Everyday Goddess

Maternity Coverage - An unanticipated wrinkle in my quest for independent health insurance.

So, I took a 6-month gig, and I turned down the craptastic "limited-benefit health insurance" I was offered from the temp agency I had to sign up with to take the job. And I lost the Cobra subsidy, because I had to sign up for the temp agency instead of just being freelance, and now my Cobra is $300/month. Which I thought was pretty expensive.

And maybe I'd like to be able to keep gigging, and take those opportunities, now that I've got my monthly expenses down, and I'm living on less. So I started looking for a potentially long-term independent health plan that would cost me less than the Cobra. And I knew that I wouldn't be able to afford what I had before.

But I didn't expect to get an email with three options, all of which didn't include maternity coverage. My first thought was, WTF, I'm 38, not 48! But a Facebook friend tells me that this is the norm now if you're trying to save money on your health insurance.

So look, if you've been reading me awhile, you know it would take some sort of radioactive supersperm for me to get pregnant. IUD, condom, spermicide. It is highly unlikely that I will accidentally get pregnant. I get that.

But the fact is, I *could* get pregnant. In which case, I certainly don't want having to pay the unmitigated costs of a pregnancy to factor into my decision about what to do about it. I think it would be completely irresponsible to get health insurance that doesn't cover maternity care. At the very least, it is not a long-term solution. And I'm not shopping for gap insurance.

What if I did want to get pregnant at some point? Then I would have to go back and get new health care *before* I start trying. Clearly, that would be Big Giant Pain In The Ass 2.

Let's pause to note that my male competition in this wonderful world of entertainment does not have this concern. That kinda blows.

But, it is what it is, so I express my desire for a plan that covers maternity to my health insurance broker, and I get an email with one HSA plan, one PPO that costs the same as my Cobra, and two HMOs that cost over $400/month. And I am completely, totally discouraged.

And feeling better about the cost of my Cobra, but Cobra is not a long-term solution. It will run out, and what if I develop some sort of illness while I'm on it? Then I'm rocking the pre-existing condition when I go to look for a policy.

So, OK, I either find another "real" job so I can get decent health coverage - something that's getting more difficult to do in this business and which will preclude me from taking the very opportunities I've been working my ass off for 7+ years to be able to take, or I accept that I'm going to personally pay $450/month for a health plan I really feel comfortable with. Which means I probably need to work a few more years before I can really entertain gigging in these lower pay, potentially better opportunity positions.

I'm halfway through my 6-month gig, and I've got no idea what the best solution is.

Here's an article I found from California NOW: Looking for Maternity Coverage in California? Schwarzenegger Says Look Elsewhere. Way to make sure disadvantaged people are completely screwed should they become pregnant.

Does anyone remember when an HMO was the lesser option? Now you get a PPO to save money, because who cares which doctor you can see, so long as you can actually see one and get treatment.

Finally, I had this thought that maybe it would be great if Los Angeles residents could get health insurance from the city? Surely there's a plan for city employees. What if we could simply join that group by being residents? It doesn't make sense to me that the growing number of people clamoring for health insurance not attached to a job doesn't create groups that should be able to get a good plan. Why not a group plan for Los Angeles residents? Surely there's plenty of us.

My Big Fat Health Insurance Situation

When I got laid off back in June, my first thoughts were not about health insurance. Quickly, though, my friend in HR (and I'm not being facetious, she's actually my friend) brought it to my attention, because she was eager to make sure I realized that there's currently a 65% Cobra subsidy available from the government.

When my paperwork came, it turned out that with the subsidy, my Cobra was $100/month. So for the first time ever, I went on Cobra while unemployed. In the past I'd either gone without health insurance or signed up for a plan that basically kicked in only if something went horribly wrong.

So, I had health insurance and unemployment insurance, and it was nice not to be totally screwed while unemployed. I began to look for a job - always a less-than-fun process. I absolutely hate not being gainfully employed. This time in particular I was torn between learning what not having a day job could really mean for my directing career, and going absolutely insane over living off of money I wasn't out earning.

Ultimately, I got a cool opportunity to take a 6-month gig at a studio, and I decided to take it. I've always wanted to work at a studio, and the position offered the opportunity to learn a lot of new things in a totally new environment. I love my new job, even if it ends in March and I'll be unemployed again.

But here's where my health insurance goes to hell in a handbasket.

To take the gig, I had to sign up with the temp agency the studio hires through. And the temp agency offers "limited-benefit health insurance." Which I didn't even know existed. Basically, if you get really sick, it just flat out runs out. And fast.

It's literally a better-than-nothing plan. And while I have risked having nothing, I was much younger at the time. At 38, I'm really not comfortable rolling those dice. (It's worth noting, too, that if I'm going to get a better-than-nothing plan, I want it the other way around. No immediately benefits like co-pays on doctor visits, but if you get cancer, it triggers and you get significant coverage.)

Worse, because of the temp agency offering me any form of health insurance, I stopped qualifying for the government Cobra subsidy. So now my Cobra is $260/month. My decision to stay on the Cobra officially makes my temp position WAY more about the experience than the paycheck, with more unemployment waiting on the back end. If I take another temp position after that, my finances will officially move back to mega suck.

I did look into individual plans. They cost less, but I didn't feel confident or comfortable about the companies after polling my friends. I wanted to research more, and I figured I can always make that jump. I had to decide about the whether to take the limited plan offered by the temp agency within 30 days.

I *would* like to find an individual plan, so after I complete my move at the end of the month I'm going to look into it again. I think I can find something cheaper than what I'm paying on Cobra, but I'm worried about the coverage. Still, if I end up temping again, I'm going to have to find something to switch to.

Three thoughts:

1. The fact that my former company was very cost conscious and trying to find the most afforded policy for them totally saved my butt when I got laid off. If my Cobra cost anymore, there's no way I could afford it. I mean, heck I can't really afford it now, but it was within the limits of possibility. If it had been over $300, for example, there would have been no way.

2. As I begin paying $260/month for my health insurance, I realize that what really annoys me about health insurance tied to your employer is that you build no relationship with any health company over the course of your life. When I call my car insurance, or my bank, or any number of other businesses in my life, they can immediately see that I've been a customer for years. Here I am paying $260/month to a health insurance company and costing them next to nothing, but by the time I *am* costing a health insurance company money because I'm old and sick, say, it won't be a company I've had a relationship with for twenty / thirty years. That blows.

3. My number one problem with health insurance being tied to employment is that it completely screws with the job market. I was raised to believe that there is a check and balance whereby if an employer treats their employees like crap, they will leave. Except if they have health issues, often they won't. They will sit in a job they hate because they need to stick with that health insurance. This isn't good for anyone, not even that company that's getting to abuse their workers, because unhappy workers are less productive and make mistakes. And if you don't think that unhappy workers sit tight due to health insurance concerns, I'm betting that you are 1. not sick and 2. not living pay check to pay check.

I've been laid off twice in seven years and now I'm a temp. I want to get real health insurance that's not tied to my employment. If you've got any recommendations for individual health care plans in SoCal, please leave me a note in the comments. Under $200 month would be best for me. Honestly, even that much makes me a little sick to my stomach, but "limited benefit health insurance" scares me more.

Macro v. Micro

I read a lot of liberal blogs. I also read some conservative blogs. Historically, I've leaned libertarian, but between moving to L.A. and realizing that the Republicans are WAY more concerned with the religious right than my rights, I changed my affiliation from non-party affiliated to Democrat in 2007. During the primary I often thought of myself as a "reluctant Democrat," particularly due to many, many douchy, douchy, douchy Obama supporters, but a Democrat I've stayed.

As a reluctant Democrat, I struggle with posts like this from Jesse Taylor on Pandagon: The Secret To Health: Stop Being Sick. In it, Jesse pulls from this post by Sonny Bunch on DoubleThink Online: A health care follow up:

But certain things about the health care debate drive me absolutely nuts, like the self-entitlement you encounter day in and day out when you pay attention to the issue. Take this guy, for example. Allow me to summarize: He’s attending a top tier law school, so he doesn’t have a job and can’t afford to pick any health insurance up. He also has asthma. Which leads to this relatively stunning paragraph:

I cannot get my proper medication and have to rely on a friend who’s mother is a pharmacist to steal sample sized daily inhalers for me.  Not only is this embarrassing and unreliable, it costs all of you who do have insurance money.  I have no choice.

“I have no choice.” Wow. There is a stunning lack of self-awareness in that thought. So what you’re telling me is that you decided to attend a law school that you knew you couldn’t afford while simultaneously paying for health insurance even though you had a relatively serious health impairment that you need to get medication for? I’m sorry, dude: You made your choice. Maybe you made it poorly, but you made a choice. I have no pity whatsoever for this guy.

Jesse responds:

Here’s the problem with virtually any effort made to better yourself - it involves risk.  Law school in particular usually involves very tight mandated budgets, lots of loans and very little room for financial error unless you or your family is independently wealthy.  (Incidentally, the student in this case has two retired parents on fixed incomes.) I’m in law school myself, and the recommended school health insurance is expensive and awful; a better plan is simply unaffordable.

It makes little sense to say that you should have to be controlled by a medical problem and stay stuck in a job (if you have one) with suitable health insurance until you have the financial means to independently provide for any health opportunity that comes up.

So here's my struggle. I do believe that we need some sort of universal health care in America. Without making this post about universal health care, I will try to simply state that health care tied to employment and schools decreases mobility of the population between jobs, thereby breaking the job market, and decreases the ability of the population to pursue higher learning they might otherwise be able to afford, which in turn, hurts America. I for one would SERIOUSLY like to obtain realistic health care outside of my employer. So I agree with Jesse on much of what he's said.

But I also totally agree with Sonny. The guy he quotes wrote an anonymous piece for the Atlantic: The Uninsured. And while I applaud the sharing of this story to illuminate problems with our healthcare system in America, on a personal level that person is indeed totally responsible for the choices they are making in 2009, under this health care system. He is taking a serious risk; he is choosing to attend a law school he cannot afford while also covering his health care for his medical conditions, and he is choosing to commit fraud and steal to obtain medication. These are his choices, and whatever the outcomes and costs, those are his responsibility.

I believe that both Jesse and Sonny are right, and both points are valid. If you've been reading me for a very long time, you may recall that I believe that truth often lies in the dichotomy of two opposites holding simultaneously. While rolling these posts over and over in my mind I realized that perhaps it is simpler than that. It is something I've been thinking about for a while: Macro v. Micro.

On a macro level, I believe that our health care system is broken, needs to be forever separated from our work, and very well may need to be run by the government. On a micro level, I believe that individually we need to take responsibility for our choices, in this time, under these conditions.

Let's talk about me, briefly. This is a blog after all.

I emptied my 401K and used my credit cards to go to graduate film school, 2 years, year-round. Similar situation, albeit with more risk of my degree never actually paying off, I had to go to school full full-time with no opportunity to work for the first time in my life since I was 16. Every time I see my social security statement with that year of $0 income, and the two crap years bracketing it, I remind myself that's part of the reason I'm still struggling to turn the tide on my debt load. I took a huge risk. Thankfully, I hope to drop dead on set between action and cut, because "retirement" simply isn't a word I entertain, and probably won't be able to afford until I'm near death.

I *was* able to afford basic health insurance from my grad school, although I never evaluated it at all. And on the rare occasion I've let my health insurance lapse, I recognized I was taking a serious risk. Certainly I've only ever found Cobra a source of painful amusement due to the cost of it. I've never been in a position to afford Cobra, and to be honest, I don't really understand how anyone can afford it, much less things like unpaid maternity leave. It's a mystery to me.

Speaking briefly to macro v. micro in my life, I often think about sexism in the entertainment industry. On a macro level, yes, it exists. And we can discuss it and maybe even take steps to fight it. But on a micro level, I've simply got work to do, and if there's sexism in my face on a set, you can bet I'm gonna laugh it off like so much water off a duck's back if at all possible. If it's blocking my way, I'm going to look for another way. And another and another if that's what it takes. All with a positive can-do attitude and a smile.

Back to healthcare and the discussion in question; I've read the health care horror stories. They are horrible, and yes, our system sucks. We need change, and it can't come soon enough. People do make all the "right" choices and end up screwed.

But dude's still choosing to go to law school he can't afford. What comes of that - good or bad - *is* his responsibility and his choice. Unlike Sonny, I've got some sympathy for the guy, but that's as far as this reluctant Democrat can go.

Democrats, Republicans, and the hands in our pockets.

The stimulus package is going to cost America a lot of money. And yeah, I've got some concerns about various aspects of it. But what's really been turning my stomach lately is the absurdly disingenuous response of Republican politicians and pundits.

Why is it OK to spend extreme amounts of money we don't have on Iraq, but not OK to spend extreme amounts of money we don't have on America?

Well, differing political philosophies about the role of government, of course. And I get that. And I've got various opinions on that.

But I've completely had it with Republicans acting like OMG! The Democrats want to take our money and spend it!

Because yes, you're right, they do want to take my money and spend it. AND SO DO YOU FUCKERS AND AT SIMILARLY ABSURD LEVELS.

The only difference is where they each think it's OK to spend it. And it's just effing crazy for Republicans who have been authorizing an expensive war for years now to somehow pretzel themselves around and start crying about Democratic expenditures. It's pathetic and disgusting and ridiculous.

Further, the Republicans are freaking out because they think that President Obama is heading America towards socialism. And I can understand why that is scary to them. I understand how that is against their economic and political theories.

I JUST SPENT THE LAST EIGHT YEARS WATCHING AMERICA SLIDE TOWARDS FASCISM, THANKS.

Maybe you disagree with me, but if you are one who is worried about socialism, welcome to a lighter version of what it's been feeling like for the other half of us for AGES now. You've been trying to take my damn RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS away. You've been trying to legislate what I can do with my body.

Abstinence-only education? Creationism in our schools? Torture? Are you effing kidding me?

Despite all evidence to the contrary, there are people in this country who think America is a Christian nation. Who have no respect for the separation of church and state that our country was bloody FOUNDED ON.

North Dakota (a state with exactly one place you can get an abortion, btw) is on the path to give a bunch of cells HUMAN RIGHTS! We are literally a blink away from some sci-fi tale of the fascist monitoring of women who are under the state's control whenever they become pregnant.

You may disagree with my fears. You may have different philosophies and theories. President Obama and the Democrats have different philosophies and theories from President Bush and the Republicans. That's what it is. That's what it comes down to.

And the... can't find the word... opposition technique of acting like the sky is falling and the Democrats are the ones who just want to spend all our money? I feel like the Republicans are demanding that I believe that the Emperor is wearing clothes. Suddenly spending billions and trillions of dollars is bad, you say?

We have a new President and a Democratic-leaning congress. So now we're going to try it a different way. Now things are going to swing the other way for awhile. That's how America works, like it or not.

You could maybe even say, a little less fascism today and a little more socialism. With any luck, I'm not going to wake up tomorrow in the next Communist Romania and Republicans aren't going to wake up in the next Canada or England, since that prospect is seemingly so terrifying to them.

Republicans:  Yes, it's a lot of money, and we can argue about particulars. But don't act like you care about the spending levels, because clearly you don't and never did when it's spent on what you want.

I voted!

I was 14th in line when I got there at 6:40am.

But 10th in line when they split us up into precincts.

It was extremely organized and everyone was cheery!

I felt a little overwhelmed that we were FINALLY voting. Whew!

Why I'll be Voting No on Parental Notification Proposition 4 in California.

This post is cross-posted on BlogHer.

I've been happily sexually active since I was 16. (Actually, I was more sexually active then than I am now, sadly enough, but that's another whole post.) Had I become pregnant before I turned 18 there would have been not one doubt in my mind about getting an abortion, and there would have been absolutely no way in the universe that I would have told my parents.

I would have been afraid that they would have made me have the baby, and even if that wasn't the case, once they know, they know. You can't exactly feel that one out. Better to do what you, the pregnant person, want to do and leave them out of it.

My opinion? Once nature's decided you can conceive, then nature has deigned you able to decide what to do about the pregnancy.

Now, I had a lot of advantages. I was smart enough to get an abortion even if I'd had to circumvent this law or that - and believe me, if I'd needed to, I would have done anything before I talked to my parents. I also could have gotten together the necessary funds. There would have been drama, and maybe the repercussions of disappearing for a few days, but I'm pretty sure I could have pulled it off.

Would I have chosen a risky abortion over telling my parents I was pregnant? You betcha!

And I'm grown up now, and I stand by that opinion to this day. Sometimes the risky choice is the right choice.

Meanwhile, I literally can not imagine what it would be like to be a teen without resources to travel or circumvent the laws, or a teen without as much education to understand how to manage the system, or even worse, a teen who's being molested and abused by a family member - and to then have the government get between me and my doctor and say that I have to tell my parents I'm pregnant! To not be able to trust your doctor to keep your medical information private! What a nightmare.

And those bypass provisions? They are the worst! If I'd gotten pregnant in high school, I would have wanted to get an abortion as promptly as possible - I can't imagine having to go defend my personal decisions to a judge, thereby ensuring a later abortion, if any. I mean, it's painfully absurd to consider that girls in some states have to do this. Somehow I suspect that you can't just tell some judges you'd like to have an abortion because you have no interest in having a child right now.

Which brings me to California's Prop 4, and yet another reason to vote NO NO NO on parental notification. Under the new provision, if the teen chooses to go to another adult, her parents would be automatically reported to authorities and investigated. Well, that's absurd. Consider my situation. Are they going to arrest parents for being the sorts to force their daughter to have an unwanted child?

You know, it actually gets harder and harder to write about these propositions because they make me so mad, and I can not believe that Californians are voting on this AGAIN. The simple truth is, if you are the sort of parent whose child comes to them with problems, your child will come to you. But not every young woman is that fortunate. The Campaign for Teen Safety has a great page about Prop 4, including links to the official Prop 4 Summary, as well as the No on 4 Ballot Argument.

I've had this uneasy feeling about this Prop for months now because all of Californian's attention seems so focused on Prop 8. And rightfully so, but I hope hope hope that if you care about a woman's right to make reproductive decisions with her doctor and who else she chooses, you will also remember to vote NO on Prop 4. It really is a disastrous proposition for young women in California, and I hope against hope that ALL of our current freedoms are intact on the day after election day.

~

BlogHer is non-partisan but our bloggers (including me) aren't! Follow our coverage of Politics & News.

~

Linky goodness:

Vote! No on Prop 4 - Siel at Green LA Girl fumes over voting on this for the third time.

Podcast: Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards spoke with Suzanne Reisman about reproductive rights - In case you missed it, a great podcast from BlogHer.

California's Prop 4 Jeopardizes the Doctor-Patient Relationship - from Carole Joffe and Dr. Eleanor Drey on RH Reality Check.

This is how bad it would be if Prop 4 passes - Don't miss these diagrams from Beautiful Day Rule. It's a nightmare.

Prop 4 - from Speaking Up, An Atheist Woman, she's infuriated, and in case you missed it, so am I.

Remember to Vote NO on Prop 4!

Baby, if loving this image is wrong, I Don't Wanna Be Right.

Thank you, AbrahamJoseph!

I can't deal with the N word and the B word at the top of the blog.

I'm not sure what that means or says about me. I think it's a good post, and a strong title, but...

Here, have an LOL.

UPDATE: Went back and changed it anyway.  Couldn't deal.

Words.

I was in fourth grade when I first witnessed racism first hand.

A family member I was visiting in another state whipped out a sentence about "niggers." My eyes must have been as big as dinner plates, and I'm sure that my mouth dropped open.

Later, hanging out with a group of cousins and local kids who chuckled at my naiveté, it was explained to me that "maybe you have black people down in Florida, but we've got niggers here."

Some black people are niggers.

Individualist practically from birth, I couldn't wrap my head around that two decades ago, and I can't now. Racism: I just don't get it.

Now, compare that to CNN contributor Alex Castellanos' recent comment about Hillary being called a "white bitch" in a New York Times Column (emphasis mine):

"And some women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate," adding of Clinton, "[S]he is a tough -- that tough lady, tough in politics, that's been her great strength. But let's face it, she can be a very abrasive, aggressive, irritating person, and a lot of voters, I think, see her that way."

CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger responded: "Yeah, but a lot of voters don't, you know." Castellanos interjected: "It doesn't have to be unanimous."

Some women are bitches. Some black people are niggers. And, apparently, it doesn't have to be unanimous.

Now, I live in 2008, and I'm not going to lie to you. I don't feel the word "bitch" the same way I feel the word "nigger."

Until Alex Castellanos said that like that and suddenly, it felt eerily similar. Suddenly I was that shocked fourth grader again who just knew that something about what I was hearing hurt inside.

Some people use "nigger" to dismiss and denigrate black people. Some people use "bitch" the same way. About people like me.

And sexism? Well, this tough, perhaps sometimes abrasive, definitely aggressive, and who knows, maybe even occasionally irritating woman sure as hell doesn't get it.

Sure, women have "reclaimed" bitch. There's "reclaimed" use of nigger in the black community, too, right? But ultimately, I think we'd all be better off if we can somehow let them both go.

Maybe "bitch" needs to go the way of "nigger." And by that I mean, I think that professionals on CNN should only consider it appropriate to say on a national news network that the first women running for president of the United States is a "bitch," if they also consider it appropriate to say that the first black person running for president of the United States is a "nigger." You know, if some black people are named that and it's accurate.

You know, it doesn't have to be unanimous.

(Do you think that's coming? Do you think that someone will actually use "nigger" on a major news network? I shudder.)

To be clear about what I'm saying here, I think Alex Castellanos' commentary was sexist.

I hereby vow to strike the word "bitch" - even in its "reclaimed" use - from my vocabulary. I've certainly never called someone a "nigger" and can't imagine that either. I feel uncomfortable even using it in this post, and I deeply hope that it's not offensive, but I couldn't see how else to express this.

I'm not sure if I've blogged it before, but I feel like this primary lifted a rug off of America and shook all the racism and sexism out into the air we breath everyday. It certainly was there before, but now we're all choking on it.

It's like we can suddenly see the smog we're standing in, and not just the smog on the horizon.

I hope everyday that the legacy of all this pain is progress towards equality and respect.

Let's talk about Michigan and Florida

Well, back when I was a Floridian without a party, I surely never thought I'd be studying the DNC delegate selection rules in 2008 from my apartment in Los Angeles.

If you're following the primary at all, I'm sure you've heard about the fight over seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan. You've probably heard about Clinton "moving the goal posts."

The fact is, depending on how you count it, either Clinton or Obama have the most popular vote.

The fact is, Florida and Michigan are still up in the air.

The fact is, you can look at total number of states won, or you can look at which states you think are more important in the general.

The fact is, superdelegates can vote however they want and making the determination that they are soon going to make is exactly why they're there.

Now, if you want a run-down of these issues and the relevant rule of the DNC, including links to vote calculators, you can read this post: Le Sigh, by Zuzu on Shakesville. Personally, I feel a lot better now that I understand the Florida / Michigan situation more clearly and beyond the rheteric.

She also touches on the caucus states. Oh, and this:

As for Scott's "Calvinball" blatherings: he continues to pretend that somehow Clinton is responsible for the fact that unpledged delegates (a/k/a "superdelegates") will be making the decision of who to vote for, and that the fact that there are no rules for them to follow when making their decision is likewise somehow Clinton's fault. So while he derides the metrics of the popular vote, and accuses Clinton of forwarding the popular-vote argument in order to hurt Obama's legitimacy as the nominee, he seems to lose sight of the fact that neither Clinton nor Obama gets over the hump without the superdelegates, and the superdelegates can consider any metric they choose to in order to make a decision. And -- surprise! -- both Clinton and Obama are playing to win, and playing within the rules.

Have no doubt, Obama's move to focus on McCain like the primary is over IS A POLITICAL STRATEGY. And a good one. Pundits declaring it's over and mocking Hillary for perseverance and strength that should be admired IS A POLITICAL STRATEGY. And here's hoping that taking your name off of a ballot IS A POLITICAL STRATEGY, because I just can't fathom why else someone running for president would do that.

And acting like half the Democratic party doesn't matter is just rude.

IT'S. NOT. OVER.

Why are Hillary's supporters still voting like she can win?

BECAUSE SHE CAN.

Update:  First off, the comment thread on that Shakesville post is worth a read. Thoughtful arguments back and forth and lots of additional information and details.

Second, I think what it really comes down to is: Why are the remaining superdelegates waiting? It's either out of respect for Hillary Clinton (meaning they're going to vote for Obama), or it's because they are still genuinely unsure which way they're going to go due to the reality that Clinton and Obama are neck and neck.

Personally, I'm hoping it goes all the way up to the convention, because I think it would be good for the party, and I think that a Clinton/Obama or an Obama/Clinton ticket will dispatch McCain handily. The only way we lose and/or need more time is if they don't run together.