Normal pregnancy should have no heath insurance coverage

[RightinNYC]

Levying funds for the general welfare doesn't at all imply plundering the bank accounts of non-parents for parents.

My mistake, I didn't know that you were being forced by the government to maintain health insurance that covered it. How foolish of me.

 

[Rick]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Levying funds for the general welfare doesn't at all imply plundering the bank accounts of non-parents for parents.

My mistake, I didn't know that you were being forced by the government to maintain health insurance that covered it. How foolish of me.

Yes, exactly. :mrgreen:

The government requires company policies to include it. Salaries of ALL are reduced to provide it to the few. Get it yet? :lol:

 

[RightinNYC]

Yes, exactly. :mrgreen:

The government requires company policies to include it. Salaries of ALL are reduced to provide it to the few. Get it yet? :lol:

Agreed, just like the gov shouldn't force company policies to cover things like treatment for smokers. But they do. So again, if you have a problem with it, contact your representative.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Pregnancy is not a disease - it is either the voluntary or negligent choice of parents. Non-parents shouldn't have to pay higher insurance premium rates to support some people's parenthood projects.

Who says insurance should only be for disease?

Insurance companies should be allowed to structure their product as they see fit to sell it to whomever they would like.

Consumers should be free to seek out insurance companies that fit their ideas of how an insurance company should be run.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

No no no my child.

You're star2589's dad/mom ? I never would have guessed.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Levying funds for the general welfare doesn't at all imply plundering the bank accounts of non-parents for parents.

Where do you suppose the govt levies funds from if not the citizenry?

 

[bandaidwoman]

Read more carefully - the thread title said normal prenancy.

The conditions I mentioned appear later in the course of pregnancy. Since we can't predict with any reliability who will get these conditions when the woman is in her early first trimester of any pregnancy I still don't see your point. Do we purchase car insurance only when we get into an accident? Neither can a pregnant woman selectively purchase or invoke health insurance when her pregnancy suddenly transitions from the "healthy" uneventful pregnancy to a last minute cesarean section because the cord is strangling the fetus or because she has placental abruption that requires massive blood transfusions etc. Since insurances of all types make their money by insuring a contingent of " non utilizers" who statistically don't cash in on their insurance , I don't see how you can force the insurance industry to change their pooled risk practices.

And invoking the pregnancy "is a voluntary choice" is fallacious. If you have a problem with insuring voluntary bodily decisions then you should be against health insurances paying for vasectomies ( voluntary practice not to have children) and other such procedures. For that matter, why should health insurance pay for hemmroid surgery, after all , it isn't a life and death matter.It's just a crappy inconvenience.