Not my monkeys...

So, interesting Twitter discussion over the weekend:

I agreed up to a point, but asked for a clarification of what "vital services" meant.

To which I received this reply:

Sigh.

Here's what's so frustrating to me: pro-choice folks want me to pay for their abortions, pro-lifers want me to pay for their maternity care*, neither of which have anything to do with medical insurance. Long-time readers may recall the IVF Kerfluffle of 'Aught Five:

"Susan opined that In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) should be a covered medical expense, and others soon joined the chorus.

I demurred, thus setting off the swarm.

Because I am an insurance critter, I tend to see these things through the simple lens of “risk.” Risk is defined as “the chance or possibility of loss,”and insurance is all about managing risk. I am of the opinion that lifestyle choices such as IVF do not fall under the aegis of risk management."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. One of the reasons that our current premiums are so high is that we keep adding coverage for things that are not - or more accurately, shouldn't be - insurable risks. As we've so often declaimed, what do people think would happen to home insurance rates if carriers had to pay for new air conditioners and dishwashers?

Now she does raise an interesting point: if we do "carve out" these services from insurance, there's no reason that those primary docs (DPC) couldn't provide most (if not all) of those services. I'd be interested to see how DPC advocates would respond to this challenge.

*To be clear, I am not suggesting that this is Ms Elder's position, merely that she brings it into play.