I mean am I wrong though? A wheelchair would be a basic healthcare need. An electric wheelchair would be a convenience. A tooth brush is a basic health care need. An electric toothbrush is a convenience.
That depends. Can you move the wheelchair by yourself if it's not electric? At two years old, this question may not be suitable, but at an age where an able-bodied person would be able to wheel themself about, I'd say that an electric wheelchair would be a necessity for someone without the physical capability to move under their own power.
Then it would fall under the definition of a basic healthcare need, provided there is no cheaper yet viable alternative. (as one of the possible responses)
My 3 year-old nephew has CP and it is a constant struggle with the insurance company not wanting to supply "non-basic healthcare needs". A lot of it is not about being a convenience, its about allowing him to become mobile and independent so as he gets older he doesn't need round the clock care because he is able to do things for himself. In many cases, if insurance companies took the long view, these "conveniences" would cost them less in long term care.
Usually if a child has an electric chair it's because they literally do not possess the ability to move the chair on their own. I knew a girl growing up who couldn't move a chair her own accord and didn't have an electric chair. Someone else had to push her chair everywhere she went. Without an electric chair she didn't have basic autonomy of movement. She was lucky in the fact that she was well liked and usually if she wanted to go somewhere people around her were very willing to take her. However I also can remember that she was accustomed to "just being along for the ride". Other kids would often ask "Anon, you want to go to x place with us?" But the adults in her life often just took her wherever and she just accepted this. (I assume because it was normal to her).
And she wasn't ever taken anyplace that was unsafe for her as far as I know. She seemed happy and had friends. But I'm fairly certain that was some luck, some personality, and some environment.
I have since witnessed plenty of discrimination towards people with disabilities. I imagine her life could have been much much worse very easily.
3
deleted
· 5 years ago
@ilikemoderation
I think it depends on why you're wheelchair-bound, and what your disability entails. I have a buddy with cerebral palsy who has limited control of his less and needs a wheelchair. He also had limited control of his arms and hands. He wouldn't be able to control the wheels on a non-electric wheelchair.
I knew someone in high school who was paralyzed from the waist down and had full use of their arms. They used a non-electric wheelchair with no problem.
@silvermyth Exactly my point. Some people actually NEED electric wheelchairs in order to have autonomous maneuverability. And everyone should be allowed to have that a basic human right. No one should need to be dependent on others to move across a room, not when their is technology that can allow them to do it on their own. It's hard enough that people in these circumstances are often looking at a life where they will ALWAYS require assistance in things most of is take for granted. Knowing you will never be able to bath yourself. You will need help in the restroom for your entire life. That's hard. No one should have to live with "You can't take yourself from your living room to your kitchen table." Not when we can do something about it
@unklethan
I agree. Depending on condition. Paralysis of the waist down wouldn’t qualify since you have fully functioning arms. A disease where your arms are nonfunctional would qualify.
deleted
· 5 years ago
*depending on your policy
Reply
deleted
· 5 years ago
If the kid literally can’t self-propel without the chair then that’s super-unfortunate, but if the insurance plan never stated it covered electric wheelchairs then that’s not on them...
.
Insurance blows, but they exist to make money. Can’t blame them for fulfilling their mandate
The problem with this theory is that insurance is designed to cover things that come up. That's the whole point. And insurance companies often attempt to charge as much as possible while keeping as much as they can. Even if they do cover something you often need to jump through excessive hoops in hopes you'll give up and just not get the care you need.
I get that insurance is for profit, but they have also been allowed to get away with a lot of unfair treatment due to having local monopolies and unregulated business practices and people cannot afford to move to get better insurance.
5
deleted
· 5 years ago
Sorry I know this is an unpopular opinion, but people not being able to afford it is not a valid argument. It sucks, it's super unfortunate, but it's not valid.
.
With that said, in the 40 pages of fine print that insurance companies try to hide (but are regulated and legally required to have in hand if you ask) the wheelchair exception would be in there.
.
No arguments. They're slimeballs, they'll do everything they can to dodge paying. But they also pay when they HAVE to. And they HAVE to only when it's in the policy. They might even make a tactical calculation to try one last time to dodge paying, but all you have to do is threaten sueing and money rains from the sky.
.
Anyway. Queue the communists and the downvotes.
Actually, it's not uncommon that you actually do have to sue, or at least make it clear you have the capacity to sue. Sure, someone who can afford to hire a good lawyer will probably be fine for threatening to sue, but the truth is if you can't afford a lawyer the insurance company very well won't pay as they don't think you can sue. Because that's the world we live in.
And I would be more inclined to agree that expense wasn't a valid agrugement if the agrugement was purely "insurance is too expensive and insurance companies should be required to charge less". But that isn't the arguement. Insurance companies have localized monopolies is many areas that essentially mean that people don't have choice in their insurance company. Not for healthcare. I would be less opposed if it was expensive within a competitive market that allowed customers the ability to chose some companies over others for reasons of costs and quality of service as is possible with things like car insurance.
1
deleted
· 5 years ago
Well, I live somewhere car insurance is a government monopoly, and never less than $3000 a year, for experienced, age drivers. I know people paying over $7000 a year.
.
I’m very familiar with monopolies, and I’m aware that they do exist, they’re unfair, and punishing. But it’s not that common. I’d be willing to bet the number of individual counties in the US with this kind of situation is probably less than 100- but I’m just conjecting.
.
Either way, we can discuss the semantics endlessly- it changes nothing. It’s damned unfortunate, either way.
And she wasn't ever taken anyplace that was unsafe for her as far as I know. She seemed happy and had friends. But I'm fairly certain that was some luck, some personality, and some environment.
I think it depends on why you're wheelchair-bound, and what your disability entails. I have a buddy with cerebral palsy who has limited control of his less and needs a wheelchair. He also had limited control of his arms and hands. He wouldn't be able to control the wheels on a non-electric wheelchair.
I knew someone in high school who was paralyzed from the waist down and had full use of their arms. They used a non-electric wheelchair with no problem.
I agree. Depending on condition. Paralysis of the waist down wouldn’t qualify since you have fully functioning arms. A disease where your arms are nonfunctional would qualify.
.
Insurance blows, but they exist to make money. Can’t blame them for fulfilling their mandate
I get that insurance is for profit, but they have also been allowed to get away with a lot of unfair treatment due to having local monopolies and unregulated business practices and people cannot afford to move to get better insurance.
.
With that said, in the 40 pages of fine print that insurance companies try to hide (but are regulated and legally required to have in hand if you ask) the wheelchair exception would be in there.
.
No arguments. They're slimeballs, they'll do everything they can to dodge paying. But they also pay when they HAVE to. And they HAVE to only when it's in the policy. They might even make a tactical calculation to try one last time to dodge paying, but all you have to do is threaten sueing and money rains from the sky.
.
Anyway. Queue the communists and the downvotes.
And I would be more inclined to agree that expense wasn't a valid agrugement if the agrugement was purely "insurance is too expensive and insurance companies should be required to charge less". But that isn't the arguement. Insurance companies have localized monopolies is many areas that essentially mean that people don't have choice in their insurance company. Not for healthcare. I would be less opposed if it was expensive within a competitive market that allowed customers the ability to chose some companies over others for reasons of costs and quality of service as is possible with things like car insurance.
.
I’m very familiar with monopolies, and I’m aware that they do exist, they’re unfair, and punishing. But it’s not that common. I’d be willing to bet the number of individual counties in the US with this kind of situation is probably less than 100- but I’m just conjecting.
.
Either way, we can discuss the semantics endlessly- it changes nothing. It’s damned unfortunate, either way.