Woman from Canada has baby in USA and accumulates $ 1million bill

Woman from Canada had baby in USA while on vacation. Her health insurance company rejects claim due to pre-existing condition. Due to the passage of the ACA, health insurance companies can't deny coverage due to a pre-existing condition in the USA. This is a good example of how expensive health care can be and why everyone should be insured.

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/moth...061950107.html

Woman from Canada had baby in USA while on vacation. Her health insurance company rejects claim due to pre-existing condition. Due to the passage of the ACA, health insurance companies can't deny coverage due to a pre-existing condition in the USA. This is a good example of how expensive health care can be and why everyone should be insured.

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/moth...061950107.html Originally Posted by flghtr65

did you read the article? (no)
THe problem is she should have made sure(get it in writing) that her natal care would be covered in usa. just like using a cell phone/ credit card in a different country.

The "lesson", you speak of is, non-existant, she had healthcare coverage.
1 she's canadian, don't they have universal care?
yes-http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/

2 she bought healthcare, as the article says,"When the family initially purchased health insurance from Blue Cross of Saskatchewan, Kimmel said, a representative assured them the birth would be covered."

the problem is she had the kid in the USA where medical costs are higher than anywhere and the hospitals don't have deals with Canadian insurances to give them a lower price because they are outliers and not within the system.
so it seems the Canadian insurance doesnt want to pay those costs
cost of having baby:
canada: $250
usa $3,500
http://moneyhelpforchristians.com/av...vering-a-baby/

did you read the article? (no)
THe problem is she should have made sure(get it in writing) that her natal care would be covered in usa. just like using a cell phone/ credit card in a different country.

The "lesson", you speak of is, non-existant, she had healthcare coverage.
1 she's canadian, don't they have universal care?
yes-http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/

2 she bought healthcare, as the article says,"When the family initially purchased health insurance from Blue Cross of Saskatchewan, Kimmel said, a representative assured them the birth would be covered."

the problem is she had the kid in the USA where medical costs are higher than anywhere and the hospitals don't have deals with Canadian insurances to give them a lower price because they are outliers and not within the system.
so it seems the Canadian insurance doesnt want to pay those costs
cost of having baby:
canada: $250
usa $3,500
http://moneyhelpforchristians.com/av...vering-a-baby/ Originally Posted by bigcockpussylicker

I read the article. You don't understand what a pre-existing condition is do you? Clearly the hospital used that as a reason for not settling her claim. The point is with the ACA you can't be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Perhaps her policy does not allow her to use a hospital in the USA, but that is not the reason her claim was denied. From the link.

After a week at the hospital, Huculak’s insurance company informed Huculak that her coverage had been denied. (The company is referred to as “Blue Cross” in Canadian media coverage, but is believed to be Saskatchewan Blue Cross, according to Blue Cross Blue Shield. The latter tells Yahoo Parenting that it’s not involved in this case.) The reason for the coverage denial: Huculak had a pre-existing condition that deemed her a high-risk pregnancy. However, according to the Sun, Huculak’s doctor wrote a letter to the insurance company stating that the pregnancy was healthy. The claim was still denied.
Yahoo Parenting could not reach Huculak for comment. However, on Wednesday, she said in an interview with CTC’s Canada AM, “I was never told by any doctor that I was a high-risk pregnancy. I had a bladder infection at four months that caused some hemorrhaging, but I was treated and everything was cleared up.” After learning that their bills would not be covered, the couple tried to return to Canada, but doctors informed them that it wasn’t safe, so they stayed put, shelling out about $30,000 on car and apartment rentals.
But the final medical bill for the birth? $950,000, all of which the family has been held responsible.

I read the article. You don't understand what a pre-existing condition is do you? Clearly the hospital used that as a reason for not settling her claim. The point is with the ACA you can't be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Perhaps her policy does not allow her to use a hospital in the USA, but that is not the reason her claim was denied. From the link.. Originally Posted by flghtr65

Why is ACA relevant here?
why is pre-existing condition relevant here?

she isnt an american, she is canadian
she isnt an illegeal, she has insurance, she's a tourist has insurance but but insurance isnt covering her because the cost is too high, remember they told her they'd cover.. recall I said

did you read the article? (no)
THe problem is she should have made sure(get it in writing) that her natal care would be covered in usa. just like using a cell phone/ credit card in a different country. Originally Posted by bigcockpussylicker

the issue is money,
do you know how insurance companies work? Why am I chared 4K for a cataract operation when I private pay, but through my insurance, I only am charged $380?
Because I use an in network MD which has a big of people that have a "deal" with the hospital/.
the canadian insurance doesnt have any of that with the American hospital/MD, so they are being charged a ton of money, so now the insurance she has, won't cover it cause it costs too much.

remember, they told her she was covered for the birth

yeah, its like using your atm in mexico/different country, or your cell phone...sucks., but she is not to be covered under ACA? why would she be?


Why do you think her being in the USA is not the reason her claim was denied?
THat is obviously the reason, if she was in canada her home, she wouldnt be charged $$$ for giving birth. but she's not, so she's charged....

It doesn't cost $950,000 to have a baby. There must have been complications. This is not a health care issue, it's a contract issue. Even policies under Obamacare have limitations. If she was denied coverage for a covered charge, she should sue. If her condition was not covered, then it's not covered. Why the hell was she traveling when she was about to give birth? There is a lot more to this story.

It doesn't cost $950,000 to have a baby. There must have been complications. This is not a health care issue, it's a contract issue. Even policies under Obamacare have limitations. If she was denied coverage for a covered charge, she should sue. If her condition was not covered, then it's not covered. Why the hell was she traveling when she was about to give birth? There is a lot more to this story. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

exactly ,its a contract issue

she has insurance, her insurance doesnt want to pay out
what does her contract with her insurance say about care out of the country?>
Same as fees on your credit card/cell when you use it in a different country.
she did spend 6+ weeks in the hospital
Huculak spent six weeks on hospital bed rest before giving birth to a premature baby girl, Reece, via an emergency C-section.
It doesnt seem she was "about to give birth" as she was


The funny part, that shows this lady is a retard is:
When the family initially purchased health insurance from Blue Cross of Saskatchewan, Kimmel said, a representative assured them the birth would be covered

where? in space? Or in CANADA? So it was covered in Canada, but she didnt ask about outside canada.
Why did she go on a trip to a foreign country when she was 27/36 weeks along?
beats me but is she covered? Depends on what he contract says with her insurance company.
I like how she says,:" “We purchase insurance for these reasons, for when accidents happen. And then when they get denied it causes quite a problem.”"
What does your contract say, I bet she didnt read it to see she's only covered in canada or select hospitals, of which hawaii is not one of them.

or maybe her policy had expired?

It was a premature delivery (2 months); she didn't expect to deliver while in the US, but bought travel insurance anyway?

Premature babies can be outrageously expensive...in the millions of dollars.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/0...han-2-million/

And I don't doubt that the health services available to save premature babies in the US are superior to those in Canada. And more expensive as well.

Why did she travel knowing she was so close to her delivery date?

Did she travel against the advice of her doctors?

Did she disclose to Blue Cross that she was a high risk pregnancy?

Did the Blue Cross policy spell out the that premature births weren't covered?

More questions need answers........

But some want to demonize the insurance companies without all the information.

It was a premature delivery (2 months); she didn't expect to deliver while in the US, but bought travel insurance anyway?

Premature babies can be outrageously expensive...in the millions of dollars.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/0...han-2-million/

And I don't doubt that the health services available to save premature babies in the US are superior to those in Canada. And more expensive as well.

Why did she travel knowing she was so close to her delivery date?
she's a moron

Did she travel against the advice of her doctors?
no, her doc said she was fine
Did she disclose to Blue Cross that she was a high risk pregnancy?
she says she was never told she was high risk
Did the Blue Cross policy spell out the that premature births weren't covered?
why do you think they werent covered?
More questions need answers........

But some want to demonize the insurance companies without all the information. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

yes, people hop on that bandwagon against insurance companies, same as people are against cops who shoot blacks, they dont know facts/truth, but that doesnt stop them from profiling/stereotyping and yelling an opinion
but that makes sense considering.....
#5. We're Not Programmed to Seek "Truth," We're Programmed to "Win

#2. We're Hard-Wired to Have a Double Standard
#1. Facts Don't Change Our Minds

http://www.cracked.com/article_19468...-think_p2.html