Indeed! You hit the nail on the head with this one.

I dont blame the poor guy for looking for affordable health insurance with maternity care.

Demanding that he *do it like your dad did* is pretty unreasonable considering thst my parents could easily write a check for the hospital costs associated with my birth, as well as checks every semester for my room and board and college tuition.

My parents were prudent hard working people, but by no means wealthy.

(The gubmit hadn't bankrupted either system back then by piling *government sponsored health care* and needs based scholarships/ sky high tuition on the backs of the taxpayers and the insured. )

Try doing either of those things now unless you are a five percenter.

Why is Amy unreasonable? Lots of people have hobbies that they enjoy - in his case, apparently that's history. This guy needs a real job, that actually earns him money.

There's no guarantee that you can make a living off of your hobby. Music, or art in general is another one - I despise the artists who think that they "deserve" to make a living off of there art. I like to play and sing, it's a great hobby, but no one owes me a living doing it.

As for Obamacare, we just need to make a really simple decision: Do we (as a nation) want health *care* or health *insurance*?

- Health insurance means that each person buys the insurance they want. If they choose not to buy it, then they have to pay any health care bills themselves.

- Health care means that the government will take care of you. This is what the UK has. The costs are shared across all taxpayers. You don't pay any insurance, but you do pay higher taxes.

Obamacare is the worst of both worlds. It sort of, kind of, pretends to be insurance. However, it covers everyone and everything, so it's more like health care. Result: you get the bureaucracy of both: the insurance companies wanting their slice of the pie and trying to minimize their risks, the government overseeing the whole process, and the individual health care providers fighting to actually collect payments for their services.

Either system - insurance or single-payer - can work. Having a system that combines the worst of both? That's just nuts

Maybe Craig should get a less glam job -- the kind where he can pick up the cost of his children's medical care....

Enforce Obama care as written and that less-glam jab will not be a guarantee of affordable health insurance.

Obamacare, as written, would have encourage even large employers to drop providing health insurance in favor of sending its employees to the marketplace. But, executive orders, delayed the implementation of that particular aspect of Obamacare and leave it in place today.

Trump needs to leave Obamacare in place and enforce it as originally written. Then, when even people working for large companies are facing thousands every year in premium payments with tens of thousands in deductibles, the Republicans won't have any holdouts on repealing and replacing.

A Random Guy is exactly right. Very insightful comment on how Obamacare bridges worlds -- in the worst of ways.

These people decided to have a baby. They hadn't been paying into a healthcare provider's system for decades like I had -- they just wanted somebody to pay all their costs pronto, and that somebody was other people.

The money I paid in while I was at my most healthy in my 20s went unused by me. I really didn't go to the doctor in my 30s or 40s, either. No hospitalizations. Occasional mammograms and very occasional blood tests. So if something goes wrong for me, I've paid into the system and my HMO has had years and years of monthly payments from me with almost no use.

It's by having healthy people pay in like this for decades and decades -- on the notion of "What if I get sick when I'm 60?!" -- that the system works. Obamacare broke the system. I have lost the benefit of joining in my 20s and paying in all these years, and now I'm paying for all the people who decided they'd chance going without healthcare in their 20s because it would cut into their cocaine purchasing or whatever.

"and now I'm paying for all the people who decided they'd chance going without healthcare in their 20s because it would cut into their cocaine purchasing or whatever."

HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD!

He also didn't look deep enough. Before Ocare I had insurance but did not have pregnancy coverage. My first son cost ~$5000 for the birth. A large sum but you pay over the entire birth and it ends up being ~$500/mo. If you couldn't afford that there were charity groups that would help. After Ocare insurance had to cover the pregnancy. So now it cost ~$7000 and all of that had to be paid by me. On top of that my premiums had doubled. Now you might think that should have hit the deductible but you would be wrong. If your pregnancy lasts over the winter (and at 9 months most do) then the deductible resets on January 1st. So most people pay the full amount. . . . Thanks Obama.

"You don't pay any insurance, but you do pay higher taxes."

Not only that, but you concede all of your health decisions to the government. People are under the delusion that socialized medicine means the government pays for everything. What it means is that the government pays for whatever it feels like paying for. If the government decides that your treatment doesn't further its interests, too bad for you.

Fehrman's problem is that he fails to distinguish voluntary behavior from accidents. A woman chooses to get pregnant. She does not choose to get breast cancer. Ergo, insurance covers the latter, but it doesn't cover the former without additional arrangements.
Insurance is designed to cover accidents. When it has to cover voluntary behavior, it's no longer insurance; it's a subsidy.

The solution is right in front of him, and he doesn't even realize it. Just because you are educated doesn't mean you're actually intelligent.

The best option I found demanded we pay a pricey rider for 12 months before even trying to conceive -- and then keep paying that rider no matter how many months it took. In our case, we would have spent well over $30,000 to get this (still skimpy) coverage.

So, get a less expensive but adequate enough plan, and put the money you would spend on the rider into a savings vehicle of your choice. Then you could have paid for your child birth out of pocket and if delivery is a simple procedure and few complications, you'd still have beaucoup money left over.

Also, you start shopping around for OBGYNs and hospitals and tell them you will be paying cash money and will want the discount. Offer to pre-pay some of the expenses.

And just in case things go pear shaped, get a catastrophic coverage plan that would cover the very expensive things you don't expect.

Of course, all of that requires forethought, planning and work.

I'm glad the repeal and replace failed. in three short months Obamas EO expires and everyone with employer provided plans will get to know the joys of the ACA in the way the rest of us have these past few years.

Its going to be fucking fantastic

If the government decides that your treatment doesn't further its interests, too bad for you.

✔

Sometimes, you'll be told straight up you've been denied treatment. Sometimes you'll be put on a fake waiting list, in the hopes that you'll still be around when your actual appointment has scheduled for.

But don't worry, the bureaucrats will make sure their fake lists entitle them to get performance bonuses and promotions.

Too bad your hangnail caused an infection, and that caused gangrene to set in, and you're now down a foot because amputation is better than going over the budget for antibiotics.

...in three short months Obamas EO expires and everyone with employer provided plans will get to know the joys of the ACA in the way the rest of us have these past few years. ~ lujlp at September 27, 2017 7:31 AM

The Obama-ordered delay in fully implementing Obamacare has shielded most Americans from its true costs. And has allowed its proponents to portray Obamacare as benevolent and mostly harmless.

That and the CBO saying 24 million will "lose" coverage if it is repealed obscures the fact that most of those "losing" coverage will no longer bound by a mandate and will choose to forego coverage.

When I was in the insurance business, individual contracts covered non-routine births and I've seen them back up the Brinks truck when appropriate.
But they don't cover normal births.
You can get a rider for that and the ones I'm familiar with demanded twelve months of premium before the normal birth was covered.
Strangely, the premium over the twelve months was roughly the cost of a normal birth. But the difference between that and a savings account is that the bank doesn't send you a bill each month requesting payment and implying dread consequences if you don't pay.

It'll be interesting to see what happens if/when people who currently have employer-provided insurance get stuck on o-care. I work for a corporation specifically for the benefits package. (60% of my pay is withheld, FYI.) Losing the insurance would take away a huge incentive to continue working here.

Pre O-care, we knew a few couples who had babies without maternity coverage. They pre-negotiated with and set up payment plans with the hospitals. Most of them were paying around $9,000- $15,000. Both times I've had babies I've been fully insured. Baby 1 cost about $6,000 out-of-pocket. Baby 2, on a better plan, was around $3000. First time was induced, then unplanned c-section. Second time was planned c-section.

I tried to read his story, but these are the first two sentences:

My son recently had his first birthday. He hates wearing clothes but loves eating cheese (“cheeee”).

Out.

Ugh. We had a cadillac plan from employer, pre Asshat-Care. My million dollar twins cost maybe $2k. I think I paid $300 for baby 3, then maybe $500 for baby 4.

Now we pay $300 for fucking strep throat.

Kevin - you should have read further . . .

He states (and Amy quoted) "we want . . .we want . . ."

entitled much, they are.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-preparing-executive-order-to-let-americans-purchase-health-insurance-across-state-lines/article/2635808

"Health insurance means that each person buys the insurance they want."

There is still a fundamental error here, in that word, "insurance". Private company or not, this is NOT INSURANCE in that there is NO party who will NOT take benefits. Every person will need medical care, but through a combination of ignorance, avarice and incompetence the idea that "others" will pay via a pool of money is just flat wrong.

More here.

Isab, I hope that link is right. More choices would go a long way toward solving a least some of the issues.

I think we should go back this discussion about life choices. Yes, entitled freelance author dude is making a choice to have kids that are going to be expensive. But he and his lady are also making the choice to live where they do and freelance. All if you who are freelancers are making that choice, and I'm not real sympathetic to the whining about the consequences that come with it. You think all of the corporate drones with decent benefits are in love with their jobs? You're jealous of their insurance packages, or retirement packages, or whatever you don't get when you're a 1099 worker? Then go get a regular job. Learn how to drag your ass out of bed at 6am, put on grown-up clothes and shoes that don't flip and flop, read the fucking employee manual, follow the damn rules, accept some accountability and an inflexible schedule, and have an easier life. Seriously. You want good affordable insurance but you also want to work only when you feel like it, in your pajamas? We live in the world as it is, not the way we want it to be, and that's the world you need to base your life choices on. Life ain't fair, cupcake.