That was a pwned moment. This also illustrates what irritates me about so many who are fighting against healthcare reform. The "I don't need it, so why should I pay for anyone else's?" attitude.
He has insurance, but not everyone is lucky enough to have a job that pays for insurance. They're usually low-paying jobs where they can't afford insurance on their own and if they do get sick, they can lose everything. Even some people with insurance run that risk.
Maybe we should give up the delusion that companies can reap huge savings with "cheap labor" by cutting those "unnecessary" costs, yet then all of us have to pay even more for it later when the uninsured show up at the emergency room because they couldn't get basic care.
I'm now wondering if his wife was covered under his insurance, or did she pay for her own? Is he even aware of what his policy covers? Many people who are more well-off don't bother looking, because they generally have better policies and more money to pay the resulting bills.
I think I'm the only woman at work who is covered by the city's insurance. The reason being that I'm single and have to pay for it myself instead of being able to covered by a partner's insurance, which is often cheaper.
Though one of my female cousins continued working at a job she hated for years because her husband's employer did not provide insurance. Her job did, and they had two young children who inherited some of our family's quirkier health issues, so it just wasn't an option. Her job paid for insurance, but her actual take home pay was just a bit more than what she was paying the babysitter.
I don't want to have children, and due to health reasons I'd be willing to get a hysterectomy at age 39. It's almost impossible to get a doctor to do the procedure at my age when you're childless or still have young children, unless there's a tumor or something.
Aforementioned cousin is two years older and had one this past summer (similar health issues, but hers got much worse), but she's got two grown kids so the doctors aren't worried she'll change her mind about wanting more kids.
That's the whole "slippery slope" we're dealing with about doctors getting to choose what they do. One might consider a hysterectomy an elective for me at this time, but judging by family history, I'll just have to suffer for years before they'll have to do something.
Why should I suffer for years because they don't want to do a preventative surgery that would be easier now before that aspect of my health takes a downward spiral? And could their reasoning be it's against their religious beliefs for a woman of child-bearing age to do anything that would prevent them from having children?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-05 04:16 am (UTC)He has insurance, but not everyone is lucky enough to have a job that pays for insurance. They're usually low-paying jobs where they can't afford insurance on their own and if they do get sick, they can lose everything. Even some people with insurance run that risk.
Maybe we should give up the delusion that companies can reap huge savings with "cheap labor" by cutting those "unnecessary" costs, yet then all of us have to pay even more for it later when the uninsured show up at the emergency room because they couldn't get basic care.
I'm now wondering if his wife was covered under his insurance, or did she pay for her own? Is he even aware of what his policy covers? Many people who are more well-off don't bother looking, because they generally have better policies and more money to pay the resulting bills.
I think I'm the only woman at work who is covered by the city's insurance. The reason being that I'm single and have to pay for it myself instead of being able to covered by a partner's insurance, which is often cheaper.
Though one of my female cousins continued working at a job she hated for years because her husband's employer did not provide insurance. Her job did, and they had two young children who inherited some of our family's quirkier health issues, so it just wasn't an option. Her job paid for insurance, but her actual take home pay was just a bit more than what she was paying the babysitter.
I don't want to have children, and due to health reasons I'd be willing to get a hysterectomy at age 39. It's almost impossible to get a doctor to do the procedure at my age when you're childless or still have young children, unless there's a tumor or something.
Aforementioned cousin is two years older and had one this past summer (similar health issues, but hers got much worse), but she's got two grown kids so the doctors aren't worried she'll change her mind about wanting more kids.
That's the whole "slippery slope" we're dealing with about doctors getting to choose what they do. One might consider a hysterectomy an elective for me at this time, but judging by family history, I'll just have to suffer for years before they'll have to do something.
Why should I suffer for years because they don't want to do a preventative surgery that would be easier now before that aspect of my health takes a downward spiral? And could their reasoning be it's against their religious beliefs for a woman of child-bearing age to do anything that would prevent them from having children?