[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]
  [Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: [IP] On My Soap Box

>Hmmm, but who should make that determination?  Your doctor or the
>company?  And, how can an insurance company who's never met me, talked 
>me, examined me, decide how many times I need to test?  

Where did I EVER suggest that the insurance company should play any 
part in MAKING the decision?  No where!!!

>What if I have 
>hypo-unawareness?  What if I didn't have the test strips because the 
>insurance company says I don't need them and I got into my car without 
>testing first, was low then had an accident and killed someone?  

I think you are actually arguing with a difference issue than the one I 
brought up.  I wasn't speaking one single bit about insurances having 
the right to decide what to cover.  I was talking about what each 
individual should consider when deciding whether they should charge an 
insurance company thousands of dollars.  

Someone off-line pointed out to me that there is actually PERSONAL 
reason to consider NOT getting the pump for financial reasons...that 
has to do with insurance lifestime maximums.  If your lifetime max is 
$100,000...then, if you cost your insurance company $10,000 a year, you 
can only get 10 years of care.  If you are more "thrifty" with your 
health-care choices, you could cut that down considerable and get 20-30 
years of coverage.

>Well if insurance shouldn't be covering items that improve "quality 
>of life" then why is viagra covered by many policies?

While not a viagra user, there is a level of medical necessity there.  
First of all, in the "hierarchy of needs" (which is a well-documented 
and researched area), sex is a strong part of that.  In fact, there are 
many studies that show significant decreases in the risk of heart 
attacks and cancer for those who have sex relatively frequently, not to 
mention the psychological and physical affects itself.

On top of that, if one desires to have children, obviously sex is 
necessary (unless you go the in-vitro route, etc...in which case, costs 
are far more expensive than viagra).  

Regardless of all that, it really isn't relavant to the point I was 
making anyhow, which is NOT about what insurance companies should have 
control over covering...but what, from a social/ethical standpoint, 
should WE be expecting from the insurance companies.  Just because they 
HAVE TO cover something by law doesn't mean from the 
social/ethical/economic standpoint it is the best thing to do.  YOu can 
come up with story after story as to why the pump helped.  I'm not 
arguing about that.  Obviously the pump IS necessary in MANY cases.
for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe, contact: