Thursday, July 10, 2003 :::
Well, governor Blagojevich has required that car insurance cover oil changes. No, wait, that's not it. He's required health "insurance" to cover birth-control pills. It's only health care where we think we should "insure" against perfectly predictable events.I'm sure you all know me well enough to know the contents of this paragraph, but let's get it out there: I have no problem with individuals and insurance company writing in whatever terms they want, with or without the intermediation of an employer, etc.
"It's just not fair when insurers reimburse men who use Viagra but deny coverage to women who use birth control," says Blagojevich. As in the past, I put forth that "fair" is what is agreed to when the contract is signed, whatever that contract says. I certainly don't support requiring that prescripion coverage include Viagra. Covering Viagra, though, seems somewhat more insurance-like to me than covering birth-control pills, perhaps akin to having car insurance cover repairs after the breakdown of a Korean-made car; when it gets old it can't be considered abnormal that certain parts are going to quit functioning normally, but 1) it's still not virtually certain, and 2) the timing can't be foreseen. The possibility that one will need Viagra in the next ten years seems a reasonable risk against which to insure; the possibility that one will be fertile in the next ten years seems less so.
I do like a good compromise, though, so I propose the following: prescription insurance should be required to cover birth control (all forms) if the fertility is the result of an unexpected illness or accident.
::: posted by dWj at 12:11 PM
