"My advice: If you can't afford to pay for a pregnancy, get health insurance before you get knocked up, or have the boyfriend wear a condom."

Or, wow here's a thought, they could get married and raise their child. Radical idea, I know, but it might just work.

Yeah, but Steve, even if they do get married, they still have to pay out of pocket for all the pre- and post-natal care, and for the delivery and hospital stay, because she can't get insurance because she's already pregnant. That's what she's complaining about. We're all blessed with 20/20 hindsight! In her case, however, she wants to be compensated for it. o_O

she said she wouldn't be covered under her bf's plan because they're not married.

at the risk of being flamed myself, I am 21 weeks pregnant and ran into the same problem. (i was a little different in that my gyno has told me since I was 16 that I wouldn't have kids...oops!) blue cross also told me that pregnancy is a pre-existing condition. I found out, in maine anyway, that this is actually not legal and if someone pushes, they'll get coverage. the average person won't persue the issue and the insurance companies will continue to deny people coverage and get away with it.

while I realize that we all have our version of 'ideal' situations for having and raising kids, the reality is often far from that. yeah, I would have loved to take folic acid for 3 months before I got pregnant and quit smoking then instead of when I found out 5 weeks into my pregnancy. that didn't happen. and while abortion is a great option for people who choose to use it, its not for everyone. what would your solution be for prenatal care, then? every child deserves a chance to be healthy.

Amber, there are options - when I was pregnant and had no insurance,because the job I had was through a temp agency, there was a federal government program called "Healthy Start" (in CT) that I enrolled in. Even though I was working, and making a fairly good salary at the time, I was $90 short of the cut off, so it was granted to me. The program paid for all of my pre-natal care and the delivery and hospital stay. I also qualified for WIC assistance. This was in 1992, though, so I don't know if that kind of program is still available, but you could check through your local human resources office.

Cry me a river. Because I have a preexisting condition (one that I had no control over unlike those who just can't keep their knees together) I spent months trying to find something affordable. I didn't and am paying out the nose for it.

Anyway, I think Medicare or Medicade or one of those federal programs will allow you to use my tax money to pay for your childbirth. You're welcome.

I have coverage now, but it was definitely a high stress time for a couple of weeks (above and beyond the stress of being pregnant after I was told for 13 yrs it wouldn't happen).

my point was that while preplanning a pregnancy is definitely the smart thing and the adult thing to do, its not always an option and there should be some sort of system in place for women (and their partners) in that situation.

but I found out last thursday im having a boy! we have the middle name picked out (michak, its polish for michael, my SOs name), but we are having problems agreeing on a first name. anyone have any ideas they want to throw at me?

dale-

you don't have sex?

also, what makes you think that women without healthcare coverage don't work and pay taxes?

While I don't disagree that the insurance company shouldn't be stuck paying thousands for something they know is inevitable (labor, delivery and pre/post natal care), the other end is the hospital corporations really stick it to the uninsured.

Just do a google for hospital costs insured vs. uninsured and you will find many illustrations of this. Look at this statement from a health economist: In 2004, the ratio was 3.07, which means that for every $100 in Medicare-allowable costs, the average hospital charged a self-pay patient $307.

Anectdotally, there was a case of a self-employed handyman, in southern California, that has run his own small business for 15 years. He didn't have insurance because he was doing enough to keep his family fed, but not enough to cover self-employed premiums. He had an accident and fell off a ladder and broke several vertebrae. They took him to the hospital. He had a choice, let them operate and he could walk again, or no operation and he would be in a wheelchair. He was like ok, operate, I'll pay, I have some money in the bank. Because he was a self-pay, and didn't have a contract with the hospital, when the bill came it was for $275,000. If he had even the minimal contract that the insurance companies have, it would have been $32,000.

That to me is ridiculous. He was being charged $3 for two tylenol that the insurance company would only be billed $0.75 for.

When the hospital is gouging like that, what respect should we have for the system.

Sorry, for the long post.

I've been in that exact position - 12 weeks pregnant and no millionaire with a heart of gold in sight. It was my fault for not protecting myself. I could have blamed the guy, but how would that have helped? I couldn't get on his insurance plan because the word "plan" doesn't mean "whatever the hell you decided to do before is just fine with us because we have no PLAN". And pregnancy is just about the most consious (spelling error I'm sure) health decision one can make. This is not the day and age where the excuse of ignorance is good enough, people. We're way beyond the "oops" stage of reproductivity.

Congratulations, then, Amber! I have 2 girls, but had either of them been boys, the first would have been Gareth Michael or Gryphon Matthew (this was when I was big into RenFaire). Not sure what names I'd go with now. I like Douglas (my older brother's middle name); and David has always been a favorite. You'll find something you both like, I'm sure. Good luck to you!

dale- you don't have sex? also, what makes you think that women without healthcare coverage don't work and pay taxes?

Tax dollars shouldn't go for somebody's lack of personal responsibility. I buy health insurance and have since I got out of college.

Yeah, when I saw that article on Consumerist, I thought she was being more than a little oblivious. She got pregnant while in college and unmarried, and the fact that this is causing complications (which, by the way, she could solve by marrying boyfriend/baby-daddy) is a sign that the healthcare system is broken?

Seems to me that what's broken is the fact that society believes that babies "just happen" and that all of us (rather than the expectant mother and father) bear the responsibility for the pre- and post-natal wellbeing of all children. Sorry - I personally think that children are the responsibility of the parents, and shouldn't be conceived unless/until the parents are ready to provide and care for them.

Sure, there are some exceptions where I feel sympathetic - the woman who was told she couldn't get pregnant, or the family that has a child with unexpected and significant special needs. But a woman who gets pregnant in college, chooses not to marry the father even though that would get her on his insurance, and wants us all to pay for her healthcare? Not so much.

All is not lost for mother-to-be.

She has youth and good health on her side. When I was pregnant, my OB-GYN practice included their pricing in the giant document dump I was given at my first visit, and it was less than you might think -- this was 12 years ago, but for all prenatal visits and medical services for a vaginal delivery, it was around...$2,500, maybe. She can set up a payment plan, and she'll likely come in at well under the cost of a halfway decent used car. One reason everyone agrees prenatal care is a good thing is that, for a healthy pregnancy, it's very cheap -- just office visits, getting your belly measured, listening to the heartbeat and taking your vitamins. Most of the extras, especially for a 22-year-old, are just gravy. Ultrasounds are cool, but not always medically indicated. Ditto pain-relief drugs and epidurals. The "thousands upon thousands" stuff is for serious complications requiring NICU.

She can also cut costs by seeing a midwife or nurse practitioner for the prenatal stuff. By only bringing in the M.D. at the very end, she can save quite a lot. And if she really wants to live dangerously, she can opt for a home birth. There are a lot of risks, but a sensible midwife can set her up with a prudent birth plan that will allow her to bolt for the hospital if things get rough. Many work as adjuncts to medical practices for precisely this reason, especially in areas where home births are more popular. In Indiana, where I used to live, the Amish all gave birth at home, and the doctors worked with midwives, sometimes on the Q.T. -- they wanted healthy babies, not turf battles.

I'm all for prudence and good sense, but life doesn't always follow scripts. Some of you guys sure love to beat up on people.

Well, here's the thing: Modern science has conclusively identified what causes pregnancy. And how to avoid it. Nance, granted, mistakes happen, and in that event one would demonstrate some responsibility by taking your very practical advice. But the Consumerist author doesn't want to bother with any of that. She wants to show up at the hospital and have everything taken care of for her.

She wants to show up at the hospital and have everything taken care of for her.

Exactly my problem. I'm careful to avoid being saddled with expenses I can't afford. If you can't afford a pregnancy, have an abortion or have somebody else pay for the pregnancy and keep the baby, or imagine this: work nights or get a loan for the purpose and pay it off instead of asking other people to pay for it.

I agree with both Nance & Dave. Good ideas from Nance & of course, Dave, we all know how t avoid pregnancy & she could'a, should'a, would'a..bottom line - let's give the girl a chance. I too was a dumbass that got pregnant in college & thru the process got smarter & raised my daughter to be a really awesome woman. We all are capable of major screw-ups we could have prevented. If someone offered me a little sane advice like Nance did, it may have helped my head stop spinning for a minute. Don't assume the girl doesn't want to "bother."

Amy - "In other words, she thinks the cost of her irresponsibility should be passed on to a lot of other people."

Well, that's how it works for pregnant women who are in this country illegally. They just show up at the ER, where they cannot be denied care, declare that they have no insurance (and speak no English), decline to name an employer or other responsible party, and *PRESTO* they get free labor, delivery, and post-partum care.

Perhaps our college-educated expectant mother could dye her hair jet black, get a really dark spray-on tan, bone-up on her Spanish, and go to the hospital disguised as an illegal alien.

The kind-heart local government (using taxpayer’s money) and insured/paying hospital patients (and people wonder why they “gouge”) could then cover all the costs for her. Just they do on a regular basis for those who are unlikely to ever pay back any of the costs, and aren’t all that likely to ever pay more into the system (via taxes) than they will receive in benefits.

Much as I don’t like the idea of other people’s hard earned money going to pay for this women’s uninsurable pre-existing condition, at least she’s quite likely to put her college education to good use in a job where she’ll get to help pay some of it back in her taxes.

Many of you who are complaining that this poor girl is being beaten up on are forgetting that there is nothing magical about pregnancy, to an insurance company.

This situation is absolutely no different from someone who finds out that big lump is a malignant tumor. "Uh oh, I'm going to need a bunch of expensive care!". On what planet can you go to someone and say "hey, I'm going to cost you a fortune. Will you pay for all my care in exchange for a comparatively tiny sum?"

If you believe in socialized health care, for everyone, then great. Be outraged. If you don't believe in socialized health care, then yeah. She's out of luck, and really there's nobody to blame but her and her boyfriend. They made their choices, and they have to live with them.

Here's the thing: While I agree that this girl is a bonehead (and her boyfriend seems to be as well), from a financial point of view, providing basic prenatal care (as in, regular doctor visits, diabetes testing, one ultrasound at 20 weeks to check for major structural defects) is far, FAR less expensive than funding the care for a 27-week preemie with lifelong health conditions. The cold equations here probably do come down in favor of the insurance company providing *basic* coverage - not sophisticated genetic testing or a hospital delivery room that looks like something out of a nursery, but regular visits to a medical professional - doctor or midwife - who can at least alert this chick if her blood pressure is spiking or if she develops gestational diabetes and has to cut out carbs.

Also, has she checked out the insurance options that employment at Starbucks would offer? I mention them by name because they do provide insurance to anyone who works at least 20 hours a week. I know, I know - working at Starbucks isn't glamorous. But when you get knocked up as a single college student, life typically isn't going to be glamorous, at least not for quite a while. (Certainly not as glamorous as traveling to Europe, which I did after graduating from college...but, y'know, I managed to avoid getting pregnant in college, so my options were more flexible.)

Jim P., I feel sorry for the guy you're talking about, but...was his wife working? What was he doing having kids when he couldn't afford to insure them? And if he wasn't making enough running his own business to afford health insurance, why didn't he give that up and go do something else? Yes, yes, I'm sure owning his own business was his dream - but many of us don't get to live out our dreams. Or, as Amy has done, we live out our dreams but take care not to create any new human dependents who get dragged along. Yes, the system sucks. Yes, health insurance shouldn't be tied to one's job. But when one knows the system sucks and knows exactly what that suckage means, one needs to use that knowledge to try to avoid getting into a hole. I feel sorry for this guy's family, but it seems to me that he was living a risky life for 15 years, and it finally caught up with him.

Okay, does anyone have any puppies and kittens for me to kick? Seems as though I'm on a roll of heartlessness today...

heh, hey Dave, I'm the other cousin dave ;)

I was in a similar situation with #1 son. I had no insurance through work, so it wouldn't have mattered if I had married her [I did do so, much to my sorrow]...

So what'd we do? exactly as Nance said, figured out the ways it could be done. We were in Chicago at the time and they have a really cool program where, unless it's high risk, the Doc actually comes to your house and that is where the kid is born. So unless there are complications... no hospital involved. That saves a ton of money, and you get involved in the practice early. They get you to start paying forward, so that on The Day, you are paid up.

That sort of thing isn't everywhere, and so you might do midwifery, or through the OB/GYN, but here is the important thing...

Is isn't anyone elses responsibility. It CERTAINLY isn't the responsibility of the tax payer. If you have to sell the car, take out a loan from uncle ernie, or bust tail and work 2 jobs like I did, you do what it takes.

For a college graduate to be carping about this takes some entitlement brass. The only time, other than my current job that I HAD health insurance was in college, because it was really cheap for a student, so what's the problem then? PLUS! She could do this through COBRA...

So she moves home, gets a part time job to pay the COBRA, and learns how you make stuff happen in adverse and unexpected situtaions. Why isn't the boyfriend shouldering the COBRA burden [or at least half] if it's his kid too?

This sounds too much like a strawman for someone who demands universal health insurance, as if that will solve the problem.

Pregnancy is a life event, but health insurance is predicated on the idea that you will pay premiums and then not use it. For something like a pregnancy that is optional insurance companies have a problem. If the average delivery costs $10,000+ in the hospital, and they are required to have a certain level of care, and certain machines that go BING! How long do you as an individual pay insurance premiums to cover that?

Admittedly, her attitude is a little la-de-dah -- I was far more taken aback by her breezy statement about how "exciting" it is to be starting "two new chapters" in her life. (Which is about to drop a ton of fuckin' bricks on her head, but that's another topic.)

And yes, we all know about how to prevent pregnancy, and it would be nice if everyone did. But I will say this: If she wants the baby, but can't afford it, I'd much rather see her get a reasonable amount of help from others than visit the abortion clinic. One new person in the world, even one who might get a little taxpayer help for a time, is a blessing. Of all the stupid things my tax dollars buy, starting with goosedown pillows for the Cheney family and going on from there, help for a few dumb moms and their babies isn't even on the top 100 list. Many of our greatest Americans started their lives with stupid mothers. Many mothers start out stupid but get smarter. Having children has made lots of women a lot smarter.

One of my boyfriends in college told me about the nose-job scam in his affluent neighborhood -- how girls who wanted their noses transformed into Sandra Dee's all ended up having a fateful collision with a tennis racquet, requiring a surgical intervention that would be covered by medical insurance. "Tennis was a really dangerous sport at my school," he said. I'm sure some version of it continues today. Somehow, that bugs me far more.

A few more months, and that girl will have better things to do than write to Consumerist. And unplanned pregnancies will continue to happen to dumb girls and smart ones. I'm choosing to be pissed about the war in Iraq instead.

"On what planet can you go to someone and say "hey, I'm going to cost you a fortune. Will you pay for all my care in exchange for a comparatively tiny sum?"

Lauren,
I've lived too long in the US to be "outraged" any more! But Europe is not exactly another planet - and one's taxes there are not exactly a "tiny sum".

I guess I am still startled, though, by how calmly some Americans parrot insurance company terms - like "pre-existing condition"! People here make choices foisted upon them by the insurance companies. (I know, I know... it's what you're used to!)

To follow up from TheOtherOne's post: "Seems to me that what's broken is the fact that society believes that babies "just happen"..."

Sure, the same as how guns just "go off" and a big bad Mercedes SUV attacks people of its own volition (remember Lizzie Grubman, anyone?)

Aut disce aut discede

"Some of you guys sure love to beat up on people."

Well some people desperately deserve it. Like this line: "and while abortion is a great option for people who choose to use it, its not for everyone." Well then I guess health insurance just ain't for everyone either, toots. Get a freaking abortion for crying out loud. It's legal everywhere, your silly hormones be damned.

(remember Lizzie Grubman, anyone?)

But, Grubman was made to pay for her mistake, wasn't she?

Sorry, make that her "mistake."

dale-
you don't have sex?
also, what makes you think that women without healthcare coverage don't work and pay taxes?

No I don't. Most, when they discover this, assume that I'm a puritanical prude or automatically think I'm condescending toward their lifestyle. I'm not and I don't. Feel free to bump uglies with anyone you want, as often as you want with as many people watching, listening, participating as you want. I don't care. When you start wanting me to pay for the consequences of that, then I care. I'm sure they do pay taxes. I'm sure they don't pay enough taxes to cover their medical bills. Hence, other tax payers (me) have to pick up the slack.

I'm OK with my tax dollars to go to help people who had no choice (or very minimal choice anyway) in their health condition. I don't include pregnancy in that (barring rape of course) because if you are pregnant you had 100% guaranteed way to not be.

Brilliant. Any kind of dialogue about insurance reform has been completely channeled into outrage about entitled dumbass pregnant college students. Her example is a bad one. But the insurance system DOES need to be reformed. Example: I had cancer as a teenager. Happily, I had insurance through my father, because being in high school doesn't come with free health care. So everything worked out well... until I graduated from college. Many or most coverage via parental insurance ends when the child graduates from school. Then, you've got to get a full-time job with an insurance plan good enough that they cover you even when you've got a pre-existing condition like cancer. Many wouldn't. It really limited my options to know that if I took X job, I could die if my cancer came back and that insurance refused to cover it as a pre-existing condition--not to mention that people with cancer, even when "cured", tend to have life-long health complications related to the original disease, and those things would also count as pre-existing conditions. Many plans at that time had a one year waiting period till pre-existing conditions would be covered. That year could be a lifetime to a cancer patient. Anyway, Clinton passed some laws that improved the situation somewhat so I was able to more easily get coverage. But all you people with the pitchforks and torches chasing these shadowy non-taxpayers wanting to take your money to pay for their mistakes or carelessness, need to understand that SHIT HAPPENS. And that shit can cause people who WANT to work and WANT to pay taxes to be underemployed, to not make the contributions to society they want to make, because they're too busy trying to stay alive while navigating a crazy system that punishes people who have the inevitable bumps of life happen to them. Having lots of living, healthy people working and preparing for work is good for the economy. Creating hurdles to treating illness in individuals is bad for society as a whole, as the looming type II diabetes crisis is showing. You're not looking at the big picture when you start picking on people like the letter writer. Because even if she is annoying, her fetus shouldn't be punished.

Sure, she was made to pay for her mistake, but she tried to score one for the "Not my personal responsibility" Team first: "Grubman is blaming it on the SUV: She says that she didn't know how to drive the car, since it was only a week old."

Breathtaking, isn't it?

pirate jo-

I said that abortion is a great choice for people who *choose* to have them, it is. its also not the choice for everyone. im not going to preach, and I am glad the procedure is legal and safe for the women who have opted to have the procedure. I would not ever have one, and I rather resent the implication that I am an idiot for believing so. forcing uninsured women to have an abortion is a scary scary idea, and one im certain many people won't want to see in practice. what would be next, government mandated sterilization?

if you can't afford a pregnancy, how can you afford all the costs of raising a child?

This is one area where your reliance on research and studies should probably take a back seat to lived experience.

Yes, it costs a lot to raise a child. But no one meets you at the hospital exit with a bill for $180,000, either. It comes in nickels and dimes (followed by fifties and hundreds) over the course of a couple decades. Raising children, particularly early on, isn't nearly as costly as some people would have you believe, if you're not proud about hand-me-downs, thrift shops, and other Amy-approved penny-savers. And as I tried to point out before, even a pregnancy doesn't have be that expensive.

Bravo to Quizzical for trying to discuss the core issue. I'm sure everyone here lost 10 years of life expectancy to blood-pressure spikes from watching "Sicko," but it left me feeling sort of wistful and sad -- all those French and Canadian and Japanese people who don't walk around terrified to change jobs or start a new business for fear of suffering economic catastrophe from a shit-happens health problem. And while single-payer systems have many, many problems, I have yet to open the Toronto Globe & Mail and read, "Millions of Canadians demand health-care reform; 'we want a U.S. system' is rallying cry."

like I said with my original post, in my own situation, I have been told for years that I couldn't even get pregnant. I personally didn't have medical insurance because I dont go to the doctor often and paid for it out of pocket when I did, much cheaper for me in the long run. and again, with me personally, it was quite difficult to get any type of coverage after I found out I was pregnant. luckily for me, it only costs $75 a visit to see my nurse practitioner.

however, how many women have been in this situation? obviously, had I known it was even *possible* for me to get pregnant, I would have done things much differently, but that's neither here nor there. I am willing to bet that almost every poster here lives their life in a way that's objectionable to others, and could *possibly* affect others- does anyone speed while driving? not wear a seat belt? not have retirement savings? consume too much salt or sugar or alcohol?

like they say about stones and glass houses...

Now here's a comment I don't understand:

"She can also cut costs by seeing a midwife or nurse practitioner for the prenatal stuff. By only bringing in the M.D. at the very end, she can save quite a lot. And if she really wants to live dangerously, she can opt for a home birth. There are a lot of risks, but a sensible midwife can..."

Just what is "really dangerous" about a midwife? Giving birth may not be a picnic, but given prenatal examinations and a healthy mom, a midwife is a perfectly sensible option. We had one child in a hospital and one in a midwife-staffed birthing center.

The difference in atmosphere is night-and-day! Would you rather have a child in a stainless-steel-and-disinfectant atmosphere, with doctors who "knows best" and damn what you want? Or in homey surroundings, with a midwife who is there to support you through a perfectly natural process.

As for risks, life is a risk. And any responsible birthing center will be prepared to get you to the hospital if anything crops up that they can't handle.

Amber: "I would not ever have one, and I rather resent the implication that I am an idiot for believing so"

I can't speak for anyone else, but IMO, you're not an idiot. However, it is up to *YOU* to bear the ramifications of YOUR choice. If you choose to keep a pregnancy to term, you have to recognize the costs involved. And pay them.

Pro-choice does mean the choice to continue a pregnancy. It doesn't mean you get a blank check from the rest of us, though. Your body, your choice, your bank account.

That said, I'm not ~gasp~ horrified at "government mandated sterilization", in a sense. If NOT getting pregnant was the default, and people had to actually take active steps to become fertile, a whole lotta these problems would be solved, and a whole lotta kids wouldn't be stuck with clueless idiot parents, don't ya think? Hell, the financial savings alone through the drastic decrease in welfare payments and foster care costs would probably *allow* the government to implement subsidized health care.

Pro-choice does mean the choice to continue a pregnancy. It doesn't mean you get a blank check from the rest of us, though. Your body, your choice, your bank account.

Exactly.

LW Katlyn - "I also looked into state health plans, but with my current jobs (all part-time, do not offer insurance) I make too much money to qualify. Fantastic.
Who says health care in the US doesn't need to be fixed?"

Any way to check if this story is ligit, or just some scenario dreamt up by a health care system change activist?

Having already made one snide post on this subject, I’ll apologize in advance for now making another.

If we are to believe this story, we have a single mother-to-be, who’s only marginally employed, who also has a gainfully employed “baby daddy”/BF.

So, if she smart enough to graduate from college, how come she seems to be too dumb to figure out that here in the good ol’ U S of A, those of us who pay taxes ROUTINELY pick up the tabs for unwed, unemployed women who get knocked up.

If this chick can’t afford to stick with the COBRA option at $400/mo.,why the Hell does she bother working at all. She’s just a couple of part-time jobs away for joining the Welfare ranks. Actually, if $400/mo. Is already out of reach for her, she’ll probably qualify even if she does keep working.

Since our subject seems to be angling for some version of “socialized medicine”, why should she not try out the existing version known as Medicaid? Millions of poorly educated women have figured out how to have their pregnancies and babies paid for by taxpayers just by signing up for that wonderful example of what government run healthcare portends for the rest of us.

So, what’s stopping our college-educated health care activist from quitting her minimal employment, and enjoying the benefits that she would like to see foisted onto the rest of us.

And, since she probably doesn’t intend to seek further Welfare benefits, she won’t even have to name her BF as the father, so the gov won’t go after him for the bill either. We already have enough socialized medicine that these two irresponsible souls can waltz away free-and-clear of those pesky hospital bills that plague responsible folks who want to have children.

Or, we could accept her implication that she’s really just trying to do the right thing, and evil insurance companies are singling her out for persecution.

Of course, we’ll have to continue to suspend our disbelief that she isn’t just making this up as some (rare) example of how someone other than a Welfare Queen can supposedly fall through the vast safety net woven from billions of taxpayer’s hard-earned dollars.

I didn't say midwives = danger. I said home birth CAN = danger, Bradley. By the time you get to a midwife-operated birthing center you're practically in a hospital, medically speaking. But there are still women who want to give birth in their own beds and in their own homes, and that can be a lot more dangerous. I've known several who did so; it's not for me, but it worked for them. But I've also known of babies who died in or shortly after home births because there was a complication, too.

It's a calculated risk. Most births to healthy women go just fine. But just remember why we don't hear the term "died in childbirth" so often anymore, too.

Follow up on Bradley's suggestion:

"She can also cut costs by seeing a midwife or nurse practitioner for the prenatal stuff. By only bringing in the M.D. at the very end, she can save quite a lot."

I had this for my third daughter. I had a nurse midwife for almost all of the labor and delivery, and my OB was in the room for three minutes (I know, because you obsessively watch the clock during L&D). She billed me as much as when I had her in my room for my second daughter's delivery- $3000 for 3 minutes versus $3000 for 45 minutes (I file my bills for a few years then purge) Come to find out in Illinois it has become prohibitively expensive for OB's, the trend is to hire nurse midwives, cheaper to insure them and let them do all the work. Who saves then? Apparently my doctor did, not my insurer, since she billed them at her rate, not a nurse midwife's.

Nance,
I totally agree about "Sicko".

I could spot the extremely selective angles - but it still scored some horrifying hits. (Particularly about insurance company manipulation of "pre-existing condition" to include "any condition of which the reasonably educated sufferer might be expected to be aware of had the individual bothered to get tested ten years earlier, which he should have, because we don't want to cover it now...". Or something like that!)

I am willing to bet that almost every poster here lives their life in a way that's objectionable to others, and could *possibly* affect others- does anyone speed while driving? not wear a seat belt? not have retirement savings? consume too much salt or sugar or alcohol? like they say about stones and glass houses...

I actually try to live with a very small "footprint," meaning I'm aware of the impact that my actions may have on other people and do my best to pick up after myself. Personally, I live in fear that I would hurt somebody while behind the wheel, and drive accordingly. By the way, I had health insurance in my early 20s when I couldn't afford a bed because I realized that, if something catastrophic happened to me, it could either break my parents (or they'd leave me on public assistance). Neither is acceptable.

Then, you've got to get a full-time job with an insurance plan good enough that they cover you even when you've got a pre-existing condition like cancer.

Okay, maybe I've been incredibly, incredibly lucky, but...I have a few "pre-existing" conditions. Admittedly, none of them are anywhere close to the level of cancer, but there is a significant difference in my quality of life and ability to work if they're treated or not. (For example, if one in particular isn't treated, I'd pretty much be confined to a bed in a pitch-dark room most of the time.) I have changed insurance/jobs at least twice since the last of these were diagnosed...and I have NEVER had trouble getting ANY of my health conditions covered. Why? Because the "pre-existing condition" thing only applied if I were uninsured for a period of time. If I were paying to participate in COBRA for my last job until the day that my new insurance kicked in, there was no problem with coverage - and this has been true for everyone I know, including a few people diagnosed with various flavors of cancer. So, all of that means that I can't ever go without insurance for even a day...but as long as I maintain my insurance, I'm fine.

Again, the system sucks and needs changing...but I wonder how much of the story this girl isn't telling here.

My boyfriend has health insurance through his company, but since we're not married, I don't qualify.

This ain't rocket science, nor is it an indictment of the US healthcare system. It's two idiots that want sympathy and not solutions.

Until LW pops out said child, BF can pay half the COBRA to keep LW on her father's plan. At $200 each, it's not that much more than the $175 she lamented that she couldn't qualify for. The downside is that BF may have to put off getting new rims for the bitchin' Camaro.

The baby, once delivered, will be a dependent and will qualify for dependent care on his/her daddy's healthcare plan.

When my wife had cancer she could not get travel insurance for anything related to that "existing condition." But they would cover for anything else, such as lost luggage.

So presumably the LW could get health cover, just not for costs related to her pregnancy. I wonder if she has had the foresight to take up that option.

Sorry if this has aspect already been discussed!

Marion muses - "...but I wonder how much of the story this girl isn't telling here."

My guess is that part she isn't telling is that it's just a ruse.

To me, the whole story seems contrived to get to her conclusion, ”Who says health care in the US doesn't need to be fixed?”

The situation of being young, unmarried, underemployed, and pregnant just isn’t that unique. Somehow millions of women manage to swallow their pride (those who actually had any to begin with) and opt for the public assistance option.

But, she’d have us believe that she doesn’t want to be a burden on society, and would really like to be able to pay for health insurance (presumably for the many years it will take to pay in the full costs of her pregnancy), but she’s just in such a unique position that the evil insurance companies have got her trapped.

But, on closer inspection, her set-up seems to fail the logic test.

If her child’s father is gainfully employed by a company that offers benefits (even if her non-marital status precludes her from them), surely he must make enough money to be able to fully cover the $400/mo it would cost to provide COBRA coverage for HIS child’s gestation and birth.

And, didn’t she think $175/mo was reasonable for her? That would mean BF would only need to pitch in $225? Why is it that the two of them can’t seem to work that out?

Maybe I’m just too old and jaded, but her story just doesn’t add up to me.

SLW, I agree with you, something doesn't seem to add up for this and even some of the other posters. The HIPAA requires that pregnancy cannot be pre ex on a group plan. So, she could get a job "at Starbuck" or somewhere else that offers benefits as someone mentioned and have full coverage.

The person that mentioned paying full price since he didn't have coverage seems to be making a façade of an arguement. I I have not encountered a provider that would not give significant discounts to those that are private pay. There have even been class action lawsuit found in favor of those who weren't.

On a similar topic, "Insurance shareholders must vote on universal health coverage, SEC says". This is a huge deal. We have a bureaucrat legislating & politicizing with an agenda. This has a huge potential to create even more momentum for National Healthcare and another platform for special interest to preach from.

When I was first pregnant with my 2.5 year old, we moved to another city. My insurance moved with us, no problem. My husband's didn't. When he tried to get insurance, he found out he couldn't get it while was pregnant. Apparently when a baby is born, it can be put onto either parent's insurance for 30 days, regardless of its health. Insurance companies therefore don't want to take the chance of having to cover a very ill baby.

My husband had to make do with a healths savings plan until after our daughter was born.

The girl in the article can choose to be on her parent's plan? But it's expensive? Too darn bad.

I suck at HTML, by the way.

AMY NOTE: Went in and fixed it for you. Use the marks above the comma and period when you press the shift key. These: >

Welcome to the real world, Katlyn.

This story has given me a headache. Rather than call my health insurance provider, I'll go to the Formosa to guzzle Martinis.

Ok, has anyone done the math? She's 15 weeks along. That leaves her just about 5 months left to carry the little bugger into delivery, if her father's policy will take her on for $400 per month, that's $2000.

If she's going to have a kid, she better learn early on to empty out her own pocketbook a little to take care of necessitites such as hospitalization. That's really a very small price to pay for a healthy baby. Maybe next time she'll remember birth control is cheaper.

Interesting comments. I read most every one. I was struck by two things in particular:

1. Just how many are so quick to excuse completely irresponsible people.

2. What absolute delusions many Americans (an educated guess that most commenters on here reside in the U.S.) have of the "wondrous" Canadian health care system.

Let me share with you all a first hand account of what health care is like in Vancouver, British Columbia.

A good friend of mine had to wait 9 (nine) months to see a specialist about his heart condition. When the doctor finally saw him, he immediately realized how precarious my friend's situation was and pushed him to the front of the line to get a surgery 4 days later.

Speaking with my friend's wife today, I learned that he developed a blood clot on the weekend. They went to the hospital emergency and had to wait 10 (ten) hours just to be told to go home and wait it out. The hospital was not especially busy.

Mark Steyn has often commented that there's a direct correlation about the irresponsibility & infantilization of a society and the amount of "free" healthcare they receive. For as soon as one doesn't have to worry about their own health, it's easy to be complacent about everything else in one's life too.

I'm very aware of what health care is like in America. While it isn't perfect, this constant assertion that socialized medicine is the answer will be the worst decision your nation ever makes.

Re: I have changed insurance/jobs at least twice since the last of these were diagnosed...and I have NEVER had trouble getting ANY of my health conditions covered. Why? Because the "pre-existing condition" thing only applied if I were uninsured for a period of time. If I were paying to participate in COBRA for my last job until the day that my new insurance kicked in, there was no problem with coverage - and this has been true for everyone I know, including a few people diagnosed with various flavors of cancer. So, all of that means that I can't ever go without insurance for even a day...but as long as I maintain my insurance, I'm fine. Again, the system sucks and needs changing...but I wonder how much of the story this girl isn't telling here.

You're confusing two different health insurance laws here. As I understand it: COBRA (instituted 1986) allows you to continue on your same health care plan for a certain number of months, self-paying. When those months run out, then, it USED to be that if you decided to get new health insurance, the new plan could refuse to cover pre-existing conditions--it didn't matter that you'd been on a different plan up until the day before the new plan. Thus you'd get people who couldn't leave their jobs, because they would have trouble getting insurance elsewhere that would cover their pre-existing condition. Then, during the Clinton admin, a law was passed that if your health insurance has not been interrupted, then, when getting a new plan, if that company accepted you, then they'd have to cover pre-existing conditions too. But i don't think they HAD to accept you--it's a free country, and insurance companies aren't forced to take people on as insurees. This still applies, as far as I know. So what pregnant girl is saying makes sense, and I don't see holes in the story or anything she's not telling. That is, if she continues on her father's insurance plan, they'll cover the pregnancy, as they must do given the current laws. But the plan is an expensive one, too much for her at $400. If she got new insurance, then yeah, they'd have to cover her pregnancy, too. But since she's not getting the insurance through her job, but as an individual, companies are free to reject her as an insuree, or charge her huge sums. You, on the other hand, got new insurance when you got new jobs, and that's a different matter. Your employer has an account with the insurance company, and they'll typically cover all the employees and not give trouble (I think, though, that if your company costs them a lot of money because a lot of employees have high medical expenses, then they'll raise your company's rates. But YOU won't feel that--your company's benefits person and bookkeeper will know, though, and might start looking for a new insurance plan for employees). If prego-girl got a job that came with benefits, then she'd get her insurance coverage with no problem; she'd be in the same position as you have been as you have changed jobs while having pre-existings. If she married her baby-daddy, she'd also get insurance no problem. She's just having problems because of lack of benefits-paying job and lack of husband.

I'd say most people here are for taking personal responsibility, Rob, and are definitely not condoning the tripe of the article in question.

If it's true? To put it simply: Sucks to be her. Her situation was preventable and is currently solvable— She just has to step up to the plate and work a little harder than someone who didn't screw up. Like, say, sacrificing a few things or sucking it up and asking for help to make that $400 a month. Heaven knows what whine she'll serve up after the baby is born. (The bills don't stop after birth, you know!)

We can talk health systems all day, but the LW scares the hell out of me.

She has health insurance with her dad, but gripes about it...and talks about how wonderful her life should have been by now, and all the time we never hear about the kid that is soon to be hers.

No hopes, no dreams, no wonder at the life within herself that will come out and be a person all his or her own.

I just hope that the folks that are taking care of her health care take care of the kid.

OK, the pregnant college student is a whiner, and a dolt. Get on the boyfriend's insurance. Marry him if you have to, if what you're really interested in is getting your kid the coverage to help ensure a healthy entry into this world.

But, Amy, is there no situation that warrants the system -- meaning us, the American people via government programs -- stepping in to help someone who's supported our system his or her entire life? Do you allow for no personal error, ever? No one falling through the cracks? No one having to choose between food and medicine because he just got laid off at 58 after 40 years of honest but low-paying work?

Let's say you've even done pretty well, and as a single, childless person who receives a W-2 and has no business-related writeoffs pay tons of taxes. Then your employer decides to improve stock performance by eliminating jobs. Out you go, with 18 months of Cobra. But then in the middle of it you get asthma, arthritis, diabetes, whatever. Or you've already got asthma, arthritis, diabetes -- or just a tricky lower back. Yes, said insurer has to offer you coverage. But no insurer has to offer you coverage at an affordable price.

So you've done everything Amy advocates: worked, paid taxes, saved, never taken a dime from anyone, not bred irresponsibly. And then you're paying a $1,200-a-month premium in an impossible job market. Even with the foresight to have gotten disability insurance, that's a big bill. Add in co-pays/deductibles, how long would even relatively robust savings last?

Is the deal we just let them die because they were human beings in human bodies, which sometimes fail at the least convenient of times? I'm sure that's not your answer, Amy. But I've been reading you for awhile now and don't know what is.

Sorry for the wordiness. I have insomnia. I hope I haven't put all of you to sleep.

I don't believe health insurance should be tied to people's jobs. I pay for Kaiser myself, and that's how it should be for everyone -- pay for whatever you want, and the tax mode should be fair across the board. I pay for my health care with taxed dollars; if you work for a company, you do not.

And beyond that, if you're paying all along for a plan you don't get into the position you get in above.

Don't kid yourself: At the moment, we're not only subsidizing Americans, we're buying four liver transplants for some Mexican girl who's an illegal alien...at a cost of something like $500,000 per, while American citizens are falling dead off the end of the waiting list for organs.

And if that sounds Grinch-like, here's one for you: Do you let your child suffer and die so you can save the neighbor's?

Quizzical, thanks for the explanation - I didn't think that COBRA mandated coverage or anything, but am glad of the "pre-existing" explanation. So, this girl could get a full-time job at a place like Starbucks and have insurance. Got it.

JulieA, what I think people are reacting to here is this girl's enormous sense of entitlement. If she had written a piece saying, "You know how the instruction packet for birth control pills say that you need to take the pill at the same time every day? They're not kidding. I just graduated from college, I'm four months pregnant and I'm scared. My peers are starting new jobs and going to Europe; I'm figuring out whether I should pay $400/month to stay on my dad's insurance policy or apply for Medicaid, because pregnancy is a pre-existing condition excluded by most insurers..." - well, I think the attitude here would be quite different. Instead, she's pregnant, unmarried, and without full-time employment at 22, and she seems to find this a wondrous adventure marred only by the failure of various insurance companies to subsidize her choices. And, as others have pointed out, she DOES have options for insurance. I know plenty of people who would KILL to have the options that this girl has. They're not writing to Consumerist because they don't have the time - they have to work!

I myself (and I think most people here) am okay with my tax or other dollars being used to help people with unforeseeable or mostly unforeseeable problems. I'm also in favor of my tax dollars being used to improve the chances that someone will become a productive taxpaying citizen. Amy and I may disagree on some points, but I think we're in agreement in the larger sense. What she - and I - object to is the idea that our tax or other dollars should be used to protect people from the results of their choices. This girl has chosen to continue her pregnancy, to not get married, and to not go work in some job that might seem menial but would provide health insurance, and she's complaining that those choices are turning out to be expensive. That's a whole different kettle of fish from the scenario you presented. And, to be honest, the fact that an avid media infrastructure seems to have problems finding test cases for new policies that don't involve people experiencing the results of their choices rather than people who got genuinely screwed affects my view toward those new policies as well.

"And beyond that, if you're paying all along for a plan you don't get into the position you get in above."

Actually you can very easily get in that position. When your Cobra is ending, you reapply and the cost of your new plan even by the same insurer reflects your medical condition at that time. You get covered. Whether you can afford it is another matter. Even the rates for Kaiser can get way up there.

I'd sure do without a new pair of shoes to save my neighbor, or eat in rather than go out a couple nights -- and I don't even like the guy. It's not always the life of someone you love vs. someone here illegally piling on the liver transplants.

JulieA, you're missing my point. If you're paying for your own health care, there's no "Cobra is ending."

It's a mistake to have employer-based healthcare, and that way of paying for care is fiscally unfair to the single person who is, in many cases, subsidizing the employee with the family of five. If you're paying on your own, you pay for what you use.

Amy - I get your point. I even agree at some level. But not everyone can go back, wave a magic wand, and have had their own insurance before the bad back kicked in or they got cancer. 20/20 hindsight is wonderful but it won't save your life when you find yourself unemployed with sky-high premiums.

Have you never once been on an employer's plan, even if it was a good deal and you were in your twenties? Because if that was the case than you were nothing other than lucky not to get sick before you lost that job and had to find your own insurance.

I was once, briefly, right out of college, for two or three years. And I am lucky -- lucky that I'm self-employed and not sucking off the employer hog, or I'd probably find it too tempting to be a self-payer (and silly, since you employees get a huge tax break, and thus a huge cost savings, over us self-employed people, which is really wrong).

The system needs to be changed. Health care should be severed from employment. It used to be that people worked their entire lives for the same company. These days, some people don't make it even six months before they're on to the next.

"I pay for my health care with taxed dollars"

Amy, this is not correct. Or if it is, you need to talk with your tax preparer. Self-employed individuals are entitled to deduct their health care premiums.

As for LW - ugh. Bitching about a temporary increase in her monthly premiums that would benefit her unborn child. Priorities?

"those French and Canadian and Japanese people who don't walk around terrified to change jobs or start a new business for fear of suffering economic catastrophe from a shit-happens health problem."

Forchrissakes. What is this, the Make a Wish Foundation? We're expected to foot the bill for your health care while you decide to pursue your dream of breeding rare butterflies? Your health care expenses should factor into your decision to take a new job or start a business. Period.

Time to beat the drum! Get the earplugs or dance to the beat: it's time for the "Medical VISA Card".

In my world, everyone registering for Selective Service and those who request it from the Social Security Administration would get a credit card. You will use it for treatment in the office, at the hospital, at the clinic and for prescription medication. The interest rate would pay for the administration of the program. The principal will have minimum payments. You will be responsible for all debts incurred at the doctor's office. You will stop believing falsely that treatment costs nothing. You will investigate your doctors before picking one, and you won't pay insurance companies to hire thousands of office workers to tell you "no" while they build skyscrapers in Jacksonville, FL with your premiums.

" believe that's only after you spend a certain amount."

That's if you're trying to take a Schedule A miscellaneous itemized deduction, which does require that that the expenses exceed 7.5% of your AGI.

But you should be eligible for a self-employed health care insurance deduction for your premiums as an expense of your Schedule C business (I assume you operate as a sole proprietor, but the deduction is still available if you operate as an S Corp or through an LLC).

This from IRS Publication 535 (Business Expenses):

"Self-Employed Health Insurance Deduction -
You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for you, your spouse, and your dependents if you are one of the following.

A self-employed individual with a net profit reported on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business, Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business, or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming.

A partner with net earnings from self-employment reported on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., box 14, code A.

A shareholder owning more than 2% of the outstanding stock of an S corporation with wages from the corporation reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement."

Talk to your tax person.

He does do a Sked C for me. I was just tired! But, thanks!

It's a mistake to have employer-based healthcare, and that way of paying for care is fiscally unfair to the single person who is, in many cases, subsidizing the employee with the family of five. If you're paying on your own, you pay for what you use.
OK, I'm not getting the wisdom of such a plan. What would happen would be that the people who were the sickest wouldn't have any health insurance because no one will want to cover them--either they'll deny them a policy, or they'll raise their rates to such a prohibitively high level that it's impossible for any but the wealthiest to pay them. How would you get around such a problem? Or wouldn't you?

Amy - If you're paying on your own, you pay for what you use.

No, if you have insurance, you don't pay for what you use. Paying for what you use would be not having any insurance, and just paying your medical bills as they come in. Insurance works by some people paying for what they don't use, so that others can use what they don't pay for.

Amy is fiercely non-socialist, but she deludes herself in this one case. Insurance is socialist.

Quizzical, I think you missed the point. Amy's point is that we should all be able to buy policies the way employers do -- by joining affinity groups or co-ops, and being able to deduct the premiums. In my ideal world, everyone would, upon reaching the age of 18, be able to shop for and join a policy group, and maintain that coverage for the rest of their lives if they so chose. The conditions of the group should be like that of an employer's plan: everyone who chooses a given level of coverage pays the same rate. Given a large enough group and the relatively low probability of contracting a condition like yours, it should work out fairly well. All insurance is based on the concept of spreading risk.

And JulieA, what we're all reacting to is the assumption that because the existing system isn't perfect, it needs to be totally destroyed and replaced with something else that has been proven to be worse everywhere it's been tried. Yes, there are reforms that can and should be made -- Amy is absolutely right about getting insurance through your employer being a botch. The system shouldn't have to work that way; it only does because of tax law and accidental circumstances that arose during WWII. And yes, there are more than "a few" free riders in the system.

"Yeah, but Steve, even if they do get married, they still have to pay out of pocket for all the pre- and post-natal care, and for the delivery and hospital stay, because she can't get insurance because she's already pregnant. That's what she's complaining about. We're all blessed with 20/20 hindsight! In her case, however, she wants to be compensated for it."

Actually, you can get covered under your new spouse's policy whether pregnant or not. It's a change-of-life occurance, and you are automatically in in most every case. And um, since he knocked her up and she was there when it happened, what exactly is wrong with them having to pay for it??????? whine whine whine, state support me please!

"And while single-payer systems have many, many problems, I have yet to open the Toronto Globe & Mail and read, "Millions of Canadians demand health-care reform; 'we want a U.S. system' is rallying cry."

I know a lot of canadians who think we are INSANE to want state-paid medical care. They are actually debating getting rid of it, there is strong groundswell for it there. They routinely have months or year waits for things I can get in the end of the week for. And have you ever talked to anyone on medicaid? The average level of care on it is bad. Bad bad bad. I'm sure some drs are diligent and give their best care for these patients, but not many. They see too many of them to be able to, for one. And that is exactly what would happen if the state were paying for all our care. When I worked, insurance was a factor in which job I took. I never worked my "dream job" without having to worry about insurance. It's life, there are trade-offs. You deal with it. My DH will never- so long as there is breath in his body and strength in his fingernails to cling to the doorway as they try to drag him out-leave his company. He has great insurance, and a great retirement plan, so whether he loves the job or not is a little irrelevant. He doesn't have to love his job, he has hobbies to fulfill that need.

I will fully admit to being one who has used far, far more than I will ever pay in. Yes, Amy, it's the having-kids thing!

And I do think that idiots who smoke, or do drugs, or any number of other irresponible-healthwise voluntary actions should have to pay more. Or not be eligible for insurance at all. Why exactly should a company ahve to foot the bill for your stupidity? Insurance carriers are companies, they exist to make a profit (save for co-ops, but those aren't common). They are not charitible entities. You are still saving lots of money by using them, so pony up, people!

Despite having a few relatively minor chronic health conditions, I'm pretty healthy, overall. And, while this may be tempting the gods too greatly, I have pretty good genes for things such as cholesterol (which I've had tested), cancer and longevity. Plus, my weight is good for my height, I love fruits and veggies, and I exercise...not as much as I should, but I do. Barring any sort of dire disease (certainly possible!), I'll probably end up putting more into health insurance than I get out over the years, at least if you count employer contributions on my behalf.

And you know what? I'm fine with that. Really. I consider it a tradeoff for my good health. I don't begrudge the extra dollars that my acquaintances with congenital heart conditions, cancer and the like cost.

What annoys the ever-lovin' tar out of me is people who get themselves in difficult situations because of their own carelessness and then whine about their limited options. Especially when I know people who have been more responsible but face far more limited options through no fault of their own. I'm also constantly irritated by the fact that health insurance is 1) inextricably tied to one's job; and 2) pretty much designed to maximize use at the low end and then disappear when the need is *really* heavy. I've probably said this before, but if car insurance worked like health insurance, oil changes would cost 50 cents, but if you totaled your car, you'd be screwed.

Given how insurance works, some people in the pool will end up paying more than they "owe," and some will end up paying less. Theoretically, the tradeoff for everyone should be that, if an ENORMOUS crisis occurs, insurance will ensure that you don't go bankrupt. That's not how health insurance works these days, which makes the other things wrong with the system annoy me even more.

"While I don't disagree that the insurance company shouldn't be stuck paying thousands for something they know is inevitable..."

Bullshit. Insurance companies SHOULD pay for inevitable diseases. Fuck, what's the goddamn point of being a health insurance company if you're afraid to cover people who are going to die? Which, last time I checked, is EVERYONE IN THE WORLD! It shouldn't be the customer's fault that you're retarded enough to get into this business!

Like the old saying goes: if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. But instead, we've been letting these companies get away with making exception after exception for their sorry asses.

What's going to happen once doctors figure out how to diagnose all our potential diseases at childbirth? Because we're getting there. Will we just let health insurance call *everything* we're going to get a "preexisting condition"??

I say fuck that shit.