Comments on: No Insurance for a Caesarean?

by: WTF

Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:54:14 +0000

After 36 hours of painful labor and no dilation beyond 3 1/2 inches, it was determined that I needed a c-section. This was the right choice for my health and my baby’s health. By doing it correctly, futher (expensive) complications and procedures were avoided. Now I will be penalized for it if i lose my insurance.

Oh, and it’s not like my insurance covers everything. My out of pocket was well over $10,000 for the pregnancy and delivery (I have a typical 80/20 plan with co-pays).

The ONLY solution is a single-payer solution. Health insurance should NOT be a “for-profit” enterprise. It is as necessary to life and safety as a police force and a fire department. Single-payer systems eliminate the choice between profit OR delivering needed care (guess what the insurers choose?) and eliminate billions in other waste (marketing costs, CEO salaries and more).

by: CJ_in_VA

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:50:12 +0000

I don’t know, or just like how women are told if they nurse their babies longer than six months they’re abusing their children.

I was shocked at the number of complete strangers who felt it their responsibility to point out that my child really was, in their opinion, far too old for breastfeeding. We breastfed for exactly how long she needed to. And when she was done, she was done. No drama, no screaming upset child - just the acknowledgement that she was ready to move on.

I wouldn’t have done it any other way.

by: Astraea

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:21:47 +0000

Hi, I’m here through Shakesville

Great post. I was absolutely fuming mad when I read about this.

I don’t see how it’s justifiable even if the c-section was elective. Women should have all options open to them. They shouldn’t be pressured out of the type of birth they prefer. And a lot of women are pushed toward the c-section option by their doctors. It is just unconsionable to deny coverage because a woman has decided that a c-section was the best option for her. Doubly so if a woman has had to have a c-section because she truly had no other options.

by: Praxxus

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:08:14 +0000

This is just awful. Combine it with asshole borderline quack OB/GYNs who push women to have c-sections for b.s. reasons (like maybe missing their tee times), and it’s double-jeopardy for women.

All because the patriarchy medical and insurance establishments treat pregnancy like a medical “condition” instead of a natural process. What a load of ass.

by: tinfoil hattie

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:00:42 +0000

Yes. Please let’s not forget that 25-30% of U.S. births are C-section births, because the medical establishment needs to “control” women’s labors so they don’t go past 24 hours. Not cost-efficeint, you know.

This practice also diminishes the urgency of women who NEED C-sections. Again, we can’t win, no matter what.

by: Rachell

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:11:44 +0000

Amen.

by: tracey

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:55:52 +0000

i love that you put “effing”.

by: Lacey

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:56:25 +0000

I can understand if the c-section was elective. However, as in my case, I wanted a natural delivery but was not able to do so. My c-section was mandated and I would be totally angered if I was denied coverage or penalized based on a medically necessary decision made by my doctor.

by: mike

Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:09:39 +0000

Similar thing happened to us a couple years ago when I was an independent consultant. I had to get individual coverage, and my wife had our daughter via C-section a couple years before.

Thing is, I wouldn’t have minded paying more. I see insurance as “aggregated risk” and I understand c-sections are pricier. I don’t mind paying our fair share into the pool.

But they weren’t going to cover ANY pregnancy related costs due to the C-section. Special waiver and everything. I even asked if I could pay more, and they said nada….

That I don’t understand. It’s simple math at that point.