My assumption could not have been more incorrect. I was told, quite matter of factly, that the shots are only covered in cases of extreme medical risk. When I questioned what extreme medical risk included, I learned that the shots would be covered if I was involved in a high-risk same-sex relationship, a drug-user, or a medical professional dealing with hepatic patients. But because I'm a law-abiding citizen who is in a heterosexual monogamous relationship and not currently working in a medical field, my shots would not be covered. However, the woman I spoke with was quick to point out that any treatment required to treat Hepatitis, if I were to contract it, would be covered by my insurance.
I'm at a loss for words here. I work in the insurance industry, and I have absolutely no idea why we even bother with insurance in this country. At what point did the bobbing heads in charge of these thieving companies determine that covering preventative measures makes less sense than covering treatment? Of course, I know the answer to the question before I ask it. If someone needs treatment for something, it usually takes longer and requires more medicine during the treatment - thus causing the consumers to spend more money in the long run even with insurance. If we were to prevent diseases, how would all the pharmaceutical companies make their billions of dollars annually?
Okay, let me step down off my soapbox and get back on point. Actually, I don't know if I have a point. It looks like we have to get some shots (ugh!) but at least half of them will be covered. But, if this is what it takes to bring Colin home, then there's really no choice to be made.
No comments:
Post a Comment