Health Insurers Consider A Caesarean-Section Pregnancy A Pre-Existing Condition
Health Insurers Consider A Caesarean-Section Pregnancy A Pre-Existing Condition
Earlier this week, the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim reported on the fact that in seven states plus the District of Columbia, “getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.” The insurance industry figures that if “you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you’re more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure,” but what it really does is punish these victims for something that wasn’t their fault.
But that isn’t the only policy that health insurers have that primarily discriminate against women. First of all, most individual health insurance markets don’t cover maternity care. In fact, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 14 states have a requirement for such coverage, and the number of plans without maternity coverage continues to rise dramatically. Why? Anthem Blue Cross — which has been actively fighting health care reform — considers pregnancy optional and therefore not necessary to insure:
“The point of insurance is to insure against catastrophic care costs. That’s what you’re trying to aggregate and pool for such things as heart attacks and cancer,” said an Anthem Blue Cross spokesman. “Having a child is a matter of choice. Dealing with an adult onset illness, such as diabetes, heart disease breast or prostate cancer, is not a matter of choice.”
Even Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) spoke an unintentional truth when he said of his parents: “When they arrived in Baton Rouge, my mother was already four-and-a-half-months pregnant. I was what folks in the insurance industry now call a pre-existing condition.”
When a woman isn’t currently pregnant, she often still cannot get coverage. Many insurers consider a Caesarean-section pregnancy a pre-existing condition and refuse to cover women who have had the procedure. From a 2008 New York Times story about a Colorado woman who had Golden Rule Insurance:
She was turned down because she had given birth by Caesarean section. Having the operation once increases the odds that it will be performed again, and if she became pregnant and needed another Caesarean, Golden Rule did not want to pay for it. A letter from the company explained that if she had been sterilized after the Caesarean, or if she were over 40 and had given birth two or more years before applying, she might have qualified.
The number of C-sections performed in the United States has been “growing steadily,” with approximately 30 percent of women having the procedure. Other insurance companies that don’t necessarily reject women with C-sections often do charge them higher premiums or “factor in chronic or recurring problems that might have led to the Caesarean.” What’s even worse is that once you’re denied by one company, it’s harder to get coverage somewhere else because you’ve been red-flagged.
Today, Golden Rule CEO Richard Collins is testifying before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy about “Bureaucracy of Private Health Insurance.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Life is a pre-existing condition.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:20 pmAnthem Blue Cross… considers pregnancy optional and therefore not necessary to insure
– - And the electoral college is insane yet we still vote.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pmSome things you suspect, some things you guess at and some things you just know.
Didn’t Shakespeare say something like “Kill all the lawyers”?
I say maim all the insurance executives.
Then give them the healthcare they’ve been giving others.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pmWhere were all these stories when people were ranting at Town Hall meetings this summer? These stories – about recission, bankruptcies, and insurance companies refusing to cover pregnancy, should have been the Democrats’ retort to every single screamed rant about Obamacare.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pmWTF? Will these guys cover anything? Also, pregnancy is optional? Really? Why don’t Insurance Companies and the Righties (They always want to lower costs) make contraception more widely availible?
September 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pmP.D. says:
WTF? Will these guys cover anything? Also, pregnancy is optional? Really?
September 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
____________
That’s funny – I’ve never seen the “pro-life” movement protesting the insurance companies over this. I wonder why.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:26 pm.
Oh great, now the wingers get to explain how THIS is right to life issue.
.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:27 pmLet’s face it. Health insurance companies have no intention of providing the services the people who buy health insurance expect. They just want to collect lots of money for them to play with.
You know, Like Wall Street and the banksters.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:28 pmSo pregnancy is a choice, but, I thought they did not believe in a woman’s right to choose.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:28 pmAll right, this is getting nuts.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:30 pmNext the auto insurance industry will be saying…’You had an accident? Well, we insure your car but not if you are going to drive it.”
September 17th, 2009 at 2:30 pmFourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism
#5. Rampant sexism.
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVa1IvHdKc
September 17th, 2009 at 2:30 pmLemme get this straight. When insurance companies won’t pay for childbirth, abortion, or contraceptives, what’s a person to do?
Oh. Right. Don’t have sex at all. Not even if you’re married. Because having sex is a “choice” — isn’t it?
So why do insurance companies pay for Viagra?
September 17th, 2009 at 2:31 pmchir@6, Yeah, WHERE is the Religious Right? Isn’t it Christian to care for the poor, sick and elderly? Isn’t it pro-life to make sure a pregnant woman gets all the medicare she needs? I guess the only thing they are concerned about is abortion. Even Operation Rescue ran out of money. It doesn’t help that YOUNG evangelicals are fleeing their elders churches and branching off on their own. Unlike their elders, the young believe in the environment, social justice and the needy.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:32 pmtoasterhead,
When a media driven society such as in America, is denied by their media, facts about the Nation’s ills, everyone suffers.
When the media focused on Canada and the claims by Bachmann and Baucus, or let us hear O’Liely and (R)ush go on how “OTHER SOCIALIST COUNTRIES” fail their people, they did so knowing that in America, companies and the health care system HERE is failing Americans.
.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:33 pmRich H says:
All right, this is getting nuts.
I’ll say! Encouraging women to get sterilized to keep their health insurance coverage really contributes to a healthy country after all…
September 17th, 2009 at 2:33 pmcue storm to defend the insurance company. God knows they don’t have enough people and money defending them the way it is.
They need storm to champion the cause of profit over people.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:37 pmOh. Right. Don’t have sex at all. Not even if you’re married. Because having sex is a “choice” — isn’t it?
Not if you are a Republican. That directive only applies to your wife, who if she had a baby you would have to pay for. Anyone not covered by your insurance policy is fair game.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:37 pmI think they are waging war on women.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pmAny deviation from perfection on a GYN report is used as an opportunity for recension by insurance providers.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:41 pmIt appears to me that this gender descrimination has actually lessened compared to 25 years ago, through forced regulation, I imagine.
Our Big Brother records show that you purchased birth control pills and condoms.
We are sorry to inform you, after a decade of paying our skyrocketing premiums with diligence, that we will not be able to cover your pregnancy and childbirth.
We are now offering automotive insurance at competitive rates. Sign up now and save .00001% on your first months premium.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:41 pmPregnancy is a choice they say.
But.
Birth control is not approved by insurance companies.
Morning after pills are not approved by insurance companies.
Women cannot make a choice to continue a pregnancy or not.
In other words, women are screwed in more ways than one.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:43 pmBurka Insurance company of Texanistan is happy to announce public caning imsurance.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:43 pmSo, this is a great example of how the insurance industry is already “rationing” health care in name of the mighty dollar. So what if you are sick or suddenly find out you are. Now you have a preexisting condition and no one will touch you. That is why we need a public option for the millions who have preexisting conditions that the big bad insurance companies refuse to cover. Perhaps what we need is strong state by state legislation to do this but that won’t happen because the insurance companies are in the back pockets of too many legislators in both the state house and in congress. Perhaps we should make lobbying and all contributions over $100 illegal. Give the candidates a set amount of money and they can only spend up to that amount. Any thing more and they are in violation of the law. Or do it the British way. They only have an 8 week campaign window. Nothing can be done before this.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:43 pmAnthem Blue Cross spokesman: “Having a child is a matter of choice.”
– - Oh, so they’ll cover births from rape.
Wait, what?
September 17th, 2009 at 2:44 pmlarkohio says:
I think they are waging war on women.
Really? And what would make you think that? /snark
September 17th, 2009 at 2:45 pmzxbe beat me to it.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:46 pmmary lacewing says
September 17th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I’ll say! Encouraging women to get sterilized to keep their health insurance coverage really contributes to a healthy country after all…
_____________________________________________________________
You’re assuming the insurance company pays for tubal ligations?
September 17th, 2009 at 2:49 pm“Health Insurers Consider A Caesarean-Section Pregnancy A Pre-Existing Condition”
Somewhere, a village of idiots, have lost their village. What next?: Consider neutering a cat or a dog as pre-existing condition??? This is getting ridiculous. This is all about greed from the health insurers, board members, CEOs, and shareholders to squeeze every dime from the public. Truly sad.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:52 pmI was reading about how some companies insure [life insurance] their employees [COLI corporate owned life insurance] without their knowledge.
Yanno, I dont remember the SEC approving me becoming a stock or Standard & Poor giving me a triple AAA rating…..
September 17th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
#16 mary,
I recall that in history, a certain Doctor encouraged sterilization as a remedy…
.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:56 pmIt seems sex and childbirth have become a business to business and Republicans but there are some crossed signals.
Obviously the EC crowd is all about making kiddies, repopulating the Republican world with fresh theocrats.
The Health insurance industry says having babies is a choice. You can have all you want to but we aren’t going to pay for them.
Houston, we have a problem.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:57 pmas 1 said above, being born will be a pre-existing condition. Storm, want to defend this too? We’re one step away from rape being a pre-existing condition as well if domestic violence is allowed to be considered one.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:57 pmI guess I will never be wealthy or a CEO with ginormous stock options as I, apparently, have a pre-existing condition.
A conscience.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:57 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Where are the trolls by the way? Is this subject a little to uncomfortible for them?
September 17th, 2009 at 2:58 pmFred says:
cue storm to defend the insurance company. God knows they don’t have enough people and money defending them the way it is.
They need storm to champion the cause of profit over people.
They know that they wouldn’t get sympathy if they did it themselves. After all, who considers someone who makes $102,000 an hour downtrodden and oppressed, so they have to scare useful tools like the teabaggers into believing that Obama will socialize the country and turn it into the USSR. Faux populism has always been used in this country to turn people against each other all for the benefit of the haves and have mores…
September 17th, 2009 at 2:59 pmBy this rhetoric, then cancer shouldn’t be covered either because cancer cells are created from one’s own cells that mutate and then grow exponentially. All auto-immune diseases like arthritis and hypo-thyroidism are also one’s own immune system going haywire and attacking one’s own body.
Strep throat is caused by the streptococcus bacteria that always lives in one’s throat as part of one’s normal flora, due to a weakening of one’s immune system, overgrows and causes an infection.
I could do this all day.
Pretty soon, the only thing that the insurance companies will cover are ingrown toenails.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:00 pmwow, freeman, did you just think that one up or did you get it handed to you on a Post-it?
September 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pmfreeman@35, WTF are you talking about?
September 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
P.D.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pmMothers don’t count to the “Right to Life” folks.
This story is void of the baby and of course, is not about ABORTION.
Putting on their Huggy Bear outfits and charging the hidden camera batteries.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:02 pmAbsolutely ludicrous. If all we get out of health reform is the mandate that we pay for this — pay a lot for NOTHING — then it’s time to have a real revolt of the masses.
Mass refusal to pay, I’m thinking, absolute boycott.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:03 pmReading it now Freeman, thx.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:03 pm“Having a child is a matter of choice.”
What? Has someone pointed the Right to Life groups at this person? Choice? Ooooooh, dirty word!
September 17th, 2009 at 3:05 pmWow a new one “birth panels”!!!!
The health insurance industry just keeps giving…
September 17th, 2009 at 3:05 pmBut they’ll cover a man who needs Viagra.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:05 pmI really would like to know the answer to this question: When health insurance companies invented the term “pre-existing condition” about thirty years ago, did some provider leap to fill the void, as our “free market has the answer for everything” conservatives claim? Did any company try to provide coverage despite the obvious assumption that premiums would, of necessity, be substantially higher than their competitors? Did it happen and they failed or did it just not happen? Or is it happening right now and I don’t see it. I think if such insurance existed, they would proudly advertise it.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:07 pmSo, let’s recap:
Having had a C-section is a pre-existing condition, so they won’t cover getting your child out.
But having a child is optional anyway, so they won’t cover prenatal care.
But birth control isn’t fixing a medical problem, so they won’t cover that.
And if your husband beats you up because you won’t put out, that’s a pre-existing condition, so they won’t cover it.
They might as well just come out and claim that being female qualifies as a pre-existing condition.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:08 pmAnd yet, most states do not allow women to give birth at home with a mid-wife if they so choose. They want you in the hospital under the care of a medical doctor…
The state of health care is really whacky.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pmMakes sense to me; eventually we’ll reach the position where ‘being alive’ is a pre-existing condition. They just want to take our money and not have any obligation to pass any of that money on to a service provider.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pmLibertyLover says:
By this rhetoric, then cancer shouldn’t be covered either because cancer cells are created from one’s own cells that mutate and then grow exponentially. All auto-immune diseases like arthritis and hypo-thyroidism are also one’s own immune system going haywire and attacking one’s own body.
Strep throat is caused by the streptococcus bacteria that always lives in one’s throat as part of one’s normal flora, due to a weakening of one’s immune system, overgrows and causes an infection.
I could do this all day.
Pretty soon, the only thing that the insurance companies will cover are ingrown toenails.
Having toenails is a pre-existing condition for that.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:11 pmjjm@44, LOL! In France, the people wouldn’t put up with this Sh*t. Remember a couple of years ago when the Government told the youger generation, ‘Sorry, you won’t have the benefits and security like that of your elders.” They freaken torched the place! Days of civil unrest until they backed down. The thing about the French, they know how to revolt!
September 17th, 2009 at 3:11 pmCEO: I got life insurance on my employees.
Accountant: That will cost us millions.
CEO: They dont know about it.
Accountant: Way Sly
CEO: Yes, now go take the safety guards off all the machinery and poke holes in their protective breathing masks.
Accountant: Genius. We are so rich.
CEO: Yes. BTW, your looking a bit sweaty. Would you like to use the company shower I had built?
Accountant: Pass.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:11 pmOkay, freeman, but as I recall our debate was over posse comitatus being quietly repealed.
But I do agree that the DHS and military, with a wink and a nod, is going to far in its anti-terrorist zeal
September 17th, 2009 at 3:13 pmAll of this makes perfect sense. Anything a person does that interferes with health insurance company profits qualifies as a pre-existing condition. And anyone who finds this offensive or despicable is a commiefascistsocialist terrorist bent on the destruction of Western civilization as they profit from it.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:14 pmI mean that the gutting legislation of Posse Comitatus was quietly repealed. My Bad.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:14 pmHave we reached a tipping point yet?
September 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm@ 50. ElBruce says: So, let’s recap: Having had a C-section is a pre-existing condition… And if your husband beats you up because you won’t put out, that’s a pre-existing condition, so they won’t cover it. They might as well just come out and claim that being female qualifies as a pre-existing condition. September 17th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Correct.
Per my comment in (#52), they’ll eventually get to ‘being alive’ as a pre-existing condition, but the insurance companies will go through ‘being female and alive’ as a pre-existing condition first. Being male may not rule out coverage when that happens, but don’t expect any more impunity than anyone else down the road.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:17 pmWhat’s even worse is that once you’re denied by one company, it’s harder to get coverage somewhere else because you’ve been red-flagged.
Wouldn’t that imply that there was some kind of collusion going on with the insurance companies? And wouldn’t that be illegal? How and why would one company ever learn that I was rejected by another, if they weren’t sharing that information with each other?
September 17th, 2009 at 3:18 pmWhich was pre-existing first, the chicken or the egg?
September 17th, 2009 at 3:22 pmThe mother or the baby?
Virtual Pebble says:
Makes sense to me; eventually we’ll reach the position where ‘being alive’ is a pre-existing condition. They just want to take our money and not have any obligation to pass any of that money on to a service provider.
So Basically, It will be like putting your money into a slot machine?
You never know if you’ll get any money back out, but you keep putting coins in the slot and pulling the handle in the hopes that you will, and occasionally, you do get some money back out, but only enough to let you keep playing until they have all your money?
That’s what it feels like.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:22 pmWell, we are talking heatlh insurance reform here freeman not turning the private medical field into Walter Reed
September 17th, 2009 at 3:23 pmAmerica has become a cookie jar that a select handful have the right to raid at their leisure. They are willing to spread a little bit of the wealth around to insure this is so. If it makes profits, it is good. If it doesn’t, the profiteers will invest the money to convince the ignorant that being ignorant is a good thing.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:24 pmI was an insurance verifier at a hospital 35 years ago when insurance companies were allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions the first year of coverage when people would leave one group and go to another job. I remember Blue Cross turning down a ruptured appendix because they said it took longer than 365 days for an appendix to get bad enough to be removed. When federal law required them to get rid of that first year requirement they came up with recision to accomplish the same thing. As long as they exist they will find a way to screw with people.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:28 pmHow and why would one company ever learn that I was rejected by another, if they weren’t sharing that information with each other?
Don’t know if you have bought insurance lately, but they actually ask you if you’ve ever been refused coverage. If you have and you say no, and they find out, it will give them even more reason to deny you coverage. If you say yes if you have been rejected, they don’t have to cover you. Typical catch 22.
But you are right, are insurance companies sharing information? Probably. Aren’t all of our lives on computers these days? And it probably doesn’t even violate HIPAA laws, because at every doctor’s office, you sign a form that allows them to get and share information from anyone they need it from.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:29 pmNow the insurance companies have cut deals with mail order drug providers. I can no longer get new prescriptions supplied at Walgreens I HAVE to get them sent to me. Too bad if I run out before I get them. Look for all those drug stores to start closing up and jobs being lost because of that so called “free market”.
September 17th, 2009 at 3:31 pmDumb is the new smart
September 17th, 2009 at 3:32 pmWe’re just too smart to see it
Race to the bottom
I don’t want to pick on old people because I am one of them but most of the people yelling against reform to politicians were on Medicare. They’re supposedly so worried about leaving debt to their children but they don’t care about leaving their children without health care.
How much money is spent every year on drugs that people think they need because they saw a commercial on television and they are sure their doctor needs to give them that drug even though it is the most expensive and not necessarily the best on the market. How much money would the country save if drug companies couldn’t advertise to the public and people couldn’t demand these boutique drugs from their doctors?
September 17th, 2009 at 3:35 pmBadmoodman says:
Anthem Blue Cross spokesman: “Having a child is a matter of choice.”
– – Oh, so they’ll cover births from rape.
Maybe. But then your premium will probably go way up because you’ve demonstrated that you’re more likely to get raped again and theoretically get pregnant again…
September 17th, 2009 at 4:11 pmRichard Collins’ Golden Rule=
September 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pmThe men with the gold make the rules
In addition to the lunacy of pregnancy as a pre-existing condition, a 30% C-section rate is criminal. The U.S. has the highest C-section rate in the world. The C-section rate in Europe is only 2%. No wonder our health care costs are out of sight.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:35 pmNow the insurance companies have cut deals with mail order drug providers. I can no longer get new prescriptions supplied at Walgreens I HAVE to get them sent to me. Too bad if I run out before I get them. Look for all those drug stores to start closing up and jobs being lost because of that so called “free market”.
Our mail order pharmacy is awesome – I get a three month supply for only two co-pays. If I had to go to the drug store every month, I’d pay three co-pays for three months. And I don’t HAVE to use the mail order pharmacy – I can get a one month supply from Walgreen’s when I need it. Check your policy, mail order pharmacy deals are good, you may just misunderstand your policy.
September 17th, 2009 at 5:52 pm@ 63. LibertyLover says: … So Basically, It will be like putting your money into a slot machine? … That’s what it feels like. September 17th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Ya nailed it, LibertyL.
September 17th, 2009 at 6:38 pmIf you’re a woman of child bearing age seeking insurance, or trying to retain your insurance, you’re basically screwed. If you have had a prior C Section, some doctors will go for a VBAC (dependent on the time lapsed since the section), but they’ll up your OB fee to high risk pregnancy (big bucks). Then, of course, are the add-on hospital fees for the operating room, recovery, anesthesia, etc. Not to mention, the room and board for you and your newborn. Then there are the visiting doctor fees; doctors you never even asked to see you and your baby. But, to avoid a pregnancy, you can’t get your prescribed birth control covered. Nor can your tubal ligation be covered. If you can afford to pay for your BC out of pocket, then you can prepare to wage war with a pharmacist at CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Right Aid (where ever) because they’re offended and it’s against their religious values. Don’t even go for a morning after pill. You husband and/or boyfriend has a better chance of getting THAT prescription.
Then, if you’re lucky to get out of your child bearing years with your expenses covered, then one can look forward to be denied care for the bone breaks one suffers from osteoporosis (due to lack of hormones brought on by menopause), which would be considered a pre-existing condition.
Someone needs to make some serious noise about this blatant discrimination against women.
September 17th, 2009 at 6:44 pmThis is an excellent example of the fallacy of the concept of health insurance. Under the insurance model, only the unexpected is really covered. That concept works for auto insurance but, as Jesse Taylor likes to point out, people aren’t Buicks.
What we need is health care. To cover the unexpected, yes, but also to cover the expected, whether that be a pre-existing condition or something like a pregnancy which, while clearly not an illness, has significant physical effects on the mother.
September 17th, 2009 at 6:48 pmBut #77, my pregnancy was an accident!
September 17th, 2009 at 6:51 pmSo when I got allergic asthma some 15 years ago, it was my choice to get allergies and asthma?
September 17th, 2009 at 10:18 pmMy pearents and I had carried the same policy for decades, it wasn’t preexisting and it wasn’t a choice but Blue Cross Blue Shield cancled my policy the first time I filed.
After 40+ plus years of me being robustly healthy and continuing to pay premiums I “Chose” to get allergies and asthma.
And I never knew.
I worked for ten years in the group disability industry, but have since been canned. (Go economy, and go employee loyalty.) Part of my job was that I was required to do pre-existing condition investigations for ANY disabling condition, including pregnancy. There were many discussions at the office as to whether fertility treatments, or even a woman mentioning to her ob/gyn that she was actively trying to get pregnant, was enough to make the pregnancy a pre-ex condition.
In the end, fertility treatments during the no-treatment period (which could be as far as five years prior to the start of coverage, and/or have to be considered during the first up to five years of coverage) were deemed to be enough to make a later pregnancy a pre-existing condition. High risk pregnancy of an employee with a heavy manual job requiring her to be on bedrest from the first trimester through the duration of the pregnancy? Too bad, the condition was pre-ex, therefore no disability for you. I wish I could say I’m kidding, or even exaggerating.
Granted, this was disability, rather than health insurance – but in the industry, disability is considered to be under the larger umbrella of health coverage. It’s a heartless, soul-sucking, dehumanizing industry to work in.
And no, I had no medical training, just what I picked up on the job.
September 17th, 2009 at 10:38 pmI can see the future as Americans are required to buy Health Insurance and every illness will be called a pre-existing condition so they will never have to pay the medical cost. This made me think about car insurance. I drove for 48 years and paid car insurance but never had an accident. The car insurance company did very well as they got paid and never had to pay out.
September 17th, 2009 at 11:08 pm#49 smedley,
There was none and has never been one…
… “We cover you when they won’t”
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is where a public option would fill that gap. It would not only fill that gap but it would force competition not just of prices, but coverage…
September 18th, 2009 at 12:20 am… What’s denied today w/out competition just could be covered tomorrow and at lower costs. Of course this means a lower profit margin and CEO’s are people raising families, too, YES?
Pregnancy itself is not necessarily choice, though the act to produce it (sex) often is (except in certain crime cases). However, it still should be covered as it does have costs. Heck, I think ALL conditions should be covered and one should not have to pay for healthcare if one is incapable of doing so, as “Pals around with domestic terriers” mentioned.
@ “P.D.”: Glad you see that true Christianity is not what the churches, etc. preach and actually is more light than that. The same goes with a lot of other religions, too: the reality of the religion annd what is preached/practiced by the churches/organizations are often two different things, sometimes wildly different.
September 18th, 2009 at 3:52 amIf memory serves, didn’t an independent study conducted several years ago conclude that many of the C-sections performed in this country are unnecessary? If that’s true — and the fact that the rate of C-section in Europe is far lower than it is here seems to confirm this — then the people whom the insurance companies should be going after are not the patients but the obstetricians since they’re the ones who recommend and perform the procedure and are therefore the ones who are costing the insurance companies money. Yes, the patient is the one who usually makes the ultimate decision whether or not the procedure will be performed — but the fact is that a good many people in this country still don’t make much effort to educate themselves about health-related issues and seem predisposed to view health care professionals as highly ethical and respectable people whose diagnoses and recommendations can be trusted implicitly (when this may not always be the case). You can try to tell me that health care professionals never take advantage of this — but I won’t believe it.
Is it so utterly impossible that an obstetrician, knowing that a C-section will probably mean much higher fees, might unconsciously — or perhaps not so unconsciously — encourage the patient to approve the procedure even though neither the mother nor the child would receive any significant benefit, especially when having one C-section usually means that it will also be performed for future pregnancies? I think any rational person who’s able to take an objective view of human nature has to acknowledge that this is far from impossible in a society where health care is a for-profit enterprise. Money is a powerful motivator for many people regardless of profession — and when faced with the prospect of receiving a higher return by bending or breaking the rules, some people don’t even hesitate to do so (especially if there’s little likelihood of being caught). This is true in just about any for-profit enterprise, so there’s every reason to believe that it’s happening to at least some extent in health care as well — concerns for humanity be damned.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:26 amI would like to know WHY none of the ’so called’ woman’s groups are not on the front lines of this debate? Are they all ran by republicans?
September 18th, 2009 at 10:48 amFact: Women are denied coverage for medical care when suffering domestic violence because it is a “preexisting” condition.
Fact: Women are denied coverage for pregancy because it is a “choice”.
Fact” Women are denied coverage for C-Sections because it is a “preexisting” condition.
Fact: Women are denied birth control coverage.
Fact: Insurance companies cover Viagra.
Fact: Women in some states are charged higher insurance premiums because they get pregnant and use their insurance more.
Fact: Women earn 77% of what men earn.
When will women stand up and say “Enough is enough!” When will they truly demand equal rights? Equal Healthcare? Equal pay? When will they empower themselves??
Think about it… what if every woman in the US put a moratorium on getting pregnant for one year… Yes, a year without ANY population growth. Health care systems would suffer huge financial losses. Doctors, Teachers, Retailers, Manufacturers would all feel it…
Ha! It wouldn’t happen. Women don’t have the spine and the economy couldn’t handle it. The Government would legislate laws to force women to become pregnant (and then wouldn’t cover the health care).
Women are chattel. Always have been, always will be.
September 18th, 2009 at 12:22 pmThank goodness I live in Canada where we have Universal Health Care!! That is all I can say. Blue Cross is also in Canada to help cover things that UHC doesn’t cover but my goodness….c-sections are up to the doctor, not the insurance companies. And pregnancy is not ‘optional’ for those who cannot conceive!! What is wrong with the human race in the United States???
September 18th, 2009 at 7:04 pmShayne writes:I don’t want to pick on old people because I am one of them but most of the people yelling against reform to politicians were on Medicare. They’re supposedly so worried about leaving debt to their children but they don’t care about leaving their children without health care.
How much money is spent every year on drugs that people think they need because they saw a commercial on television and they are sure their doctor needs to give them that drug even though it is the most expensive and not necessarily the best on the market. How much money would the country save if drug companies couldn’t advertise to the public and people couldn’t demand these boutique drugs from their doctors?
In Canada, there are no commercials on the national stations (CTV,CBC, Global) for drugs by pharmecutical(sp?) companies. The only time I see commercials for drugs is when I watch NBC, CBS, ABC, A&E etc….all television stations in the US. The drug companies are not getting rich off Canadians, our drug prices are far lower up here than yours south of the 48th parallel. And we have Universal Health Care……..in Saskatchewan where I live, we pay NOTHING for our health care!! In Alberta, they pay a premium but it is nothing like what you pay for private insurance in the US. I had my gallbladder out when I lived in Texas….it cost me over $8000.00 for a 2 day stay in the hospital, pain meds, surgery etc and that was at a military hospital! It would have been well over $10,000 at any other hospital! Ludicrous is what I call it, and the US needs to get serious about health care reform, the Republicans had better learn quickly that the majority of people in the US live now at the poverty line or less because of the economy, your senior citizens (who helped build your country) are now paying the most in medical coverage because of ‘pre-existing conditions’ (gee they got older!) and women are the majority in the population and they have babies, why, to grow your population! If you have no population growth then how will that affect the economy of the US?? It will put the economic growth into a negative balance. Is that what you really want??
September 18th, 2009 at 7:19 pmSince Anthem considers pregnancy optional, I wonder if they cover abortion.
September 19th, 2009 at 12:23 pmSeptember 19th, 2009 at 12:23 pm Vote Up | Vote Down | (0) | Report Abuse
September 19th, 2009 at 3:07 pmSeptember 19th, 2009 at 12:23 pm Vote Up | Vote Down | (1) | Report Abuse
September 19th, 2009 at 3:09 pmI do not support insurance company to start this off. Insurance cover the risk that you will need to use haealth insurance. This is why pre existing coverage is used, becasue you are more likely to need the insurance. What people want is coverage for health problems. The problem is the employers for the minumu wage job do not want to provide any benefits. Mexico requires all employees to have employers pay insurance.
September 19th, 2009 at 10:49 pmThank you for your sharing.!
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:42 amOne of the things the health insurance companies claim drives up costs are all the state care mandates that force them to cover certain conditions. If these mandates are examined most of them are for conditions that are unique to or more common to women or children. burun estetigi
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 am