Sometimes. She notes it is sometimes covered. Her friend was denied despite her doctor's confirmation of the necessity in preventing ovarian cyst formation. A point you continually fail to note. The policy isn't working if even after the doctor confirms the medical necessity, the claim is denied.
Derp
So what? Fluke describes a circumstance where someone was denied coverage?... Do you know both sides of that story or is the info provided exclusively by Fluke the definitive description.
Claims on insurance policies get denied everyday, sometimes that denial is valid and other times it is not.
Like I mentioned to you recently, start organizing and paying for your own policies and you'll learn this reality.
2-packs
Except that the policy only covers it if after being interrogated by non-medical personnel, they decide that it actually is necessary. In a case where it was medically necessary: ovarian cysts, it was not covered. This is the tell that I am talking about.
See above.
As for the policy that Fluke is paying for, certainly it doesn't cover contraceptives, but I certainly wasn't implying that it did. I was implying that she was paying for insurance which does cover prescription drugs already, so if the government did mandate that insurance cover "birth control pills", the government would still not be paying for the policy (she would be) and therefore the government/taxpayers would not be paying her to have sex. Therefore calling her a prostitute is completely ridiculous, ergo, why it is a tell for Limbaugh (or anyone else) to say such a thing.
Fine, you want to the gvt to mandate that coverage, that's all well and fine with me, but as you are most likely aware, the cost for that coverage gets passed directly along to Fluke et al, so really, what has she accomplished? In fact, if that policy change is mandated, the costs for those women that don't want/need birth control pills will also increase to pay for Fluke's demands - is that fair to them? Will Fluke then run off at the mouth about the inequities of charging those folks? What about IUD's and condoms - that's a natural progression in the logic - does it make sense?
The doctor confirmed the medical necessity of the prescription...if the policy allows for medical exemptions, and the doctor confirmed that indeed the prescription was medically necessary because this woman was prone to cyst development, and the prescription still wasn't covered, it is not a correct application of the policy. She was denied repeatedly. She couldn't afford the prescription on her own, and she had to stop taking the pills. Then she was hospitalized when a cyst the size of a tennis ball formed on her ovary, and she needed surgery to have the ovary removed. Oh, and she's a lesbian. Now she's going through early menopause which onset after the surgery, at 32 years old.
Covering the birth control would have prevented a whole lot of cost to that insurance policy...and prevented a whole lot of unnecessary pain and debilitation. But at least no Catholics had to stop practicing denial of the oral contraceptive pill to women.
If you read her testimony she brings up a few other cases as well.
What a crock of sh*t... You've morphed from an anomaly/problem with the insurance company to blaming all Catholics... Nice little agenda there, but just for fun, please tell us how the Catholic Church conspired to harm this individual. I'm sure that it's a tale worthy of a Dan Brown novel
By the way, does Fluke's story (which could be fiction as far as we know) that details 1 circumstance justify altering an entire nation? Only a fool would seek that means to an end.
