let's all remember that this couple's financial problems as a result of complications in the mother's pregnancy while on vacation in the US is the type of system the GOP would have us return to with their talk of repeal of Obamacare. this couple did exactly as they should have by traveling with health insurance to the US since we don't provide universal health care, but their coverage considered the woman's pregnancy as a pre-existing condition in order to not have to pay the expensive hospital stay resulting from an unforeseen complication in her pregnancy. since they bought their plan individually rather than through the federal healthcare exchange, the insurance company can use this loophole to deny their coverage through "pre-existing conditions" and stick them with the remainder of the bill.
It WAS a pre-existing condition! She was pregnant when they bought the insurance. That is a well-known issue, that insurance companies often do not cover pre-exiting conditions, unless they charge much higher rates. The point of insurance is protection against unforeseen expenses, not to stick someone else with the bill. No other kind of insurance routinely pays for expenses incurred prior to taking on the client. Try going out and getting car insurance, and then asking Gieco or State Farm to pay for the accident you had the day before. Or try to get life insurance for a dead person. Try to insure a home that just burned down, or a cargo ship that has sunk. All this talk about evil health insurance companies denying preexisting conditions is just moralistic disguising of attempted fraud.
An insurance policy is a contract. Either a pair of idiot Canucks bought a policy that did not cover the pregnancy, or the insurance company is failing to fulfill their contract, in which case they have an actionable position. What is much more likely is that they bought insurance against accidents or illnesses that might occur on their vacation, while stupidly accepting their doctor's assurances that there would be no problems with their pregnancy.
Marlene Leung, CTVNews.ca
Published Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:05AM EST
Last Updated Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:56PM EST
A Saskatchewan couple is considering filing for bankruptcy after being hit with a medical bill of nearly $1 million, incurred after their daughter was prematurely born during a trip to the U.S. last year.
Darren Kimmel and Jennifer Huculak were hit with a bill of $950,000 after Huculak gave birth to their daughter Reece last year in Hawaii.
The two flew to Hawaii for a holiday in October 2013 when Huculak was six months pregnant. Before they flew out, Huculak was cleared to travel and the couple purchased Blue Cross Insurance.
Two days into the trip, Huculak's water broke and she spent the next six weeks on bed rest in a Hawaiian hospital. Her daughter was born nine weeks early and spent two months in intensive care.
But Huculak says she was never considered "high-risk," although she did have a bladder infection that led to some bleeding.
Because Canadians, like so many other socialized medical systems juke the stats and use different terminology to conceal their failures. Canadians have a low infant mortality rate, because they label infant deaths as stillbirths, if the birth weight is low enough. They probably use similar terminology gimmicks to explain away high risk pregnancies so as to avoid the expense of increased care such pregnancies entail.
In a statement to CTV Saskatoon, Blue Cross said the following about the couple's case: "We review each claim carefully and are confident that our decision to decline this claim was done in a considered manner based on the contract terms, the situation which resulted in this emergency medical claim, and a review of recent medical history."
"It's absolutely overwhelming that people you don't know have been phoning and wanting to donate stuff," Kimmel said. "It's something we never expected."
But Huculak says that they're not looking for private donations.
"At this point, we're not really accepting anything from private people, that's not what we're looking for. We didn't do this for that reason," she told CTV Saskatoon Tuesday.
For now, they are just trying to figure out what to do about the bill.
"We're probably leaning towards bankruptcy, I suppose, unless we can figure out another way," Kimmel said.
'We did our due diligence'
Kimmel said looking back, there's nothing they could have done to have further protected themselves.
"I think we did our due diligence. We answered the questions that we were asked when we purchased the policy; we answered them honestly," he said. "We purchase insurance for these reasons, for when accidents happen. And then when they get denied it causes quite a problem."
Oh, all right then. Because no one EVER denies fault that rightfully belongs to them. No one EVER claims they checked something thoroughly, when in fact they overlooked something that bit them in the ass. Here's a thought, why don't we see what the policy actually is, rather than what a couple of people unfamiliar with the practice of buying health insurance claims it is.
This article, like just about every one moondog references, does not offer support for its claims. It portrays the parents as saying "We were covered," and the insurance company as saying "No they were not." We also have the couple claiming there was nothing wrong with their pregnancy despite a history of complications. It is literally a case of he-said, she-said, with no evidence offered in support of either side, no neutral or objective opinions or perspectives given, and nothing but arbitrary emotional identification in support of the couple's claim.
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
