Letters to the Editor
sk
Published Letters: 23 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@Xanthro
[Read the article: Pregnant pause]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When birth control is for treatment of medical disorders, such as endometriosis, it is covered by health insurance.
I have had endometriosis for about five years now. My old health insurance didn't cover birth control, period, regardless of any medical conditions I had. I can even show an extensive family history of the disease, including a sister who had to have surgery twice (the second a hysterectomy!) to treat her severe endometriosis. But no BC for me.
Also, @haut: some states have requirements about certain things that must be covered if an insurance company wants to work in that state. Others don't. Mostly, it's up to the insurance company. So it might just've been that the insurance your parents had covered BC - it may not be mandated by your state. Most states don't mandate that BC must be offered by insurers in that state.
-
more
[Read the article: Pregnant pause]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If women are getting BC pills for free, men should demand equal government-funded male BC pills, too.
I couldn't agree more! Someone needs to invent BC pills for all. (You do know that nobody's getting pills for free, though, right? Insurance coverage just means that you pay only a portion of the cost, not that they're handed to you for free...)
Also, re: the debate between having to buy condoms ourselves but expecting BC to be covered by insurance. Hmm. Maybe we should make BC not prescription-based anymore. If it's available everywhere, as with aspirin, then why shouldn't we all buy it ourselves? Right now, though, it's prescription-based and costs hundreds of dollars a month without insurance (not to mention the doctor's fees for getting the prescription in the first place). And, hey, if it were over the counter, the price would come down a lot, too. It's a win-win!
And what The Jim said: given that most insurance companies (and for-profit companies in general, for that matter) are worried about the bottom line, it's baffling that they don't want to cover much less expensive BC pills than much more expensive pregnancies. This is where the conspiracy theories start re: ulterior motives for denying BC. (Not saying they're true. Just saying that people are going to speculate about why a for-profit company is taking an action that seems so very counter to its profit goals.)
-
I live in and love California
[Read the article: My company wants me to move to California ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Even still, most of the way through your letter, I thought, "She really doesn't want to move."
I relocated here for a job and I love it. I also loved it before I came and wanted to make the move. (Technically, I told them I was planning to move and, if they wanted to keep me as an employee, they could if they relocated me - and they did.)
Which brings me to my next thought: area woman is totally right. Maybe you were thinking you'd have to sell a bunch of stuff because you wouldn't have a house in which to put it, but if it really is the case that the company isn't paying to move everything you'd want to move - no way. That's standard for a relocation.
My company paid for a moving company to pack up my stuff and move it, and for me to fly out. The company also wanted me out here working before my stuff was scheduled to arrive, so they put me up in a hotel and paid for my meals while I waited for my stuff. They also paid for a 3-day exploratory trip (to find an apartment, etc.). All told, it probably cost them somewhere around $10k.
Also, if I hadn't been the one instigating the move, I would've made them sign an agreement stating that they would pay to move me back if they terminated my employment in less than a year (for anything other than due cause, of course). Again, that's standard for a relo.
Good luck with whatever you decide!
-
yet another one (okay, two)
[Read the article: What's in a bat-crap-crazy name?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A client of my dad's was named Richard Dick. (The client finally decided to change his name - sort of. He changed the spelling of his last name to Dzick.)
Also, when I was in college, I knew a guy named Michael Hunt. He preferred Mike - except, of course, when he had to say his full name, in which case he was very careful to say his non-abbreviated first name before his last name. If you don't get it, try saying the short version of his first name followed by his last name. Just make sure nobody's within earshot when you do...
-
@RBC
[Read the article: Talking to Sarah Palin]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just clarification. Allie said:
"I also don't think it's fair to blame Palin for assuming that her staff had vetted the call."
She didn't say she doesn't blame the staff for not vetting the call. She said that she doesn't blame Palin for assuming that her staff did what they're supposed to do: vet the call.
-
read the post fully
[Read the article: GOP not playing "Minnesota nice" with Franken]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the "32 ballots left unattended" claim was not true. There's a link in the post to an article that explains what happened. They were never outside of the chain of custody.