doing it.
     
  6. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No one refused to remove, the insurance company just wouldn't pay for it.

    Insurance is not there to cover every single elective procedure.

    If she wanted the IUD out you pay a OB/GYN and they remove it, case closed.

    Don't expect insurance, which is designed for emergencies, etc.. to cover every little sniffle and wipe.
     
  7. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,837
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't put words in my mouth!

    They should pay for what they're contractually and legally obliged to. The outcome of this case suggests they initially failed to do so.

    Whether the IUD implant or removal should be covered by the insurance (specifically or at all) is a different question. It seems it was when they took her premiums, it was when they paid for the device to be fitted but suddenly stopped being when she wanted it removed.
     
    prometeus and (deleted member) like this.
  8. prometeus

    prometeus Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,684
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    0
    since when?
     
  9. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, the deafening silence to my question appears to be a tacit admission that the title of this thread is basically a lie. That insurance companies can NOT prevent this woman from becoming pregnant if she wants to.
     
  10. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Wow you know nothing about our court system!
     
  11. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would anyone go to an insurance company for a medical procedure? Usually I see a doctor, or some other medical practitioner for that. I love my insurance guy, he gets me great prices on most things (healthcare is too regulated to be cheap) but I don't think I'd trust him to fix anything more than a ham sandwich.

    Of course, the article is more clear about the matter. She had the procedure done, then demanded payment. And, of course, those who want *real* health insurance, that is, insurance which indemnifies against unexpected loss, must foot the bill for people like this.
     
  12. TheHat

    TheHat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    20,931
    Likes Received:
    179
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Once again, we have people who don't understand reality.

    The insurance company didn't stop her from getting pregnant. She was.

    My question is, why is insurance paying for an IUD in the 1st place? Those who complain about insurance being "unaffordable" better take a long look in the mirror and realize, if you expect an insurance company to pay the brunt of every single, solitary procedure known to exist, then premiums are gonna be expensive.

    There is no logical reason for an insurance company to pay for IUDs. It's like paying for Viagra. Why?
     
  13. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,837
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're quite right on that. It doesn't make what they did do OK though.
     
  14. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,837
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What am I missing?
     
  15. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    27,801
    Likes Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It's all about what judge your lawyer paid a lot of campaign funds to, in a case like this.
     
  16. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,837
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Doesn't an insurance company get to decide what level of coverage they offer and what level of premiums, co-payments etc. they charge in return? Once they've made that agreement they can't simply renege on it, no more than the customer can just stop paying the premiums.

    You can make that argument. I'd suspect the key point in the mind of this patient though was that while they'd been more than happy to pay for it to be implanted, they wouldn't pay to have it removed.
     
  17. Makedde

    Makedde New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    66,166
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My personal opinion is that if they were happy to pay for it to be implanted, they should also cover her when she wanted it removed. Either cover the implantation and removal, or don't cover it at all.
     
  18. BleedingHeadKen

    BleedingHeadKen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    16,551
    Likes Received:
    1,270
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. Most states have mandated coverage items. In some states, like California, there are over a thousand mandates. When one buys "insurance" one has a limited choice as to providers because there are so few companies that can be in the business, and then one must purchase coverage that one may or may not want.
     
  19. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,837
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fair enough. So they were legally obliged to cover this treatment and presumably sold their coverage on the basis of working within that law. They had absolutely no right to suddenly refuse to do so.

    If the company didn't think it is right for them to be forced to cover this procedure, they should lobby to get the law changed. If they really wanted to make a stand, they should publicly state that they're not going to cover this kind of procedure at all - that way their customers know where they stand.

    The immediate issue remains that they paid for one part of the procedure (the implantation) without complaint but suddenly refused to cover the second part (the removal). Regardless of the bigger picture, I see no justification for that.
     
  20. Blackrook

    Blackrook Banned

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Messages:
    13,914
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The insurance companies would prefer that women not get pregnant because childbirth is their biggest expense. That is why it costs so much more to cover your spouse than it does to cover just yourself. A married woman is a "loss unit" that insurers would prefer not to cover.
     
  21. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why are they obligated to do that?

    Thats like saying that if they agree to pay for my liposuction, they should agree to stuff the fat back in later if I want. Its a retarded expectation.

    The title of this thread is inflammatory and flat wrong. The fact that this woman has to pay for this procedure herself does not mean the insurance company if forcing her to do a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing.
     
  22. Unifier

    Unifier New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Messages:
    14,479
    Likes Received:
    531
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Technically, it wasn't medically necessary. If Lasik eye surgery is not covered by insurance, why would removal of an IUD be covered? If she wanted it removed, she had the option of paying for the removal herself. It's not like they were denying her the freedom to remove it. That, I would agree, would be a violation of her rights. However, unless someone can point to the specific law which states so, becoming pregnant is not a right.
     

Share This Page