Want insurance? Get sterilized.
Peggy Robertson was denied insurance coverage because she previously had a c-section. But her super kind and thoughtful insurance company told her that if she got sterilized, they would give her coverage. Seriously.
Another video about Robertson's story after the jump.
Posted by Jessica - October 23, 2009, at 01:29PM
| in
Health
,
Health care
,
Motherhood
,
Politics
,
Sexism
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Want insurance? Get sterilized. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16790
OFFS, right after the ableist thread, you have two videos with NO TRANSCRIPT. Over and over and over, feministers have requested transcripts, and over and over and over, the mods refuse to make them.
Shakesville has more posts per day typically than feministing, and they still manage to get transcripts up with their videos, so I can't fathom that it's just that you're all too busy to cater to your readers who are unable to hear the video.
If you aren't going to post a transcript, don't post a video. Just stop. It's like a slap in the face every single time I come by to read the posts.
Here is a transcript for the first video:
"After I had my second son, we decided that I was going to stay home, so we had to look for independent health care coverage, because by husband is self-employed. We began to apply and I applied with Golden Rule. They accepted my husband and my two sons, but they denied coverage to me because I had had a c-section. I found this to be such a strange thing because I'm perfectly healthy, I don't have anything wrong with me. I called and asked why, I filed a complaint with the Colorado Division of Insurance and they explained that because I had had a c-section, they only way they could cover me was if I were to be sterilized...
"What I would like to see specifically for women is that there are options available to us. Right now my options are very very limited. Hospitals won't accept me for a VBAC. I don't want to have another c-section, but that's probably really the only option for me at this point. But I couldn't afford to have a c-section because that's too expensive, so we can't have a third child. My options are nil, I don't have any in regard to having more children. I know for other women out there, there are a gazillion more stories just like this."
Also, sorry to comment-spam, but I do want to second the call for transcripts. It took me less than five minutes to type up a transcript for the first video. If you're going to post a video, you should be willing to take that extra five or ten minutes to write up a transcript. I understand that this can be a problem with longer videos, but most of the videos posted here are very short and would require very little effort to transcript.
Sorry kissmypineapple, we're trying to get better about this. We appreciate your feedback.
Thirding. I know you said you're trying to be better, but I don't feel bad a prodding, considering
What really kills me about this is that the hospital birth process practically guarantees women will need c-sections. To turn around and deny coverage over something that shouldn't have been necessary in the first place is so ridiculous.
"Hospitals won't accept me for a VBAC."
this is a huge part of why I went for a homebirth. maybe the ACOG should think about that the next time they put the hate on homebirth!
Yeah, but this is one place where ACOG's interest actually diverges from the insurance companies'...docs make alot more money and have much more manageable schedules when fewer women are "allowed" to birth their babies vaginally. VBAC helps medical insurance cos., and I actually think they were partially behind the early 90's push to encourage them.
And to anticipate the responses, this is not a condemnation of all OBs...I am aware many OBs diverge from ACOG because some OBs have patient best interest in mind and recognize ACOG is primarily a trade association.
Isn't the C-section rate in this country something like 30%? Just how many women are being denied insurance because of this?
Yep, US c-section rate is above 30%. Meaning that approx. 20% of the c-section surgery done in this country is not necessary (WHO studies show when you get over about 15% the harm outweighs the benefit). Also, as Conductress points out, good data shows doctor and hospital policies NOT supported by evidence (i.e., no option for vaginal breach or multiples or VBACs) as well as more minor non-evidence-based policies(not allowing women to move, eat or drink during labor, routine use of pitocin and cytotec, artificial time limits of the first stage of labor) instead of women's choices are behind this staggering number of c-sections here in America.
While I clearly have no idea of the reasons behind THIS woman's c-section (it could have been totally needed and lifesaving in her case), for 20% of c-section moms this is a lot like the denial because you've been raped thing...first your a victim, then you have to pay for it for the rest of your life in yet another way.
Quite a few social conservatives are bitching and moaning about the falling birth rate in this country. Yet here is a classic example of how supporting business interests actually reduces birth options for women. Want more kids? Screw you because it's too damned expensive to insure you but we will insure your sterilization. That's just wrong.
That's essentially how Japan got into it's demographic mess (which largely drives its economic mess). Practices hostility to working motherhood led to dramatically falling birthrates, somehow.
I know! Where *are* the pro-lifers?!
I smell a theme going on here
1) It's healthier for the environment to NOT have kids
2) No maternity leave
3) Those withthe audacityto DARE use the uterus to procreate must either do so at home or at a hospital and likely have a c-section
4) Having a c-section once means u have to do it again
5) Having a baby at home means you're an unfit mother
6) Get sterilized and we'll cover you
7) Abortions are NOT covered
8) OFF WITH YOUR UTERUS YOU VILE WOMANLY THING!!!
See? Childlessness is next to cleanliness when it comes to women in this country and big business.
I smell a theme going on here
1) It's healthier for the environment to NOT have kids
2) No maternity leave
3) Those withthe audacityto DARE use the uterus to procreate must either do so at home or at a hospital and likely have a c-section
4) Having a c-section once means u have to do it again
5) Having a baby at home means you're an unfit mother
6) Get sterilized and we'll cover you
7) Abortions are NOT covered
8) OFF WITH YOUR UTERUS YOU VILE WOMANLY THING!!!
See? Childlessness is next to cleanliness when it comes to women in this country and big business.
Isn't that funny? I want to be sterilized and they won't cover me! Insurance is so screwy that way. This lady and I should switch identities, and get what we want, huh?
On a more serious note, that is absurd. Is it in any way legal to demand that a surgical procedure be done before coverage?
It's perfectly legal not to insure people who are likely to make use of expensive medical services. It's also perfectly legal to insure people who aren't. No one's demanding anything.
Oh, my mistake! I misunderstood the article. Thanks for the clarification!
The text on the second video isn't all that the voiceover says, so here's a transcript for the sake of thoroughness:
What if you or your wife or your daughter had a c-section and then were told that you couldn't get health insurance unless you got sterilized? That's what happened to Peggy Robertson when she tried to buy coverage at the United Healthcare's Golden Rule Insurance. How would United Healthcare's CEO feel if an insurance company bureaucrat told his loved ones to get sterilized? Maybe he subscribes to that other golden rule; he who has the gold, makes the rules.