60% of bankruptcies due to medical expenses.

[Dalton]

Ok, so it was actually a pre existing condition ... So the company was within its (fucked up) rights to deny coverage.

Yes, that's the really messed-up part, that pregnancy can be considered a "pre-existing" condition. IIRC, she also said that the baby was also not covered by the insurance since he was the pre-existing condition. So yes, in the most de-humanized, sterile and technical way, the company was right.

[weemadando]

In Australia I think that there's a six month hold at the start of a new job before you are entitled to parental leave... but the govt also just changed the laws regarding paid parental leave do I'm not 100% on what the new stuff is.

[LaCroix]

We'll if you go by the strict letter of law, pregnancy is usually a self-inflicted condition, so the insurance theoretically wouldn't be liable to pay, anyway... (And I bet some insurance has used that argument already.)

At some point, things like that are becoming ridiculous.

[PeZook]

Funny. Many life insurance policies over here include a clause that says they pay out some lump sum for having a baby.

I'm not sure why.

EDIT: As for Dalton's anecdote, the issue was that the insurance company kept assuring the woman she was covered when she asked.

That's why you should always get those sorts of assurances in writing when dealing with large corporations.

[Serafina]

Funny. Many life insurance policies over here include a clause that says they pay out some lump sum for having a baby.

I'm not sure why.

Could just be business practices - one company started it in order to get more customers, others followed. It probably started as a way to get young soon-to-be-parents on board - those probably are not prime life-insurance buyers, so someone thought of an incentive to get them on board.

And yes, always get everything in written form, or ask if you are allowed to tape the conservation on the phone. At least then you'll have some proof that the company lied to you.


Oh, and LaCroix - don't give them any ideas.
Tough they probably would not pull it off - "pre-existing condition" is an excuse that can be used because most people do not understand it that well, and it can be sold as being reasonable - like "you don't take out fire insurance after your house burned down and expect to get paid out". Classifying all pregnancies as uninsurable could not be sold like that.
But really - pregnancy-healthcare is healthcare for the baby just as much as for the mother. Strange that you never see any pro-lifers anti-abortionists protesting for better maternal healthcare

[Broomstick]

We'll if you go by the strict letter of law, pregnancy is usually a self-inflicted condition, so the insurance theoretically wouldn't be liable to pay, anyway... (And I bet some insurance has used that argument already.)

Yes, that argument has been used - never mind that there's always more than just the woman involved in getting pregnant, birth control (which nearly no health insurance here ever pays for) can fail, and let's not get into things like rape.

That's why you should always get those sorts of assurances in writing when dealing with large corporations.

It wouldn't matter - even if she had gotten it in writing the insurance company would have tried to squirm out of it, probably to the effect that whoever wrote the guarantee didn't have the authority to override the pre-existing condition clause.

[PeZook]

Could just be business practices - one company started it in order to get more customers, others followed. It probably started as a way to get young soon-to-be-parents on board - those probably are not prime life-insurance buyers, so someone thought of an incentive to get them on board.

Possibly. The environment is also different, as that doesn't pay the medical bills related to childbirth, it's just a one time payment. The national health care system bears the costs of childbirth for all women (unless you want to go private, of course)

[Alferd Packer]

That's why I've never understood while health insurance companies don't fully cover all forms of birth control. Having to pay for several years of The Pill or some other form is massively less expensive than paying for the prenatal care of the mother, the birth of the child, and the child's medical care for up to twenty-six years(as a kind of worst-case scenario for the provider). Were I an insurance provider, I'd actually offer women a discount on their premiums if they were actively using some kind of covered contraception.

[Broomstick]

If they can get out of covering the kids (for whatever reason) then simply not covering either birth control or the kids is cheaper yet.

I think some of you are missing a fact here: there is NO requirement to cover an employee's family. If an employer buys such a policy (or makes it an option for an additional premium) that's great! But it is NOT required.

You're assuming that a woman's baby is automatically covered. This is not the case. There are plenty of policies out there that cover the employee and the employee only. Such a policy might cover pregnancy (though I have seen many that do not - usually justified as "a normal pregnancy is not an illness, it's a normal bodily function) but it would not cover the resulting baby.

On top of that, since women had for decades paid for birth control out of their own pocket with little or no complaint the message the insurance companies got was that the consumers wanted them badly enough they'd pay even if it wasn't covered, so why offer it when no one else did.

And finally - by and large, the decisions on coverage were (and still are, mostly) made by old, white, Christian men. Birth control is a "woman's problem" and largely off their radar (particularly since their families could afford it with no problem). Add in morality that said sex outside of marriage was sinful, and if poor women didn't want kids they could just stop having sex, and you get no coverage.

Probably not surprising is that when Viagra came out the insurance companies were falling all over themselves to provide it - of course, because limp dicks are a problem old corporate suits can relate to and personally fear on some level. It's a men's problem, so the men were thinking about it. I was working in the industry at the time and distinctly remember the few female corporate officers crying "shame!" on the men, and pointing out the hypocrisy.

TL:DR:

1) US insurance companies can get out of covering the products of pregnancy
2) The men making coverage decisions viewed birth control as the woman's problem, not theirs
3) Providing erections to old farts was seen as more important than preventing unwanted pregnancy.

[Connor MacLeod]

The big part about the whole medical and health care setup is it's geared to make money. And it's not just insurance, the pharmaceutical industry is another huge player in that arena (eg with broomstick's mention of vigara). Cosmetic surgery is yet another.

When you get down to it, Healthcare in America is largely just viewed as another "luxury" (or perhaps an opiate, such as the case may be.) And the Rich of course get the best chunk of that. (As do the old white guys.)