make_your_move: (bellydance belly)
make_your_move ([personal profile] make_your_move) wrote2007-06-26 09:06 am
Entry tags:

The cost of birth

From Regis & Kelly this morning, for births in a hospital in New York:

Uncomplicated vaginal delivery: $10,000

C-section: $12 to $15,000

Complicated pregnancy: $287,000

What we charge at the birth center for a home or birth center birth, normal pregnancy, including labs & usually 1 ultrasound: $4800

And yet, a lot of insurance companies still don't cover this as an option....

[identity profile] musicman.livejournal.com 2007-06-26 01:44 pm (UTC)(link)
They should cover all valid forms of birthing.

It would even be nice if they covered all valid forms of family additions, including adoption for those who can not have children otherwise. While many employer-sponsored health insurance plans will cover pregnancy and delivery, including all the complications, they rarely will cover much of any adoption. I protested my employer's lack of assisatance some years ago and the company told me they took a poll of the employees to ask what benefits they wanted covered, and not enough employees inicated adoption. When I protested louder, and pointed out that popularity contests are not a valid means of determining need, they changed the policy to include a couple thousand dollars assistance, and congratulated themselves for being so good to the employees. Even an uncomplicated adoption is going to be many times that amount.

I tell you, the world is Not Fair!

[identity profile] potassiumman.livejournal.com 2007-06-26 02:31 pm (UTC)(link)
Adoption isn't really an issue for insurance, though, and at the very least not medical insurance since adoption isn't a medical procedure.

With birth, at least, there's some manner of justification for the invocation of a medical professional, in the case of complications.

[identity profile] musicman.livejournal.com 2007-06-26 02:39 pm (UTC)(link)
Being told that infertility is a pre-existing condition so not covered is a medical issue. And unfair -- after all, fertility is not only a pre-existing condition, but it is very expensive. If health insurance covers the one, it should cover the other.

There are many excuses for not assisting adoptive families, and I've probably heard them all by now. I still wait to hear valid excuses for leaving orphaned children in orphanages, rather than helping families find financial means to adopt and raise the children. Most health insurance in the US comes as part of an employer-sponsored benefits package. As long as most benefits packages don't assist adoption, millions of children will continue as orphans aroudn the world, in orphanages or even out on the street. Seems very unfair to the children. But if people don't speak out on this, nothing will change.

[identity profile] potassiumman.livejournal.com 2007-06-26 03:51 pm (UTC)(link)
Health insurance should cover assistance in procedures designed to remedy infertility. Aiding in adoption doesn't treat the medical problem of infertility, so it's unrelated to health insurance.

I'm not disputing that employer benefit packages should take adoption into account, nor that adoption should be an easier, less expensive option with more incentives than it is. The only thing I'm disputing is the idea that health insurance should help to cover adoption costs.