Comments on: Outrageous pre-existing conditions

By: karak

karak — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:23:16 +0000

My mother recently convinced me to go and get tested for some autoimmune diseases that run in the family. “Do it while we still have insurance,” she told me. And then I did get the test, and then it came back positive.

And I realized what a huge fucking mistake that was. I should never get tested–I should never know I’m sick because then I’ll lose my insurance when I get sick and need insurance. NEVER GET TESTED FOR A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION. Even if you think it’s going to kill you–because once you get rejected, the condition is going to kill you anyway. Wait until you think you’ve settled into a long-term career to look for diseases. And if you’re one of the unlucky millions that that will never find that career? Well… no one lives forever, anyway.

And I think you’re right about the abuse and C-section being someone *I* could be, being someone a “normal” person could be. Normal people might get a C-section or get into a bad relationship. Only freaks, only *those people* end up with lupus or asthma or anxiety disorders. (And I say this with irony, I am one of “those people”).

By: Caitlin

Caitlin — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:48:30 +0000

I used to answer phones for CIGNA and I was disgusted to discover that there were conditions or circumstances that could deny people medical coverage and medical care. Born and raised in Nova Scotia and covered by MSI at least even if I’m not working/a student/whatever, I had never come across the existance of pre-existing condition limitations. I found (and find) them completely abhorrent, and whenever the topic comes up all I can think about is how PECLs would deny care to so many of my friends and family – because of asthma, rape, diabetes, cancer, depression, a whole host of things.

By: amandaw

amandaw — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:19:46 +0000

How dare you classify this as a ‘condition’?

You really don’t see any ableism there?

By: LS

LS — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:18:56 +0000

Respectfully, amandaw, I disagree. And I’m having trouble putting this into words because I do agree wholeheartedly with your statement: no one deserves to be denied health care for having a medical condition. The thing is, cancer is a medical condition. Acne is a medical condition. (People are outraged over that (over and above denial for any reason)? Really? Eep.) Having been assaulted is not a medical condition. So it’s two sets of outrage at the insurance companires: How dare you deny coverage to people who need it? AND How dare you classify this as a ‘condition’?

By: amandaw

amandaw — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:40:47 +0000

LS, that is a completely meaningless distinction. People keep saying this, and I just don’t get it. We are saying that no one deserves to be denied health care for having a medical condition. The only time people bring “But another person caused it!” into this (which, by the way, isn’t true for all the other things people are raising outrage over, like acne) is … in order to insist that it’s especially bad to deny health care to an otherwise healthy set of women, but not as bad to deny health care to sick women.

Sorry, but there’s a word for this. It’s called rationalizing. You might append another important word to that. It’s called privilege.

By: LS

LS — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:54:37 +0000

Yes, all pre-existing condition exclusion are outrageous, but I for one find classifying victims of DV as having “pre-existing conditions” especially heinous because — and this is the key bit — it is something inflicted upon them by others. Cancer, allergies, heart disease, chronic pain and the host of other conditions which the insurance industry uses to deny care lack agency. No one ‘deserves’ to have them, but neither has anyone made a decision to cause them, either. Classifying DV as a pre-existing condition is like classifying a non-domestic assault as one.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:49:03 +0000

I didn’t even think about the ableist implications of pre-existing conditions. Thank you for bringing them to my attention!

By: kitrona

kitrona — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:46:09 +0000

Geez. Way to go, insurers; first take out the people who REALLY need the care, because *gasp* taking care of them costs too much! Never mind the toll it takes to get people from a “flare”, if you will, with no meds, to someplace approaching a decent quality of life. Now let’s see if we can weed out any of those inconvenient people who were careless enough to have ANYTHING wrong with them. Oh wait, that includes a lot of people you didn’t realize? Guess what, insurers: SO DOES THE FIRST GROUP.

By: Tria

Tria — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:56:11 +0000

Well said. Thank you.

I suffer from fibromyalgia and hypermobility-type Ehlers-Danlos, and while the research and care for both conditions isn’t great over here, at least I don’t get idiots denying me any care at all. I would hate that. I love your country, but I don’t love its medical and political systems all that much, I’m afraid. Especially not if it means people can get away with horrific discrimination like this…

By: Fe

Fe — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:09:05 +0000

I couldn’t agree with you more. It is OUTRAGEOUS to imply that some pre-existing conditions are worse than others. And the fact that anyone can be discriminated against for being the victim of domestic violence OR being the victim of a mental illness … well it makes me sick to my stomach.

God I hope Obama’s health care reforms get through.

I’m watching from half a world away, but, as a survivor of cancer and a sufferer of depression, I cannot fathom living in a first world country which would deny me medical care when I am most vulnerable. The same thing would happen to me, here in Australia, if I lost my private health insurance, as I have a history of needing very expensive hospitalisation and treatment. I would, however, be able to fall back upon a public health care system which, while not perfect, would allow me top-class care without charge.
.-= Fe´s last blog ..Breaking the first rule of divorced parenting… =-.