Insurance plans excluding pregnancies

[Akasa]

There is a rise in health insurance plans excluding the costs involved with pregnancies, there is legislation, or at least an attempt at it in CA to address this.

Link:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MN9416HD33.DTL

Lovely quote here:

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," he said. "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.

As you have seen in another thread women have been having issues getting birth control paid for. Now insurance companies are daring to drop coverage of pregnancies saying having children is a choice and thus we shouldn't have to pay for them. I'm not going to get on my soap box at this time.

[joe hx]

Comparing auto insurance to health insurance:

Say you want to drop a more powerful engine in your car, or put some nice rims on it. Would you expect your auto insurance to pay for it? Of course, a new engine or what not wouldn't lead to one of those Little Tykes electric car thingies...

The insurance should pay for any unexpected pregnancy problems. They shouldn't pay for anything that's routine - the expecting parents should take responsibility and discuss cost and other details with a family doctor,

[BroomJockey]

The insurance should pay for any unexpected pregnancy problems. They shouldn't pay for anything that's routine - the expecting parents should take responsibility and discuss cost and other details with a family doctor,

Yes. Except that a routine pregnancy costs about $8,000 at minimum. This doesn't include prenatal exams, postnatal exams, and miscellaneous expenses that arise from having to outfit a new life. Oh, and the inevitable time off required for recovery and getting the child to an age where babysitting or day care is half-way possible. All told, you'd probably be looking at $50,000 investment, I'm sure. How'd you like to take out a second mortgage to have a kid?

[Akasa]

IMO if its in any way medical, insurance should cover it. With exception of some plastic surgeries like breast enlargements and face lifts. Some plastic surgeries like reconstructive surgery of course should be covered.

[Flyndaran]

IMO if its in any way medical, insurance should cover it. With exception of some plastic surgeries like breast enlargements and face lifts. Some plastic surgeries like reconstructive surgery of course should be covered.

American insurance companies have many different types of coverage. They make their money through careful risk assessments. Demanding that they ignore it for the good of the payers, is a bit silly.

They should have coverage for potential parents, but don't whine when it's more expensive than childless by choice mine. I also, think smokers should get more expensive coverage too.
Choosing a risky expensive activity may be laudable, admirable, or even necessary for the species is nice, but why expect a money making company to foot the bill without increasing customer's cost of coverage?

[fireheart17]

As far as this sort of thing goes, there's a HUGE argument in Australia for whether the government and/or private health funds should pay for late-term abortions. Ditto for gastric band surgery (for obese people) and for operations for smokers.
Insurance in Australia is not arranged through the company, it's arranged through the person themselves. There are various levels of cover and most companies also provide "extras". My family gets optical cover and some minor additions due to 3 out of 4 of us in the family needing glasses.

[crazylegs]

I can see the point of having a reduced cost if you're not planning on getting pregnant - lower risk = lower cost, however there should always be an option for pregnancy cover.

[Flyndaran]

As far as this sort of thing goes, there's a HUGE argument in Australia for whether the government and/or private health funds should pay for late-term abortions. Ditto for gastric band surgery (for obese people) and for operations for smokers.
....

Why on earth would anyone be against operations that would dramatically increase life expectancy and reduce long term and emergency care?

They want to pay more just to stick it to the self-inflicted injured?
That's cold.

[fireheart17]

Why on earth would anyone be against operations that would dramatically increase life expectancy and reduce long term and emergency care?

They want to pay more just to stick it to the self-inflicted injured?
That's cold.

ignoring the abortion one (which is for another thread) I think the belief is that because smokers are killing themselves, ditto for obese people, that they should be the ones to pay for their own mistakes, rather than relying on the Government to clean up after them.

Of course, these are teh same people who are ageist towards Gen Y....l

[Flyndaran]

ignoring the abortion one (which is for another thread) I think the belief is that because smokers are killing themselves, ditto for obese people, that they should be the ones to pay for their own mistakes, rather than relying on the Government to clean up after them.

Of course, these are teh same people who are ageist towards Gen Y....l

Let he who is without vice cast the first vote.
The point of public insurance is to combine the risks of healthy young lucky people with those of declining health whatever the reason to keep down medical prices for the nation. If "you" don't like that then why have public insurance at all?
It's as if these callous "people" think most smokers want to smoke, and obese people want to have walking up a single flight of stairs.
They are addictions, not some moral laziness.
We all make mistakes, and I don't want morality to enter into any medical or financial decision by a secular government.

[AdminAssistant]

They are addictions, not some moral laziness.

Heh, we actually agree on something.

Yes, I'm technically 'obese'. But I don't smoke or drink heavily and I don't ever plan on having kids. I'd love to get healthy. I'd love to spend an hour a day exercising and lots of time and money making healthy meals. But it's not feasible with my current lifestyle. Any time I'd spend exercising would come out of time I spend sleeping. As I struggle to get 6-7 hours per night...I don't want to cut down on my sleep any more. I eat because I'm stressed out, and food is a comfort to me and it's cheaper than pills. I'm not sitting on a couch shoving ice cream and cheetos into my face. It's all regular meals (plus an occasional late night snack).

Sorry, that's all a little beside the point. But that's how insurance works - all of your various health factors are taken into account. Family history, age, weight, life habits. I have zero problem with asking women to buy a separate pregnancy rider. Just as I wouldn't mind buying a separate cancer rider, due to my high risk.

[Akasa]

I'm considered obese by the doctors, and I don't over eat. I have a thyroid issue. Before the thryoid issue was found out I was gaining 5lbs a week. No matter what I ate or didn't eat. In practice I'm kinda anorexic, but not on purpose. I just have a hard time getting all the calories I'm supposed to get a day.

[Flyndaran]

I'm considered obese by the doctors, and I don't over eat. I have a thyroid issue. Before the thryoid issue was found out I was gaining 5lbs a week. No matter what I ate or didn't eat. In practice I'm kinda anorexic, but not on purpose. I just have a hard time getting all the calories I'm supposed to get a day.

I hate that I have a HYPERthryoid and am still a fatty. The amount of food my brain demands I eat would get three normies obese.