Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of anti-AIDS medicine.
Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable.
Turner had let the men buy her drinks at a bar in Fort Lauderdale. The next thing she knew, she said, she was lying on a roadside with cuts and bruises that indicated she had been raped. She never developed an HIV infection. But months later, when she lost her health insurance and sought new coverage, she ran into a problem.
Turner, 45, who used to be a health insurance underwriter herself, said the insurance companies examined her health records. Even after she explained the assault, the insurers would not sell her a policy because the HIV medication raised too many health questions. They told her they might reconsider in three or more years if she could prove that she was still AIDS-free.
what i see and, what i think most of us are aware of, is that old rape consequences and ideologieshave never quite gone away. that she should and must be repeatedly tested for hiv (among other diseases) for periods of time ranging from months to the remainder of her life are a direct result of the rape.
absolutely. rape is a horrible crime on the same level as homicide. i'm aware of the lifetime of psychological trauma that follows and that's only reinforced by constant testing as reminders. my deepest sympathies go out to her for what's happened to her in her personal life. but as far as i'm concerned, thats a seperate issue from the insurance mixup.
i find your "karmic justice" theory and the snickering middle school - like elation you're finding because
the victim just happened to be in the insurance industry, disgusting and immature. before i get clobbered for personally attacking another member, i did not say you yourself personally were immature, i stated that i found the very idea that payback was appropriate simply because of her job, sounded like a 13 year old girl's statement. i'm done with this thread for now -- i'm off to the other side again.
sharpeimom:paw::paw:
she wasn't "in the insurance industry". it wasn't like she was a secretary somewhere that kept things in order so the machine could run. she was an underwriter which meant it was her job to find technicalities exactly like this one to exclude others from coverage. live by the sword, die by the sword. if these policies were okay with her for all those years, enough for her to choose who gets treatment and who doesnt, and all that jazz...how on earth can she be the least bit surprised/upset that someone else is now choosing for her? as far as i'm concerned, everyone deserves a taste of their own medicine. and the sad part is, the majority of you would agree with me....except for the fact that this somehow got tied to a rape case for dramatic effect.
You can choose to take the dramatic road and pretend that the rape is the core issue here. It isn't. It's just the most emotional/shocking factor. She was denied insurance because of a technicality with the drugs that made her seem a higher risk then she actually is. You know, it wouldn't kill you to take a little more time with reading comprehension rather then rewording everything you read in such a way that it gives you offense. In no way, shape or form did I say I love that she was raped. The beauty lies in the fact that she's made her living off of denying coverage to others based on same possible risk factors that she's having to deal with now. She's become a victim of the same system she was all too happy to serve. There's a wonderful sense of karmic justice in the air. I'm sorry if you cant see that.
Like most others I find rape deplorable. However, I will not deny that there is a sense of irony considering that now she has become the victim of the same system she fostered.
Nonetheless, it is a shame what is happening to her.
You can choose to take the dramatic road and pretend that the rape is the core issue here. It isn't. It's just the most emotional/shocking factor. She was denied insurance because of a technicality with the drugs that made her seem a higher risk then she actually is. You know, it wouldn't kill you to take a little more time with reading comprehension rather then rewording everything you read in such a way that it gives you offense. In no way, shape or form did I say I love that she was raped. The beauty lies in the fact that she's made her living off of denying coverage to others based on same possible risk factors that she's having to deal with now. She's become a victim of the same system she was all too happy to serve. There's a wonderful sense of karmic justice in the air. I'm sorry if you cant see that.
My reading comprehension is just dandy, thanks. It seems, however, that yours is somewhat insufficient. "In no way, shape or form did I say I love that she was raped." I didn't suggest that you did. You said you "love" that she was denied coverage, because apparently her previous job means that you enjoy the fact. The irony is that you apparently cannot understand my post, whilst telling me to read more carefully. Heh.
If I feel that it is disgusting that someone celebrates another human being being denied insurance, particularly when they just suffered a rape attack, then I am fully entitled to say so. Speaking of karma......
Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.
please keep in mind our terms of service when posting and refrain from labeling or digs at other posters. nrskarenrn
debates
we promote the idea of lively debate. this means you are free to disagree with anyone on any type of subject matter as long as your criticism is constructive and polite.
personal attacks
our first priority is to the members that have come here because of the flame-free atmosphere we provide. there is a zero-tolerance policy here against personal attacks. we will not tolerate anyone insulting another individual's opinion nor name calling and will ban repeat offenders.
what i see and, what i think most of us are aware of, is that old rape consequences and ideologieshave never quite gone away. that she should and must be repeatedly tested for hiv (among other diseases) for periods of time ranging from months to the remainder of her life are a direct result of the rape.
that is medically incorrect.
every sexually transmitted disease has a known incubation period and we have a test for every single one of them, with the exception of hpv and it would be impossible for you to know if you got that from a rape or not. other than hpv....not a single one of them require "years" before they can be tested for.
you do not have to be tested for the "rest of your life" for herpes, hiv, or anything else.
if you had a physician that is telling you that, then my advice is to find another one.
it is very, very important that people read the arrticle very, very carefully....people are reading the rape and not reading the details of what the article did not say, which was made clear in my previous post.
as traumatic as rape is, as horrible as they can be....it doesn't give one unique medical access different from anyone else.
.thumb.gif.11fa0ddb3aacfb1b3953bc671abcfb7e.gif){kind=avatar}
SilentMind
253 Posts
absolutely. rape is a horrible crime on the same level as homicide. i'm aware of the lifetime of psychological trauma that follows and that's only reinforced by constant testing as reminders. my deepest sympathies go out to her for what's happened to her in her personal life. but as far as i'm concerned, thats a seperate issue from the insurance mixup.
she wasn't "in the insurance industry". it wasn't like she was a secretary somewhere that kept things in order so the machine could run. she was an underwriter which meant it was her job to find technicalities exactly like this one to exclude others from coverage. live by the sword, die by the sword. if these policies were okay with her for all those years, enough for her to choose who gets treatment and who doesnt, and all that jazz...how on earth can she be the least bit surprised/upset that someone else is now choosing for her? as far as i'm concerned, everyone deserves a taste of their own medicine. and the sad part is, the majority of you would agree with me....except for the fact that this somehow got tied to a rape case for dramatic effect.