Quote:
Originally Posted by pompousjohn
I am curious as I was looking into this and it appears that barring some major complication, it is cheaper to have a baby without insurance than with. Especially since in Illinois at least the cheapest plan that covers maternity is like 425 a month and you have to on the plan for 12 months before you get pregnant in order for it to be covered.
So in 21 months, by the time the baby's born, you already paid 8925 in premiums alone not including any deductibles or co-pays. It seems to me that health insurance is just a way to charge even more for already expensive health care, plus you get to charge people who arent even sick a monthly fee and drop the ones who do get sick.
Great scam for whoever is running it.
|
The idea with this is you can not drop anyone even if they are sick that were how the old system worked.
If you are trying to make a baby what do you want?
1) No insurance and you can pay for the birth with no complications.
2) Insurance and you are covered in those instances where the birth is premature or something else goes wrong and the bills goes into the hundreds of thousands?
I would choose option 2 I would want the best for my kid and of cause you have to pay when you start trying, the policy I have in a 3rd world country by a US company says 12 months before birth so maybe check the policies again to be sure.
For me as a non-us I don't get it, health cost can ruing most middle class families and you still oppose something that would even out the costs for everyone and that is what it is about making everyone paying for everyone.
Republicans have been trying to pass similar legislation for the last 20+ year where nothing much differed but since this were a dem. president of cause they opposed it because that is the political climate in the US.
What is the difference?