(no subject)

[x_alchemy]

I apologize that this is a few days later then the initial reaction but I wanted to read further into the matter before making any comment.

I do not see why health insurance companies should not be allowed to ask about the X-gene when deciding whether or not to insure someone. True, it could be said that they would decline people just because of it, but not necessarily for the reasons one would think. I believe the companies should have the right to reject someone if they know they have no facilities to help them if the need arises.

Would one prefer to find out the company has no facility in their network to help with a certain mutation related problem when they apply vice when the help is actually needed? At least if they know about it, then they can inform the applicant of their lack of facilities and thus better their service to their customers. In fact, if they got a lot of applicants and the demand was high, they would then see about adding said facilities to their networks to increase their customer base and thus profits. They can not do this is they are uninformed and they will remain ignorant unless they be allowed to ask. The same could be said of many ‘normal’ alignments that are asked about for insurance purposes.

No doubt many of you will read this and jump down my throat, but I’m disinclined to care. I have said my piece just as I saw many have already said theirs in Forge’s earlier post.

Comments

[x-jeangrey.livejournal.com]

Well, I do hope you won't see it as jumping down your throat, but I have to disagree.

Certainly, your average HMO just about anywhere is not going to have coverage for complications related to many mutations, no more will they have coverage for complications related to rare genetic diseases. Does that mean, though, they should be able to deny you a policy that would cover tripping, falling and breaking your arm?

Already there are too many people in this country without proper health care who wait until the last possible moment to see a doctor, flooding emergency rooms across the nation with serious problems that could have been dealt with less expensively and with less possibility of severe complications. People who can not afford to see the doctor because their insurance doesn't cover it wait until they can't afford not to anymore, seriously stressing the resources of every ER out there. Genetic screening used as a criteria for whether or not an insurance company will cover someone only increases the problem, whether they are screening for the x-factor or a familial tendency towards heart problems. Which, it should be noted, the bill in question also covers. Already there are several states which have genetic non-discrimination laws in place to prevent insurers denying service to 'high risk' customers, and most of those laws don't make a distinction between refusing to allow the HMOs to ask about genetic illness factors and the x-factor. This bill, if it passes, would make that protection mandatory throughout the country.

It's no fairer or more right for a person to be denied service for one genetic problem than another, and for anyone involved in the medical profession, refusing to help someone simply because they'll be more work is sickening, and the fact that the insurance companies keep forgetting their entire profession is based, in theory, on helping people just annoys me to know end.

Honestly, insurance in this country is practically a massive game of roulette, with the HMOs betting you'll never get sick and stacking the odds in their favor with their screenings and exclusions. And they make a lot of money that way, which everyone else pays for in state and city taxes to fund the overloaded hospitals.

[x-gambit.livejournal.com]

This is actually from Garrison, but Tommy doesn't have Kane friended yet.

Actually, Tommy, I agree with you. Now, most of that is based on the fact that the US health care system is a perverse shambles that allows more than half of its population to go without proper health care in order to maximise profits, but it's true never the less.

Health insurance is based around a risk of monthly payments proving less than the costs of treating some one. That's why as you age, as the various elements of your health issues come to light, the cost of coverage goes up. So, mutant X who suffers from an auto-immune issue gets checked into a hospital, and then blows up the west wing of it. That cost is spread across the entire system, so the companies use it as an excuse to jack up the monthly bills ten percent because they have to now cover potential damages from ill mutants losing control of their powers while undergoing treatment. It's a crapshoot that gives more power to the people who hate mutants, giving them the excuse to tell Joe American who is barely scraping by that because of the bill, his health care costs just jumped 25%. Who's he going to blame.

Hint: Google 'immigration' and 'health care' and get the fun parallel.

The only sensible thing is to move towards a national health care system that extends coverage to all US citizens, to ensure that all people with genetic differences like mutants are covered in the same fashion. If you're interested, drop on to the gov.ca site and look under 'Gamma Flight' for a full explanation of Canadian health care twinned with mandatory testing and registration.

[x-forge.livejournal.com]

Stupid cold making me miss the rally and consigning me to a state of NyQuil-induced torpor for the weekend.

You've got a really good point. The bill is approaching a different aspect of the problem - the fact that as laws stand now, an insurance company can decline or reduce benefits for a mutant, or someone who refuses to answer the question on their benefits forms.

The actual ability of hospitals, now, is another factor. Some hospitals will turn away mutant patients - I've experienced that firsthand. Sometimes it's due to prejudice from a hospital's administration, but just as often it's due to a perceived inability to treat a mutant patients. While specialized studies have been made into mutation as applied to medicine, those findings have not been adopted as protocol by most private or state-run hospitals. But lack of local facility shouldn't mean lack of insurance. Not every hospital can be equipped to treat certain mutant-related health issues. Not every hospital can do heart transplant surgery either, but insurance companies still pay for that.

Given that there is currently no evidence that mutation presents an inherent health risk (other than in some cases, that of lifestyle), in this case I do feel that this bill is a step forward for civil rights.

[x-gambit.livejournal.com]

This is posted under Gambit account, but it's actually Garrison again. Sneaky fuckin' Cajun.

You've created an interesting case though. Other less favourable genetic mutations which we refer to as health issues have been repeatedly upheld as criteria for declining medical coverage or charging incredibly enhanced fees. What justification is it to hold our beneficial mutations in some different catagory?

As for inherent risks, there are those who's mutations create regular health issues (like, say, Nate's need to buy stock in anti-migraine medication) and those who pose a potential risk. How many mutants here have accidentially set something on fire, or blown up a room? People in pain do strange things, or react to medication differently. What rights do doctors and health care professionals have? It's a lot to ask a doctor to potentially get fried to a crisp by a fifteen year old just pulled from a car wreck and out of his mind on pain, to perserve a right to genetic privacy.

Ultimately, the bill fails to address the larger issue of mutant liability, and is being applied to, in my opinion, an already broken health care system that is not designed to handle it. I'd rather see a comprehensive bill addressing mutant liability and a progressive approach towards training and registration ahead of a narrow industry focused bill. That and an intelligent universal healthcare system in the US.

And decent damn beer.

[x-pressive.livejournal.com]

But it's not a question of hospitalization, it's a matter of health care. Not every mutant has uncontrollable blow-shit-up powers. What about someone who needs mandatory immunizations before going to school, or antibiotics for an infection, or just a general check-up? I wouldn't want to pay three hundred dollars out of my own pocket just to have my prostate examined. (Remy, if you're reading this, don't even think about commenting on that. Same goes for everyone else, you sickos.) Or even within the realm of emergency care, what about the mutant kid from Appalachia who gets the snot kicked out of him and needs to go to the ER? Denying anyone health care just because of a genetic quirk is discrimination, plain and simple.

But I do agree that a universal health care system is the best thing, because denying coverage due to finances is classism, and we all know that isms are bad.

[x-gambit.livejournal.com]

More from Garrison

I'd claim that your system is already discriminatory, but that's another issue. My question is that what right do we have to claim special benefits without disclosure? Yes, the vast majority of mutatation has absolutely no factor on medical care. But the one percent that does makes up for it.

Again, you're asking private hospitals and insurence companies to take the risks in order to protect genetic privacy, irregardless of the potential dangers. Health care records record things like diseases, allergies and health risks for a reason; to protect the care giver and ensure the patient is given the best care possible. Mutation is often very relevent to that, and anti-discrimination legislation is going to go up against the 'right to know' of the hospital and the insurance companies themselves. It sounds like we want it both ways; the right to coverage, the right to privacy, and everyone else gets to assume all the risks for that.

Then again, I wholly support mutant registration in the first place, so I'm likely at odds with people here.