Is pregnancy a disease?

[wondrousgnat]

We have been hearing recent demands that insurance plans covered by Catholic institutions should cover contraception and abortion. Shouldn’t health insurance be for illness and injuries? So is pregnancy a disease or an injury? Do people who want children want to get sick? The logic there is missing.

My company provided insurance plan does not cover dental care and many do. A few years ago I had several thousand dollars in dental care that I had to pay out of my own pocket. If there is a big controversy about religious organizations exercising their constitutional right to not provide abortion coverage why is there no controversy about do dental coverage? What is the difference?

This is more commentary than me not knowing.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

There are legitimate non-contraceptive uses for “birth control pills” so I could see that, but abortion is something else entirely

 

[bmullins]

The logic there would imply that either pregnancy is a disease or insurance shouldn’t cover contraceptives, how is it disease prevention if it’s not a disease? But if we use that same logic, we would also have to require that insurance doesn’t cover pregnancy, because it’s not a disease.

To me it’s more of an issue as prevention of a child being born is more cost effective than actually paying for prenatal care etc. That is the crux of the matter. Insurance companies want the cheaper option to be covered, so they can suggest it and save money. Not a lot of morality involved.

 

[twopekinguys]

We have been hearing recent demands that insurance plans covered by Catholic institutions should cover contraception and abortion. Shouldn’t health insurance be for illness and injuries? So is pregnancy a disease or an injury? Do people who want children want to get sick? The logic there is missing.

My company provided insurance plan does not cover dental care and many do. A few years ago I had several thousand dollars in dental care that I had to pay out of my own pocket. If there is a big controversy about religious organizations exercising their constitutional right to not provide abortion coverage why is there no controversy about do dental coverage? What is the difference?

This is more commentary than me not knowing.

Having worked in the health insurance field for many years, I can tell you that according to the law, pregnancy has to be treated as any other illness or disability.

 

[Leegal]

Shouldn’t health insurance be for illness and injuries? So is pregnancy a disease or an injury? Do people who want children want to get sick? The logic there is missing.

Insurance is also preventative and covers medical conditions. Pregnancy is a medical condition, or brings with it medical conditions, which requires care of the mother and pre-natal care for the unborn child during the term of gestation.

Would you rather than a woman went untreated during the entire 40 weeks, possibly putting her own life and the life of the baby at risk? Should not the doctor monitor the progression of the baby to see that everything is progressing according to generally accepted medical standards?

Pregnancy can also be a disability, as defined in insurance terms.

 

[John21652]

Having worked in the health insurance field for many years, I can tell you that according to the law, pregnancy has to be treated as any other illness or disability.

Well, half the population is naturally immune and the other half have control over whether or not they get ‘infected’. This particular ‘disease’ is so easily controlled it shouldn’t even be on the ‘serious’ list.

 

[wondrousgnat]

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

I do know that doctors often prescribe the pill to teenage girls who have acne. Do they prescribe it to boys who also have acne?

Still want to know. IfCatholic institutions are supposed to give abortion coverage why no controversy about my employer not providing dental coverage?

 

[twoangels]

We have been hearing recent demands that insurance plans covered by Catholic institutions should cover contraception and abortion. Shouldn’t health insurance be for illness and injuries? So is pregnancy a disease or an injury? Do people who want children want to get sick? The logic there is missing.

My company provided insurance plan does not cover dental care and many do. A few years ago I had several thousand dollars in dental care that I had to pay out of my own pocket. If there is a big controversy about religious organizations exercising their constitutional right to not provide abortion coverage why is there no controversy about do dental coverage? What is the difference?

This is more commentary than me not knowing.

You’re logic is flawed. Pregnancy may not be a disease, but women still do need medical care during their pregnancies and during their deliveries. A pregnancy is very straining on a woman’s body and can complicate other medical issues she is having. Honestly until I was pregnant, I completely underestimated how hard it is to be pregnant.

If you’re going to argue that abortion should not be covered by medical insurance because pregnancy is not a disease and should not be medically treated, than you’re also arguing against prenatal care coverage as well as coverage for birth.

There are plenty of reasons why abortion is wrong and why it shouldn’t be legal. This one is not one of them.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

I do know that doctors often prescribe the pill to teenage girls who have acne. Do they prescribe it to boys who also have acne?

Since a birth control pill is basically a hormone imitation and males and females (especially in adolescence) have a completely different mix of hormones, I wouldn’t imagine it would work for boys. It works for girls because the hormone imitation works with the cocktail of hormones that are in her body.

God bless,

Rob

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Well, half the population is naturally immune and the other half have control over whether or not they get ‘infected’. This particular ‘disease’ is so easily controlled it shouldn’t even be on the ‘serious’ list.

You’re kidding, right? I mean, you can’t really be suggesting that since men can’t get pregnant and women can easily prevent it that it shouldn’t be treated as a serous thing for a woman’s body? It is so very taxing on a woman’s health and can be VERY dangerous.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Yeah, that’s actually bordering on offensive. I mean, it’s all theoretical coming from me since I’m “immune”, but there are a lot of Catholic women and men here, many of whom I’m sure have been through a pregnancy either themselves or with their wife. It’s a very trying time, especially given the limitations of the woman, the constant care that must be taken of the woman and the baby, the doctor visits, the potential complications, potential health risks for the mother that may have even been non-existent before the pregnancy (ie. gestational diabetes, anyone? My mom actually had that with me). I was miraculously born 5 lbs, 6 oz. Most babies born to mothers who had gestational diabetes are heavier, and that can be very serious come labor, not to mention the risks during the pregnancy itself. I’ll take it that you’re not around pregnant women that often. If you are, where did that come from?

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Definitely not a disease, but I’d consider it a disability if it had to be given some medical classification at all. Calling it a disease is similar to some lines of thought among the less sane supporters of abortion on demand: I even saw some eedjit call it a form of parasitism, which made me go, “Really? So all placental mammals plus some kinds of sharks suffer from a parasite in order to continue their species. How come the males of those species don’t get this parasite?”