Rape victims charged for medical exams
March 5, 2001 12:39 PM Subscribe
(It's not at all clear that the pregnancy was a result of the rape, by the way.)
Uh, thirteen, capital punish much?
posted by dhartung at 1:07 PM on March 5, 2001
posted by thirteen at 1:25 PM on March 5, 2001
posted by darren at 1:35 PM on March 5, 2001
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:37 PM on March 5, 2001
posted by darren at 1:39 PM on March 5, 2001
As opposed to, say, getting a bill for a rape that you did have control over and was your fault - which would be empowering? Women everywhere shall walk more safely knowing that Claire Pearson is on their side...
posted by m.polo at 1:44 PM on March 5, 2001
posted by Postroad at 4:09 PM on March 5, 2001
posted by Dreama at 4:18 PM on March 5, 2001
I was particularly interested by the note that police may not order these exams because of the price. This is dangerous ground we're treading if police agencies are unwilling to pay for evidence that they need. Maybe the perp should be fined as well as imprisoned for this crime. Or maybe we should just run over his foot repeatedly for the rest of his life.
posted by fiery at 8:43 PM on March 5, 2001
Secondly, if some woman wants to carry the rapist's baby, I would not say a word to change her mind, but it is conceptually so repulsive to me I cannot help but curl my lip. I think it is obvious that if I support a woman's right to do away with her pregnancy, I would not stop her from keeping it. Thematically it is just about all I ever post about.
posted by thirteen at 9:30 PM on March 5, 2001
The problem with broadening the scope of capital punishment crimes is not only moral. By making more and more crimes punishable by death, criminals have no reason to stop at a certain point. If the maximum penalty for murder and rape are the same, why shouldn't the assailant kill the person he's raping? One less witness and he's looking at the same sentence.
If I recall correctly, this is why many woman's groups protested sharpening rape sentences a while ago.
posted by jedrek at 10:27 PM on March 5, 2001
I wish use of the word "empowering" was a crime. It ought not to be used in the first place unless you're talking about some kind of investment of a legal or official capacity, such as "The president is empowered to command the armed forces." And if you really insist on using its secondary verb definifion, you have to link it to some sort of object for it to mean anything. Othwise, as in Pearson's case, it comes off as empty political posturing. This victim doesn't need a political ideology, she needs emotional counseling.
This is dangerous ground we're treading if police agencies are unwilling to pay for evidence that they need.
Oh, they'll get the evidence. The hospital is morally and legally bound to perform the exams on any rape victim that walks through their doors. That's probably why the cops are dragging their feet, especially the departments with tight budgets. They know the hospitals can't push the issue too hard; in a worst-case scenario, the unpaid bills will just be factored into the cost of care for those who do pay, the same way the hospitals deal with all other indigent cases.
First off, I think the examples were fictional (and I certainly hope that is the case).
They better not be. If so, that reporter has committed one of the cardinal sins of journalism: Don't make up sources. You can protect their identities, as was done here, but you can't imagine them, or the events that happened to them.
And I really could have done without the last two sentences of that piece, and the phone number at the bottom. Leave your opinion out of it, especially when you feel the need to to wield your biggest Hammer of Self-Righteousness to make it. Believe it or not, Ms. Reporter, most other people think rape is bad too. You aren't exactly going out on a limb by throwing it in your readers' faces that "I Know That Rape Victims Are More Important Than City Budgets." Like, duh. As for the phone number: After no story about any other kind of crime does a newspaper dump a helpline number for victims of that crime. To me, this is the sort of thing that ::cough:: "disempowers" rape victims more: The continual media posturing that Rape is Different, Rape is Shameful is going to keep otherwise level-headed women believing that they ought to be completely secretive about it, that it ought to cause you untold years of emotional problems no matter what, etc. (Yes, I know most women do indeed have emotional problems after a rape. But it doesn't help matters to keep pounding into their brains that they're supposed to have them, regardless of their own emotional strength pre-rape.) Be sensitive, sure, but try to realize that the true ::ahem:: empowerment will come when women are no longer afraid to say "Yes, I've been raped in the past," because they no longer fear any social stigma from it.
Oh yeah, as to the immediate problem: I'm sure the billing of the rape victims is innocuous, albeit tasteless. To the hospital's computers, it's just another medical procedure like any other, and it's going to spit out a bill for the victim just like any other patient gets. However, I also would not have trouble beliving it if the hospitals were intentionally billing them anyway. A scandalous percentage of most hospitals' revenues comes from intentional overbilling, either by billing both the patient and the authority at hand (in this case, the cops; usually just the insurance company) and hoping both parties will pay, not knowing the other has done the same thing; or by charging far more for various things than they're supposed to (like $5 to give you a single Tylenol while you're stuck in your hospital bed). Smart consumers know to ask for fully-itemized bills upon checkout, so they can go over it line-by-line and demand the more outrageous charges be taken off. But most consumers, of course, are not smart.
Insurance companies and HMOs do the same sort of thing in reverse: They will intentionally underpay claims in hopes the policyholder never realizes they're entitled to more under their plan, and often will outright refuse to pay claims that are clearly covered in your policy. Again, the smart consumers can clear this up, by escalating the claim and demanding it be reviewed, or, in some cases, by getting a lawyer to send them a legal threat. Everyone else just sighs and accepts it. You should NEVER just accept it unless your claim was paid in full.
And before anyone uses this to condemn the American system of private medicine: The government does it too. Medicare almost never pays in full to the hospital the first time around. Social Security will ALWAYS deny a citizen's first claim for disability, no matter how blatantly obvious the need might be (only applying for SS on account of age/retirement will go smoothly). It can take over a year to get approved, and you will often need an attorney to succeed at all. Canada, Britain's NHS, they all have variations on these tactics.
posted by aaron at 10:40 PM on March 5, 2001
As far as the poor women being billed, I can understand that the system is so confused that they would bill a rape victim by accident. But it seems like someone working at the hospital's billing department should realize what's going on and stop it before it gets out. It isn't cool that the hospital has to foot the bill, but some public agency is going to have to pay for the exam. It's just common decency that the rape victim shouldn't have to pay for it.
posted by Loudmax at 1:55 AM on March 6, 2001
« Older Sweet Jesus! | Cheney Hospitalized. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
They should not be charging victims for the cost collecting evidence. They need the evidence to go find the criminal and execute them. Collect the expense from the criminal. Why would someone do this to the victim? Why is the victim carrying the rapists baby? This is all revolting.
posted by thirteen at 12:57 PM on March 5, 2001