the misogyny of women's health care

[threeplusfire]

http://rm.livejournal.com/1734549.html
Quote:
The bias in all this is exhausting, but so is the lip-service paid to women's equality by executives and politicians who think this is all just fine. Fuck you. Come out and say it. We're children and chattel to you. And if we're very good and beg hard enough and don't get raped, maybe, just maybe you'll insure us and then we can be worth some cash too.

Racheline has made an excellent post about the host of things that are true and really do happen to people. Things like being told you have to wait six months for a diagnostic MRI your doctor needs to determine if your cancer is in both breasts or just one, cause oh you already had one MRI during the course of this and getting another just isn't cost effective for your insurance company. Or the awful, inherent misogyny of being told you can't possibly make up your mind about whether to have children or not so of course you can't have permanent birth control procedures. And god forbid you get pregnant, then try to get health coverage, because that's a pre-existing condition.

Comments

[brienze.livejournal.com]

Or the reverse of not being allowed a hysterectomy (and there's a word all on its own...) when you're young: being told you can't be insured at a reasonable rate UNLESS you get sterilized, to save the expense of childbirth.

Even aside from breast cancer and having a uterus, women cost insurers more because we're much more likely to go to the doctor, and not pretend that there's nothing wrong with us. So it's a cultural bias as much as a sexual one, I think.

[delchi.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I'm guilty of pretending that there's nothing wrong and avoiding treatment.

[delchi.livejournal.com]

My understanding ( and I could be wrong here - the last time I had to deal with it was well over 15 years ago ) was that as far as birth control for women was concerned, the cost and bother with insurance was because of the potential expense of complications. I was always amazed at the side effects / complications of " The Pill ".

I think that comparison of birth control pills to viagra is -chemically- apples and oranges ( leaving aside the men have the right to fuck argument, which I won't go near. I was amazed that a woman could be medically refused sterilization because of the 'you might change your mind' excuse. I thought 18 was a legal adult to make any decisions for the self. It sure is for men. )

I was under the impression that the pill is chemically more risky than viagra. I'm also surprised that innovation in female based birth control is not forthcoming. Every time there is some new method/system invented it comes with a pile of complications and even the flashiest most upbeat advertisements end with a litany of side effects that all end with " ... or death ". Meanwhile the good 'ol trojan ads ( which are becoming more common on TV strangely enough ) are sight gags and behind closed door giggles. They are also apparently always hetero.

As I see it , the problem is making the process reversible. Tubal Ligation and a Vasectomy should be on par and equally available. Birth control and no chemical complications.

As far as insurance companies are concerned, they are evil by nature and thrive in a non competitive market that is groomed for them to make as much money as possible. The whole system is corrupt regardless of gender. Granted the issues women have to face are more socially reprehensible, but that should not take away form the general corruption and self serving nature of the industry.

Edit : when I said " .. which I won't go near " I meant that as I won't go near the argument because I agree with the opinions as stated - the tables are unfairly slanted and I do not argue that point.