(no subject)

[noahgibbs]

capnkjb linked to Chris Stehlik, who linked to an article about health insurers turning away antidepressant users and former users.

Insurance companies say they are not discriminating against people with mental illnesses. Rather, they are struggling to provide the most affordable coverage for the largest number of people.

This paragraph bugs me. Here, let me offer a nice overblown 'equivalent':

Local 'Kill All Gays' advocate Harvey Bunko says he's not discriminating against homosexuals, but trying to provide the best possible benefits for surviving citizens of the United States.

The only honest way to phrase the above (about Insurance companies, not the fictitious Harvey Bunko) would be to say that they are discriminating against people with mental illnesses as part of their attempt to provide the most affordable coverage for the largest number of people -- in other words, they are discriminating against those with mental illnesses because they are usually more expensive to treat.

Anyway.

Comments

[polkamadness.livejournal.com]

I think discrimination is being used in two different senses here. I think the insurance company is trying to say that they are not singling out those with mental illness for bad treatment because they disparage them. Hence your equivalent isn't.

Your last paragraph uses the other sense of discriminate and is denationally correct, but doesn't have the connotations you want. A more neutral version would be "they offer less coverage to those with mental illnesses because they're usually more expensive to treat."

[capnkjb.livejournal.com]

Now, maybe I watch too much Law&Order, but it seems like having any mental illness anywhere in the past, be it clinical or what, works against you in a legal proceeding. Somehow, having a disorder at any time makes you less reliable on the whole, and not as in touch with reality as everyone else. You're percieved as weak and passive, and completely unable to fend for yourself or others.

I'm perfectly willing to believe it's discrimination disguised as cost-cutting. Granted, I understand their motives - antipsychotics and the like can cost a lot, and taking someone on with any preexisting condition can cost them a bundle. But that doesn't mean the person asking for the coverage isn't any less in need of help than anyone else; indeed, they might need it more than the average person. And that's where the real nature of an insurance company comes out. They're not in it to help people, despite all the bullshit that spews out of their PR and marketing departments. They're in it to make a killing on people who end up not needing all the coverage they pay for, while the insurance company eats up their unused premiums.

Then again, I could just be slightly vindictive right about now, who knows.

[capnkjb.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that was a nonexistant transition - the second paragraph talks about insurance companies, the first just talks about possible discrimination against the aforementioned group in the legal system as an example of it outside of the insurance world.

insurance and discrimination

[plambert.livejournal.com]

insurance companies always discriminate. that's why you have to take a test or answer a survey or whatever before they insure you, and why different people get different rates.

it's a matter of degrees. on the one hand, universal coverage means that everyone pays the average (plus a profit margin). this "penalizes" healthy people, who'd rather pay less since they don't actually need it, but is a great benefit for those who lean heavily on the coverage, since their costs to the insurer are spread out among more people.

on the other hand, there is no insurance whatsoever, where everyone pays for themselves. this is the other end of the spectrum, and is pretty inconvenient.

since insurance isn't mandatory, many people who are very healthy or otherwise unlikely to use it are not in the pool. which raises rates for everyone else.

the end result is that insurance take a middle ground, where the really badly off don't get screwed as badly as they would without insurance, but the really well off don't get screwed as badly as if insurance were mandatory. then they maximize profits.

i'm not defending them. i think mandatory insurance is a reasonable idea, even though i myself seldom need it. it's just the way things are right now. :-(

--plambert

[ironangel]

considering the fact that MDs prescribe antidepressents like candy, I'm not sure that they're talking about a majority of the people, anyway...

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

Actually, they *are* talking about otherwise-healthy people on antidepressants. Check out capnkjb's journal for the link.