Before anyone jumps on my ass about it, I do believe the Cobra plans should not be allowed to deny maternity coverage for any length of time. Losing your coverage because you lost your job is very different from not choosing to have coverage until you really need it.

The answer is simple: everyone has coverage - all of the time.

That way, you can't 'hop in and out' of programs - and it brings the costs down for everyone.

That is part of the current legislation.

I was in the Phillipines for a week shooting photos and, since then, have decided to retire there. Knowing that they do have a national health care plan (which i might not be eligible for), I decided to check it out.

Most here know that the phillipines is 80% catholic and that abortion is not allowed for any reason (including rape and/or incest). It's fertility rate, at 2.8 children per female, is higher than india's. How does their national health plan treat pregnancy? You decide:

1) Coverage for pre-existing conditions is excluded or very limited.

2) Pregnancy and/or childbirth closer than 9 months before enrolling in the health care plan is considered a pre-existing condition

3) Pre-natal and childbirth expenses are fully covered....for the first five (I believe that is the number) pregnancies that go to term.

I should add that the govt. there is a very tiny role in family planning. The influence of the church has been able to pretty much gut funding for things like condoms or birth control to the poor.

So even in a Catholic country with no more than lip service separation between church and state, coverage for pregnancy is not absolute.

Having a child is a decision. It should not be covered by insurance without additional fees. After all, rarely will one find a standard insurance policy that covers a nose job, an enhancement (?) but also a personal choice and outside what one would consider contingency - which is, after all, what insurance coverage is for. Birth control by any means is focused upon the individual patient, the patient's general health, and the patient's lifestyle. Its effect is to preclude a contingency. Cover it.

jomamma - you are in for much dissappointment in the years to come if you think EVERYTHING is going to be covered for EVERYONE ... if this ever does manage to happen, the tax rates imposed on ALL will be so suffocating, health plans coverage will be the least of our concerns.

To STexan: Just so you know, in Canada--a single payer mandatory coverage country--when you go out to eat you leave 30% of the bill on the table...15% tip and 15% sales tax (part of the sales tax pays for health care).

On a positive note, though (I'm assuming you live in TX) you can buy a six-pack of Molson (Canadian Beer) for a couple dollars less in Dallas, than you can in downtown Montreal (Canada) where it is brewed. Why? taxes on alcohol to pay extra costs that alcohol consumption adds to health costs. I haven't lived next to Canada in a long time, but back in the 80's it cost a few dollars less to buy a pack of Canadian cigarettes in NY--even adding american duty and the cost of transporting an imported product--than in Canada. Back in the 80's, in a bar, a pack of cigs was $7.50---in the 80's!! Why. extra cost to the health care system for tobacco users.

We should all pay and those that use it more for something they can control, should not be able to slough it off on others.

Reproduction. Now a luxury for the already well-heeled or those needing a handout.

It will now be the very poor or the very rich who will reproduce and replenish this planet.

Which one will eventually take over? Consider our genetic pool.

Niteowlet--i think it's a sick nation that has no problem paying $30,000 for an SUV but bellyaches about paying $10,000 out of pocket for a child.

I dont' know too many hospitals that allow for a small down payment and 6 years financing. BTW, most people cannot afford a $30k SUV either today.

I just read that the average american car today is about $32,000. My current car, a 2007 subaru outback wagon cost me $23,000 sticker in nov 2006. with slightly over 100,000 miles on it a private sale avg price is $10,300.

I thought I just squeaked by buying it, but all my friends told me that getting out of a dealer, with a new car, that has lots of "toys" as standard equipment, e.g., heated seats, heated windshield, etc. for $23,000 was a steal. And i think if you have $30,000 today to go shop for an "average" new car, you won't have a huge choice.

k.d. smith

To STexan: Just so you know, in Canada--a single payer mandatory coverage country--when you go out to eat you leave 30% of the bill on the table...15% tip and 15% sales tax (part of the sales tax pays for health care).

You may leave 30% of the bill on the table to pay for taxes, but in exchange you're NOT paying however much out of your paycheck for premiums on top of co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles...and all this only for the things insurance decides to cover. All of this to still file for bankruptcy or see your house go into foreclosure when you come down w/ a serious, long-term illness that maxes out your allowed expenses for a year or for life, results in you losing your insurance b/c you can't work anymore, etc etc etc. Really? I'd rather pay extra on my bar tab. Especially considering I don't have to go out and eat. Your argument is not valid.

For the record, I do agree w/ you that those "imbibing" in things that will lead to more health expense should pay a heavier tax on those items.

Sounds like she wasn't asked if she wanted maternity coverage. She (reasonably, in my opinion) assumed that pregnancy would be covered. And it appalls me that maternity coverage isn't standard (for women at least). I can complain all day that I'll never get into a car accident, but in Virginia I'm still required to have car insurance. As the article stated, half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Things happen. Just because your tubes are tied, for example, doesn't mean there's a 0% chance of pregnancy. Just like in the car insurance example, just because you only use your car to drive 10 minutes up the street doesn't mean there's a 0% chance of getting into a car accident. Most coverage extends to situations you probably think you'll never encounter, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

SMD66 must be a single male.... and very selfish...

Well I assume that since SMD refers to a husband in their post, they're a married female. But still, she does strike me as somewhat disconnected and oblivious to the reality of pregnancy.

Yeah, what do you mean men don't need this coverage? It takes two to make a baby. That makes me wonder though, if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock and didn't have maternity insurance, is the father of the baby liable to help with the medical expenses of the delivery, if she took him to court about it? Interesting to think about.

Unless the man is going to carry the baby and deliver it, a man doesn't need maternity coverage.

Monica et al;

It is very simple, if you think you can get pregnant, then take the responsibility for knowing what you get when you buy a health insurance plan. Not all women are going to have or planning on having more babies( say age group 55+), so why pay for it? Read what you buy, be an informed consumer. Shop around.

My SIL got pregnant right before she and her husband moved to a different state for his schooling. She is an educated professional with an advanced degree and secured a good job that provided benefits. The state she moved to did not have regulations that required employer provided health insurance to cover her "pre-existing" condition - even though she never had a gap in coverage. So the state program (Medi-XXX) picked up the tab after she took a cut in her hours to qualify.

What you all don't seem to get is that many times, you wind up paying for pregnancies one way or the other.

If your viagra is covered at some level as are your prostate exams and other male GU issues including "implants", pregnancy should not be excluded. Claiming "survival of the fittest" and tying that to justifying not providing coverage for pregnancies/new babies is ridiculous.

As a RN, I have delivered several babies in the ER...as well as the parking lot. I am not uncaring. It's a beautiful and amazing thing watching a baby come into this world. And equally tragic when the baby is stillborn.

I just think people need to be accountable for their own error. She failed to review the coverage she bought. Period. It's her own fault, and she is blaming the insurance company for her own error. If you are a woman of childbearing age, you should make sure your health insurance covers maternity care. ASK if you are not sure. It ticks me off when I hear about people losing their coverage for BS reasons. This is NOT the case here. I'm just tired of people blaming others for their own mistakes.

SMD66 should live in a world where everyone pays a 'head tax' to the police, and if you don't - when somebody is about to murder you you are out of look.

Forget to pay your bill this month? You're dead. Too bad.

American is a game of donkey-kong.

SMD66

I assume you have malpratice insurance since you help deliver babies out of work. If not you should buy some just in case. Good Work though.

The insurance game has always been like this. Im sure there are ways around the issues you just have to find them. Once I lived on a lake and was told that I could not get flood insurance. So if the lake flooded into the house it would be my loss since water damage from a flood is not covered. But the back door was to say that the sump pump failed and then you were covered.

I went from an employer policy to an individual policy a few years back, and never thought to ask whether maternity coverage was included. After all, my policy permiums were based on my gender and age, both of which made pregnancy a very real "risk" for my coverage. I have never heard of a woman's policy NOT including maternity coverage. It's sort of like expecting a policy for a 60 YO man to include heart care without actually looking for it in the policy. SO all you people who KNOW what your coverage is and think this woman was careless, WITHOUT looking, does your policy include coverage for: Injury from attempted suicide or other self-inflicted action? Eating disorders? Mental health care? Drug rehab? Does anyone really know what is covered? Birth control? ICU for an infant born to a person covered under your policy? Pregnancy?

@Eleanor 3.4--My understanding was the unwed father can cover the baby once the baby is born (and he is named as the father on the birth certificate) as a dependent under his plan. Anything before birth is considered the woman's responsibility, so unless a woman is covered under the father's plan as, say, his wife, her pregnancy is not covered either (and don't rant about that unless you want to lose bodily autonomy in the issue of abortion too. Think about it--her body, her pregnancy, HER CHOICE AND RESPONSIBILITY. Men have no rights in determining what the woman does with her pregnancy, so their insurance cannot be forced to cover the pregnancy. Like it or not, it's the same concept.)

jomamma88

That is not part of the current bill, and the coverages have yet to be fully determined. That is one of the reasons business has been holding back on hiring, they just don't know what it is going to cost! All the current bill does is mandate that you be covered. The coverages that have yet to be determined are those that will be considered the minimum requirements and will not preclude someone from having better insurance. Another thing the law doesn't have in it is coverage for all no matter what. It is still possible to lose your coverage if you lose your job or if you fail to pay your premiums. In either case you are then subject to being fined by the government for not having coverage, and guess what, the fines are much cheaper than what the policies will cost. Currently large group policies pay 15-20k/year for family plans but the fine for not offering employee coverage is 7500/year/worker so do the math. How many companies will opt out of plans to save money? Who benefits the most from this debacle? I'll tell you, the Federal Government. Insurance companies will have increased risk and after 2014 will be somewhat limited on how they can offset it. Employers will be staring at larger insurance costs that will either be passed along to the employee, absorbed by the company, or cause them to drop coverage altogether. I think the middle option is the least likely of those three. Any way you slice it though Uncle Sam gets all kinds of new revenue in the form of the levied fines that will be administered by the most powerful, least restricted government agency the IRS.

Men don't need the coverage???? Last time I checked BOTH sexes were necessary to the process.

Well, this is exactly why abortion needs to be kept legal. This woman didn't realized her pregnancy wasn't covered. Had she been unable to pay for all of the bills tht pregnancy and delivery entails, she could have chosen to end the pregnancy.

But of course there will be those who scream that's wrong, but so is an insurance company asking women to purchase EXTRA insurance for a common, natural state of being for women.

archangel--You said "Who benefits the most from this debacle? I'll tell you, the Federal Government"

Explain.

Niteowlet--I can't believe you actually said that. how many men have had a baby and incurred medical expenses for having a baby? The answer...at least on this planet....is NONE

k.d.:
How many babies have you seen that did not have a father in some shape or form???

I think you are not thinking through my comment.

MEN are fathers to their wives or GF's children. THEY share the expense and being covered by insurance surely helps.

Monica--the most basic principle (that i assume everyone knows) in insurance is that "it's covered if it ain't excluded." Although some insurance plans should come with a Funk and Wagnall's dictionary, reading the "Exclusions" is generally pretty easy and I'm sure the word "pregancy" was in there somewhere. Sounds as if the poster simply wasn't a wise consumer. Caveat Emptor (let the buyer beware) always applies.

niteowlett--an insurance policy covered on the insured and their dependants generally. so although i hear you. the father of a child cannot use insurance to pay birth expenses, unless the mother of the child is a covered dependant.

Pooled risks for health coverage should include childbirth. Women are the vessel but men share the burdon. If these costs are not spread to everyone, no one will EVER afford to have a child today.

k.d., Men covered at work would not be asked to pay for a child birth rider, but the women at the desk next to him would be.

Who should pay more for child birth? Only women????

monica, you bring up a very good point. When the insurance companies limit coverage and people wind up uncovered...MEDICAID often picks up the bill. We all wind up paying for it with taxes instead of the poor insurance company that is just trying to make a buck (sarcasm)

My individual policy did not provide maternity, so i had to buy the add on. It also did not cover neonatal intensive care ( I could not add this on), and it did not cover my dependents if they became pregnant. (so if my teenage daughter got pregnant, guess we would have to apply to medicaid.) More profits for the insurance, and more tax dollars for you and I.

I wonder if it would be covered if men were the ones getting pregnant?

What's criminal is the sense of entitlement pregnant women have.

beth - were you insulted/assaulted/or otherwise traumatized by a pregnant woman? I had no sense of entitlement while I was pregnant, other than the expectation that people not run into my stomach in their hurry to get somewhere, or not take a parking spot i'm obviously waiting for when I'm 8 months pregnant and walking from the far end of the parking lot is like running a marathon. So sorry if my protecting my unborn child's life bothers you.

Bethcat, you mean the sense of entitlement to help our species continue? And to have an OB doc at the delivery so that they bring a healthy, productive citizen into our world instead of one with a severe birth injury? Yeah, whatever were they thinking...

Laurie 770:

If you think about it, You might come to the conclusion that Pregnancy is a self inflicted injury.

Laurie, she assumed, without reading, if she read, she would have been informed.

If she was informed, she would have ( I hope) have bought into the higher option

This higher option covers the cost of pregnancy.

Simple. And this woman graduated from college? Did anyone read to hear the questions on her exams to make sure she understood everything. Guess not, and she should know, your INSURACE is something you better know very well, in what it covers, etc. Otherwise it is just being irresponsible

I am a college graduate and when we had to shop for our own policy a few years back I read and read the differences in policies. One big problem was trying to figure out which policies would work best for us. The one I ended up with was such a high deductible that none of us ever went to the doctor. I ignored a melanoma because I didn't want to have this policy for the rest of my life because of a preexisting condition. I waited until we got better coverage through my husbands employer. You have to know the future to make the best decision, and who can do that? How many millions of Americans forgo early detection because of the @!$%#ty policy (or no policy) they have? Those of you bitching about HCR must not face some of the life altering decisions that so many do, or I would hope you would show some understanding of the real problems Americans face every day. We are a third world country in terms of our current system.

Laurie

Too bad the health care reform we got isn't doing much about it yet.

Thanks to the obstructionist that HAD THEIR WAY WITH US and then dropped out of the game to blame us remaining for what harm THEY DID.

So you're lumping pregnancy in with "voodoo mental programs". Nice.

And then when you are suddenly dealing with a drug or alcohol issue, or an unexpected pregnancy, or a "voodoo" mental disorder, and you're paying thousands out of pocket, you might wish you'd "picked" that coverage.

No, you miss the point monica,

If you need these services, you pay for it in your insurance.

An unmarried male should not have to purchase incurance covering pregnancy.

A person who does not drink should not have to contribute payment to his insurnace company to cover such...and so on..

And I think you missed my point md.

Unexpected pregnancies happen. Say the man got married but was not planning on having children and thus did not elect to purchase insurance covering pregnancy, and the wife did not have any insurance of her own. They'll be paying out of pocket. And say someone develops a drinking problem and has not elected to purchase insurance for counseling beforehand because at the time they did not have a drinking problem. They'll be paying out of pocket. What I'm saying is, you can't be sure these things will never happen to you.

Not to mention, many insurance plans have open enrollment periods. After that period closes, you're no longer eligible to make any changes without a qualifying event. If you miss the cutoff do you have to wait until next year to add that to the policy? If left unregulated, would they make cancer coverage an a la carte option? "We'd love to pay for your chemo, but you missed the open enrollment period. You should really pay better attention to those forms."

Monica

You miss the whole point behind insurance. Insurance is there to protect against unintended circumstances, that is why you purchase it! If you don't then you are rolling the dice everyday. If someone chooses not to have coverage for pregnancy, they are betting against having children and better be real good at practicing birth control or they will end up footing the bill. No one intends to get seriously ill where they will need a doctors care or a hospital stay, but we purchase insurance to protect against or offset the costs for that type of emergency. Is it so hard to be sure that you are covered for things that are likely to happen in your life? While the fine print in most policies is enough to drive a sane person to drink, you can ask the agent whether or not specific things are covered and even ask for assurances in writing that they are. If they won't provide you with them then go to another company or another agency. The industry is regulated and not dishonest, however there are those that are unscrupulous and will tell you anything to sell a policy. Most states however have time periods where the policy can be voided if there is evidence that what the policy covers and what it was represented to cover are two different things. Like with buying a car, household appliance, or clothing it is up to the individual to be sure it is what they wanted or needed not the seller.

MD wrote....

An unmarried male should not have to purchase insurance covering pregnancy.

Because we all know, never in the history of the world has an unmarried man ever made a woman pregnant. We have all heard that even if used correctly birth control can fail, so unless you are completely sex free, I think one should look out for ones progeny.

archangel--

You wrote:

Most states however have time periods where the policy can be voided if there is evidence that what the policy covers and what it was represented to cover are two different things.

May I add that most insurance agencies 1) can be sued (and you'd win) if you can show that they misrepresented the policy coverage, and 2) carry Errors and Omissions insurance to cover themselves in case one of their agents makes a mistake and/or misrepresents what's covered.

Insurance policies can be hard to read, but you're absolutely right: ask the agent to explain it and to put what is and isn't covered in writing (or ask to record the conversation).

to ohgoodgod---last time i checked insurance only covered the insured and their dependents, so no matter what kind of insurance you have it wouldnt cover someone else's pregnancy, unless the pregnant person was your dependent

no, KD dependents are often not covered by maternity coverage on individual policies. My dependents are not covered and I could not "buy and add on " to cover them in case of a teenage disaster. The maternity coverage is for the primary person or spouse.

must be an artifact of living in KY. if pregnancy is a covered expense for a policy written in ny, it covers the insured and their dependants--if it is a family coverage policy.

Because having cosmetic surgery doesn't put a baby's life at stake. Do you know the actual costs of routine pregnancy visits? Just my copays alone were $40 for each visit, and you're talking about having to go to the doctor every couple months in the early part of pregnancy, then every few weeks, then every week near the end. And the delivery itself? My C-Section cost $8,000. And that didn't include the cost of the hospital stay after the C-section.

So i should abort my second child when I was pregnant? I was on birth control but still found myself accidently pregnant with #2 and refused coverage by the company. I am pro-choice but my husband and I just could not bring oursleves to abort our son's little brother.

Also, just to play devil's advocate, not all pregnancies are choices. There are victims of rape and incest who make the brave decision to carry their baby to term as well. I'm sure they would be real happy to hear that they should have planned ahead better in terms of picking the correct insurance coverage.

Playing devil's advocate also needs to include that "hello, sex is needed to have a baby" therefore, pregrancies are a result of a CHOICE (wanted or not/ethical or illegal). Or, better the result of an "action between two humans."

Babies don't just appear after looking at a tree or wishing upon the morning star.

Regarding the cost of your copays: You chose to get pregnant. It will be your baby. You should pay for the doctor's visits. Think of it as the beginning of the next couple of decades of child rearing.

I agree, not all pregnancies are a planned choice.

My last pregnancy was what would be referred to as a "Surprise!" I'd begun menopause, had always had difficulty getting pregnant when much, much younger and the hubby and I were using birth control.

Start to finish, the out of pocket costs to us were over $27,000. It would have been considerably higher if the child had not been born a few weeks early (and without health issues!). And if I had not begun to refuse to continue the escalation of various appointments and tests multiple times a week.

Monica, you wrote earlier that you needed Medicaid to pay for your son's birth. Where did the $40 copays and $8,000 c-section fee come from?

I was covered under my dad's insurance for a few months before the semester ended and the semester I was taking off began. So during that time period I was paying the copays. And the $8,000 fee was still charged for my c-section, even though medicaid paid for it. My point is that if those things were not covered by insurance, they would come out of pocket. And to Go USA - I actually did not choose to get pregnant. I was raped. But thanks for assuming.

Unlike many illnesses, we are well aware of what causes pregnancy. I'm pro-choice and liberal, but I think the consequences of choosing to have sex and therefore choosing the possibility of getting pregnant is unlike most illnesses where there is no choice, no planning involved. In my mind, getting maternity insurance is like buying insurance for your car right before you were planning to go participate in a demolition derby.

I also don't get why the life of a baby is considered by so many to have more value than the life of an adult. While it is heartbreaking when any family member or friend dies, and I understand the tragic aspect of lost potential, I still don't see that a child of any age, including a fetus, has greater value than an adult in whom society already has made an investment.

Tons of pregnancies are not choices! Plenty of women get pregnant while using birth control. Some women even get pregnant after having tubals! There are also victims of rape and incest. I am sure those women did not get pregnant by choice!

Commonsense

Explain why you favor a single payer system please.

rape and incest should be covered under every policy without needing a rider. other than that you should need rider coverage--and pay for it. birth control is not perfect, so buying a rider would cover the .0.00001% failure

Monica: Sorry that you were raped. My point was that it is not the responsibility of society to pay for the delivery of babies. However, in your situation, it seems that the safety nets in place prior to the HC debaucle worked.

k.d.

WOMEN are penalized for having the womb and men get a free pass and don't need to buy a "rider"???? In your world rape would be the reason EVERY poor woman got pregnant.

To GoUSA..the principle of not covering pregnancy is that it is not a sickness; it is a desired condition. A rape or a case of incest is neither accidental nor desired, it should be covered under all policies for any medical procedure the victim can legally undergo, including abortion.

To Niteowlett--If you report a rape, then it should be covered. I would prefer a system where everyone paid and everyone were covered for everything, but that would mean i would be willing to pay for you sometime and you would pay for me sometime and most of the time we'd both pay and get nothing (that's meant to be a good thing).

Most folks in this country are just too selfish to even consider such a system.

haha! I seriously laughed out loud :)

Since they also pay for such things as Viagra, I also think they should all cover "the pill" as well as pregnancy.

da - I never understood what the rationale was for covering viagra

Heaven forbid a man can't have sex, but the woman is left high and dry if she gets pregnant. With all these right to life advocacy group out there trying to force woman to have children that they do not want, then their insurance companies deny coverage for the prenatal care and birth.

It's sickening....it really is sexism in disguise.

I agree. To all the people who say that getting pregnant is a choice (which it is at one level in most situations, but absolutely vital if we want our species to continue), it follows that having sex is also a choice. If you have some condition that prevents you from exercising that "choice" then why should I have to pay for your treatments to be covered by insurance? Make it a rider, too!

Melissa

Right to life groups are not forcing anyone to have children, they are advocating for children's lives. They don't force you to abstain from sex, but they do ask you to act responsibly to prevent having children that may be unwanted and end up in some doctor's trash can. They are asking adults to act like adults and be responsible for their actions, if you can't hack that may be you shouldn't be having sex.

dclady wrote "I'm sorry I have a uterus."

Simply ask women to pay more for insurance. We certainly don't hear that women enjoy lower auto insurance coverage *only* because they are women, as the average woman drives fewer miles than the average man and thus incurs fewer accidents.

The grand issue is that women in general pay less in state and federal taxes but enjoy those benefits equally with all citizens. Women also contribute less in FICA tax yet collect on average 50% more in Social Security payments because they live longer.

In this day and age, women with individual policies should indeed be covering their own costs, including maternity costs. Why should a single mom receive a greater benefit outlay because she chose to have a child out of wedlock?

archangel you are dead wrong. the phillipines is a great example of right to life---your brand. No abortion for any reason, including rape or incest. if you are raped you are forced to look into the eyes of your rapist for nearly 2 decades (culturally adoption is not a poplar there as here) and the widespread poverty--often due the fact that filipinas have higher fertility rate that women in india!.

I have to say that the widespead influence of the church there is consistent--there is no death penalty in the phillipines either---for the same reason--life is sacred.

to parent--it is not anyone responsibility to continue the species....and certainly no one's responsibility to pay for it....other than those who want to participate in populating the planet.

@Vincent Denali

I'm going to go ahead and assume you are a male. As a male, every single aspect of your health will be covered by insurance, without any riders required. As a woman, if I want to have control over my reproductive system, I will not be thoroughly covered by my insurance. I will be forced to pay out of pocket, and purchase additional riders. If you, as a male, lack the ability to have an erection, your insurance will pay for your viagra and penile implants. But if I, as a woman, want to have any control over my uterus, it will cost me out of pocket.

Why is that women should have to pay out of pocket while men don't? Maternity care should be included in every woman's insurance policy without making them go through loops or paying additional fees. If a woman will never use it - she should be able to opt out and get a discount or something. But maternity care, and reproductive care, should be mandatory in all insurance.

It's shameful that a man's penis will be taken care of by insurance, but a woman's uterus will not.

dclady

I agree with everything but this:

If a woman will never use it - she should be able to opt out and get a discount or something

It's unrealistic to say women should get a discount for never using things like maternity care. If a women gets a discount for not using maternity, women using the maternity would still be paying more.

That's just the way insurance works, you pay to be covered for everything you need and many things you don't. Which in turn helps pay for others who need things covered that you may not need.

Do you even see the hypocrisy in your own statement

"you pay to be covered for everything you need and many things you don't. Which in turn helps pay for others who need things covered that you may not need." But then say that ALL women in child-bearing years (but ONLY women in child bearing years) must be forced to pay the extra Rider, whether they want children and will or won't have them or not. So (work with me here)... all fertile women must pay a pregnancy rider BUT they also must pay for prostate exams and Viagra. HOWEVER, no man has to pay anything towards pregnancy. I call total BS.

And for the record I'm a 47 year old woman that CHOSE to never have kids and didn't. I also never had a prostate exam or needed Viagra and I've never complained about having to pay for those either.

You're not even making sense. Either a person only pays for what can specifically pertain to THEM or we all pay for everything.

Make a decision and stick to it. And if you choose women still need to pay for pregnancy riders even if they're not going to have children, then I want an enormous rebate check for all the penile implants and impotency treatments I've had to pay for these many years.

But then say that ALL women in child-bearing years (but ONLY women in child bearing years) must be forced to pay the extra Rider,

I never said this, perhaps you should calm down and read my past posts on the matter.

Make a decision and stick to it. And if you choose women still need to pay for pregnancy riders even if they're not going to have children, then I want an enormous rebate check for all the penile implants and impotency treatments I've had to pay for these many years.

ok, deep breath.

I was responding to dclady, I agreed with her that maternity should be covered in a regular policy without having to pay extra, but disagreed that women (like you and me) who would not use the maternity coverage get a discount.

everybody should pay and everybody should be covered. it should be thru a national sales tax and those things that cause health care costs to rise, condoms, birth control, tobacco and alcohol as examples, should have a tax on them to raise the retail price--this way when the national health sales tax is applied everyone pays and those that are the cause of some increased most pay just a little more. everyone benefits.

Uh, tried that. Birth control is only 99% effective at its best. Some of us still get pregnant and have to face this. Don't be so quick to judge.

Yeah, everyone stop getting pregnant.

I guess dolphins can take over the world in 80 years when humans are extinct.

It's really kind of a shame that Bethcat's parents didn't take the advice she's passing out today.

I've got a couple of kids via failed birth control. These things, even though used properly, don't always work. The label will tell you that.

So, don't get pregnant... good advice, IF insurance would cover birth control without a big raise in premiums...

Hell, these people don't even want you to be able to GET birth control. Many of them advocate the position that pharmacists should not have to dispense certain prescribed birth controls if they morally disagree.

Kelly

It is not the 1% that is the problem it is the other 99% that have unprotected sex or just don't care because abortion has become an option for them. That is what drives up costs, people who don't take any responsibility for their actions.

While I don't have the statistics in front of me, I'm pretty sure that abortions aren't driving up the costs of healthcare.

I love the hypocrisy of the people who want you to have the child, want teens to learn abstinence only sex ed, don't want kids to have access to birth control, and then go nuts when they have to pay for a woman's pregnancy in their premiums or their welfare.

Insurance is a system where you pay into it when you don't need it, and then it covers you when do. You shouldn't walk up to a counter and tell an insurance agent "I'll take the number three, please." If pregnancy isn't covered because not everyone needs it, I'd like obesity, a quantifiable cause of the rise in healthcare premiums, to be purchased as a rider too then. I'm not obese, no reason I should have to pay for the 70% of Americans that are overweight, based on that logic. Ridiculous.

wrong again archangel...the federal govt. doesnt take a penny from you to pay for abortions. and if you live in a state that does suppliment medicaid and pays for abortions, the majority of people there want it that way.....a democracy.

And i think you confuse religious belief with a civil right. You are free to believe that abortion is personally wrong for you, but (in this country at least) a woman has a civil right her body and how it is used. A civil right she is born with...assuming she gets to be born.

Maternity riders often have a waiting period that they do not reveal. We were very careful about our purchase and our practices. Yet, fate intervened. I was told that despite paying a premium for a few months, coverage would not begin for 7 more months. That left us w/o coverage for the birth as it would then be considered a preexisting condition. It is not always the fault of the consumer.

Kelley

They have to reveal waiting periods for any coverage, they must be listed in the policy for them to exclude anything. It is not the companies fault that someone is to ignorant or lazy to read about for what they are paying. In most states there are disclosure regulations that agents must follow when selling a policy, if you find that something wasn't properly disclosed or written into the policy, you are entitled to a refund of premiums and the policy becomes void. Like I said before let the buyer beware, they even teach that in High School Business programs.

Actually, Archangel, in some states if the waiting period wasn't disclosed in the policy, Kelley may be entitled to sue for all her medical expenses that would have been covered if there were no waiting period.

Of course, if it's in the policy, then she's out of luck.

to Kelly Columbus...fate intervened? you got pregnant because of fate? I dont think so....consult any hs biology book. even in countries with universal healthcare some consider pregnancy inside of nine months from the date of coverage to be an uncovered pre-existing condition. I'm sure your policy plainly stated coverages and exclusions. If you didn't adhere to them, how can you blame fate. I say it was more likely something you and your partner did...so yu both should pay for it.

I disagree with you on a child being a basic biological right. If so, then we wouldn't be able to execute death row inmates until they'd been given their "right" to procreate. Blah blah blah.

All snarkiness aside, it's still possible for you to become a mother by other means. Please don't rule out adoption. Best of luck to you.

I am also Canadian and in full support of single payer.

However - you should not be receiving this service at taxpayers expense. You do NOT HAVE A RIGHT to this. You ARE BIOLOGICALLY NOT MEANT TO CONCEIVE. YOU ARE PUTTING A MASSIVE RISK ON THE CHILD.

You should strongly consider adoption.

Does a 60 year old single mother 'have the right' to those services as well? Where do you draw the line.

If you can't have kids, adopt.

And what of those for whome adoption is NOT an option? My wife and I have battled infertility for 15 years (unsuccessfully). The only time we even came close was a tubal pregnancy that had to be resolved by removing one of her tubes. Last year all hope of having a child on our own was removed when cysts caused my wife to have a hysteroctemy (sp?)

As for why we cannot adopt - I am a diagnosed Bipolar. While my condition has been controlled by medication for 20 years, no adoption agency will approve us due to my mental illness - and no its not a "voodoo mental condition". Bipolad disorder is a GENETIC problem and is incurable, the best I can EVER hope for is to keep the condition under control - it will NEVER go away.

To the indivdual that referred to "voodoo mental conditions" - Have you ever known someone with epilepsy? Diabetes? High Blood Pressure?...Are these "voodoo medeical conditions"? - NO, and my Bipolar Disorder is no less a valid medical condition than ANY of the others mentioned above...please get a clue and get your facts straight before you run your mouth in the future...

Amanda- I completely agree with you and your struggles. Best of luck to you! Unfortunately, there is no shortage of extremely mean and insensitive people like jomama88!

Amanda

Whether you realize it or not your paying for your coverage. The average tax rate in Canada is 15% higher than in the states and all of it goes for your health care system.

Amanda having a child is a choice, not a right--even in Canada. The fact that your govt pays does not mean its a right. And in many cases, since 90% of canadians live within 100 miles of the US border, many canadians get their health care at US taxpayer expense, since reimbursement to american providers is made at Canadian rates and US taxpayers make up the difference.

I lived within 10 minutes of the US-Quebec border for years and i love your country and think that if it could be tweaked, it might work for US here, but your statement about having children is a right is false. It is neither in your Constitution nor the American Constitution.

archangel....close...the 15% is true but you forgot to add insanely high taxes on alcohol and tobacco on top of the 15% sales tax. And given that alcohol and tobacco users have higher med costs, its probably fair.

BrokenBack - if your wife is infertile and having a biological child is not an option, and if you are bipolar and ineligible for adoption, then sadly you cannot become a parent. Nature and society have decided that for you, and unfortunately being a parent is not a right. Life isn't fair, but best you can do is deal with the hand you've been given. My coworker and his wife have tried unsuccessfully for 10 years to become parents. It's so sad, but they eventually dealt with their loss and instead cherish their loving marriage, and enjoy being aunt/uncle to their nieces/nephews and friends' children. Best of luck to you and your wife.

I do not disagree that we need health care reform, I never have. The reform we got is not what we were told it would be, and really doesn't reform much of anything. In fact in a CBO study, after the bill was signed into law, showed that it will raise costs more than if we had done nothing at all. Some reforms! This is a 2000 page P.O.S. In complicates the system more than it already is, raises costs, increases government control, and does little to help out the public. Something more sensible could have been passed without the trillion dollar price tag.

archangel...do your research....all you said is true. you forgot to add it extends coverage to millions who dont have it now....but that may not be important to some of us.

For profit -- or for egregious gouging at the consumer's expense, decency be damned?

Profit is one thing and I won't begrudge reasonable profit. Screwing people over in the name of the almighty dollar, something else.

Good point, j.wesley. Now we dismantle insurance-for-profit. The alternative--letting private for-profit insurance companies pick and choose who they cover and to what extent--it not acceptable.

That's why in a system where everyone is paying - the insurers (either private or public) can afford to cover everyone.

This is the essence of the new 'you must have insurance' law.

I'm not sure if it's the best thing, but it's probably an improvement.

It's the new reality: healthcare is so expensive that the system does not work if people try to pick and chose timings, if insurance companies try to screw everyone. It's not going to work.

There must be these kinds of regulations.

Rorschach

The government tosses around big profit numbers but never says what the percentage of profit is on premiums collected. They use the shock value of big numbers when in reality several hundred billion in profits can be less than 2% of premiums. They do this to raise anger among the public so they can support ways of Tapping that profit for their own uses.

HCR does little to reform costs, it attacks the payer side not the provider side. Increased competition, less frivolous lawsuits, lower drug prices all attack provider charges by making it cheaper to operate and more attractive to lower profits. When the government takes steps to keep malpractice to a minimum, makes it cheaper for students to become doctors, and makes it easier to get drugs approved for use in treatment then they will have attempted to attack the real problem. Once that is done then you can attack insurance companies for gouging if rates don't decline.

Yeah, Dan...we are the laughing stock of the world. That's why all the world's richest come to the USA for complex medical problems. I worked at one of the hospitals that are named in the 10 ten every year. These people get VIP treatment. They even have special hospital rooms for them too because it's a regular occurance. They laugh all the way over here to get their treatment in the USA.

Um...the world's RICHEST can afford to come here. But in the meantime, many citizens of our country either forgo medical treatment because they cannot afford it, or travel outside the US to pay for lower-cost coverage in other countries. In what way is this a good system for anyone but the people with large financial resources?

If so then why do people come from all over the world to be treated in the US? The only thing laughable about our system is the government failing to recognize the real problem with rising costs. Other nations subsidize the education of doctors and nurses in order to increase the supply side of services and limit what they can charge, why else is it that every other doctor, x-ray tech, or anesthesiologist seem to be from Asia these days and not American born citizens? Their government subsidizes their education then they come here to make money.

woooo. archangle....wrong again. the typical american student is not as educated as the typical person you pointed to here. I was in the phillipines was spring shooting photos and travelled around. hard to believe a third world country like that has a 93% literacy rate, much higher than ours. and as the third largest english-speaking country in the world (after great britain) that 93% literacy rate is (typically in two languages--pilipino (the national language) and English. The typical american students isn't all that skilled in English (trust me i work in a college and you'd be surprised at the low level of English skills among students with 90 high school averages.

We spend more on education than any nation on earth; I think we are 27th in average skill set of a high school grad. Do your research before you point fingers.

Oh, btw, in the phillipines, you only go to 6 years of elementary school, then 4 years of high school, then college--no middle school. How do they do it? the school day starts at 7 am and ends at 5 pm....and they go to school on some saturdays....i think its a great system. we should try it

"The Flat Earth Society"

"Commie Bastards"

Really? Are you serious? You certainly think a lot of yourself, don't you?

When the quality of care diminishes and the wait to see a doctor increases and emergency rooms are still swamped with illegals maybe you'll see what those flat earth people were complaining about. You just want it free! I got news for you though, nothing is ever free. Just ask those governments what percentage of the GDP goes to Health Care, and what portion of their tax revenue goes to support their single payer systems.

I don't want anything free. I pay for my health insurance and that of my family.

David C.-2246762

So - the Republicans want to overturn the health care law that would (eventually) fix this - what is their SOLUTION to these problems that normal American citizens face every day at the mercy of the insurance companies?

Their solution is to ensure the future ability of the insurance companies to make really obscene amounts of money, promote "survival of the fittest" (your life ain't worth much once you're born, you see), and continue to marginalize the middle class, as well as preserve the political contributions from big insurance to the GOP.

Was there supposed to be some OTHER solution?

David

The current HCR law doesn't guarantee that this will be fixed! It only guarantees that you will pay more for insurance with probably less benefits unless you can't afford to pay for it at all.

We had a "cadillac" plan or so we thought!! After my husband's heart value replacement the "not covered under your policy" bills started rolling in. We had $20,000 of services not covered under our insurance policy!!! It wasn't enough my husband almost died, but then we ended up losing our house and good credit rating due to medical bills. I really don't know which I worried more about the bills or my husband getting well. May times since the surgery my husband wishes he would have died rather than cause our family so much stress. It makes me furious that the Republicans want to UNDUE all the good work the health care reform bill has done!!

My daughter was born with a slight heart murmur, just like her dad. I am paniced that if the health care reform is repealed that she could even be denied coverage if at some point she would also need heart surgery in the future!! The republicans care more about protecting the profits of health insurnace companies than protecting my daughter's life. She was BORN with a pre-existing condition!!! The health care reform now protects her if something should happen, if REPUBLICANS get what they want,repealing the health care reform bill, my daughter may die!! Heaven pray for those, who are or may become pregnant, or with pre-existing conditions now that the REPUBLICANS are back in power!!!

I heard a lady the other day with ovarian cancer was fighting her health insurance company, they were DENYING her claim since she had been pregnant, they said the pregnancy was a pre-existing condition that could have triggered the cancer!!

Sarah Palin was RIGHT!!! There are Death Panels!!! They exist in boardrooms of private insurance companies!! The corporation decides who gets health care and who doesn't!! And the republicans want to give them back the power of GOD to decide who is workthy of treatment and who is not!!

It is a known fact that the numbers of uninsured rise and the profits of health insurance companies rise during republican administrations.

Pregnancy causing ovarian cancer is absolute BS. If you inhibit ovulation (such as with an OCP or pregnancy) you are actually lowering (but not eliminating) your risk of ovarian cancer. Your friend needs to contact her state insurance licensing board and make a complaint.

I hope your daughters murmur remains innocent her entire life.

Blame the conservatives?

Yep.

It has NOTHING to do with Repbubs or Democrats!!! It has always been set up like this. It is not the same thing as the coverage you get through an employer.

Shame on her for not doing her research!!!

That depends on the coverage you get through an employer. Hope YOU read the fine print, Lynn. You might get a surprise.

Here's a tip, though -- Costco sells coffins on their website, substantial discount. Buy one as an investment, you can use it as a coffee table until you need it.

Don't mean to offend, just being a practical conservative.

No, Survival of the Fittest is a construct of Social Darwinism invented by Spencer to justify colonization and the superiority of the Anglo Saxon British.

Be careful, lest you fall into one of those categories for which compassion and co-dependence on your fellow human beings might be required. Then, as you are so fond of quoting, "as you sow, so shall you reep."

Excellent point, Me!

I absolutely agree that procreation should be a privilege, not a right. (Attended school in a section 8 neighborhood; no kid should have to grow up like that). And I get tired of hearing news stories about "miracle" babies or mother "heroes" who spend millions of dollars trying to conceive in their infertile, unhealthy bodies, then die giving birth to critically ill preemies who will require medical treatment for the rest of their lives.

So why should I have to pay for your prostate exams? Or your prescription pills, doctor's visits, or exams for any number of medical issues that I will never experience myself?

How about Viagra!!! Why the He!! should I pay for Viagra!! If a man can't, then in my opinion, he shouldn't!! I don't want to pay for big fat, child molesters to fly to Puerto Rico with pockets full of someone else's Viagra!!

The problem with HCR is that it mandates premiums for men and women be the same. Women have always been charged more because of the likely hood of pregnancy and the associated problems with the female reproductive system. Now that premiums have to be the same I don't think it will be women getting a break but probably men getting to pick up the extra cost. Regardless, the way the new law addresses the issues is half a$$ed and will cause greater difficulties then it will benefits. A number of small changes could have been made to regulations and achieved as much or more with out the trillion dollar price tag that accompanies this monster that will have to be paid over and above any rise in costs for services.

joesmith705 wrote "Why should my insurance rate be increased to pay for this womans life choice?"

You're right. The male rate should be reduced, and the female rate should be increased. For families, the net cost would be the same.

Dear Vincent and Joesmith, you two miss a very valuable piece of information -- Not all women have children. Look at the statistics, there are actually quite a great many of us. Therefore, I think my costs (being barren now and forever) should be the lowest of all, since I never had and never will have any costs associated with pregnancy OR that little blue pill that helps with your obvious impotence. My costs should certainly be the lowest of all.

Conservatives care NOTHING for children or even unborn babies!!! Or else they would be very concerned about insurance companies not covering pregnancies, or infants or children!! They would be OUTRAGED that infants can and are denied medical services due to them being born with PRE_EXISTING conditions!! but the same people who parade up and down infront women's clinics are the same ones that want ObamaCare repealed!! That is the bill that covers pregnancies and children born with health problems!!!

All conservatives really care about is telling someone else how to live their lives!!! They care as little for the unborn child as they care for the living breathing children with health problems that insurance companies routinely deny!!

There is NO "REAL" Christian that would let a child suffer unborn or even born!! Forced birthers are just haters who get on a power kick trying to control the lives of people they don't even know!! No one has a right to tell another human being what is right for them!! It alway surprises me that the Forced Birthers kill to save an unborn fetus!! Killing is killing and the bible DOESN'T make a disctinction!!

blueingoregon - It has NOTHING to do with Repubs or Democrats!!! And your comments have NOTHING to do with the article you are commenting on!!! This is not new, nor is it news!!! I had an individual health insurance policy about 20 years ago - even way back then, you had to pay extra for pregnancy coverage. Individual health coverage is NOT the same as what your employer provides. You have a checklist of types of coverage, similar to auto insurance. You choose and pay for the options you want.

Grow up people, this is nothing new!!!

I am sorry for $1200/month what I and the company that I work for pay, acompany should pay for medical expenses! period!! Your right, since Nixon, our health care in this country has been going down hill. We pay more and more in premimums and we get less and less in services!! I say we go back to health care as a not-for-profit industry. Yes, we could buy health insurance but there concern would be for the people they insure NOT stockholders and Boards of Directors!! Nixon was wrong to turn health care into a for profit industry and millions and millions have suffered for it!!

OK, so if you don't have maternity coverage through your employer, it's because your employer chose not to add maternity coverage to their contract with the insurance company. Just because you/they pay alot doesn't mean that you just automatically get all the benefits. Maternity coverage is expensive! Again, the government has NOTHING to do with that. It's a choice made by your employer. Sounds like if you want maternity coverage, that you will have to go out and purchase it yourself! Just another way that companies are cutting back on their health care premium. It's not a governmental issue.

Most premiums have gone up enormously because of the anticipation of the Obama HCR will really do to the system.

Do you really think good medical care is free?

Do you really think good medical care is free?

Hello, we pay almost twice what the rest of the civilized world pays for worse results. Everybody knows nothing is free.

Most premiums have gone up enormously because of the anticipation of the Obama HCR will really do to the system.

Are you kidding me? Where have YOU been for the last few decades (especially the last one)? Premiums have been skyrocketing. I know you want to blame it on Obama, but you are really not in touch with our healthcare reality.

Not paying taxes doesn't preclude you from buying your own insurance and protecting your health, property and income, that is the whole point! Paying more taxes doesn't assure that you will have insurance either. This is a matter of personal responsibility not government mandates. If the government wanted to mandate something then it should mandate a minimum coverage policy be sold that fulfills the minimum insurance requirements in all states so that all insurers can sell across state lines to increase competition. It could then lower education costs for health care professionals in this country to increase the supply of providers and protect them from lawsuits that demand providers to be aware of every minute little detail of someones state of health whether it is related to the illness treatment they sought or not! If someone comes in for a flu shot and a week later dies of a heart attack after having no previous history of heart problems, it is not the doctor's fault, unless of course your a malpractice lawyer looking for a fee.

Lynn, healthcare premiums have been increasing by 8% to 15% every year for MANY, MANY, YEARS - in fact at least the past decade that I've been tracking it for my job. The new healthcare plan had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Let me guess you heard this on Fox news? LMAO